City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Allertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 39. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Consutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensie potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they preser the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wittily checked by Hicrom Epist 102. ad Marcelldm Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—â—nosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not emtaining all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mat. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesia si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is bold
present Romish Religion was received by the ancient Church such as half Communions picturing and adoring Images of the Trinity the whole present worship of the Virgin Mary the performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue the necessity of an Infallible visible judge the prohibiting of reading Scriptures in vulgar Tongues Indulgences the necessity of auricular Confession the necessity of the Priests intention to make Sacraments offectual the Popes Supremacy and Soveraignty over Princes c. Who is the Protestant that ever acknowledged these things to have been ever received in the Catholick Church I profess I never read of him nor knew him nor I believe shall he ever be found Whereas Jewel said That Truth was not known untill the Preaching of Luther and Zuinglius that must surely be understood secundum quid as Dr. Francis Whyte observes lib. cit pag. 267. for Jewel gave a most solemn challenge to Papists at Pauls Cross to make out one Article of their Religion out of one Father for 600. years after Christ which challenge he prosecuted against Harding What D. John White saith in defence of his way cap. 37. That Popery was a Leprosie breeding in the Church so Vniversally that there was no visible company appearing in the world free from it makes nothing against what is said Nay in these words he distinguishes betwixt the Church and that Leprosie of Popery and by saying that it was a Leprosie in the Church he affirms the existence of both The meaning of the Doctor only was that in these latter times wherein Popish errors and superstition spread so far in this Western part of the World though God preserved many from imbracing these errours yet they kept external Communion with the rest even as those seven thousand in the days of Elias did with the rest of Israel Thirdly when some Fathers are charged with some errors which is all that these testimonies amount to it doth not follow that all the Fathers were smitten therewith Though Cyprian erred in the Rebaptization though Tertullian did Montanize Pope Liberius Arrianize many Asiaticks espouse the Quarto Deciman opinion Origen maintain positions which were justly anathematiz'd by the fifth general Council yet I hope all the Fathers much less the whole Church was not leavened with these errors Made I it not appear in my 9. paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 194.195 that none are more profuse in censuring Fathers then Romanists Bellarmine spares not to say lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 6. that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Epiphanius c. cannot be defended that Tertullian was an Arch-Heretick and of no credit lib. 1. de S S. Beat. cap. 5. and lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. That Cypran did not only erre but also mortally offend lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. that Prudentius speaks like a Poet and not like a Divine lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. that Jerom was deceived lib. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. that Austin had no skill in the Hebrew lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 10. that himself little regarded Damasus Pontifical lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. that Sozomen was a manifest lyar lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 14. Neither is it only single Fathers they thus undervalue but oft-times will prefer three before 7. two before eight one before five of all which Dr. James gives luculent instances part 4. yea sometimes they condemn whole Armies of Fathers All the Fathers with one voice affirm saith Melchior Canus lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin Chrysost Euseb Ambrose Austin c. and as Dr. James observes some bring 200. others 300. Fathers to confirm this opinion yet what saith that Bishop of the Canaries of all these Cum nullus Sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contrarium probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur i. e. It s but a weak argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers yea the contrary notwithstanding their suffrages may be piously defended Are these the men who challenge us for undervaluing Fathers who put such contempt upon them In very deed they regard no Fathers further then they can serve their interest Both Scriptures and Fathers must stoop to the authority of the present Church of Rome that is the Pope How many bastard Fathers have they legitimated How many true Fathers have they castrated Hence is that observe of Dr. Don in his pseudo-Martyâ— cap. 6. Sect. 30. according to Romanists the Scripture is a Divin Law the writings or interpretations of Fathers a subdivin Law but the decretalls of Popes a superdivin Law whereunto Scripturs Councils and Fathers must bend and bow Yet I must do them right they have one evasion according to which they do wrong to no Father for if the Pope prohibit the writings of such an Author he ceases to be a Father he is but as Gretser the Jesuit phraseth it Vitricus a step Father Nor need Fathers complain of this usage seeing the Pope usurps the like Authority upon the Scripturs of God Neither shall Fathers be Fathers nor Scriptures be Scriptures except it please the Pope Is not this that man of sin that exalts himself above all that is called God I deny not but some Protestants may have been too rash in their censurs of Fathers perhaps not fully penetrating the scope of Fathers or not distinguishing betwixt their genuine and supposititious writings have supposed them to favour errors from which others yea and somtimes the same authors also upon better advisment have vindicated them As I cannot in this wholly justify the Magdeburgion Centurists so I cannot but notice how this Pamphleter hath either through ignorance or malice injured them He brings in the Centurists reprehending Cyprian Origen and Tertul in the third Gentury and Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters primacy and again reprehending Cyprian for owning the sacrifice of the Mass and generally confessing that the Fathers of the third age did witness the invocation of Saints It 's true the Magdeburgians Cent. 3. cap. 4. tit de inclinatione Doctrinae seem to say somthing of Cyprian and Tertull as favouring primacy yet cap. 7. tit de primatu they not only affirm but positively undertake to demonstrate that the head-ship and supremacy of the Bishop or Church of Rome was acknowledged by none in that age and particularly they say that Origen never asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and bring in Cyprian giving luculent testimonies against it in his debates with Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome Yea and they explain those other expressions of Cyprian which seemed to favour primacy as making nothing for that supremacy which Romanists now plead for So likewise Cent. 4. cap. 7. tit de primatu Pag. 314. edit Basil 1624. They deny that Nazianzen ever asserted any primacy of the Bishop of Rome but primatum ordinis Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass
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
Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebraeâ—s non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Cauon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicca else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitic si alicubi repâ—reris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autonisati Cum haec distinctione discernere potenis scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praesat in Proverb and Ruffin in expâ—s Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non emnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to la yelaim to Scriptures To this common â—avil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scripturarum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Bâ—eerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits Severians manichees Arrians Carpocratians Montanists Donatists Anabaptists c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles
him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yet there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatur but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui-pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Henthens were greater and their Learning not inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Maith 11.25 and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.20 Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men
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
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm
rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impudent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder is necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatican Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of Faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euolids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church
Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex superabundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3.15 I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3.15 but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176. by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2.2.3 Math. 16.19 Math. 18.19 Ephes 4.11 But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2.2.3 Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16.19 Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18.19 I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4.11 which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Ghurch to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No
Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiouity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13.10 we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice â—ot only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinious against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inanditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient â—ars Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with those that are ingenuous yea there be who reckon it an honour to be maligned by them Argumentum recti est displicere pessimis Let therefore these few hints of the chief of his Accusations at this time suffice And first Who would not smile that I should be accused by this Pamphleter as a man of uncertain Religion especially seeing himself acknowledges pag. 24. that the Thesis maintained by me is that the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion If therefore the Religion of Protestants be known mine cannot be uncertain In that Faith was I Educated from my Infancy and hitherto thorough mercy have continued and therein I trust to die But who can be sure of a Jesuits Religion whose Principle it is to equivocate and by the help of his Mental Reservations to affirm and swear one thing and to think another What Sceptick and Infidel Glosses which would make Christian ears to tingle Jesuits have put upon the Apostolick Creed Alphonsus de Vargas relates de Stratagem Jesuit cap. 18 19. yea so customary is it with them to change themselves into all shapes and as was roundly told them by a Gentleman of the Long Robe in the Parliament of Paris to have one Coâ—science in one place and another in another that the world passes this Character on them Jesuita omnis homo Must not secondly Jesuits be men of â—are confidence who can accuse me of Disloyalty for Preaching a Sermon
est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentence As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuiâ—y or ignorance For pag. 33 34 35 36 37. more like a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumorous iâ—vectâ—ve against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Cathalick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Demster against the necessiâ—y of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove
Latin or Greek Church Did not Bell. lib. de Imag. cap. 8. Sect. ultimo probatur say that the Council of Trent did admit the picturing of God the Father Yet Dallaeus lib. 4. de Imag. cap. 8. hath sufficiently evicted that it was disallowed by the second Council of Nice confirmed by Pope Adrian the 1. though otherwise too too grosly idolatrous The contradictions betwixt the Councils of Constance and Basil on the one hand defining the Council to be above the Pope and of the Lateran under Leo the 10. on the other defining Sess 11. the Pope to be above the Council are so evident that Jesuit Azorius Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 15. cannot deny them and thereupon he acknowledges Romanists to be divided into two contrary Factions Yet as the Lateran Council was approved by Leo so was the Council of Constance by Pope Martin 5. Sess 45. Can Popes confirm contradictions without errour unless it be said as the Jewish Rabbins did of the contradictions betwixt the Houses of Shammai and Hillel Vtraque sunt verba Dei viventis both parts of the contradiction are not only true but also the words of the living God Is this any new Assertion of Protestants that Councils are fallible Was not this taught by Austin in many places particularly in that luculent testimony lib. 2. de Baptism contra Donatist cap. 3. which I had cited against Jesuit Demster wherein Austin prefers the holy Scriptures to all writings of Popes and Councils and in the end concludes Plenaria Concilia priora à posterioribus emendari that the former Plenary or Oecumenick Councils may be corrected by the posteriour therefore he supposes that Plenary Councils may be smitten with errour To this the Pamphleter replys pag. 43. that Austin speaks not there of decisions of Faith which he borrows from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 7. but it hath been often-confuted for the question which Austin is there disputing is a question of Faith namely whether the Baptism of Hereticks be real Baptism and whether they who are baptized by Hereticks should be rebaptized The Donatists to confirm their Opinion alledged the Authority of Cyprian and the Council of Carthage under him Austin therefore to enervate the Objection shews that Scripture is to be preferred to the writings both of Fathers and Councils and that former Councils though Plenary and Oecumenick may be corrected by succeeding Councils This Answer had been impertinent had he only been speaking of questions of Fact and not of Faith For the Donatists must have replyed though Councils may err in matters of Fact yet the present question betwixt them and him was dogmatical yea the words of Austin which the Pamphleter tracing Bell footsteps doth urge for his exposition do make against him for he says not only that Prior Councils are amended by Posteriour quum aliquo recum experimente operitur quod clausum est which is done in matters of Fact but also quum cognoscitur quod latebat which is done in matters of Faith which also is observed by Stapleton controv 6. q. 3. art 4. ad 1. arg And therefore he betakes himself to another evasion namely that subsequent Councils are said to correct former Councils only because they explain more dilucidly what was wrapt up more obscurely in formen Councils But this surely is repugnant to the scope of Austin who to refute the Objection of the Donatists from the the Authority of Cyprian and the Council of Carthage holds forth this as the priviledge of the Scriptures above all testimonies of Fathers and Councils whether National or Plenary that of the truth of things delivered in Scripture dubitari disceptari non possit it was not lawful at all to doubt But Councils National do yield to Plenary Councils and latter Plenary Councils do correct the former whereas if he only meant that the latter Councils do illustrate and explain the former no priviledge should be ascribed to the Scriptures beyond Councils for one Scripture may likewise illustrate another It 's beyond doubt when he saith that National Councils cede to those that are Plenary he means that National Councils may err therefore when he says that subsequent Plenary Councils may correct former Councils he means also that Plenary Councils may err Was the Pamphleter so ignorant that he knew not that the evasion which he took from Bell. was answered by Protestants or if he knew why endeavours he not the vindication thereof But his work appears to have been all along to pick up any thing that seemed to make for him out of other Popish Books not once noting what had been replyed thereto Lastly I cannot omit the observe of Thomas ab Albiis in sone Buccinae tract 2. Sect. 21. that before any can be assured of the infallible assistance of the Spirit given to Councils in their Judicial Decisions they cannot but be intangled with a world of perplexed debates as to what Councils and in what cases this infallible assistance is due concerning the Convocation of Councils the power of presiding in them the presence of Delegates from all Churches the manner of Conciliary procedure the number and weight of suffrages their confirmation and the reception of Councils by all Churches Do they not shut up Souls in inextricable Labyrinths who make their Faith to hang on such thorny disputes I shall close this discourse concerning Councils with three testimonies two from Fathers and a third from a famed modern Romanist The first shall be from Athanasius Epist de Synod Arimin Seleuc. pag. 873. edit Paris 1627. frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt ob fidem se Synodos postulare cum sit Scriptura potentior omnibus that is in vain do they run about demanding Synods for establishing Faith seeing the Scripture is more powerful than all Councils The other is from Nazianzen Epist ad Procop. Si vera scribere oportet ita animo affectus sum ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam quoniam nullius Concilii finem laetum faustumque vidi that is to speak the truth I am so disposed that I desire to see no more Councils for I never saw any of them had a good and comfortable issue I do not mention this testimony of Nazianzen to discredit all Councils God forbid I impute only that whereof he complains to the iniquity of those times yet by this testimony it clearly appears that the Father judged not Councils absolutely infallible The third testimony from a modern Romanist Thomas ab Albiis in Sono buccinae tract 2. Sect. 22. touches both Popes and Councils where he compares the supposed corruption of the Rule of Faith made by Hereticks so he designs Protestants to an Ulcer in the Skin and outward parts of the body which is not so very dangerous but he resembles the ascribing of Judiciary Infallibility to Pope or Council whereby they are exalted above all that is called God unto an Ulcer in the bowels which diffuses its poyson through the
Tradition sure not by Melito Justin Martyr Athanasius Hierom the Council of Laodicea yea nor by Greg. 1. as D. Cosins hath fully demonstrated in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Occumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15 until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Latcran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Occumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Occumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jâ—nsenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinâ—ple Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostolot aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D. Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be nated saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of
Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. oâ—ntrov 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D. Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomel cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17.8 Mat. 18.17 Mat. 16.19 he should have said Mat. 18.28 20. 1 Tim. 3.13 he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Profelites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly
bundle of testimonies pag. 42 43. do indeed speak of Councils but make nothing for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge as is largely demonstrated by Whittaker de concil q. 6. cap. 2. Davenant de Jud. controv cap. 19. and Spalat lib. 7. de Repub. Eccles cap. 3. I shall give but a few brief Animadversions concerning them And first this bundle of testimonies speaks only of Councils and consequently not of an infallible visible Judge without which the Church cannot subsist there having been whole Ages without General Councils Secondly I shall not stand now to accuse the Pamphleter of mis-citations though the testimony which he ascribes to Basil is not to be found in Epist 10. nor that he gives to Pope Leo in Epist 64. And though there be not a tenth Book of Cyril de Trinitate unless it be meant of his other work entituled Thesaurus if either Possevin in apparatu or Bell. de Scriptoribus Eccles give a right account of his works Yea the whole Treatise de Trin. is concluded supposititious by Bell. de Script Eccles yet I confess Bell. lib. 9. de concil cap. 3. would be making use of the same testimony from Cyril for it is usual with the Cardinal to make a Muster of Testimonies which himself knew to be spurious but he cites it not as this Pamphleter from lib. 10. but from lib. 1. de Trin. All I say of such escapes is that he would take better heed the next time that he transcribes his citations from Bellarmine But I cannot let him pass with another more egregious prevarication for what Leo Epiphanius Athanasius Basil and Cyril spake particularly of the Decrees of the Nicene and Chalcedon Councils against Nestorians Arrians and Eutychians the Pamphleter cites as spoken of all Councils We grant the first four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon did de facto define faithfully according to the Scriptures but doth it therefore follow that all Councils shall not only do so but also that they cannot do otherwise or are infallible Thirdly It 's true that Greg. lib. 1. Epist 24. says he honours the first four General Councils as he does the four Evangelists But it 's as true he says also he honours likewise the fifth General Council which condemned Pope Vigilius as an Heretick if therefore Gregories Authority be Authentick the Jesuited party is deceived who make the Papal Chair the Seat of Infallibility He might also have remembred that Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 12. confesses that the forecited testimony of Greg. hath need of a qualification and therefore says that Gregories sicut is a note of similitude not of equality otherwise the Cardinal cannot deny but Greg. over reached By this still the impertinency of the titation is obvious for it amounts to this Greg. said the first four General Councils defined Orthodoxly ergo all Councils are infallible Such is the ludibrious inconsequence of what he objects concerning the esteem which Constantine had of the Nicene Council Is this the question betwixt us and Romanists whether the Decrees of the Nicene Council against Arrius were Orthodox Fourthly Austin indeed Epist 162. calls the Sentence of an Occumenick Council the last Sentence that can be expected on Earth But how inconsequent is it from thence to inferre the infallibility of Councils Is every Supreme Court infallible Fifthly He cites Vincentius Lyrin Commonit cap. 4. I suppose he should have said cap. 41. saying all are to be accounted Hereticks who do not conform themselves to the Deerees of Oecumenick Councils It were enough to referre him to D. Barrons Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18. where at length is demonstrated that Vincentius maintained not the infallibility of Councils Nay Vincentius cap. 3. proposes two means for avoiding Heresie the one and the principal is the Authority of the Sacred Scriptures the other which we never disclaimed in its own place is the universal and perpetual Tradition of the Catholick Church namely quod ab omnibus ubique semper est creditum What he speaks cap. 41. of conformity with Councils is not for the decision of all controversies as himself declares nor is it by the sentence of a present living Judge but of Ancient Councils and that in so far as they hold out what hath been the Universal Tradition of the Church And therefore when they are found incompetent for decision of controversies Recurrendum saith he ad Sanctorum Patrum sententias to the unanimous suffrage of Fathers which is far from the Tenet of the Pamphleter concerning a present living infallible Judge And though Vincentius doth magnifie Universal Tradition yet it is without derogation from the holy Scriptures and therefore he saith in that place cap. 41. Non quia Canon sibi solus ad universa non sufficiat not that the Canon of Scripture is not of it self alone sufficient for all things but only in a secondary room as being explicative of the holy Scriptures Sixthly He brings Austin lib. 1. de bapt cont Don. cap. 7. affirming that no doubt ought to be made of what is established by full Decree of a Council But Austin affirms no such thing all that Austin says is that there have been various Decrees concerning Rebaptizing in Provincial Councils Donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur which imports no more but that by the Decrees of an Oecumenick Council truth may be so cleared as to remove all grounds of doubting But it doth not follow because a Council may clearly define truth that therefore every Council shall infallibly define so Nay on the contrary Austin in the same cap. holds all definitions beside Scripture to be but humane Ne videar saith he humanis agere argumentis ex Evangelio profero certa documenta i. e. lest I should seem to deal with humane arguments I bring certain evidences from the Gospel and lib. 2. cap. 3. he affirms that subsequent General Councils may correct the Decrees of former Plenary Councils and that in matters of Faith as I shew before and therefore he supposes that General Councils themselves are fallible Seventhly That trivial argument which he uses That the Fathers were wont to subscribe the Canons of General Councils and annexed Anathema's against those who did oppose them concludes no more for the infallibility of General Councils then of Provincial Synods the same also being done in them yea in Heretical Councils also it therefore only imports that they who pronounced Anathema's believed that hic nunc they had defined truly but not that they judged all Councils in all their decisions infallible That testimony of Austin's contra Epist fundi cap 5. so oft objected by Romanists is also insisted upon by this Pamphleter Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas Knew not this Pamphleter how oft this testimony hath been canvased by Protestants Ought he not therefore to have let it alone
that he puts in the word sola in the Text which was not in the Original Car. Molinaeus says Calvin in his Harmony makes the Text trip up and down Castalio accuses Beza 's Translation of many errours M. Parkes taxes the Geneva Translation of many errours and so doth M. Burges and Hugh Broughton our English Version yea Broughton says that it causes millions of Souls to run to eternal flames and in the Versions made under Q. Elizabeth and K. James there be many diversities sometimes that put in the Text which was in the Margin and that in the Margin which was in the Text. To this first Atheistical invective against the holy Scriptures which for most part is stoln from Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. and tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 2. I answer first by retortion This Objection militates as strongly against Romanists as against us For after the same manner it may be enquired whether the definitions of their Church or infallible visible Judge namely the Decretals of Popes and Canons of Councils be the ground of their Faith and Religion in the Languages wherein they were first given out viz. in Greek or Latin or as Translated Not as Translated because the Translations are not Authentical but in so far as they agree with the Principals and the Principals by many are not understood But besides what assurance can they have that those Originals are not corrupted in the conveyance by fallible men Have not Learned Criticks discovered that many supposititious Decretals and Canonâ— of Councils are obtruded on the Christian world by Romanists Hath not Isidore Clarius a Popish Writer noted as many Errours in the Vulgar Latin Version as any of those mentioned in the Objection have alledged in the Versions of Protestants consequently Romanists themselves must confess this Argument of the Pamphleter to be a Sophism seeing it overturns also the ground of their Religion Nay the same Cavil might have been moved against the Ancient Christian Church for in her also there were many who understood not the Hebrew Text yea some of the Fathers had little understanding of that Language then also there were innumerable Latin Translations made by fallible persons witness Austin lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 10. 11. though he do prefer cap. 15. the Italian Translation to the rest yet so far was the Ancient Church from esteeming it perfect that Hierom judged it needful to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew as himself reports lib. de viris illustribus cap. ult and to correct the errours of the Vulgar Version of the New Testament out of the Greek which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome as appears by Hierom Epist 123. Praefat. ad Evangad Damas and by Cassiod Instit lib. 1. cap. 12. Doth not the Pamphleter behave himself like an Atheist seeing his Objections against us militate against Christianity it self Is not this a strong demonstration that our Religion is the true Christian Religion that the Arguments of Papists against us are the Cavils which Infidels might use against Christianity it self Secondly Therefore leaving retorsion I answer absolutely that Scripture both in the Originals and when faithfully translated is the Rule of Faith If an Ambassadour deliver his mind by an Interpreter are not the words of the Interpreter the words of the Ambassadour Was not the Faith of the Ephesians built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 But it cannot be supposed with any probability that all the Ephesians did understand the Originals of the Prophets writings for they were not Jews therefore surely their Faith has been built on translated Scripture Neither can Christs Command of searching the Scriptures Joh. 5 39. be restricted to the Originals only seeing himself and the Apostles did frequently cite the Scriptures according to the Version of the 70. Neither say Chamier Featly or D. Barron any thing contrary to this for they only deny Versions to be the Rule of Faith in so far as they disagree from the Originals yea then to speak properly they are not Translations at all I notice not much the wrong Citation of Chamier in whose lib. 1. cap. 2. there is not a Sect. 15. for the Pamphleter shews himself to be as implicite