in love with Errour by a few convincing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa ruunt sub ductis tecta columnis Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility as in the state of the Question it hath been described Ergo it ought not to be believed The sequel is evident especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Adversary is propositio per se nota or carries with it an intrinsick Evidence Nay Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authority where no Divine Authority is interposed there can be no assent of Faith The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith according to this Pamphleter If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge ought he not to have confirmed it by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fathers none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church would it not then appear that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge Though this Argument need no further confirmation till I come to canvase his objections yet for his conviction I will use this Induction If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be proved then either by Scripture or by Reason or by Fathers or by Tradition or by Miracle or by Enthusiasin or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word but by none of these can it be proved ergo not at all If my enumeration be defective let him or any for him supply it for confirming the Assumption I shortly run through the particulars 1. Not by Scripture for according to him I can neither know the Divine Original nor sense of Scripture but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius Nor 2. By Reason this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule as shall appear Cap. â— Natural Reason can neither be expected nor is it alledged by him to prove it Nor 3. By Fathers ought not the infallibility of the Fathers to be first proved before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony And how shall this be done seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fathers Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous dark and obnoxious to various constructions Are there not in them not only seeming but real contradictions Is it not beyond controversie that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture and the genuine sense thereof how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers and their genuine sense consequently the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers then none of the multitude should ever believe it Are they able in such a thorny question to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers or this Pamphleter is most unhappy for in all his Fartago of testimonies from Fathers there is not one asserting this thing as shall appear when I come to consider the objections Nor 4. By Tradition for besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here debated by Universal Tradition are there not as great debates concerning genuine Traditions and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures Is there not need of an infallible visible Judge to discriminate genuine Traditions from spurious How was the Church imposed upon by pretended Tradition concerning the Millennium and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition or if this Position can receive sâ—fficient evidence from Traditions why may not other Articles of Faith also and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge Hence the great Sticklers for the Traditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists are they not very uncharitable who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland Do they judge us so credulous as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles pretended to be wrought in the Indies or in Vtopia I sincerely profess one real Miracle should have more weight with me than a million of their Pamphlets Of Miracles I hope to speak more Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge instance who can 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false I the rather enquire this because Bell. lib. de not Eccles cap. 14. positively affirms that genuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge Then sure the infallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniquity Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible because himself says so Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity Ye can have no ground according to them to believe Scripture or Christ or any Article of Religion but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge that is saith the Jesuited party the Pope of Rome But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible Ye must forsooth take this upon his own word Is not this to make Christianity ridiculous Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome is
vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8.20 Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more iudibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23.28 What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence 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
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
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.
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
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
Roma Mendax OR THE FALSHOOD OF ROMES HIGH PRETENCES TO INFALLIBILITY and ANTIQUITY EVICTED In confutation of an Anonymous Popish Pamphlet undertaking the defence of Mr. Dempster Jesuit BY JOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinity in Aberdene Greg. Nissen lib. 10. cont Eunom in append ad opera Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the sign of the Sun over against St. Dunstanes Church in Fleet-street 1675. IMPRIMATUR Guliel Wigan Reverendissimo in Christo Pat. D. D Humfr. Episc Lond. a Sacr. Dom. May 27 1674. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy Seal and one of his Majestys most Honourable Privy Council My Lord THough learned â—ens in most countries of Europe have travelled successfully these many years in discovering the impostures of Rome so as it might seem sufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates already extant on that subject Yet the sedulity of the ministers of that Church in proposing Sophisms often and long ago confuted in a new dress as if they were new topicks yea unheard of demonstrations thereby to ensnare unwary Readers doth impose a necessity upon sincere Lovers of Truth for undeceiving the simple to resume old Grounds from Scripture Antiquity and reason formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's This had the stronger influence upon me to write these cursory animadversions upon a Popish Pamphlet otherwise of small significancy because some through a lazy humour will not others being immersed in worldly entanglements hardly can peruse the large volumns of Chamier Whittaker Calvin Zanchius Jewel Usher Junius Chemnitius Gerard and other Champions for the Truth yea some are smitten with such a fancy of Novelty thaâ— nothing doth relish with them unless it come smoaking from the Press I shall not deny but I was likewise moved with a just indignation against the disputing party among Romanists many of whom being byassed with interest seem to violent their own consciences in obtruding impostures on the World Can it be supposed that men of such raised parts and eminent learning who cannot but be sensible from their own failours of the weaknesses attending humane intellects should believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical decisions seeing those who often sit therein are known neither to be men of greatest learning and Piety nor ever did God since the foundation of the World entail infallibility upon an elective succession of persons chiefly when secular interests and intrigues of Policy have the chief stroke in the election Can they believe an universal Monarchy over all Princes and Churches to be setled by a divine donation on the Bishop of Rome seeing Scripture hath no vestige of that fifth Monarchy unless it be in the Apocalyptick predictions and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not spared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions Can they believe the lawfulness of Image-worship whatever Metaphysical distinctions they have coyned to put a fair gloss on the matter it being so expresly prohibited in the decalogue and no practice thereof occurring in the Chatholick Church for three Ages and upwards after Christ whereof those great Antiquaries cannot be ignorant Can these great masters of reason believe the prodigius figment of transubstantiation which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius Ovid or Aesop and is so luculently repugnant to the common sense and reason of all mankind that a great man among themselves going to Mass is reported to have been so ingenuous as to say Eamus ad communem errorem Can they justifie the Lawfulness of half Communions without fighting with their own consciences these being confessedly opposite to the primitive institution and to the known practice not onely of the Catholick Church but also of the Roman for many Ages who would not be moved with indignation that men should upon designe abuse their parts and wit to cheat the World I know not how to reconcile these men to themselves unless it be supposed that because they received not the Truth in love they are given up to strong delusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant Bellarmine Barronius Perron and others of that Cabal have said much for an ill cause They have indeed shewed themselves to be men of great parts but of very evil consciences They who devote their endowments to the patrociny of heresie would remember that errors in religion are such creasy and burdensome superstructures that the strongest shoulders must needs shrink under them My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the sequacious multitude in the Roman Communion who in the Simplicity of their hearts surrender themselves to the conduct of such teachers How grateful is it to these who love easie methods of Religion among whom are not only those of the meaner sort of people but also many of greater quality to be fred from serious inquiries after divine truths by an implicite submission to infallible guides and having once intrusted their faith to those teachers how secure do they judg themselves being taught by no meaner Casuist then Cardinal Tolet that it s not onely safe but also meritorius to believe the doctrines taught by their teachers though false on the matter untill they know that the Roman Church teaches otherwise Thus the leaders of these deluded people cause them to err Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers be sufficient apology for them at the great day This rather will be their condemnation that upon such a pellucide and improbable pretence they should have made small account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scripture which God hath charged those to search who would find eternal Life Joh. 5.34 From this search nothing doth more deterr people then the thorny and litigious debates raised by School-men and Controversists as if men behoved turn Scepticks in religion if they did not implicitly intrust the conduct of their Faith to a Romish infallible guide But blessed be our God it s not a matter of such insuperable difficulty to find out the truth of Religion in the holy Scripture as they who design the inslaving peoples consciences do pretend If prejudices once being laid aside men would apply themselves sincerely to the use of appointed means For the wisdome of God hath with a perspicuity accommodated to the weakest capacities revealed these things which are necessary to Salvation according to that of Hilary In absoluto facili est Aeternitas Non per difficiles questiones nos ad vitam Aeternam vocat Deus and a greater then Hilary the Apostle of the Gentiles 2 Cor. 4.3 If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and a greater then hoth our Saviour Christ Joh. 7.17 If any do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God One thing I am sure it s much more easie to find out the true religion in Scripture then by any means whatsoever to attain a rational evidence of Papal or
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
