he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if be did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2. Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scriptutis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesis sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4.4 verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does bewray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catich 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in 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
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap.
by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly it is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly bic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite be 〈◊〉 we an assent of Faith can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved His Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishop of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the lesser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11.20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spâ—re not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judgeâ— or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self-against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not
in love with Errour by a few convincing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa ruunt sub ductis tecta columnis Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility as in the state of the Question it hath been described Ergo it ought not to be believed The sequel is evident especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Adversary is propositio per se nota or carries with it an intrinsick Evidence Nay Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authority where no Divine Authority is interposed there can be no assent of Faith The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith according to this Pamphleter If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge ought he not to have confirmed it by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fathers none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church would it not then appear that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge Though this Argument need no further confirmation till I come to canvase his objections yet for his conviction I will use this Induction If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be proved then either by Scripture or by Reason or by Fathers or by Tradition or by Miracle or by Enthusiasin or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word but by none of these can it be proved ergo not at all If my enumeration be defective let him or any for him supply it for confirming the Assumption I shortly run through the particulars 1. Not by Scripture for according to him I can neither know the Divine Original nor sense of Scripture but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius Nor 2. By Reason this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule as shall appear Cap. â— Natural Reason can neither be expected nor is it alledged by him to prove it Nor 3. By Fathers ought not the infallibility of the Fathers to be first proved before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony And how shall this be done seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fathers Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous dark and obnoxious to various constructions Are there not in them not only seeming but real contradictions Is it not beyond controversie that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture and the genuine sense thereof how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers and their genuine sense consequently the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers then none of the multitude should ever believe it Are they able in such a thorny question to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers or this Pamphleter is most unhappy for in all his Fartago of testimonies from Fathers there is not one asserting this thing as shall appear when I come to consider the objections Nor 4. By Tradition for besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here debated by Universal Tradition are there not as great debates concerning genuine Traditions and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures Is there not need of an infallible visible Judge to discriminate genuine Traditions from spurious How was the Church imposed upon by pretended Tradition concerning the Millennium and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition or if this Position can receive sâ—fficient evidence from Traditions why may not other Articles of Faith also and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge Hence the great Sticklers for the Traditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists are they not very uncharitable who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland Do they judge us so credulous as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles pretended to be wrought in the Indies or in Vtopia I sincerely profess one real Miracle should have more weight with me than a million of their Pamphlets Of Miracles I hope to speak more Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge instance who can 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false I the rather enquire this because Bell. lib. de not Eccles cap. 14. positively affirms that genuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge Then sure the infallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniquity Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible because himself says so Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity Ye can have no ground according to them to believe Scripture or Christ or any Article of Religion but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge that is saith the Jesuited party the Pope of Rome But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible Ye must forsooth take this upon his own word Is not this to make Christianity ridiculous Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome is
or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus caelum quâ—m habemus in Evangeliâ— testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis invenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as those To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clearin terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against M Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down-right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1.8 Next he objects That Hereticks for their Herâ—sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10.8 All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8.12 I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6 shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91.11 leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Serene Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far tiss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Were they not written for this end Joh. 20.3 that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1.8 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Herinogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicieutibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut lequamini quae scripta â—â—n sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Serm de Pseudo Prophetis en calce Ephraeâ—ni Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reticuit Hierom. in Micab cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeretici aedisicastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in viciuia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11.