in his Citations as in his Faith Only it may be replied How can illiterate persons resolve their Faith upon a translated Bible seeing they cannot examine its conformity or disconformity with the Original they being ignorant of the Language But it may as easily be retorted How can an illiterate man resolve his Faith upon the definition of the Council of Trent or upon the Doway or Rhemist Translations or upon a Bull or Decretal of the Pope seeing he cannot examine if these be faithfully translated from the Latin What answer Romanists give we can give the same Had not the Pamphleter been disposed to quarrel he might have found this difficulty copiously cleared in that Cap. of D. Barrons Apodex which himself cited viz. tract 1 cap. 2. Shortly then for satisfaction of the Reader I answer that a person unskilled in the Original Language may not only have a humane moral certainty of the conformity of his English Bible with the Original upon the testimony of a Protestant Church and Learned Pastors but also as Camero in his excellent tractat de notis quibus verbum Dei in specie dignoscitur Not. 3. observes there is a special Divine Character in the Scriptures which is not to be restricted to the Original Languages but individually inherent to the Doctrine of Scripture in whatsoever Language if it be faithfully translated which the Author doth there copiously illustrate Among other things he uses this example pag. 32. Some of Averroes writings are translated into very barbarous Latin yet there is no judicious Reader saith he but will discern Averroes to have been a most Eloquent man the Tropes Figures and Metaphors being kept in the Version He compares a faithful Translation to a Picture drawn with Ink by which we may discern the lineaments and comeliness of the person represented thereby though not the colour So albeit there be some things accidental in the Original Language which a Translation cannot express yet still there is as much as may manifest the Divine Original of the Scriptures For further satisfaction in this thing I shall commend to the sincere Lover of Truth the perusal both of that Tractate of Camero and of an excellent little Treatise of D. Owen of the Divine Original Authority and self-evidencing light and power of the Scriptures Neither ought it seem strange to any that there should be such a self-evidencing light in the Doctrines of salvation contained in holy Scripture yea there is a kind of necessity it must be so considering the posture of humane affairs For seeing the World is divided into so many various Languages whether the Lord thought fit to reveal
to which one word is written in the Line and another in the Margin the Vowels whereof are attributed to the word in the Line this can be of no advantage to him unless he could make out that these various Lections were introduced since Jerom's time But all the Hebrew Doctors saith the Learned Buxtorf Antierit Part. 2. cap. 4. affirm them to be of no latter date than the days of Ezra I know Lud. Capell Crit. sac lib. 3. cap. 15. maintains them to be introduced by the Post-Talmudique Masorites after Hierom But Buxtorf loc cit is at great pains to consute them And among other reasons he useth this as one to prove the great Antiquity of those various Lections that not only the Chaldee Paraphrasts but also because the Septuagints in their Version sometime follow the Keri rendring according to the word in the Margin Indeed Buxtorf doth not affirm all the various Lections which go under the name of Keri to be of equal Antiquity but that Learned Author lays down Rules how the latter may be discerned from the more Ancient For answer therefore I shall remit this Pamphleter to Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 2. who says that tota discrepantia variarum Lectionum in dictionibus quibusdam posita est quae sensum aut parum aut nihil mutant or if he will take it in the words of Learned D. Owen in his Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture cap. 6. Sect. 4. The difference in the sense taking in the whole Context is upon the matter very little or none at all at least each word both that in the Line and that in the Margin yield a sense agreeable to the Analogy of Faith which that Judicious Author illustrates by examples where there would appear the greatest dissonancy whether as some Hebrew Doctors conceives the Scripture was at first delivered with that variety of reading or as others rather judge that they came from the men of the great Congregation Ezra Nehemiah Zechary Haggai all persons acted by Divine Inspiration they argue no depravation in the Original Hence it is that in our last Translation of the Bible the word in the Margin is often used yet so as that the word in the Line is also noted where there appears any considerable difference which the Translators would not have done as D. Owen Judiciously observes had they not conceived that both the word in the Margin and in the Line had an Authoritative Original beyond the impeachment of any man in these days The Pamphleter fourthly alledges the differences of reading by Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Aaron and their respective Followers These appear to be the differences betwixt the two Famed Rabbins Ben-Asher and Ben. Naphtali For Cappellus in his Critica Sac. lib. 3. cap. 18. Sect. 1. thus describes their names from Elias Levita that the name of the one was Jacob the Son of Naphtali the name of the other Aaron the Son of Asher Who please may find a large discourse of them in Buxtorf Fol. de punct Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 15. It may be enough for my purpose to note that these two Rabbins are said to have been the Heads of the two Famous Schools of the Masorites the one in Palestine and the other in Babylon and to have spent their whole time in the exact consideration of every Letter Point and Accent of the Bible nor is it denied but that they found out some varieties The Occidental Jews in Palestina and Europe following Rabbi Aaron Ben-Asher the Oriental or Babylonian Jews following Rabbi Jacob Ben-Naphtali I find indeed debates among the Learned concerning the time when those Rabbi's flourished Buâ—torf de punct Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 2. from some Jewish Authors affirms them to have lived in the eleventh Century and thereupon accuses Genebrard of a great Errour in Chronology for saying they flourished in the fifth Century yet Calovius de Lingua Originali veteris Testamenti Sect. 56. contends earnestly that they lived before the time of Post-Talmudique Masorites by whom this Pamphleter fancies the Bible to have been corrupted This I must say if Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali lived so timely as Genebrard and Calovius affirm and if they found the Bible corrupted to their hands it will be an hard task for Romanists to clear how their Vulgar Version escaped the Contagion But the truth is whatever were the time wherein those Rabbins lived it is a manifest falshood which this Pamphleter says that they did put in Vowels into the Text which made most different readings For as is observed not only by Buxtorf Anticrit Part. 2. cap. 5. but also acknowledged by Capell Crit. sac lib 3. cap. 8. Sect. 4. who yet has scrued the various Lections of the Bible to as great an height as any These differences of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali are of no moment being all about Accents and Points whereby significatio vocis ne vel hilum mutatur the signification of the word is no whit altered And the same Author cap. 17. Sect. 18. after he had given a large account of the different readings betwixt the Oriental and Occidental Jews concludes thus Ex quibus videre est quam nullius momenti sit omnis illa varietas perinde enim omnino est utram libet sequaris Lectionem Yea Buxtorf loc cit from those differences draws as he phrases it Argumentum fortissimum an invincible Argument for the purity of the Hebrew Text. For by the Collection of those various readings of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali it appears how studious religious yea and superstitious the Jewish Doctors were in observing the least varieties which did steal into the Copies of the Holy Bible if therefore there had been any material differences they had undoubtedly been Recorded by them consequently those of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali being rather scrupulosities about Orthography than Orthodoxy it appears evident they found the Scriptures entire and incorrupt as to the matter Thus the Pamphleters Objection has furnished us with an Argument against himself It 's fifthly alledged by the Pamphleter that the Hebrew Vowels were added to the Text 500 years after Christ by his professed Enemies the Jews Answer This story of the late invention of the Hebrew Vowels is not so certain and uncontroverted that we must believe it upon this Pamphleters naked Assertion It is too daring boldness in Jesuits to push at the Authority of the holy Scriptures upon meer conjectures It 's true Elias Levita a Jewish Rabbin and skilled Grammarian who lived in Germany about the time of the Reformation affirmed that the Hebrew Vowels were invented by some Rabbins at Tiberias after the perfecting of the Talmud some 500 years after Christ Hereupon Morinus Gordon of Huntly and other Jesuits whom this Pamphleter implicitly follows took occasion to bark against the holy Scriptures as being corrupted by that Novel Punctation though in this they go contrary to Elias who affirms that the Masorites at Tiberias