Martyrs of all Sexes and Ages under most exquisite torments whose resoluteness could not proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit affectation of vain-glory want of sense of their sufferings or Philosophical fortitude but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles wrought not in corners or only among Favourites but in the open view of the world in the face of sagacious and desperate Enemies who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scripture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven among whom were Theâ—pâ—mpus and Theodectes one of whom as Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus was smitten with Madness and the other with Blindness for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Consciences beyond all natural force both for terrour and comfort yea and for sanctification also And besides are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures such as the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts the unfathomable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries which though Reason could never find out yet being once discovered Reason it self cannot but acknowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile the wonderful methods for satisfying Divine Justice reconciling sinners to God and pacifying afflicted Consciences And lastly not to mention more the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable insomuch that it 's beyond controversie amongst Christians though otherwise of various perswasions that the Scripture is the Word of God Hence Bell is forced to say lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius nihil est notius and a little after Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque est that is the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing Nay more he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures his words are Vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget Secondly If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things necessary to Salvation they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them which is Joh. 20.31 That we may believe and believing have eternal life If it be answered that they accomplish their end in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church or by the definitions of the infallible Judge this is easily repelled because either the Church and the infallible Judge gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly propound from Scripture or not if from Scripture then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly else could they not have been gathered from Scripture if the Church and the supposed infallible Judge have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture then the Scriptures does not cannot effectuate the end for which it was made viz. to work Faith in us and to guide us to Eternal Life but that end is brought about by the Church and by other means Romanists to use the phrase of a late Writer represent God speaking in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles that the Pope and his Parasites may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers lib. 10. de Trinit is no less excellent than famous Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam nocat quaestiones In absoluto nobis facili est aeternitas How impious is it to say that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived to satisfie different interests Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof Though Papists and other Hereticks do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible yet doth not their own practice at other times confute them Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions How impertinent were this kind of arguing if Scripture were not intelligible Neither can it be said that they argue thus only ad hominem against us for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us unless they supposed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true Yea does not this Pamphleter pag. 106 107 108 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express against the Doctrine of Protestants These Scriptures shall be considered in their own place Now only doth not his alledging them suppose them intelligible especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them 'T is true there be obscure places in Scripture yet as Austin lib. de util credendi cap. 6. excellently observes the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè piè ut vera Religio pâ—scit accedat i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer And again Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis exercemur obscuris ibi fames pellitur hic sastidium i. e. clear Scriptures feed us obscure places exercise us by the one our hunger is satisfied by the other our loathing is prevented And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum before his Commentaries on Job the Scripture is a River Planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet both shallow and deep wherein a Lamb may walk and an Elephant swim Thirdly Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 How could they accomplish this end if they did not contain all that is necessary to salvation If Romanists run to their old Evasion that what is wanting in the Scripture is supplied by the Church they are readily contuted for then the Scripture were not able to make us wise to salvation but the Church by other means should do it If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture either they are more sublime than these in Scripture or not Not more sublime Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity Incarnation Resurrection all which are undoubtedly in Scripture If then they be but inferiour Truths seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to writing how kept he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in
Vulgar Latin Version was made before the Scriptures were corrupted where he infinuates that the Bible was not corrupted till after Hierom's time Hierom being the Author of the greater part at least of the Vulgar Latin by the acknowledgment of most Judicious Romanists as is shewed by Ludov. de Tena Isagog ad script lib. 1. diff 6. Sect. 2. How then could Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and Eusebius testifiâ— of the corruption of Scripture seeing all those were dead before the time wherein Hicrom did flourish It 's just with God that they who oppugne the Scriptures should not understand their own selves I answer secondly by retorsion Is there not more cause to question the Originals of that which they make the Rule of Faith I mean of Dâ—cretals of Popes and Canons of Councils how many supposititious Decretals have they obtruded as of Clemens Anacletus Euaristus Alex. Sixtus Telesphorus c. which though Gratian dist 19. cap. in Canonicis says that they should be reckoned inter Canonicas Scripturas yet our Learned Criticks have proved them to be suppostitious as Cocus in Censura Scripterum veterum pag. 20. to 24. Rivet in Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 8. and others Yea is not the Faith of the Canons and Constitutions passing under the names of the Apostles justly questioned as may be seen in the same Cocus pag. 3. and 15. Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 2.4 and Dallaeus de Pseudopigraphis how many supposititious Canons of Councils have Romanists obtruded Were not Popes of Rome long ago convicted by the African Fathers of pretending a suppositious Canon of the Council of Nice for Appeals to Rome yea do they do not daily obtrude the definitions of the Conventicles at Florence and Trent as definitions of Oecumenick Councils whereas it hath been often demonstrated that these Councils were neither free nor Oecumeniek If the Transcribers of the Scriptures be obnoxious to mistakes how can the Transcribers of the Canons of Councils be infallible If transcribing of Bibles be obnoxious to errours is not the conveyance of Oral Traditions liable to as many nay to more mistakes Is it not more easie to guard against vitiating of written Books then the unfaithful conveyance of Tradition Are not Hereticks and men of unfound minds as much inclined to vitiate Traditions as the written Word By these it may appear that this Weapon of the Romanist wounds himself as much as us I answer thirdly It 's a blasphemous falshood to say the Scriptures in their Original are corrupted Hath God promised Mat. 5.18 that one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the Law and yet hath he suffered the whole Original Scriptures which were given by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost to be corrupted I will not here enquire whether our Saviour meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one tittle The Hebrew Vowels and Accents as Piscator conceives or stroaks in the head of the Letters like horns which the Jews used in those Copies of the Bible which were kept in Synagogues as Capellus de punct Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 14. affirms or whether a part of a Letter as Lud. de Dieu and Jesuit Maldonat on the place suppose or whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be taken us terms Synonimous as they are said to be by the Ethiopick Interpreter only it appears by the Series of the context that Christ understood some of the least things belonging to the integrity of the written Law If Diviâ—â— Providence be so careful to preserve the least of these shall we imagine the whole Body of the Original Scriptures to be vitiated Hath the whole Catholick Church been so unfaithful to suffer such a precious depositum as the Original Scriptures to be lost Do not Romanists say that we have received the Original Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek from them Hath the Roman Church cheated us in this to give us vitiated Transcripts in place of the Originals should we then believe her fidelity or infallibility in other things if the whole Original Scriptures are corrupted I pray by whom or when was it done surely not by Jews as is proved by Jerom in Cap. 6. of Isai where also he cites Origen for the same thing with them accords Austin lib. 15. de civ Dei cap. 13. for either they corrupted them before the coming of Christ or after if before how is it that they were never reproved for so heynous a trespass by Christ or his Disciples He condemns them for corrupt glosses put on Scripture but never for vitiating the Letter of Scripture Nay does he not command his hearers to search the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 Does he not still Appeal to Scripture for decision of all Controversies Would he ever have remitted them thereto had he known them generally to be corrupted if after Christ how then comes it that the testimonies of the Old Testament cited by Christ and the Apostles are to this day found in the Originals did Christ and the Apostles cite them as they were to be vitiated by the Jews if Jews had corrupted Scriptures would they not have chiefly corrupted those which spake of the Messias but those remain entire to this day yea as Bell. acknowledges lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. The Hebrew Text affords more clear and pregnant testimonies for the Messias than either the Greek of the 70 or the Vulgar Latin and produces instances to this purpose as Psal 2. where the Hebrew hath it Kiss the Son the 70 and the Vulgar Latin have Appraehendite disciplinam Joannes Isaac a Popish Author spares not to affirm as he is cited by Calov de puritate fontium Sect. 93. pag. 414. ducenta amplius argumenta quae Judaicas impietates refellunt in Hebraico textu quam in Latino planius contineri i. e. that the Hebrew Text affords 200 Arguments and upward against Jewish impieties more clearly than the Vulgar Latin How Religiously yea superstitiously careful have the Jews been of the Scriptures both of old and to this day Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evangel cap. 6. out of Philo de Judaeorum ex Aegypto profectione testifie that to his time not one word was altered in the Original If the Bible do but casually fall to the ground do they not endite a solemn Fast Have they not numbred all the words and Letters in the Bible so that a Letter cannot be lost without observation How putid is the Calumny of Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap 9. that this diligence of the Jews is only to perpetuate the corruption of the Hebrew Text made by the Masorites for which he is sufficiently chastised by Palovius Had the Masorites so corrupted the Bible would it not have been observed by the Karaits who because in all things they adhered to the Scriptures are hated by the Traditionary Jews more than Christians At least how could it have escaped the observation of Christians Were there not Hebrew Bibles
or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus caelum quâ—m habemus in Evangeliâ— testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis invenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as those To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clearin terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against M Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down-right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1.8 Next he objects That Hereticks for their Herâ—sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10.8 All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8.12 I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6 shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91.11 leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non