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4.5 I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E.W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceives it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake not may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsut à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1.8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D. Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impious consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usurpation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks or persens erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be still prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held as such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
furely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180.181 he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold our that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Gouncils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Gatholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Famphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm that real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo 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
not this prodigious impiety The Testimony of Gâ—d speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare word Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour Joh. 5.43 I am come in my Fatherâ— Name and me ye receive not if another come in his own name him ye will receive Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences or else be great Masters of their Reason that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation Now 7. I know nothing that remains except with the Quaker they run to Enthusiastical Revelations for this their pretended infallibility And he may remember how in a like case I minded M. Demster of a discourse of Cloppenburg the Title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave to desire a sight of their Credentials else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion Perhaps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E. W. in his vain discourse entituled Protestancy without Principles against two eminently Learned Persons D. Stillingfleet and M. Poole That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge but I must advertise him to distinguish betwixt our Faith and the rejection of their Errours as no part of our Faith It suffices a Protestant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge and to declare that to be no part of our Faith and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility or this infallible visible Judge is not assignable therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera The sequel I prove Had God appointed an infallible visible Judge upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Christian world should be resolved he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was else as M. Peole says well in his Appendix against Everard pag. 16. God should deal with the World as Alexander the Great who when he was asked to which of his Captains he left his Empire answered the best but not defining who was best this became a Seminary of contention or as another makes the comparison like the dying Father who having two Sons Leon and Pantaleon and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon the two Brethren fell by the ears the one alledging that he left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon the other that all was left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pantaleon Were it not Blasphemy to say that God hath dealt so with his Church assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge but not revealing who he is if it be not known who he is people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority than if he were not if therefore God had intended such a way surely he would have determined who he is It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent for which I need no more but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable could not Romanists at least who talk so much of him agree upon him But who is such a stranger in the world as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. who affirms that infallibility is potestas â—ratia personalis a personal power and grace given by Christ personae Petri successorum ejus to the person of Peter and his Successors and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council and that it is not only false but Heretical to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei in defining an Article of Faith Yea the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Romish Treasons emitted Theses Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infallible Judge of Controversies not only extra Concilium without a Council but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact as well as of Faith which is more than Bell. durst aver as shall appear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less considerable Doctors Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope but in the General Council only and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors Gerson Almaynus Alphonsus à Castro yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say that all Romanists agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err But this is both false on the matter and a perfect Cheat. First I say false on the matter for there be yet a third sort of great Authors among Romanists who do affirm that both Pope and General Council may err in matters of Faith and that the subject of infallibility is multitudo fidelium the diffusive Body of Believers Of this Opinion were Oceam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Waldensis Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus de Clemanges The places ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron in Apodixi Catholica Tract 5. cap. 19.21 and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will only cite one short sentence of famous Oceam Part. 1. Dialog lib. 5. cap. 29. 31. where he lays down this conclusion and maintains it Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholicam errare per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia quâ— contra fidem errare non potest That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church which cannot err in matters of Faith But secondly those Romanists who say they do agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err do put a Cheat upon the world as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron Apodixi Catholica tract 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this insallibility is