of the Apostles pure and without corruption Having discussed all those things which he brought to confirm his second Objection I now only take notice of his ludibrious Conclusion that seeing the Scriptures as he falsly alledges are corrupt therefore we have a necessity of an infallible visible Judge A goodly inference Is there no way to shoulder up a Pope but by treading down the Scriptures But supposing the Scriptures to be corrupted what benefit as to this can we reap by their infallible visible Judge Can he dictate to us new pure Original Scriptures When he could not preserve them in their Purity how shall he restore them to it If he declare which is pure Scriptures will he do it by a Prophetical Revelation Then he would look that his Enthusiasms be instructed by better Credentials than the Quakers or if he do it by other solid and convincing Evidences then it 's not the infallibility of the Judge but the evidence of his grounds that will warrant his definitions consequently his pretended Infallibility as to this thing is wholly insignificant Objection â— Pag. 57. The Pamphleter enquires what infallible motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they relye on was ever set down in writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of the Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the innate light of the same Scripture shewing it self to be such to a well dispâ—sed â—iâ—d If tâ—e first do not Nicodemus and Thomas Gospels carry the same Tithis of Matthew and Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three Ageâ—weâ— not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council of Câ—rthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther who rejects James Epistle with some others Answer 1 Doth not this Atheistical Cavil of Jesuits which hath often been confuted by Protestants fall as heavily upon themselves as upon us May not this same Query be made concerning the infallible motive which can prudently perswade Romanists to believe the infallibility of their visible Judge Is it his own testimony calling himself infallible or the innate light of his definitions shewing themselves to be divine If the first do not Quakers assert their own infallibility as well as he Doth not the Turks Alcoran affirm that it is of Divine Original as well as Popes ascribe their definitions to the Holy Ghost If the second how shall an innate light be granted to the definitions of their infallible Judge seeing it 's denied to the holy Scriptures of God It might be sufficient here to leave him only to grapple with his own Cavil But I secondly answer that a well disposed mind may be convinced of the Divine Original of the holy Scriptures both by extrinsick motives of Credibility and by the Intrinseca Criteria or the innate light of the holy Scriptures I say first by extrinsick motives such as the stupendious Miracles whereby it was confirmed which this calumniating Pamphleter would insinuate pag. 59. but with Jesuitical ingenuity that I did undervalue the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church the signal Judgments of God upon Enemies the invincible constancy of Martyrs c. Doth not Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2. by these and such arguments prove the Scriptures certissimas esse verissimas nec humana inventa sed oracula divina continere But besides these extrinsick motives of Credibility the holy Scriptures of God have intrinsick evidences of their Divine Originals as from the sublimity of the Mysteries which yet are wonderfully suited for bringing about the Salvation of Souls the untainted and unparallelled Sanctity of the Doctrine the plenitude of the Scriptures for instruction of the Judgment Reformation of the Life Consolation of the heart in all cases the admirable temperature of Simplicity and Majesty in the stile of holy Scriptures the great variety of Scripture purposes and the wonderful harmony thereof though Scriptures were written in different Ages Places and Tongues So that Bell. says of the Pen men of Scripture they would appear non tam diversi Scriptores quam unius Scriptoris diversi calami This self-evidencing light of the Scriptures Jesuits themselves are constrained toa cknowledge in their lucid intervals Hence Greg. de Valentia lib. 1. de Analys fidei cap. 1. Deus ipse saith he imprimis est qui Christianam Doctrinam atque à Deo Scripturam sacram veram esse voce Revelationis suae interno quodam instructu atque impulsu humanis mentibus câ—ntestatur atque persuadet And cap. 15. Cum multa sint in ipsa Doctrina Christiana quae ipsa per se illi fidem atque authoritatem conciliare possunt tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur ut est à Clemente Alexandrino observatum quod sua nescio qua admirabili vi divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit atque ad virtutem impellit It 's not simply because the Gospels of Matthew and Mark carry their names prefixed that we believe them to be of a Divine Original but as we are strongly induced thereto by the extrinsick motives of Credibility so our Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures with an admirable Soul convincing evidence The Pseudevangels of Thomas and Nicodemus and all Books without the Canon of holy Scripture are destitute both of these motives of Credibility and of that self evidencing light of their Divine Original Nor should it seem strange to any that I say Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures For all Faculties and Sciences must have first principles into which our assent must be terminated else we should run in infinitum I appeal to any that is not willing to be deceived whether it be not more congruou that Faith be resolved into that writing which God himself immediately did dictate by the acknowledgment of the Catholick Church then either into a Papal or into a Quaker Enthusiasm that have no other Credentials but because they say they are infallibly moved by the Spirit of God As for the Pamphleters allegtioan that the Fathers of the first Centuries did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture until the Council of Carthage it is manifest untruth Look to Melito his Catalogue of the Books of holy Scripture recorded by Eusebius lib. 4. Hist Eccles cap. 25. and Origen's recorded by the same Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 24. or of the Author of the Book de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. whom Papists hold for Denis the Areopagite or of Athanasius in Synopsi S. Script or of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. if they were not conform to the Canon of Scripture received by the Protestant Churches Any little seeming differences in the way of their and our Enumeration ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture cap. 4 5 6. Is not Jerom so explicite for us in this matter in Prol.
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
Polit. lib. 4. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture is only termed Judge because its the Law of the Supreme Judge having an Authoritative Power binding upon the Conscience and it 's honoured with the Title of a Judge both in Scripture and in the writings of Fathers Joh. 8.48 The word that I have spoken shall judge him Joh. 7.59 Doth our Law judge any man said Nicodemus before it hear him Hence S. Basil Epist 80. ad Eustach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Austin de gr lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos Judex Apostolus Joannes But all this is only so to be understood that it 's the Law and sentence of the Supreme Judge I answer secondly by retorfion As many Hereticks put divers senses upon Scripture neither will they acknowledge themselves to be condemned thereby so are there divers and contrary senses put by Romanists upon the definitions of their pretended infallible Judge neither will any of them acknowledg that their sentiments are condemned by the Pope or Council I could make a Volum of instances of this nature I only pitch on two And first the Council of Trent has defined Sess 4. cap. 2. that the Vulgar Latin Version of the Bible be held as Authentick and that none presume to reject it upon whatsoever pretext Habeatur pro Authentica quâ—d eam nemo rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat Is this definition of the Council clear either to learned or unlearned Knows he not the interminable debates of Romanâ—sts concerning the sense of this definition Doth not Azorius the Jesuit Tom. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 3. testifie that Andreas Vega Andradius Sixtus Senensis Melchior Canus and Lindanus maintain that the Council of Trent intended not to vindicate the Vulgar Version from all errours either of Transcribers or of the Interpreter himself but only from gross errours relating to Faith and Manners To these Calovius crit sac de Vulgatae Versionis Authoritate minime Authentica Sect. 143. adds Driedo Mariana Isidore Clarius Brugensis Jodocus Ravenstein but others as Azorius himself loc cit Lud de Tena in Isagog ad script lâ—b 1. Difficul 6. cap. 1. 3. Pine ad praefat in Ecclesiast cap. 13. Sect. 2. Greiser defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 11. and many others hold that the Vulgar Version is not tainted with the least errour and this Debate was prosecuted with such animosity that as Calovius reports Sect. 143. out of Mariana they impeached one another before Judicatories with mutual Criminations and a Congregation of Cardinals was delegated to explain the sense of the Council yet neither to this day is that Debate finished Take another instance from the Bull of Pope Innocent the Tenth against the five Propositions of Jansenius which the Jesuits apprehend to be wholly in their favours and yet what various senses are imposed thereon by the Jansenists may appear from the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus subjoyned to the Notes of Wendrokius upon the Provincial Letters at Helmâ—stad Anno 1664. Hence it follows that if various senses imposed upon the sentence of a Judge conclude that the giver of those sentences is not the Judge of Controversies then both Pope and Council are alike to be degraded from being Judges I answer therefore thirdly That it s enough that the Supreme Judge give out Law so clear that all Subjects might understand his sentences if the disability be not from themselves And such are the Scriptures of God though the prejudices of Infidel Jews will not let them understand that Jesus is the Messiah doth it therefore follow that the Scriptures have not clearly declared him to be the Messiah or if Ebionites and Arrians will not acknowledge Christ to be God doth it follow he is not there revealed to be the true God or if Socinians will not acknowledge him to have satisfied Divine Justice is it not therefore clearly enough revealed in Scripture The Pamphleter spends Paper in vain to prove the consistency of the Law with a Judge for that is not denied by Protestants we acknowledge that Councils have a Judiciary Power and that the general sentences of Scripture may be applyed by them for determining particular Controversies But that which is in question is whether Pope or Council have an infallible assistance whereof we must antecedently be ascertained before we believe any Divine Truth This the Pamphleter should have proved but that here he doth not once touch Page 77. The Pamphleter raises no little dust with some Citations of D. Field especially in his lib. 4. cap. 14 18 19. as if he asserted the consenting judgment of them that went before us to be the Rule of Faith and not the conferring of places nor looking to the Originals and that