est via haec sed ruina si via tua est non illius Did not Christ by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil with another Deut. 6.16 demonstrate that the Devil did pervert the Scripture contrary to its sense and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scripture What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear and really clear as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism and a real demonstration May not all those perverfions of Scripture by Marcion tes Manichees c. be sufficiently cleared without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Is it not apparent that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10.8 that Moses was a Thief or Robber seeing he was faithful in all the House of God as a servant Heb. 3.6 That place Joh. 10.8 pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers who run without a Mission from God as Austin expounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas c. So Chrysost Cyril Theophil Enthym cited by à Lapide on the place none of which did Moses Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8.12 as impious and ludibrious Is not Christ God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 therefore as Austin said excellently Tract 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem he is not the Sun but the Light which made the Sun As for that Tenet he charges upon the Waldenses they are vindicated from it by Learned Vsher de Christian Eccles success stat cap. 6. Edit 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist of Walden lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea Alphonsus à Castro albeit he following the Drove accuse them of it yet confesses that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses charges them with no such thing However surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20.13 For the Magistrate Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain and Scripture expresly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally particularly Murtherers Numb 35.31 So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture may be clearly confuted by Scripture if it were not so what could the Romish infallible Judge do What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place and not that which Hereticks pretend if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils They can bring no Objection against us which recoils not upon their own head He clamours pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture What then Ergo all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture or by firm consequence deducible from it Non sequitur There are not only seeming but real contradictions betwixt the definitions of their Popes and Canons of their Councils one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope another decreeing that the Pope is above the Council and both approved by Popes for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance which subjected the Pope to the Council approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the Command of keeping the Sunday Answ I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's distinction Orat. 37. that quedam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur quadam sunt dicuntur There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture and luculently demonstrated thence against the Socinian though those words be not found in Scripture Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Scripture It 's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons and Sacraments and a sufficient Warrant to keep the Lords day be found there Yea have we not the word Person Heb. 1.3 Who is the express Image of his Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logomachies which were among Ancients concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Command concerning the Lords Day besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture such as the practice of the Apostles the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 1.10 the Apostolick Injunction 1 Cor. 16.1 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it from the fourth Command in his Sabbatum Redivivum Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments I hope the Inssitution of Baptism and the Lords Supper is clear in Scripture and other Sacraments we know none As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster at which here he snarles when he gets confidence to examine it he shall find it will abide the Test In fine could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Articles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture I should ingenuously disown them It 's further objected pag. 6◠that many places of Scripture are flatly against Protestants and for Papists as Matth. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2. Thes 2.13 yea he is bold to say that Protestants can never be able to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets These be big words but splendid untruths Can we bring no clear Scripture against any Tenet of Popery Is not that Scripture clear against their Dry Communions Matth. 26.27 Drink ye all of it Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory Revel 14.13 Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If they rest from their labours then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory Is not that a clear Scripture against Image-worship Exod. 20.4 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
85. that Protestants do a gree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sores would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images also are religiously to be adored It s a Fundamental that God is to be invocated but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints It s a Fundamental that there is an Hell and Heaven but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to mortals sins It s a Fundamental that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals As for Instance if
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
furely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180.181 he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold our that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Gouncils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Gatholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Famphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm that real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2.9 that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an
been Who can read what their own Bartholomaeus de la Casa hath written of the proceeding of the Spaniards in the West-Indies without horrour Did not a Great Person when a dying hearing that Catholick Spaniards went to Heaven profess he would never go there if Spaniards went thither judging it could be no good place where such bloody men went Yea Granado as cited by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 4. § 188. confesses Ea crudelitatis immanitate Hispanos erga illos usos ut Sanctissimum Christiani nomen non Pietatis Religionis sed crudelitatis immanitatis nomen habitum sit that is through their Barbarity the holy name of Christians became an Epithete of cruelty As for the East-Indies it's supposed there were some remainders of the Christian Faith among them lest by the conversions of these people in ancient times and the truth of Popish relations concerning conversions there are justly to be questioned finding how unfaithful they are in Relations nearer home whereof I gave a hint cap. 3. Sect. 4. And besides their design is to convert them rather to the Pope and Papal Superstition than to Jesus Christ But if any Real Conversion be wrought by them it 's wholly to be attributed to the common Principles of Christianity yet retained among Papists but not to any of their Popish errours Let the Pamphleter notice these particulars and then frame an Argument if he can without Rhetorical declamations to prove their Church to be the true Catholick and Infallible Church But I invert also this his second Note and from it prove the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion by which alone Nations have been converted to the true Christian Faith is the only true Religion but by the Religion which Protestants hold Nations have only been converted Ergo. I prove the Assumption by the Apostolick Religion Nations have only been converted to the true Faith but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion and we own none else Let theirs and ours be compared if they be not the same Ergo by the Religion of Protestants Nations have only been converted If any again say that a Quaker or other Heretick may make the same Argument it hath been answered already Let matters be brought to tryal by Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and it shall be found our Religion and not theirs is the true Apostolick Religion And we have this strong presumption for us against both Papists and Quakers neither of them dare refer the Controversie to the decision of Scripture the one running to an infallible visible Judge the other to an infallible Light within But we remit all to the decision of Scriptures which Christians of all perswasions acknowledge to be of Divine Inspiration yet it 's not by presumptions we would deal but by a particular examination of Controversies let their Cause only prevail who have real conformity with Scriptures ARTICLE III. Of Sanctity of Life THe third Note of the Church brought by this Jesuit is taken from the pretended Sanctity of Romanists Lives But besides that Sanctity of Life is no solid Note of the true visible Church there is nothing to which Romanists have less ground to pretend I say first it 's no solid Note of the visible Church For either they speak of real internal Sanctity and Heart-Renovation or of external and apparent Sanctity If of the first though undoubtedly the Church has always a Remnant of truly Holy Ones yet internal holiness cannot be infallibly discerned by others and so much Bell. himself acknowledges lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 10. yea Romanists deny that a man can be infallibly certain of his own Sanctity If therefore he speak only of external and apparent Sanctity it 's not peculiar to the Church Hypocrites and pernicious Hereticks may have it are we not told that false Teachers may come in Sheeps cloathing Matth. 7.15 that they speak lyes in hypocrisie 1 Tim. 4.2 that they have a form of godliness 2 Tim. 3.5 that the Ministers of Satan transform themselves into Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.12 Did not Pharisees make long prayers Mat. 23.24 Are they not on this account resembled to painted Sepulchres vers 22. Did not Bell. lib. 5. de lib. arb cap. 10. confess that by the works of Teachers we cannot pass a sure judgment on their Doctrine because their inward works are not seen and the external works are common both to sound and unsound Teachers Did not the Novatians pretend to so much Sanctity that they would appropriate to themselves the Name of Cathari as testifies Austin de Heres cap. 38. Who pretended more external Sanctity than the Pelagians See Hierom. lib. 3. advers Pelag. Were not Douatists such pretenders to Sanctity that they denied a Church to be where there were any wicked See Alphonsus à Castro advers Haeres tit Eccles Doth not Austin testifie lib. 1. de moribus Eccles cap. 1. that the very Manichees deceived many by the seeming Sanctity of their lives Do not Socinians who hardly deserve the Name of Christians pretend to much Sanctity as also our deluded Quakers Will Antichrist himself want his pretensions to Sanctity Hath not the Beast two Horns like the Lamb Revel 12.11 Hath not the Whore a Golden Cup in her hand that is she guilds over her Abominations with the specious pretences of Piety It were indeed to be wished that all the Lords People were holy yet alas how oft hath the Real Church of God been overgrown with scandals Are not the complaints of the Prophets on this account known Micah 7.1 c. Ezek. cap. 16. cap. 22. and cap. 36. Doth not the Apostle complain also of Gospel Churches as 2 Cor. 12.20 21. Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. Hist cap. 1. hold out the wicked lives of Christians yea and of Ministers to be the cause of the grievous persecution under Dioclesian Hereupon Ancients would not have the truth of Doctrine examined by mens lives Hierom lib. 3. cont Ruffin Quis unquam Catholicorum in disputatione Sectarum turpitudinem ei objecit adversus quem disputat And Austin lib. 1. de mor. Eccles cap. 34. Nunc vos illud admoneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholica male dicere desinatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filios corrigere studet What need I more to compesce this Pamphleter seeing Stapleton himself lib. 1. de Princip Doct. cap. 19. confesses Sanctam esse Ecclesiam sed per suam Sanctitatem non innotescere Did not Tertull. de praescript long ago teach that we must measure persons by Doctrines non ex personis fidem It were the wisdom of Romanists to be silent as to this matter were I disposed to write a Satyr I might fill a Volumn with complaints of the impiety of the Romish Church and that out of their own Authors Did not their own Pope Hadrian the Sixth in his instructions to Cheregat his Nuncio