an infallible visible Judge The sequel is good because that they may resolve their Faith upon the testimony of an infallible Judge it is necessary that they know him to be such and there is none pretending to be that infallible Judge but either Pope or General Council or both joyntly The antecedent is proved by a threefold medium 1. From the case of Schism 2. Of Simony 3. Of the want of due intentions in the Ministry of Sacraments I say first from the case of Schism there have been many grievous Schismes in the Romish Church notwithstanding their vain pretence of Unity Onuphrius in Chronol Pontific reckons out no less than thirty one of which lasted from Vrban the sixth to the Council of Constance no fewer than fifty years if we believe Onuphrius There have been two or three Popes at once Alter in alterum saeviebat saith Genebrard All this while Bell. confesses lib. 4. de Pontific cap. 14. that it was an hard matter to know which of them was the lawful Pope Was all Christian Faith gone from the Church because of the uncertainty of this infallible Judge 2. The same is more luculently confirmed from the case of Simony It 's acknowledged by Romanists that Simony makes void the Election of a Pope as is held out by Gratian in the Canon Law Causa 1. q. 1. cap. 2. Now that there have been many Simoniacal intrusions into the Papal Chair is as evident as that any in those late times possessed it without Simony Hence Platina in vita Sylvestri 3. eo tunc Pontificatus devener at ut qui plus largitione valeret is tantummodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis rejectis obtineret c. The Papacy in those days was come to that pass that he who by Bribery could do most alone obtained the dignity good men being oppressed and rejected which custom saith Platina would to God our times did not still retain And Spondanus ad Annum 1033. brings in Glaber thus complaining Hou sedes Apostolica Alass thou Apostolical See which in the days of old was the glory of the world art now oh shame become Simonis officina the Shop and Forge of Simon Magus and Hammers continually are beating on the Anvil to make hellish coyn You may have heard of Genebrards complaint that in the space of 150 years from John 8. to Leo the 9. the Papal Chair was possessed with Apostatick Popes who entered in non per ostium sed per posticam not by the Gate but by the Postern Once I thought upon the testimony of Cicarella in vita Sâ—xti 5. that Sixtus 5. had come to the Papal Chair with as much innocency from Sâ—moniacal Pensation as many of the late Popes but now I find that his entry also was both simoniacal and perfidious whereof the Reader may receive a full account from Henry Foulis Hist of Romish Treasons lib. 3. cap. 2. from which that Author concludes the nullity of the Elections of sundry succeeding Popes not only of Vrban 7. Greg. 14. and Innocent 9. but also of Clement 8. to all whose Elections did concur a multitude of Cardinals who had been created by Sixtus 5. a Simoniacal Pope and consequently a non habente potestatem Is any thing more evident from History than the Simoniacal intrusion of Boniface 8. Alexander 6. c. Nay seeing these Simoniacal transactions may be so secretly conveyed that it is impossible to know who enters the Papacy without them therefore it cannot be infallibly known who truly is Pope The Simoniacal entry of Sixtus Quintus probably had never been discovered had not Sixtus violated his Simoniacal contract made with Aloysius Cardinal de Este which provoked the Cardinal to transmit the original contract subscribed by Sixtus own hand to Philip the Second King of Spain who being lately disobliged by the Pope threatned to accuse him of Simony in a Council at Andalusia but the speedy death of Sixtus prevented the Process 3. The same is yet further confirmed from the Popish Doctrine of suspending the efficacy of Sacraments from the intention of the Ministers thereof according to the Decrees of the Councils of Florence in Instruct Armen and of Trent Sess 14. cap. 6. and from the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther therefore it 's impossible to know infallibly if these who pass for Popes or Bishops be Popes Bishops Priests yea or baptized 〈…〉 they cannot infallibly know whether any who were in the Counâ—â—â— of â—rent were capable to be constituent members of a Council The â—â—vils of the Adversaries against this last instance were confuted cap. 1. Arg. 6. Both Pope and Council who only are pretended to be this infallible Judge may err in questions of Fact therefore also in questions of Faith the antecedent is confessed by Romanists themselves Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. saith Conveniunt omnes Catholici posse Pontificem vel cum concilio generali errare in controversiis facti particularibus quae ex informatione testimoniisque hominum praecipue pendent that is all Romanists agree that not only the Pope as Pope but also with a General Council may err in matters of Fact If any will adopt that new notion of the Jesuits of Clermont that the Pope is infallible as to matters of Fact he must first answer the arguments brought in the contrary by those of their own party before I waste time in confuting so notorious a falshood and the rather seeing my Adversary yields pag. 43. that their infallible Judge may err in matters of fact The sequel is clear seeing the decisions of many questions of Faith with them have such dependance upon questions of Fact that if the Judge err in the question on of Fact he cannot but err in the question of Faith To prove this I shall satisfie my self with these two instances ad hominem against