never any Protestant taught otherwise for which the Pamphleter would excommunicate me from the Protestant Churches But who authorized him to declare who be Protestants and who not Ne sutor ultra crepidam Is there a syllable in all my Papers derogating from the due esteem of Fathers Did I not still offer to debate the truth of our Religion from Antiquity as well as Scripture Did I not conclude their Religion spurious because it differs in its Essentials from the Ancient Church I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to let me have an account of Universal Tradition for Adoration of Images half Communions Apocryphal Scriptures the Popes Supremacy the necessity of an infallible visible Judge c. How scurvily is D. Field dealt with by these men Does not the Doctor complain Append. ad lib. 5. Part. 2. Sect. 5. that for what he had written concerning the Rule of Faith he was censured by Romanists as framing a new Religion for Sir Thomas Mores Vtopia yet this Pamphleter on the other hand makes these Assertions of D. Field to be the Standard of the Protestant Religion It is a falshood that D. Field makes consent with those who went before us to be the only Rule of Faith or the sine quo non for interpreting of Scripture for lib. 4. cap. 14. he reckons forth seven Rules of Faith and that comes but in towards the Rear Again in cap. 19. he enumerates seven means for finding out the sense of Scripture among which the knowledge of Original Tongues and conferring Texts are not omitted Yea cap. 17. he positively asserts with Cajetan Andradius Jansenius Maldonat that in interpretation of Scripture we may go contrary to the torrent of Antiquity and he concludes them highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader wherewith the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let
pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russiu Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one auother sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholica therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39. Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stilling fleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Jesephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5.17 that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornlius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancihon Cruciger Alefius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22.19 it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their samous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary which he inferâ— from his Syllogism viz. that therefore all Articles of Faith are equally ponderous and Fundamental that is unless he intend to equivocate that there is an equal necessity of the explicit belief of every one of them to the eternal salvation of souls This consequent I deny because though all revealed Articles be revealed by an infinite Verity and with an infinite certainty yet not with equal perspicuity and so are not with equal facility penetrable by our weak understandings nor is 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
lib. 3. Sect. 2. Cap. 8. observes that the more knowledge the Oriental Churches and those in the Western part of Europe have of the estate of one anosher the more the alienation of the Greek Church from the Roman and their affection to Protestants doth appear and particularly in that they do yearly excommunicate the Roman Church but not the Protestant Churches D. Hornbeck insumma contrev lib. 11. de Graecis pag. 977. regates passionately that there is no more correspondence betwixt Protestant Churches and the Greek Church by which these afflicted Christians might be strengthened under their tentations and we better understand the state of the Oriental Churches But this I hope at the time shall suffice for the agreement of our Church with the Grecian in substantials of Religion SECT VIII Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controverste be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the Fundamentals of Religion THis the Pamphleter boldly asserts and undertakes to prove pag. 106. but his bold undertaking is seconded with weak and Childish performances If Scripture be so clear to determine all points of controversie betwixt us to what purpose were all his Cavills Concerning an infallible visible Judge the corruption of originals the unfaithfulness of translations the obscurity and ambignity of the sense of Scripture the insufficiency of means of interpretation c. Is a Jesuit so nimble that he can transform himself into all shapes that he can fight against Scripture at his pleasure Is not this an usual fate that attends error to be inconsistent with it own self Sorex suo Judicio In the general I say as to all the Scriptures he perverts there is not one of them but Protestants have a thousand times vindicated from the detorsion of Romanists Many of them are most foolishly applyed and questions betwixt Papists and us are either perversly or ignorantly misrepresented I Nauseat to examine such childish stuff yet lest I should only confute him with contempt I overly touch particulars 1. Then he sayes pag 106. we protest against the goodness of God in saying God created some for Hell independently from their works contrary to 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3. If he mean that Protestants do say that God appointed to Damn any to Hell though they should never be guilty of sin he calumniates us egregiously Never Protestant taught that any should be damned to Hell but for sin Did not the Council of Dort art 1. can 7. make the object of predestination hominem lapsum i. e. Man in his fallen estate How then could he say that Protestants affirm that God creats men for Hell independently from sin Did ever Protestants say more then that Scripture Prov. 16.4 God has Created the Wicked for the day of evil As for that text 1 Tim. 2. knew he not that Austin in Enchirid Cap. 103. expounded it de generibus singulorum of men of all ranks not of all individuals of mankind And the other place 2 Pet. 3.9 not willing that any should perish is restricted in the very Text to the Elect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he is long suffering towards us not willing that any namely of us the Elect should perish But do not Jesuits Pelagianize while they make the decree of Election to be founded on the prescience of our good works which Scripture makes a fruit of Electing love Ephes 1.4 Do they not overthrow the omnipotency of God by attributing to him inefficacious wills How is it that all are not saved if he willed all to be saved Does he not in Heaven and Earth whatever pleases him Psal 135.3 2. He sayes ibid we protest against the mercy of God saying Christ dyed not for all contrary to 1 Cor. 13. He should have said 15. The Pamphleter might have known that Protestants do not exclude from the Reformed Churches the learned Camero Amyrald Capellus Dallaeus who with many others especially in the French Church assert universal redemption But if it were fair to load an adversary with all the consequents which follow from his principles though he do not see the connexion betwixt them It might perhaps with more reason be said that Jesuited Romanists do impeach both the Justice and mercy of God affirming the most of them to be damned Eternally for whom Christ dyed contrary to lucâ—lent Scripture Rom 8.34 who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed Is it not the work of Jansenius lib. 3. de gr Chr. serv cap. 20. to evict the opinion of universal Redemption to be repugnant to the doctrine of the Ancient Church particularly of St. Augustin will it not be hard to reconcile the opinion of Univerâ—alists with that saying of S. Austin epist 102 ad Evod. Non perit â—nus ex illis pro quibus Christus est mortuus i. e. Not one doth perish for whom Christ dyed The Scripture cited by the Pamphleter is most impertinently alledged 1 Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all dyed so in Christ shall all be made alive If the all there were universally to be understood for every one of mankind it would follow that all mankind should have eternal Life and be saved eternally which none but an Origenist can affirm Therefore that all is to be understood only of all them whom Christ the second Adam did represent viz. the elect not of all mankind 3. pag. 107. he sayes we protest against the Justice of God saying that God punishes us for what me cannot do contrary to Heb. 6.10 God is not unrighteous to forget their work A pertinent disputant indeed That Scripture speaks of Gods rewarding good works which Protestants deny not but of Gods punishing the want of good works which we could not do it speakes not at all A Sophister ought at least to have a shew of pertinency As to the thing it self never Protestant affirmed that God damned any for meer inability but such is the pravity of our Nature that with our inability to do good oftentimes we joyn a voluntary neglect of good works Joh. 5.40 ye will not come to me that ye may have Life and for this it is that the sinner is damned ought he not to know what his adversary maintaines who undertakes so confidently to oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5.3 his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8.3 that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12.39 they could not believe Matth. 7.8
a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles â— 20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1.8.10 blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5.3 his commâ—nds are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodo impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7.22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3.2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veracity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay in this they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3.4 let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varacity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He saith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasins ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1.7 O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead â— let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood trees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscence remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7.24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7.25 thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Paith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2.24 It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3.28 That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as well as the Fathers for in all the tenth of Mathew that testimony is not to be found There is indeed mention of the reward of a righteous man but that reward and merit are reciprocal correlats is more then all the Jesuits in Europe will prove Doth not the Apostle Rom. 4.4 distinguish betwixt a reward of Grace and of debt Is not the reward of the righteous the free gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.21 and therefore doth not presuppose merit how piteously do our missionaries cheat their proselites in this matter When we charge on them the proud and supercilions doctrine of merit they ordinarly alledge it to be but a calumny of Protestants yet here the