any personal interest I have therefore judged fit to invert a little of the Jesuits method he places his invectives in the front of his Book as iâ— seems that the Patience of the Reader might be outwearied with that nauseating stuffe before he came to examine the weakness of the argumentative part but my design being to give a testimony to the truth and to contribute my poor endeavours for establishing Souls therein and if it may please God to recover those that are gone astray I will first canvase the Controversies of Religion and then take his spleenish invectives to consideration in the mean while I only say didicit ille maledicere ego contemnere CHAP. I. A brief Survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Demster THe title of Papismus Lucifugus is of hard concoction with the Pamphleter yet he is not altogether unhappy in his conjecture concerning it He says Pag. 8. I gave a strong Thief a strange Name I do indeed look on trafficking Jesuits as pernicious Thieves they rob men of their dearest interests of their Religion and consequently of their Souls and Salvation Perhaps this may be one reason why Romish Babylon Revel 18.13 Is said to make merchandice of the Souls of men The consumptive estates of many families in which these men do nest are a shrewd presumption they pick purses as well as consciences The Epithet Lucifugus had not appeared so strange had he considered that Tertul. lib. de resur Carnis cap. 47. Long ago branded Hereticks as Lucifugas Scripturarum and it may seem suitable enough to Jesuit Dempsters tergiversing humour The Pamphleter pag. 9. takes the boldness to say That Jesuit Dempster declined not the trial of religion by Scripture and antiquity What will not an effronted Jesuit affirm I remit him for his conviction to one place in stead of many Mr. Dempsters Paper 5. pag. 60. 61. Why I pray you did he never answer to any testimony either of Scripture or Antiquity brought against him What means the Rapsody of citations in this Pamphlet but to make a seeming supplement of M. Dempsters defects Why contend Romanists so eagerly for the necessity of an infallible visible judge but because they dare not adventure to have the controversies betwixt them and us dicided either by Scripture or Antiquity This Pamphleter thinks to salve the matter with a knack of Jesuitical equivocation we decline not Scripture and Antiquity saith he ibid. as carried by Popes Bishops and Priests in communion with him that is they can be judged by Scripture and Antiquity provided they be taken in no other sense then the Pope and Court of Rome are pleased As if a company of robbers would submit to a jury but with this Proviso that their Ring leader were Chancellour of the Assize and had a negative upon the rest Is not this a goodly Apology that Romanists are not Lucifugi To help all he adds That the Question betwixt Mr. Dempster and me was onely of the grounds of the Protestant Religion and not at all of the grounds of Popery Grant it had been so yet had he not been a Lucifugus would he not have examined the instances of Scripture and Antiquity which were brought to confirm the Doctrine of Protestants But it would be remembred that Mr. Dempster's Syllogism gave occasion for an enquiry of a greater Latitude viz. What the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion are and what the Religion is to which alone these grounds do agree whether Popery or the Religion of Protestants I pitched on Scripture and Antiquity as the peculiar grounds of the true Religion which do exactly quadrate with the Reformed Religion and not at all with Popish superstition But Jesuit Dempster could never be induced either to give a ground of the true Religion or to confute that assigned by me If this be not a Lucifugus who ever was Whether I in giving this Title to these Papers or the Pamphleter in quarrelling at it do stumble at the threshold others may judge I am not disposed to quarrel at the Title of his Book Scolding no Scholarship I suppose all will give him this testimony neither do I envy it that he hath behaved himself as an abler Scold than a Scholar Albeit Jesuit Dempster at the time of our Encounter was extolled by Romanists as a Non-such yet his feebleness being discovered to the world by the publishing of his insignificant Papers This Pamphleter pag. 9.10 exercises his wit to devise some lying shifts to Apologize both for him and the Popish Interest as if 1. I had been the Aggressor and Provoker 2. He seems to take it ill that the verbal conference with Mr. Dempster is said to have been the fruit of Popish Consultations 3. He sayes that Mr. Dempster was a man of confiscate health a noble Rhetorication forsooth fit enough for a civil Conference but most unable for a clamorous Dispute 4. That he was pitched upon onely as being next at hand This bundle of forged lyes discovers the Pamphleter to use his own phrase to be a person of confiscate honesty The true account of that affair I gave in the Dedicatory Epistle before Papismus Lucifugus which could be attested by persons of unquestionable credit Knows he not that I can design by name the persons of the Romish Profession though upon personal respect I have for them I do forbear who did solemnly provoke my Reverend Colleague M.G.M. and me to that Debate Is it imaginable that such a solemn Challenge should be given without previous consultation Are there so few Birds of that Feather about this place that M. Dempster was onely pitched upon as next at hand Was he not brought from the Country upon design from a Gentlemans house where he did ordinarily reside Was there not another ordinary Resident in the Family where the Debate was What M. Demster's fitness was to manage a modest debate may be judged by the perusal of his Tautologizing Papers a very anomolous motion in an Arguer not a Steering to the same point as this Pamphleter would excuse it pag. 15. but a tossing in one place very near of Kin to that trespass of Arguing which by Logicians is called Petitio principii Had he been a person of such eminent modesty and so averse from clamorous disputes would he in Anno 1658. as I take it so arrogantly have appealed all the ministery of Scotland to a Vocal Despute boasting that if he did not convince them he should be hanged up presently demanding onely if they lost the Cause that they should be hanged up in effigie Doth not such a brawling Challenge bewray a petulent humour and a complacency in clamorous Cavils But what was the Achilles wherewith this insolent Thraso thought to have conquered the whole Church of Scotland That goodly Syllogism forsooth in his first Paper against me as appears by comparing it with his foresaid Paper or Defiance So that this has been a long studied Lesson wherein
Logical trespass in the structure of Jesuit Dempster's Syllogism was my least Exception against it The main thing I ever demanded was a probation of that minor whether it be formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of these could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconciles himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis descensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad aurat Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prâ—ve it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popositive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Dâ—mster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently lemands payâ—ent of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his dewands only with stoâ—ies of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reâ—terated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of Images the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the â—atholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replics did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions the had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he
by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly it is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly bic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite be 〈◊〉 we an assent of Faith can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved His Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishop of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the lesser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11.20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spâ—re not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judgeâ— or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self-against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not
not this prodigious impiety The Testimony of Gâ—d speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare word Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour Joh. 5.43 I am come in my Fatherâ— Name and me ye receive not if another come in his own name him ye will receive Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences or else be great Masters of their Reason that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation Now 7. I know nothing that remains except with the Quaker they run to Enthusiastical Revelations for this their pretended infallibility And he may remember how in a like case I minded M. Demster of a discourse of Cloppenburg the Title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave to desire a sight of their Credentials else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion Perhaps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E. W. in his vain discourse entituled Protestancy without Principles against two eminently Learned Persons D. Stillingfleet and M. Poole That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge but I must advertise him to distinguish betwixt our Faith and the rejection of their Errours as no part of our Faith It suffices a Protestant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge and to declare that to be no part of our Faith and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility or this infallible visible Judge is not assignable therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera The sequel I prove Had God appointed an infallible visible Judge upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Christian world should be resolved he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was else as M. Peole says well in his Appendix against Everard pag. 16. God should deal with the World as Alexander the Great who when he was asked to which of his Captains he left his Empire answered the best but not defining who was best this became a Seminary of contention or as another makes the comparison like the dying Father who having two Sons Leon and Pantaleon and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon the two Brethren fell by the ears the one alledging that he left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon the other that all was left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pantaleon Were it not Blasphemy to say that God hath dealt so with his Church assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge but not revealing who he is if it be not known who he is people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority than if he were not if therefore God had intended such a way surely he would have determined who he is It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent for which I need no more but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable could not Romanists at least who talk so much of him agree upon him But who is such a stranger in the world as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. who affirms that infallibility is potestas â—ratia personalis a personal power and grace given by Christ personae Petri successorum ejus to the person of Peter and his Successors and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council and that it is not only false but Heretical to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei in defining an Article of Faith Yea the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Romish Treasons emitted Theses Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infallible Judge of Controversies not only extra Concilium without a Council but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact as well as of Faith which is more than Bell. durst aver as shall appear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less considerable Doctors Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope but in the General Council only and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors Gerson Almaynus Alphonsus à Castro yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say that all Romanists agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err But this is both false on the matter and a perfect Cheat. First I say false on the matter for there be yet a third sort of great Authors among Romanists who do affirm that both Pope and General Council may err in matters of Faith and that the subject of infallibility is multitudo fidelium the diffusive Body of Believers Of this Opinion were Oceam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Waldensis Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus de Clemanges The places ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron in Apodixi Catholica Tract 5. cap. 19.21 and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will only cite one short sentence of famous Oceam Part. 1. Dialog lib. 5. cap. 29. 31. where he lays down this conclusion and maintains it Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholicam errare per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia quâ— contra fidem errare non potest That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church which cannot err in matters of Faith But secondly those Romanists who say they do agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err do put a Cheat upon the world as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron Apodixi Catholica tract 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this insallibility is
vindicated Deut. 17.8 in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17 in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19 in his cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28.20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15 in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peccat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8.7 to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17.8 c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17.8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33.4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.11 or what meant these general complaints Isai 56.10 Jer. 6.13 Jer. 14.14 Hos 9.8 Ezek. 22.25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v.