Romanists First all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture according to them but some are only to be fetched from Traditions When therefore this visible Judge is to determine a point not contained in Scripture to be an Article of Faith he can have no evidence thereof but from Tradition nor of the Tradition but by the testimonies of Histories and Records of Antiquity c. Now is it not a meer matter of Fact whether Records of Antiquity be genuine or corrupted whether the relation of Historians be true or false and therefore this visible Judge may be deceived as to these and consequently concerning the Article of Faith whose evidence depends thereupon But lest I should seem only to argue upon a rarely contingent supposition take a late example When the Pope and Council of Trent defined the number of the Books of holy Scripture and determined the Apocriphal Books to be Canonical they had no ground to walk on but Tradition and here undoubtedly their Errour in matter of Fact led them to an errour in matter of Faith for these Apocriphal Books were never received by Universal
to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Iâ—â—dov de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152 and Jesuit Azorins Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after-Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino-Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostelica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustoebium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11.52 Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare augere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an infallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are to be reduced to
and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15.19 the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2.2 q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in carp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb Dei cap. 10. Be an Theol. Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virt tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Christianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2. Enchirid. cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset cemmonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whâ—t Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may upon the Veracity of God
believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular refutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5.39 Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17.11 Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5.32 Deut. 17.18.20 Deut. 28.13.14 Josh 1.7.8 Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lib. 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6.16 Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2.16 Joh. 12.48 Jam. 2.12 Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20. malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19.7 yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved thouâ—h Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
est via haec sed ruina si via tua est non illius Did not Christ by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil with another Deut. 6.16 demonstrate that the Devil did pervert the Scripture contrary to its sense and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scripture What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear and really clear as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism and a real demonstration May not all those perverfions of Scripture by Marcion tes Manichees c. be sufficiently cleared without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Is it not apparent that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10.8 that Moses was a Thief or Robber seeing he was faithful in all the House of God as a servant Heb. 3.6 That place Joh. 10.8 pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers who run without a Mission from God as Austin expounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas c. So Chrysost Cyril Theophil Enthym cited by à Lapide on the place none of which did Moses Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8.12 as impious and ludibrious Is not Christ God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 therefore as Austin said excellently Tract 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem he is not the Sun but the Light which made the Sun As for that Tenet he charges upon the Waldenses they are vindicated from it by Learned Vsher de Christian Eccles success stat cap. 6. Edit 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist of Walden lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea Alphonsus à Castro albeit he following the Drove accuse them of it yet confesses that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses charges them with no such thing However surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20.13 For the Magistrate Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain and Scripture expresly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally particularly Murtherers Numb 35.31 So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture may be clearly confuted by Scripture if it were not so what could the Romish infallible Judge do What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place and not that which Hereticks pretend if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils They can bring no Objection against us which recoils not upon their own head He clamours pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture What then Ergo all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture or by firm consequence deducible from it Non sequitur There are not only seeming but real contradictions betwixt the definitions of their Popes and Canons of their Councils one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope another decreeing that the Pope is above the Council and both approved by Popes for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance which subjected the Pope to the Council approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the Command