denial of merits is charged on us as a fundamental error Is not Bell. in the end constrained to take him to his tutissimum Do we contradict the appointment of God when we take the surest way What more ordinary for Romansts on dying beds then to renounce their merits I could give an instance of a near friend of mine whose memory I honour the most moral person I ever knew of that Religion who about half an hour before his death did solemnly renounce all his own merits and professed he had nothing to lean to but the merits of Jesus Christ alone It can be no good point of Religion that the best of them must renounce at death 10. Ibid. Sayes he We protest against Gods divine authority in denying the real presence contrary to the Scripture saying clearly this is my Body We deny not a real presence but a corporal and Capernaiâ—ical presence under accidents of bread and wine which Scripture no where asserts As Scripture says This is my Body so as expresly after consecration it s called bread 1 Cor. 11. and the heaven is said to contain his real Body nay as we shall prove cap. 5. If these words were not taken in a Figurative sense they should imply a manifest contradiction Knows he not S. Austins rule that when the proper sense of words does impart a flagitious crime then the genuine sense of Scripture is figurative now what a crime is this that the living body of Christ should be devoured by men nor can this be avoided but by taking the words in a Figurative sense 11. Ibid. We protest saith he against Gods command in forbiding Images as Idols he having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. O daring impudency Is Image worship commanded by God Sure then the 2d command Exod. 20.4 5. must be none of Gods commands as indeed Papists have rased it out of some of their Catechisms yet we forbid not all Images but Images of God and the Trinity or Images of any thing for adoration Produce who can institution or approbation for that in all Scripture The Cherubims were indeed set above the ark but no command for their adoration 12. Sayes he We protest against Gods practice in denying honour to Saints contrary to 1 Sam. 2.30 them that honâ—ur me I will honour Who does not see this whole discourse to be a Rapsody either of calumnies or impertinent allegations Did ever Protestant deny honor to Saints We only deny that they are religiously to be adored Are honour and religious adoration terms reciprocal The civil Magistrate and living Saints ought to be honoured Yet I suppose this Pampheleter will not say they should be religiously adored And would he also infer from 1 Sam. 2.30 that God adores Saints the Creator his own creatures Might not such foolries have been rather expected from a child then from one who would be reputed a Rabbi 13. Ibid. he sayes we protest against Gods dispensation by denying the Power given to Apostles and their Successors to for give sins contrary to Joh. 20.23 whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven We do not protest against Gods dispensation we but protest against your imposing on consciences a necessity of auricular confession of all sins how secret so ever to your Priests which God never enjoyned We protest against your papal usurped power of indulgences which neither the Apostles not the Pastors of the ancient Church ever assumed We protest against an absolute authoritative power of forgiving sin by men who cannot infallibly know who are truly penitent and who not We grant to Pastors of the Church a ministerial and conditional power of absolution To them is committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.19 and no more is granted Joh. 2.23 The soveraign absolute power of forgiving sin is claimed by God as his Perogative royal Isai 43.25 Micah 7.18 Nor can it be ascribed to any creature without blasphemy For who can forgive sin but God Luk 5.21 yet a ministerial power of absolution is exercised by Pastours 1 by the ministery of the word 2. by the administration of the Sacraments 3. by prayer 4. by the relaxation of the censures of the Church as is Judiciously expounded by the Reverend Bishop of Armagh in his answer to the Irish Jesuits challenge cap. 5. and the sober and Judicious among Romanists themselves are forced to acknowledg that no more was given by Christ to the Apostles So Ferns annot In Joh. 20. and comment on Matth. cap. 16. though sayes he as he is cited by the said Bishop of Armigh it be the proper work of God to remit sins yet are the Apostles said to remit also not simply but because they apply these means whereby God doth remit sins which means are the word and Sacraments to which we add the relaxations of the censures of the Church and prayer 14. Pag. 109. He sayes we protest against the Satisfaction which Justice requires for our Sins even after the guilt is forgiven by denying Purgatory contrary to 1 Cor. 3. himself shall be saved yet so as by fire O the seared Consciences of Jesuits who are not afraid to write at this rate Know therefore that our protestation is against the injury which Romanists do both to the Justice of God and to the compleat satisfaction of Jesus Christ by asserting Purgatory If Christ have Satisfied justice fully then Humane Satisfactions in Purgatory are forged in their mint house at Rome If not borrowed from the old Platonists and Pythagorians If Justice were compleatly satisfied by Christ how can justice demand new satisfaction from the delinquent If the guilt be forgiven then all the obligation to punishment is dissolved so Justice can demand no further satisfactions We deny not but pardoned Saints such as David may be exercised with Paternal chastisements that they may be the more sensible how bitter and evil a thing it is that they have sinned against the Lord but proper satisfaction to Justice by departed Saints in a place you call Purgatory Scripture no where affirms Your eyes must be anoynted with papal Chrism that you see so clearly your Purgatory in that place 1 Cor. 3. I suppose Augustine was as clear sighted an interpreter as you yet to him it seemed not so clear yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood lib. de fid oper cap. 15. and quest 1. ad Dulcit It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory when as Thuan records lib. 13 2. he would enquire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Purgatory The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the perplexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concerning it in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. confesses it to be unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae one of the hardest places in all the Bible Before he can make use of it for his
from Austin of Sanctifying of Catechumens by the Imposition of hands of presbiters yet that was not a Sacrament did not Christ himself bless young children by imposition of hands Mat. 19.13.15 Yet Soto Coninck and generally the rest of the Popish Doctors deny that to be the Sacrament of Confirmation Was not Imposition of hands in solemn benedictions an ancient Jewish rite as may appear by Gen. 48.14 Numb 27.18 19 23. 2 King 5.11 Mark 7.32 and so not first institut by Jesus Lastly some practices of the Apostles make not always a perpetual standing Rule for the Church But more for the vindication of that Scripture together with a confutation of all Bellarmins cavils may be seen in Dallaeus Disp de Confirm lib. 1. cap. 6.9 10 11 12. as for the other Scripture for Confirmation from 2 Cor. 1.21 22. there is mention indeed of establishing and anointing but its manifest from vers 22. it was with no material oyle but by the Holy Ghost and so much is acknowledged by Esthius on the place Is not Christ said to be anointed Psal 45.7 Isa 61.1 dare he say it is with material oyle Is there not a parallel Scripture 1 John 2.27 The anointing which he have received of him abideth in you and it teaches you all things But sure that is a mystical Unction by the Spirit for it abides is Internal and teaches all things which without too violent a Catachresis cannot be ascribed to Romish Confirmation For Pennance he cites other two Scriptures Joh. 20.23 whose Sins ye shall forgive are forgiven and Act. 16.18 And many of them that Believed came confessing their Deeds Both these places are sufficiently vindicated by Fulk against the Rhemists In a word it shall be enough to me to say that these Scriptures prove a Ministerial power of absolution and that distressed Consciences may disburden their Spirits by laying open their sins to faithful Pastors and in case of publick Scandal publick confession of Sin should be made All these Protestants do grant but that every one is bound necessarily to reveal all his particular sins how secret soever by auricular confessing to a Priest and that he hath power to impose proper satisfactions to Divine Justice as Romanists teach concerning the Sacrament of Pennance Neither these nor any other Scriptures hold out Nor is there a visible sign such as I shew in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster to be necessary to the being of a Sacrament here Instituted by Christ For extream Vnction he cites Jam. 5.14 and Mark 6.13 Did I not shew in my last against Mr. Dempster pag. 266. That Bell. lib. 2. de Extream Vnct. cap. 2. Jansen Concord cap. 55. Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacrat Disp 111. Dub. 1. Num. 3. as also Suarez a lapide Carleton and many others deny that in the latter place Mark 6.13 any Sacrament is held out ought he not to have examined Bellarmins arguments to the contray did I not also ibid. 1. shew that Cardinall Cajetan Comment in Jam. 5. affâ—rms that from these words Jam. 5.14.15 no Sacrament can be concluded and he says as much of that place Mark 6. so that both these places are declared by eminent Doctors of the Romish Church to signify nothing as to the purpose in hand Did I not also plainly tell that both these Scriptures treat of an Unction in reference to a miraculous healing of diseased persons Ought not this interpretation to have been refuted if he had intended to Satisfy those that are judicious Many arguments might be heaped up to confirm the interpretation I have given I hint but at a few things And First that of Mark treats not of a Sacramental Unction as is acknowledged by the most eminent Champions for the Romish cause already cited to whom Greg. de Val. Dominicus a Soto Ruardus and many others may be added and who will deny it must answer both Bellarmins arguments and also these brought by our Divines Therefore neither is there any Sacrament in James For any who with indifferency of Spirit will compare the two places will find them exactly parallel and this the Jesuit Maldonat on Mark c. 6. hath sufficiently proved albeit his heat for the Romish interest made him falsly to jmagine a Sacramental institution Mark 6.13 Secondly Sacraments are not principally instituted for the body but chiefly at least if not only for the soul But both these Unctions Mark 6. and Jam. 5. are chiefly for the body In Mark 6. mention is only made of bodily cure In Jam. 5. the healing of the body is both first and absolutely Spoken of and forgiveness of sin only in the second place and also conditionally therefore in neither place have we a proper Sacrament Thirdly the Romish greasy Unctâ—on is only administred to those that are desperatly Sick of whose recovery there is no hope but the Vnction Spoken of by Mark and James are not at all restricted to these therefore the present Romish Unction is different from them both Fourthly if James words are to be understood of Extream Unction why are Elders in the plural appointed to be called for seeing only one can officiat in that matter Lastly not to repeat what was objected against this in my last is it probable that if this had been a Sacrament instituted by Christ that the Fathers in the first three Centuries would have made no mention thereof how comes it that we hear not of it either in the constitutions under the Name of Clement or in Denys whom they hold for the Areopagit in his lib. de Hierarch had they not convenient opportunity of it Indeed Denys speaks of an anointing the Dead but of Unction of the Sick he hath no mention That it was wholly unknown to the ancient Churh is learnedly proven by Dallaeus de extrem Vnct. lib. 2. who also examins all the Cavills of Romanists for this pretended Sacrament For Orders he cites 2 Timoth. 1.6 Stir up the gift which is in thee by laying on of my hands the most that this place proves is that ordination is a standing Ordinance in the Church which the protestant Churches do not deny but no way conclude it a proper Sacrament I hope nothing needs to be added against this pretended Sacrament till he answer what is objected against Mr. Dempster only I must remember him that Estius on the place confesses that the gists here spoken of are Timothies Ministerial endowments consequently the grace here spoken of not being Sanctifying nor imposition of hands being a Sufficient Sacramentall sign as I shew against Mr. Dempster nothing can be hence concluded as to a proper Sacrament albeit Calvin as I advertised them grants that in a large Sense it may be termed a Sacrament For Matrimony he only cites Ephes 5.32 which thus he renders this Sacrament is great but according to the originall it is this is a great mystery Is every thing which the Scripture calls a mystery a Sacrament with them then the mystery of iniquity 2
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
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
on such a Text of Scripture upwards of twenty years ago â—hen I was a very young man wherein I do sincerely profess I had not a disloyal thought Are not the seditious Lectures of Jesuit Hay and Jesuit Cammolet known who openly taught execrable Regicide both in School and Pulpit Were not the Treasonable writings of Mariana Suarez Santarell and of other Jesuits asserting the lawfulness of deposing and murthering of Kings set forth permissu Superiorum Hath the world forgot the barbarous Paracides acted upon Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth two French Kings or the Powder-Plot designed against King James and the two Houses of the English Parliament and of the deep accession of Jesuits to all these What Sticklers Jesuits were in the late Commotions of Britain D. Moulin in his Answer to Philanax from pag. 58. to 64. hath given an account How doth an Accusation of Disloyalty savour out of these mens mouths May not here the words of the Satyrist have place Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes Quis Caelum terrae non misceat mare Caelo Si fur displiceat Verri homicida Miloni Clodius accuset maechos Catilina Cethegum As for me the Heart-searching God knows I abominate whatever hath a tincture of Disloyalty and therefore to cut off such Cavils as I have asserted in this Tractate the Ancient Christian Faith against Romish Novelty so do I avouch before the world Primitive Christian Loyalty I do cordially subscribe to that of Optat. lib. 3. contra Parmen Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem and to that of Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Imperatores in solius Dei sunt potestate à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos homines Whatever is or hath been repugnant to this I do for ever disown If notwithstanding all this Jesuits will renew the same Accusations they will do but like themselves reacting against me Cockleus Bolsecus their game against Luther Calvin and Beza charging them again and again with Calumnies the falshood whereof hath times without number been evicted but this I hope will satisfie persons of discretion and ingenuity When thirdly the Pamphleter did accuse me of Disciplinary Vacillations he would perhaps have been more sober had he reflected on the atrocious Vacillation of Pope Liberius who professed the Orthodox Faith the one day and subscribed the Arrian Confession and the damnation of Athanasius the other or of Pope Marcellinus who professed Christianity to day and sacrificed to Idols to morrow or of Claudius Aquaviva General of the Jesuits who first did approve Mariana's Treasonable Book and then for fear of the French King condemned it Nor know I what Apology can be made for any of these unless it be said Mutarunt linguam non mentem that they changed their Tongue but not their Mind which leaves no less stain upon their ingenuity than the change of their mind would have done upon their Intellectuals Here I must advertise the Pamphleter that he and his Fellows discover either ignorance or malice when they upbraid Protestants with their Disciplinary differences as if they made different Religions If these of the Episcopal perswasion resolved their Faith on the Bishops Authority as Jesuits do on the Popes or if Presbyterians resolved their Faith on the Authority of the Classis as the French and Venetian Papists do on the General Council they would indeed make different Religions as Papists certainly have different Religions notwithstanding their vain pretences of Infallibility and Unity But the Faith of all Protestants under these various denominations is resolved upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures and besides they do agree in Dogmaticals and so cannot make different Religions I heartily wish there were more Pacificatories written and more pains taken for accommodating our Disciplinary Controversies that all sound Protestants might unanimously concur against Jesuits and the common Adversaries of the truly Catholick Faith I detest Schisms however I be reproached by Jesuits remembring that of Cyprian de Vnit Eccles Qui pacem Christi concordiam rumpit adversus Christum facit quisquis à matrice discesserit scorsum vivere spirare non potest substantiam Salutis amittit And I would humbly obtest all dissident Brethren about these Disciplinary Questions if I could with tears of blood to consider if the Lord be not signally calling us all to study the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace Ah! shall we by these our Rents open a door to the common Adversary who would swallow us all up Were the Unity of the Catholick Church studied as it ought it would not only allay the heat of our Disciplinary Debates but also pull down the supercilious Crest of the Schismatical Court of Rome I am fourthly charged as being of an unpeaceable nature The knack of this Jest would be lost if my Accusers were not the known Boutefeu's and Incendiaries of the world Since I was 16 years of Age to this day I have lived in a Collegiate life as a Regent of Philosophy Minister and Professor of Divinity and in these capacities have had many Collegues with whom I have lived very comfortably This together with the peaceable Society which my Reverend Collegues at present and I have together may sufficiently confute the Pamphleters accusation I confess there was once a piece of Debate betwixt a Reverend Person now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and me concerning a Disciplinary Question wherein perhaps both of us did bewray somewhat of humane infirmity but if therefore either of us should be concluded contentious hardly could Hierom Austin Ruffin Chrysostom Epiphanius yea Paul and Barnabas escape the like character I ever had an high respect for that Reverend and Worthy Person and do honour his memory as for other eminent Gifts and Graces so in special for his faithfulness and zeal against Romish Idolaty and I hope e're long to live in Eternal Concord and Bliss with him I judge it indeed duty to contend cum vitiis against errour and ungodliness against Popery Quakerism Prophaness and Atheism Yet I have such affection to persons smitten with these diseases that even for this Railing Jesuit I can pray that his spite against the Truth and against me for the Truths sake may not be laid to his charge I would trespass too much on the Readers patience should I insist to resume the rest of his ludibrious Raillery Perhaps to compense the softness of his Arguments he hath designed to stone me with reproaches but he would remember that Gratian Caus 5. q. 1. from the Council of Eliberis Can. 52. thunders out an Anathema upon Pasquillers And a greater than these the Royal Prophet Psal 31.18 Let lying lips be put to silence which speak grievous things proudly and presumptuously against the righteous To conclude the Reader may know that the reason why this Reply was so slow in coming abroad was