9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they inform thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee Learned Rivet in Cathol Orthod tract 1. q. 8. observes the place to be thus sensed by famous Authors in the Romish Church by Cajetan the Author of the Glossa Ordinaria Lyranus and Hierom Oleastrius and that Lyranus from the restriction according to the Law refutes that absurd gloss of the Jewish Rabbins that if the Judge should say that the right hand were the left and the left hand the right talis sententia est tenenda like to which is that forecited saying of Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif cap. 5. If the Pope command Vice and prohibit Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vice to be good and Vertue evil But we have not so learned Christ the Judge was to give sentence according to the Law or as Ezek 44.24 According to the Judgments of the Lord. I am not ignorant of the ordinary Cavil of Romanists that then the people were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim whether it were according to the Law I distinguish They were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim by an Authoritative Judgment it does not follow by a judgment of discretion in order to their own practise I grant This Romanists cannot deny unless they would devest the people of Reason and turn them into Bruits When Romish Missionaries labour to Proselite people to the Romish perswasion do they not labour to convince them that it 's more rational to believe their Church than to adhere to the Religion of Protestants Is not this to grant them a judgment of discretion How then can they condemn us for that which themselves allow Excellently said Clemens Alex. Stromat lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess the Learned Grotius in loc will not have these words according to the Law to be restrictive yet he denies that from the place the infallibility of the Sanedrim can be concluded the scope of the Statute being not to enjoyn all to believe what the Sanedrim did Decree but only non contra agere non contra docere not to act or teach contrary to the sentence of the Sanedrim How warrantably he thus glosses is not my concern now to examine only it overturns the notion of infallibility But are we not commanded to hear the Church Mat. 18.17 Yes But does it therefore follow that the Church that is her Pastors assembled in a General Council cannot err in matters of Faith who would not smile at such an inference Are we not also commanded to hear not only the Catholick Church in her Oecumenick Councils but also in National or Provincial Assemblies yea and particular Pastors Luke 10.17 He that heareth you heareth me Yet Romanists I hope will not thence conclude either Provincial or National Assemblies let be particular Pastors infallible Can any Romanist prove that the Church Mat. 18.17 is only taken for a Pope or General Council Is there a Text in all the Bible where the Church signifies the Pope of Rome I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to instance it if they can Doth not the word Church in this Scripture comprehend all those Churches which cognosce of effences if therefore that Scripture furnish one argument for infallibility then the particular Churches of Scotland and England might claim infallibility as well as Rome Is it not evident from that context Mat. 18.17 that there we are commanded to hear and obey the Church in her Censures and yet Romanists cannot deny but in her Censures she may err and proceed clave errante because in her decisions of that kind she depends on humane testimony See Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 18. it 's manifest therefore nothing can be concluded thence as to infallibility But how then are we commanded to hear the Church Answ In so far as she adheres to her Commission the Rule of Gods Word and thus she cannot deceive us if she or an Angel from Heaven go beyond that Rule they are not to be heard Gal. 1.8 Yet lastly Giving and not granting that a General Council could not err what 's that to the Pope and his Schismatical Conventicles which have no more of a General Council praeter nomen inane But Matth. 16.18 The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church I ask what Church if the invisible of the Elect then it touches not the question in hand concerning a visible Judge if the Catholick visible Church in her diffusive capacity then it 's yet from the purpose for as such she exercises no Juridical Power if the Catholick visible in her Representatives then he might as well conclude her impeccability as her inerrability for the Devil prevails over Souls by sins of practise as well as by errours in judgment But it 's confessed by all that impeccability of Councils cannot be concluded therefore neither inerrability I must remember him that his Fellow Jesuit Tirin as cited by Maresius controv 5. num 3. says it 's uncertain whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against which should be construed with the Rock or with the Church if it relate to the Rock then the words only affirm that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Rock upon which the Church is built which as Austin and many other Fathers expound is Christ himself yet granting that it were here said that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church how can it be proved that when the Pope or the major part of a General Council is smitten with a lesser Doctrinal errour that the Gates of Hell prevails against the Church Hath he not heard the distinction that albeit in such a case the Gates of Hell valent yet non prevalent they hurt the Church but do not wholly overthrow the Church To conclude all that I suppose can be inferred from that Scripture is that the whole Catholick visible Church shall not err in Fundamentals Indeed if the whole diffusive did err in Fundamentals the Gates of Hell should prevail then the Church should be extinguished But to prove the inerrability of the Pope and his Council from this Scripture the Pamphleter may improve all the assistance Rome can give him in his next Reply But hath not Christ promised to his Church Mat. 28.20 Loe I am with you to the end of the world Answ If every one be infallible who have a promise that God will be with them then every Believer may claim infallibility because of the promise Joh. 14.23 Is the presence and assistance of Christ with every one in the same measure and degree wherein it was to be with the Apostles Is not the promise of the presence of Christ Mat. 28.20 conditionel Doth he not say Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and then Loe in so doing I am with you to the end of the world Hath not then the Church of Rome forfeited her
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
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
to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Iâ—â—dov de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152 and Jesuit Azorins Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after-Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino-Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostelica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustoebium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11.52 Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare augere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an infallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are to be reduced to
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
not having his Works But though Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exeges loc de script cap. 29. Sect. 122. gives an account of other of our Authors not so well satiâ—fied with Luthers German Translation yet he has no word of Zuinglius However they who know the animosities which the Sacramentarian Controversie did breed will not think strange though Zuinglius and Luther used more asperity in Censuring the Works of one another than was fitting The Censure of Carolus Molinaeus is not much to be regarded he being no Divine but an unsetled though Learned Lawyer first a Papist then a Protestant and afterwards with the Dog returning to his Vomit and re-imbracing Popery he breathed forth invectives against worthy men as is usual with Apostates to be haters of their own Sect. This is testified of him by Lucas Osiander Epitom Hist Eccles cent 16. Anno 1566. pag. 802. As for the acknowledgment of Luther that he added the word Sola you may take the Answer of Gerard the Lutheran loc cit Sect. 525. Non verba numeravit sensum exprimere voluit And indeed though I would have Translators to be punctual in their Version of Scripture yet it 's a sure truth that we are justified by Faith alone or as the Apostle saith by Faith without the works of the Law But leaving further to canvase those unadvised expressions of some Protestants Authors which are nothing ad summa in rei I can press Romanists with contrary Verdicts of Popes concerning the Vulgar Latin Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. All they can object to us are but some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no Authority Secondly Therefore I answer that we ought carefully to distinguish betwixt smaller Grammatical Escapes and substantial Errours overturning Articles of Faith It 's not denied but the first may be incident to any Version made by humane industry but I appeal all the Romish Party to try if they can charge the English Translation which is made use of in this Church with any substantial Errour and Article of Faith that had been the most solid way of arguing against us As for the diversities betwixt the English Translation under Q. Elizabeth and K. James 6. I suppose it will be found that both the reading laid aside and that which is substituted are conform to the Analogy of Faith though the one may be more agreeable to the Original and Series of the Context and so is preferrable to the other by which the ingenuity of Protestant Churches may appear they being willing to correct the least failure It were easie to demonstrate that the Papists vulgar Version is often guilty of ill Latin and worse Divinity Who desire an account of the varieties contradictions errours and barbarisms of the Vulgar Latin I refer them to D. James bellum Papale Calov Crit. Sac de Vers Vulg. Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 14. cap. 11 12 13. and to Sixtinus Amama in Anti barbaro Biblic lib. 1. cap. 9 10 11. who also shews cap. 12 13. that Jesuit Serrarius Bellarmine Baptista Baudinus the Reviser of the Vatican Press Lucas Brugensis yea and the Prefacer to the Clementine Version do acknowledge that the Latin Version as lastly corrected by Clement 8. hath yet its own trespasses and deserves further emendation But this is the mischief of Rome's pretended Infallibility that she will rather justly know faults than by amending them humbly confess her self fallible In a word except Romanists can prove that in our Translations there be such 〈◊〉 rours as destroy the substantials of Christianity which though the Conclaves of Rome and Hell do joyn forces cannot be done it cannot be concluded that our Bibles are not a sufficient Ground and Rule of Faith To shut up the Answer to this Objection Richard Cappell in his Remains pag. 30 31. presents this Notion to the consideration of the Godly Learned that seeing the Lord hath commanded his people to hear read and search the Scriptares which the multitude cannot do but in some Translation or other and God being in his Providence very careful that his Church shall not want sufficient provision for their Souls therefore he the said M. Cappell supposes that God ever hath doth and will so assist Translators that for the main they shall not err And indeed though the Vulgar Latin be but too faulty as I have already shewed yet we deny not but it is a Bible and contains the substantials of Religion Neither have I any doubt but many have been converted by it such as Peter Martyr Zanchius Luther Oecâ—lampadius c I am not to adopt M. Cappell's Notion yet should it hold far less could there be ground to Cavil against our Translations as not being a sufficient ground of Faith they being much more pure and agreeable to the Originals than the Vulgar Latin as cannot but be clear to those who have any measure of skill to compare them Objection 2. The Pamphleter pag. 54 55 56. accuses the Original Texts of Scripture as corrupted in comfirmation whereof he alledges that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written that Calvin and Luther questioned the purity of the Originals that there be various Lections in the Hebrew that the Jews Christs professed Enemies five hundred â—ears after Christ iavented the Hebrew Points or Vowels and corrupted the Text but that before this aâ—râ—uption their Vulgar Latin was made that Hereticks also particularly Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had their hand in adulterating Scripture for which he alledges Irenaeus Tertull and Eusebius but cites no place in any of them that we have not the Autographies written by Prophets or Apostles and all Copies are subject to faults In the end he concludes that there is no remedy for these evils without an infallible visible Judge In all this he doth still behave himself like an Atheist Doth he not by concluding the Original Scriptures to be all corrupted raze with one stroak the Foundation of the Christian Religion Is not this a pregnant evidence of the impiety of the Romish Interest and truth of the Protestant Religion that Romanists cannot fight against us but with the Weapons of Infidels for supporting their Babel they will venture the ruine of all Religion ridente Turca nee dolente Judaeo For answer therefore to this Blasphemous Cavil let first the Pamphleters inconsistency with himself be noticed In his former Section he brought Scriptures to prove the necessity of an infallible visible Judge yet here he affirms we cannot know a line of pure Scripture that is not vitiated but by the sentence of this infallible Judge Is not this to intangle himself into a manifest Circle or contradiction Secondly Was this man compos mentis when he brings in Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Eusebius testifying that the Scriptures were corrupted by Arrians Macedonians and Nestorians whereas these Heresies were not broached in the times of most of those Authors Yea further he affirms that the