of keeping the Sunday Answ I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's distinction Orat. 37. that quedam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur quadam sunt dicuntur There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture and luculently demonstrated thence against the Socinian though those words be not found in Scripture Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Scripture It 's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons and Sacraments and a sufficient Warrant to keep the Lords day be found there Yea have we not the word Person Heb. 1.3 Who is the express Image of his Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logomachies which were among Ancients concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Command concerning the Lords Day besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture such as the practice of the Apostles the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 1.10 the Apostolick Injunction 1 Cor. 16.1 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it from the fourth Command in his Sabbatum Redivivum Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments I hope the Inssitution of Baptism and the Lords Supper is clear in Scripture and other Sacraments we know none As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster at which here he snarles when he gets confidence to examine it he shall find it will abide the Test In fine could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Articles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture I should ingenuously disown them It 's further objected pag. 6◠that many places of Scripture are flatly against Protestants and for Papists as Matth. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2. Thes 2.13 yea he is bold to say that Protestants can never be able to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets These be big words but splendid untruths Can we bring no clear Scripture against any Tenet of Popery Is not that Scripture clear against their Dry Communions Matth. 26.27 Drink ye all of it Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory Revel 14.13 Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If they rest from their labours then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory Is not that a clear Scripture against Image-worship Exod. 20.4 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the
she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquinas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2.13 which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articles of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alioujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians concluding that the Humane Nature of Christ is changed into the Divine because as it s said Joh. 1. the Word was made Flesh so it s said Joh. 2. that the Water was turned into Wine If there were any strength in that Argument would it not rather follow that the Divine Nâ—tâ—re was changed into the Humane but the truth is that neither follows For after that the Water was made Wine it retained no more the
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 Ireuaeus 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 Alphousus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresiee And Bellar. himself de script Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastrius as Heresies which are not Heresies D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for stigmatizing 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 Lactautius 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 contradiversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Eusebius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the Nudi-pedales yea Rivet Cathol Orthod Proaem de Haeres reckons forth a Catalogue of fifty Ancient Heresies ingrossed in the Romish Religion When Romanists have considered the affinity of their Tenets with the errours of those Hereticks they may tell us whether they hold all for Fundamental Errours which are reckoned forth in the Catalogues of Heresies I answer secondly that it 's a notorious falshood that the Protestant Churches do own all the particulars mentioned in the Pamphleters Objection I might remit him to the Authors who have long ago
Vertues surely if he in this were Heretical Gerson was Heretical also who both asserts and proves it by many arguments much less can either Wedlock or Virginity merit Heaven as Soto is brought in by Gerard de Eccles cap. 11. Sect. 6. Sect. 2 18. impiously saying Quod Virginitas fit satisfactio peccatorum maxima meritum Regni Coeâ—â—um Have not Popish Authors particularly Espencaeus noted that Hierom was pâ—rum aequas less favourable than in reason he ought to Chaste Matrimony How grosly did Pope Syricius deprave that Scripture Rom. 8 7. to disgrace lawful Marriage If therefore Jovinian ran upon the other extreme to affirm as Bell. de notis Eccles cap. 9. Sect. 13. says of Vigilantius Ecclesiasticos debere esseâ—uxoratos in that he was never allowed by the Reformed Churches they are for a licere not an oportere for the lawfulness of Marriage not for the necessity of it Excellently said S. Hierom lib. 1. cont Jovinianum where he is most in the praises of Virginity Circumcisio nihil est praeputium nihil est sed observatio mandatorum Dei nihil proded absque operibus caelibatus nuptiae As Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing without the keeping of the Commandments so neither Virginity nor Wedlock do profit to salvation without works of holiness But as persons in a married estate are saved if they continue in the Faith so also it is by the same Faith that they which live in a state of Virginity are to be saved To this I only add that of Nazianzen Orat. 11. Cum in haec duo vita divisa sit in matrimonium caelibatum atque hic quidem sublimior divinior sit verum laboriosior periculosior illud humilius tutius neutrum horum Deo nos omnino astringit aut ab eo dirimit Where comparing these two Estates he concludes Caelibat to be more sublime but Matrimony more humble and more safe and that neither of them does either joyn us to God or seclude