in the custody of Christian Churches How could Jews corrupt all these Is not this Cavil of the general corruption of the Original Scriptures so impious that many Learned Romanists have appeared against it such as Joannes Isaacus Professor of the Hebrew Language at Colen in his Book entituled Defensio veritatis Hebraicae Sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum Ludovicus Vives in lib. 15. August de civ Dei Arrias Montanus in Praesat ad Bibl. interlin Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth Sanct. Haeres 2. where he expresly says Dici non potest divinas scripturas veteris Testamenti aut Judaeorum aut Christianorum malignitate falsificatas yea he reckons the contrary Opinion as a pestilent Errour and Heresie Not to mention Pagnin Vatablus Marcus Marinus besides many others cited and followed by Lud. de Tena Isagog Sac. Script lib. 1. diff 3. Sect. 2 3. Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. charged Jacobus Chrysopolitanus and Melchior Canus for maintaining as this Pamphleter does that the Jews had corrupted many things in the Original Bible as men not having knowledge proportioned to their zeal However Bell. affirm that some few places in the Hebrew be corrupted wherein also Learned Protestants have laboured to shew his mistake yet he concludes Caeâ—erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent Scripturae Sacrae integritas desideretur They who would see the purity of Original Scriptures asserted at length against Romanists I remit them to Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 12. Rivet in Isagog ad sac script cap. 8. Gerard in uberiori explicatione loc de scriptura cap. 14. Calov Crit. sac de puritate fontium Sect. 93. where the last Author musters up seventeen Arguments for the purity of them to which only I add D. Owens Judicious Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture But against this it is first alledged by the Pamphleter that it 's doubted in what Language same parts of Scripture were written Answer Some question indeed hath been made concerning the Language wherein the Gospels of Mat. and Mark and the Epistle to the Heb. were written but of none else I confess Ancients generally have supposed that Matth. Gospel was first written in Hebrew not only Jerom Praefat. Evang. ad Damas Epist 123. but also Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphan Chrys August c. yet this their Opinion seems to have been founded upon the Tradition of Papias a man of more Antiquity than Judgment says Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. ult And there are Eminently Learned men of Opinion that it was first written in Greek with whom Cardinal Cajetan does joyn neither are the Arguments contemptible by which they are thereunto induced But however even those who maintain that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew do yet acknowledge that it was translated into Greek by a person infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost some by John the Apostle some by James and generally others by an Apostle or Apostolick person and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was always used in the Christian Primitive Church as Authentick Barradius the Jesuit as is testified by Lud. de Tena in Isagog lib. 3. diff 2. Sect. 1. thinks that Matthew himself wrote this Gospel both in Hebrew and Greek I know Baronius prefers the Authority of Matthew in Hebrew to the Greek Dico saith he quod Graecus textus cujus fidei sit nisi collatus cum Hebraeo originali affirmare minime possumus but learnedly is that impious errour of the Cardinal continued by Casaubon in apparat exercit 16. cap. 115. pag. 678. The like I say as to the Epistle to the Hebrews that many have judged that it also was written in the Hebrew Tongue yet there be not only Learned Protestants but also Romanists in the contrary Opinion The Apostles Argument cap. 9. from the nature of a Testament is a strong presumption that it was written in the Greek the Argument concluding forcibly from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so from the Hebrew Berith yet it 's also agreed that at least it was transcribed into the Greek Tongue by an Apostolick person whether Luke or Clement I am not to dispute As for Mark it 's true Baronius and Bellarmine affirm it was first written in Latin if so how then was the Latin Church so unfaithful as to lose that Original Latin written by Mark that being the only Book in Scripture that can be alledged to have been written in Latin For the present Latin Version of the Gospel of Mark is surely translated from the Greek as Cornel. à Lapide in his Preface to his Comment on that Gospel does not only confess but demonstrate by several passages of Mark 's Gospel That fancy of Baronius as if Mark 's Gospel had been first written in Latin is expresly contradicted by Jerom Praefat. Evang. Austin lib. 1. Concordiae Evangelist and Isidore Hispal Praefat. lib. Test Novi who affirm that all the Evangels except that of Matthew were first written in Greek yea the Cardinal is solidly confuted by a Popish Bishop Lud. de Tena Isagog lib. 3. diff 6. Sect. 2. who says its certum apud omnes that Marks Gospel was written in Greek What need I more as to this seeing Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. confesses Quod Graeca editio Novi Testamenti universa Apostolos Evangelistas Authores habeat since therefore we have the Greek Edition of all the Books of the New Testament we have the Scriptures in those Languages wherein holy men infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost did write them The second allegation of the Pamphleter is that Calvin and Luther do sometimes call in question the purity of the Originals What then Are Calvin or Luther with us infallible Judges of Articles of Faith as Jesuits make the Pope May not this allegation be compensed in regard Eminent Popish Authors asserted the purity of the Originals I have looked that place of Calvin lib. 1. Instit cap. 13. cited by this Pamphleter and can assert that Calvin has nothing to that purpose throughout all that Cap. for in it he only disputes concerning the Trinity Nay I find the very contrary in that Book cap. 8. Sect. 10. yea and Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. censures Calvin as preferring too great purity to the Hebrew Text and calling it Purissimum Fontem Luther likewise and his Followers as Chemnitius Gerard Caloviâ—s c. are most zealous Assertors of the purity of the Originals If any thing any where have dropt from those men derogating from the purity of Originals it would but argue a piece of humane frailty in them and of as gross inconsistencies I can convict both Cardinals and Popes It is alledged thirdly that there be to the member of 800 various Lections in the Hebrow Text if he speak of the Keri and Kethib according
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
reciprocal properties of Water but after that the Word was made Flesh the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word as being immutable and the Flesh or his Humane Nature remained Flesh And therefore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him that he had flesh and bonet Luke 24.39 Were it proper here for me to digress to a confutation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious and inconsequential without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge which the Pamphleter and all the Romish Party will not be able to do concerning the Protestant Religion Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy or cauterized Conscience who is bold to say that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnation of Christ Nay he shall find in its proper place that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted not only by other luculent Scriptures but also by these words of Christ This is my Body which they apprehend do most favour their Cause and which the Pamphleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists and by the Apostle S. Paul but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book than with the four Evangelists for one of them namely S. John has not those words where also my argument against M. Demster to this purpose shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types Symbols and Figures of his Body and Blood as they are termed by Fathers then surely he had a real Body and real Blood But does it from this follow that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence Nay on the contrary in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood And here by the way I must advise him not to expose his ignorance to such publick view as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost Hom. 6. as if Chrysost had written Homilies but upon one place of Scripture such Lax Citation will make people suspect that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers as they would make the world believe From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying Sect. 4. and he joyns with him Osiander against Melancton It might be enough to tell him that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology it was as fitly entituled A liberty of Prophecying as the Pamphleters Book Scolding without Scholarship As the one discovered more scolding than either sobriety or Scholarship so the other took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow Quisque suos patimur manes It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks that in the mentioned Treatise he disputed the more sceptically to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions and consequently more tender to himself and others of his perswasion Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean Casuists may determine A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony I leave to be got from D. Shirman for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was objected by F. Johnson cap. 4. num 23. only I add that D. Taylor notwithstanding all his sceptical discourse in that Treatise demonstrates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed and he brings Sect. 6 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament by conferring of Scriptures confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives I am little concerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton for it 's but too well known that Andreas Osiander of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks did unhappily ingage himself in some Paradoxal Dâ—bates with his own Brethren Neither can his own Son Lucas Osiander in Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves how then can he rationally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper against M. Demster pag. 218 219. that it's the Reformed Religion agreed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their conressions which I defend and hope to make good not only against such a Scribler as this Pamphleter but also against the whole Conclave of Rome His digression concerning a private spirit from pag. 69. to 72. being wholly impertinent I judge unworthy of an Answer How oft have Protestants declared to the world they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms or secret objective Revelations This they leave to Quakers and to the Romish infallible visible Judge who having no external infallible Rule to walk by must proceed upon these But the Rule of our Faith is the publick external testimony of the Spirit in the Scriptures If under a pretence of excluding a private spirit he excludes a discretive judgment he excludes the use of Reason which Faith always presupposes or if he exclude the necessity of the Spirits assistance by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture he turns Pelagian and contradicts his own Authors who are constrained to acknowledge it As for any further use of a private spirit I had almost said of a Familiar when he hath cleared his Popes and infallible Judges of it we shall be near a settlement as to that thing An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit what it is and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of
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
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
as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Serene Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far tiss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Were they not written for this end Joh. 20.3 that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1.8 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Herinogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicieutibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut lequamini quae scripta â—â—n sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Serm de Pseudo Prophetis en calce Ephraeâ—ni Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reticuit Hierom. in Micab cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeretici aedisicastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in viciuia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11.
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
denied to other Scriptures containing as necessary truths Seventhly What is that square of Ecclesiastick sense whereto the Pamphleter would level all Scriptural interpretations Is it Tradition Though Protestants with Vincent Lirinensis do grant to Tradition its due place among the means of interpretation of Scripture yet now I must enquire what if a question arise about Tradition it self Has not this Pamphleter told pag. 75. that then all must be referred to the definition of the present Catholick Church that is to their infallible visible Judge and so the result of all these Cob-web distinctions is this They can grant that Scripture is clear in Fundamentals provided nothing be taken as the sense of Scripture but what their Pope or Infallible Judge pleases And consequently when Chrysost Austin c. say that Scripture contains clearly all that is necessary the meaning is that Scripture contains not the Articles of Religion clearly but points to one who can unfold them Are not these goodly glosses which Jesuits put upon Fathers Must the World be cheated with such ludicrous non-sense as if the end of Scripture were to point out their infallible Judge and yet it cannot be known what is Scripture or the true sense thereof but by the sentences of that pretended infallible Judge Are all things in Scripture clear and yet nothing at all clear but to receive its clearness from the Romish Judge who is alledged to be pointed out in Scripture and yet there is not one word of him in all Scripture I pray in what Text of Scripture is the Pope of Rome his Triple Crown and Infallible Chair together with the enthusiastick square of Ecclesiastick sense treasured up in his breast I ingenuously profess I cannot find the place unless it be 2 Thes 2.3 4. or Revel 17.4 5. It 's objected by the Pamphleter pag. 99. that the Fathers who writ Catalogues of Heresies Ireuaeus Tertull. Philastrius Epiphanius Austin c. did not distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and integrals among Divine Truths for they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently as damnable errours The Aerians are condemned as Hereticks by Epiphanius Haeres 75. And Austin Haeres 33. he should have said 53. for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church The Eunomians by Austin Haeres 54. for teaching that no sin could hurt a man if so be he had Faith The deniers of Free-will by Epiphanius Haeres 64. Vigilantius by Hierom for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Jovinian by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginity Pelagians by Austin lib. cont Julian cap. 2. for teaching that the children of faithful Parents need not Baptism as being born holy and the Arrians by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. for not receiving Tradition All which says the Pamphleter is the Doctrine of Protestants Whatever shew this Objection may have with ignorant persons yet I must advertise them it 's but a crambe recocta These Heresies have been often objected by calumniating Romanists Bellar. Breerly c. and as often confuted by Learned Protestants D. Field D. Morton Gerard Whittaker Rivet c. yea and many more Heresies have been retorted cum faenore out of the same Catalogues upon the Church of Rome Briefly therefore I answer two things and first that neither Papist nor Protestant can admit that all the Errours mentioned in the Catalogues of Epiphanius Philastrius Austin c. are Fundamental Are there not many condemned in them for Opinions in matters disputable undetermined and of small consequence and which respectively are acquitted in both sides Hence Alphousus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresiee And Bellar. himself de script Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastrius as Heresies which are not Heresies D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for stigmatizing persons so liberally with Heresie conceives that they used the word Heresie in a more gentle notion than now it is with us and in divers Paragraphs he endeavours to prove that all Errours mentioned in the Fathers Catalogues were not Fundamental yea he questions also whether the Fathers had sufficient Evidence in the matter of Fact to fix every one of these errours upon these persons It will not be amiss here to remember that D. Hackwell in his Apology lib. 3. cap. 8 § 1. records out of Aventinus his Historia Boiorum Anno 745. that Pope Zacharias and Boniface Bishop of Mentz condemned one Virgilius Bishop of Salsburg as an Heretick for holding that there were Antipodes and perhaps were induced hereto by the Authority of Austin lib. 16. de civit Dei cap. 9. and of Lactautius instit lib. 3. cap. 24. If he say that Learned Bishop was guilty of a Fundamental Errour and damned eternally for holding there were Antipodes he will expose himself to the ludibry of any ordinary Mathematician Besides if all be Fundamental Errours which are recorded in the Catalogues of Heresies I am sure Romanists do err Fundamentally Were not the Collyridians condemned as Hereticks by Epiphan Haeres 79. for worshipping the Virgin Mary The Carpocratians by Epiphanius Haeres 27. and by S. Austin Haeres 7. for adoring the Images of Christ and Paul the Angelici by Austin Haeres 39. by Theod. in Epist ad Coloss cap. 2. and by the Council of Laodicea Can. 35. for worshipping of Angels Manichees by Austin Epist 74. for granting Marriage to their Plebeians and persons of less perfection and prohibiting it to those that were more perfect and yet like Romish Monks and Priests they could dally with Concubines Hence Austin lib. 2. de morib Eccles Manich. cap. 3. said of them Quod non Concubitum sed nuptias prohiberent Were not the same Manichees condemned by Leo the first Serm. 4. Quadrages for abstracting the Cup in the Sacrament the Basilidians by Eusebius Hist Eccles cap. 7. and the Helcefaitae for teaching the lawfulness of equivocation and dissembling Religion in time of persecution Is not the Doctrine of Implicite Faith noted as a pernicious Heresie by the Author of the Sermon contradiversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Eusebius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the Nudi-pedales yea Rivet Cathol Orthod Proaem de Haeres reckons forth a Catalogue of fifty Ancient Heresies ingrossed in the Romish Religion When Romanists have considered the affinity of their Tenets with the errours of those Hereticks they may tell us whether they hold all for Fundamental Errours which are reckoned forth in the Catalogues of Heresies I answer secondly that it 's a notorious falshood that the Protestant Churches do own all the particulars mentioned in the Pamphleters Objection I might remit him to the Authors who have long ago
Vertues surely if he in this were Heretical Gerson was Heretical also who both asserts and proves it by many arguments much less can either Wedlock or Virginity merit Heaven as Soto is brought in by Gerard de Eccles cap. 11. Sect. 6. Sect. 2 18. impiously saying Quod Virginitas fit satisfactio peccatorum maxima meritum Regni Coeâ—â—um Have not Popish Authors particularly Espencaeus noted that Hierom was pâ—rum aequas less favourable than in reason he ought to Chaste Matrimony How grosly did Pope Syricius deprave that Scripture Rom. 8 7. to disgrace lawful Marriage If therefore Jovinian ran upon the other extreme to affirm as Bell. de notis Eccles cap. 9. Sect. 13. says of Vigilantius Ecclesiasticos debere esseâ—uxoratos in that he was never allowed by the Reformed Churches they are for a licere not an oportere for the lawfulness of Marriage not for the necessity of it Excellently said S. Hierom lib. 1. cont Jovinianum where he is most in the praises of Virginity Circumcisio nihil est praeputium nihil est sed observatio mandatorum Dei nihil proded absque operibus caelibatus nuptiae As Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing without the keeping of the Commandments so neither Virginity nor Wedlock do profit to salvation without works of holiness But as persons in a married estate are saved if they continue in the Faith so also it is by the same Faith that they which live in a state of Virginity are to be saved To this I only add that of Nazianzen Orat. 11. Cum in haec duo vita divisa sit in matrimonium caelibatum atque hic quidem sublimior divinior sit verum laboriosior periculosior illud humilius tutius neutrum horum Deo nos omnino astringit aut ab eo dirimit Where comparing these two Estates he concludes Caelibat to be more sublime but Matrimony more humble and more safe and that neither of them does either joyn us to God or seclude from him The sixth objected Heresie is that with Pelagians we say the Children of Faithful Parents need not Baptism Had a Jesuit a Forehead capable of blushing he would never have upbraided us with Pelagianism for the World knows that they have indeed licked up the very Excrements of Pelagius as Jansenius hath demonstrated in his Augustinus But as to the Objection we are so from denying the need of Baptism to Infants that we say it 's necessary necessitate praecepti Indeed we dare not be so cruel as to condemn all Infants that die in the Womb and were never in a capacity to be baptized if we be stigmatized for Hereticks upon this account then the Ancient Fathers who by their long delay of Baptism shew themselves to be of the same Opinion must also be Heretical Doth not D. Morton Appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. cite a multitude of Romanists as Cajetan Gerson Catharine Cighius Tilmannus c. as being of the same judgment with us as to these things Are all these Hereticks and Pelagians also If it be said that Pelagians deny the necessity of Baptism also true but on other accounts then Protestants I elagians as supposing Infants guilty of no sin Protestants because Pardoning Mercy is not chained up and limited to means As Blastus the Heretick observed Easter at the time of the Jews Passover so did Polyerates and the holy Martyrs of the Greek Church but the different accounts on which they did it made the one to be held an Heretick and not the other So that the same sentiment held upon different accounts may be heretical in the one and not in the other The seventh and last Heresie is that with the Arrians condemned by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. we do not receive Tradition O stupendious impudency Did ever S. Austin condemn Arrians for not receiving Articles of Faith upon the sole Warrant of unwritten Traditions Doth he not expresly lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. appeal to the Scriptures for decision of Controversies betwixt him and Arrians Nec-ego Nicenum nec tu debes Arimineuse tanquam praejudicaturus praeferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius deteneris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utrisque communibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio câ—m ratiâ—ne concertet Could not the Deity of Jesus Christ which was the Article for which Arrians were condemned be proved by holy Scripture that Fathers behoved to flee to unwritten Traditions Are Romanists so miscarried with their hatred against us that they will shake the Foundations of Christianity to reach us a blow Doth not Bell. confess lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Divinity of Christ which is opposite to the Arrian Heresie habet expressa in Scripturis testimonia Shortly then to rectifie the mistake of this Pamphleter the thing which Austin blamed in Maximinus the Arrian was that Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not found in Scripture and therefore lib. 1. cont Maxim he brings in Maximinus saying Haeâ—voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à rnobis suscipiuntur This Austin solidly consutes lib. 3. cap. 14. shewing that the thing signified by the word was in Scripture Quid est homousion nisi miaus ejusdemque substantiae quid est homousiâ—n nisi ego Pater unum sumus and then appeals to the Scripture for the decision of the whole Controversie with the Arrians Nee ego Nicenum c. Thus have I shewed that the Pamphleters Objection is false in all its grounds as if either all the errours mentioned by Fathers were Heresies against Fundamental truths or that we owned all the errours enumerated in the Objection It 's further objected pag. 89. that Scripture would make a man think that one thing or at most two were necessary to salvation as sometimes the believing one point sometimes the doing of another Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place to Alms deeds in another and Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments teaches a Fundamental which Protestants say is impossible Is not this a daring impiety in a lafcivious Jesuit so to sport with the Scriptures of the Living God as if sometimes they made one thing only necessary to salvation sometime another For answer therefore he would first remember that our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Agenda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the fear of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any
Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4.5 I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E.W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceives it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake not may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsut à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1.8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D. Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impious consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usurpation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks or persens erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be still prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held as such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap.