from him The sixth objected Heresie is that with Pelagians we say the Children of Faithful Parents need not Baptism Had a Jesuit a Forehead capable of blushing he would never have upbraided us with Pelagianism for the World knows that they have indeed licked up the very Excrements of Pelagius as Jansenius hath demonstrated in his Augustinus But as to the Objection we are so from denying the need of Baptism to Infants that we say it 's necessary necessitate praecepti Indeed we dare not be so cruel as to condemn all Infants that die in the Womb and were never in a capacity to be baptized if we be stigmatized for Hereticks upon this account then the Ancient Fathers who by their long delay of Baptism shew themselves to be of the same Opinion must also be Heretical Doth not D. Morton Appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. cite a multitude of Romanists as Cajetan Gerson Catharine Cighius Tilmannus c. as being of the same judgment with us as to these things Are all these Hereticks and Pelagians also If it be said that Pelagians deny the necessity of Baptism also true but on other accounts then Protestants I elagians as supposing Infants guilty of no sin Protestants because Pardoning Mercy is not chained up and limited to means As Blastus the Heretick observed Easter at the time of the Jews Passover so did Polyerates and the holy Martyrs of the Greek Church but the different accounts on which they did it made the one to be held an Heretick and not the other So that the same sentiment held upon different accounts may be heretical in the one and not in the other The seventh and last Heresie is that with the Arrians condemned by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. we do not receive Tradition O stupendious impudency Did ever S. Austin condemn Arrians for not receiving Articles of Faith upon the sole Warrant of unwritten Traditions Doth he not expresly lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. appeal to the Scriptures for decision of Controversies betwixt him and Arrians Nec-ego Nicenum nec tu debes Arimineuse tanquam praejudicaturus praeferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius deteneris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utrisque communibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio câ—m ratiâ—ne concertet Could not the Deity of Jesus Christ which was the Article for which Arrians were condemned be proved by holy Scripture that Fathers behoved to flee to unwritten Traditions Are Romanists so miscarried with their hatred against us that they will shake the Foundations of Christianity to reach us a blow Doth not Bell. confess lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Divinity of Christ which is opposite to the Arrian Heresie habet expressa in Scripturis testimonia Shortly then to rectifie the mistake of this Pamphleter the thing which Austin blamed in Maximinus the Arrian was that Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not found in Scripture and therefore lib. 1. cont Maxim he brings in Maximinus saying Haeâ—voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à rnobis suscipiuntur This Austin solidly consutes lib. 3. cap. 14. shewing that the thing signified by the word was in Scripture Quid est homousion nisi miaus ejusdemque substantiae quid est homousiâ—n nisi ego Pater unum sumus and then appeals to the Scripture for the decision of the whole Controversie with the Arrians Nee ego Nicenum c. Thus have I shewed that the Pamphleters Objection is false in all its grounds as if either all the errours mentioned by Fathers were Heresies against Fundamental truths or that we owned all the errours enumerated in the Objection It 's further objected pag. 89. that Scripture would make a man think that one thing or at most two were necessary to salvation as sometimes the believing one point sometimes the doing of another Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place to Alms deeds in another and Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments teaches a Fundamental which Protestants say is impossible Is not this a daring impiety in a lafcivious Jesuit so to sport with the Scriptures of the Living God as if sometimes they made one thing only necessary to salvation sometime another For answer therefore he would first remember that our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Agenda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the fear of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any
85. that Protestants do a gree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sores would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images also are religiously to be adored It s a Fundamental that God is to be invocated but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints It s a Fundamental that there is an Hell and Heaven but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to mortals sins It s a Fundamental that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals As for Instance if
speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8.38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10.47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16.33 The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3.15 There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1.2.3.4.5 Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did
defined denyed either all or some of them to be Canonical such as Lyranus Antoninus Abulensis Cajetan c. When Melchior Canus had objected these Authors to himself lib. 2. cap. 10. he Answers cap. 11. ad tertium illos ignorantiâ Laboâ—âsse Where Melchior Canus brings on himself the suspicion of dis-ingenuity and of desperateness on his cause when he hath no other evasion but to say that the most eminent Doctors in the Church of Rome understand not what was defined to be Canonical Scripture by the Church By all which it may appear that justly Learned Protestants have concluded that the present Romish Canon was so far from being acknowledged by the Ancient Church that it was never defined as an Article of Faith until the late Trent Coâ—venticle Here it might make a good Problem why they of the Roman Church who so much undervalue the Scripture are so vâ—â—ement to have the Apocrypha Books enrolled in the Scripture-Canon But judicious Dr. Don Serm. 73. hath disclosed the Mystery viz. the design of Romanists being to undervalue Scripture that they may overvalue their Traditions and sentences of their visible judge therefore they put the name of Scripture upon Books of a lower value that the unworthiness of these additional Books may cast a diminution upon the Books which truely are Canonical when all are made alike A Stratagem forsooth well becoming the man of sin Instance second the Council of Trent sess 4. decret 2. hath Authorized the vulgar Latin version of the Bible to the authentique rule of Faith passing by the Originalls of the Hebrew and Greek the like cannot be pretended to be done by the Church in the first three Centuries Romanists will have much a do to prove that the vulgar Latin as now set forth by Clement the eighth was extant in these three Centuries Sure I am that the Ancient Fathers even they who flourished after the third Century were so far from teaching that the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek of the New were to be corrected by this Latin version that-they held all versions were to be corrected by the Original Take for all Hierom Epist. ad Suniam Fretelam and August lib. 2. de Doctrin Christ cap. 15. Instance third the Council of Trent sess 22. cap. 8. and Can. 9. declares it not to be expedient that the publick worship of God should be performed in a Language known to the multitude and anathematizes them who teach otherwise So taught not the Christian Church of the first three ages as hath oft been demonstrated by our Divines from Orig. lib. 8. Cont. Celsum Justin apol 2. Tertul. Apol. 39. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Chrys Basil Austin At present let that of Origen suffice lib. 8. contra Celsum every Nation saith he Prays to God in their own proper Language Yea the more ingenuous among Romanists confess so much Hence Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones caetera omnia fiebant in Lingua vulgari So also Cassander in Liturg. cap. 28. Yea Bell. himself lib. 2 de verb dei cap. 16. from Juâ—tin Martyr Chrysost Cyp. and Hierom acknowledges that in the primitive Church the whole multitude joyned in the puâ—lick services saying Amen which supposes they understood what was said And a little after he saith that in process of time that custom was changed and a Clerk was substituted to say Amen in name of the People Consequently by Bellarmins confession the Roman Church in this particular hath innovated And of that Clerk also Suarez in 3. part tom 3. q. 83. art 4. disp 83. sect 1. Is not ashamed to say nunc non est necesse ut minister linguam intelligâ—t in qua missa dicitur that now it is not necessary that the Minister understand the Language wherein Mase is said Cajetan is better advised who in 1 Cor. 14. confesses it were for more edification that the worship were performed in a known tongue So doth Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. and Cassander in defens offic pii viri Pag. 141. wishes that according to the Apostles command and practice of the Ancient Church Gods worship were performed in a known tongue So far is this worshipping of God without understanding now practised and taught by the Romish Church from that reasonable service which God requires Rom. 12.1 that Austin exposit 2. in Psal 18. compares it to the chattering of Parrots and Crows and lib. 4 de Doct. Christi cap. 10. quid prodest saith he locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis yea in decret Greg. 9. lib. 1. tit 31. de offlic jud orb cap. 14. It s ordained that Cities where are people of different Languages men be provided to celebrate Divine service according to the diversity of Languages and Justini an in Novel 123. Statutes that holy things be celebrated with a loud and distinct voice that the hearts of the hearers may be raised up to the greater devotion which could not be if then the worship had not been performed in an intelligible Language In the Roman Pontifical Readers are commanded lectiones sacras distincte aperte ad intelligentiam aedificationem fidelium proferre It is as easie therefore to reconcile Adultery with the Seventh Commandement as the present way of the Romish Church either with Scripture or Antiquity It s true in many places of the West publick worship was performed in Latin but it s as true that the Latin Tongue was then generally understood by reason of the Roman Colonies Yet Romanists want not some presidents for their barbarous worship such as the Hereticks called Osseni in Epiphanius haeres 19. and the Hieraclionitae in Austin haeres 16. who taught to pray with obscure word Neither do we envy them the example of Turks who Read their service in the Arabick of which the people understand nothing or of the modern Jews who Read Hebrew in their Synagogues which also the multitude do but rarely understand Instance fourth the Romish Church in the publick and Ordinary administration of the Eucharist do with draw the Cup from the people so the Council of Trent sess 22. can 1.2 and the Council of Constance sess 13. in Caranza's epitome praecip mus sub paena Excommunicationis quod nullus Presbiter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini that is we command under pain of Excommunication that no presbiter give the Communion to the people under both kinds This is certainly repugnant to the practice of the Ancient Church for the Sanctified Bread and Wine was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every one who was present saith Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Cyp. Epist 63. expresly makes mention of the Sanctifying of the Cup and giving it to the people plebi ministrando Chrysost homil 18. in 2. Epist ad Cor. Saith there is no difference betwixt pastor and people as to communicating seeing the same body and the same cup is given to both Yea Pope Gelasius in
But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some acconnt was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to until the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the