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
that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 as for that place in Mal. 1. ye will say more then all the Jesuits that have gone before you if you prove that it speaks of your sacrifice of the Mass What is more usual for prophets of the Old Testament then to predict New Testament duties under an allusion to Old Testament rites Have not our Divines brought very considerable arguments to prove that Malachy does not speak of any proper propitiatory sacrifice but of the spiritual sacrifices of Prayer Thanksgiving and other holy actions which Rom. â—2 1 are called a living holy and acceptable sacrifice to God Does not Malachy in that same verse predict that incense shall be offered up although your corrupt vulgar version hath omitted it yet Bell. lib. 1. de miss cap. 10. acknowledges that it is so both in the Hebrew and in the translation of the severny But the incense is without doubt to be understood Metaphorically of the incense of Prayer as Psal 141.1 Why then ought not the sacrifice also be taken in a spiritual sense Doth not the same prophet Malachy speak of Levites also cap. 3. vers 3. and he shall purifie the Sons of Levi. that they may offer unto the Lord an offering of Righteousness and this also in reference to Gospel times as Bellarmine acknowledges cap. cit yet I hope they will not say a proper Levitical Priesthood is to be set up under the Gospel why then a proper sacrifice Hence Mares against Tirin controv 22. N. 5. says that not only the Chaldee Paraphrasts and other Jews but also among Romanists Isidor Clarius and Vatablus did expound the place of spiritual oblitions so also did Tertul. lib. contro Iudaeos as is acknowledged by A lapide Nor are we against the accommodation which Fathers have made of it to the Eucharist as to a commemorative eucharistick or significative facrifice As for the Cavil of Bellarmine Gordon of Huntly Alapide and other popish controversists to pervert this testimony of Malachy to a propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass they are learnedly conâ—ured by D. Morton in his treatise of the Sacrament lib. 6 Cap. 4. and Mares in the place cited not to mention others at the time 16. And lastly Ibid He sayes We protest against all Gods commands and word by taking away free-will in obeying him Does their whole strength consist in lying representations Let the world therefore know we deny not free-will to man we freely assent to Austin Epist. 46. ad Valentinum if there be not grace how shall God save the world if there be not free-will how shall he judge it and with Bernard de gra lib. arb take away free will there shall be nothing to be saved Take away grace there shall not be a mean whereby any can be saved I freely grant that all the exhortations promises and threatnings of the word prove that God deals with men as rational and free Agents Only we protest against two sacrilegious crimes of Jesuited Papists in reference to this matter 1. That under a pretence of exalting mans free-will they overturn the absolute Necessity of the free grace of God as if an unregenerate man could do things truely acceptable to God contrary to luculent Scripture Rom. 8.7.8 Joh. 15.3 Matth. 7.12 Heb. 11.6 Hence Vincent Lirinensis in commonit cap. 34 quis ante profanum Pelagium who ever before that profane Pelagius did so presume upon the strength of free-will as to Imagine that grace was not necessary to every good work And Concil Aurans 2. cap. 7. If any say that by the strength of Nature bonum aliquod quod ad salutem vitae eternae pertinet yea cogitare ut expedit aut eligere too think or choose any thing as we ought Haeretico fallitur spiritu 2. We protest against them for overthrowing the efficacy of the grace of God to exalt the Diana of free Will as if both Elect and Reprobate had a sufficient grace And the reason why one is converted not another were not the predetermining power and influence of grace but because the one by his free-will improves his fufficient grace better then the other Yea the Jesuit Molina spares not to fay that the measure of Grace may be in him who is not converted entitatively more then in him who is converted and yet through the mal-improvment of free-will may miscarry should not this man make himself to differ from another and have wherein to glory contrary to the Apostle 1. Cor. 4.7 how then should God be said to work both to will and to do of his own good pleasure Phil. 2.13 How should these high epithers and elogies be made of the efficacy of Gods working on believers Ephes 1.19 the exceeding greatness of his power toward them that believe What meant Austin when he said that God wrought in us indeclinabiliter I Know it would require something of a Scholastick debate to clear the consistency of free-will with the efficacy of free-grace to which I will not at present digress Only to cut off all the Cavils of litigious Jesuits I lay no more necessity upon the will of man then do Thomists and Dominicans if Jesuits dare not pronounce them Hereticks neither can they us upon this account By this time I hope it may appear that in all these particulars the doctrine of Protestants is conform to the Scriptures and the doctrine of Romanists repugnant thereunto And so it hath befaln this Sophister as did the army of Eugenius the Tyrant the darts which they threw against Theodosius and his imperial Army were driven back by the wind into the faces of them that threw thâ—m I had almost forgot that the Pamphleter pag. 104. remits me to the touch-stone of the reformed Gospel and to the Manuel of Controversies I believe indeed he is better versed in these trifling Pamphlers then either in the Scriptures or writings of Fathers He will not offend I hope that I commend to his perusal the replyes made to these particularly to Mr Tombs Romanism discussed against H. Turbeâ—vile his Manuul of Controversies CHAP. V. Concerning Transubstantiation and the Number of Sacraments IN the seventh Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 126 c. finding him to be of a tergiversing humour so that albeit he was oft cavilling about the ambiguity of Scripture yet would he neither argue against the perspicuity of Scripture nor answer arguments brought for it I could judge no means so probable to convince him of his Errour as to pitch upon some Scriptures which Romanists say do most favour them and to demonstrate that these are clear for us I did begin with that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and offered to do the like p. 129. with other controverted Scriptures such as Luke 22.32 Mat. 16.18 1 Tim. 3.15 Joh. 21.16 But though we exchanged divers papers thereafter Mr. Dempster had never the confidence once to examin that argument against Transubstantiation far less to fall upon other places The
affirm it as well as Luther I can say from an ocular inspection that it 's a gross mistake Yea Bell. l. 2. de Sac. in genere c. 27. confesses that Denys in his Book De Hierarch Eccles which was the proper place of treating of Sacraments omits three of the Romish Sacraments Matrimony extream Unction and Pennance Learned Criticks have demonstrated that the works passing under the name of Denys the Areopagit were not written by the Areopagit Pauls Disciple nor as appears within the three first Centuries neither is that Author of the present Roman Faith nay on the contrary he is ours as to the main substantials in controversy he is not for communions under one kind nor for the Priests sole receiving nor for exhortations lessons and Prayers in a Tongue which people cannot understand nor for invocation of Saints or adoration of Images or Creatures nor for praying for Souls in Purgatory yea nor for Transubstantiation c. as may farther appear cap. 7. who will affirm he is for the Romish precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor less I may say either he hath not read Denys with advertency or he trespasses against the principles of Ingenuity If the Pamphleter can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken by Denys in the strict notion wherein a Sacrament is used in this controversie and that they are applyed by him to the seven Sacraments pleaded by the Romanists and to nothing else I shall acknowledge I have learned a lesson from him Next for Austin the Pamphleter says he hath all the seven Sacraments because forsooth in one place he gives the name of a Sacrament to one and in another place to another but to pre-occupy that cavil in my Tenth paper against Mr. Dempster I did advertise that Austin frequently uses the word Sacrament in a large sense and attributes it to many things which neither Papists nor we hold for Sacraments as to the Sign of the Cross meat given to Catechumens yea to Polygamy insomuch that Bell. lib. 2. de sac in gen cap. 24. Sect. Lotionem pedum non esse Saeramentum acknowledges that not only Austin but also other Fathers as Cyprian Ambrose Innocent 1. called many things by the name of Sacrament which are not proper Sacraments What need I more where ever said Austin or any Father that there be seven proper Sacraments neither more nor less 'Till this be proved is there not reason to hold Romanists as Innovators in this matter How comes this quibling Sophister who answers nothing to what was objected against their five suppositious Sacraments to snarle p. 117. at the Scriptures which I brought to prove Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Sacraments viz. Act. 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. Is his Indignation so great that we admit not their five new coyned Romish Sacraments that he would turn out of the Church Baptism and the Lords Supper which beyond all peradventure are of Divine Institution and of perpetual observation in the Christian Church Did he forget himself when pag. 120. he brought one of the same Scriptures at which here he cavils to prove Baptism to be a Sacrament Doth a Jesuits breath add significancy to a Scripture which signifies nothing from a Protestant Or is his choler moved That I called Sacraments Seals of the Promises of Salvation Did not the Apostle call Circumcision to which Baptisme hath succeeded The Seal of the Righteousness which is by Faith Rom. 4 11. Is not Baptism by Theod. lib. de Divin decret epitome called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the earnest of future good things and the type of the Resurrection to come Doth not Basil lib. 3. contra Eunom say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must first Believe and then be Sealed by Baptism what should I cite Tertul. de paenit or Austin lib. 4. de Bapt cap. 24. might he not have learned from Valent the Jesuite Tom. 4 Disp 3. q. 3. Punt. 1. That Sacraments are in a manner Seals of Divine Promises Doth he not also Punct 3. compare Sacraments to the Seals of Princes annexed to their Patents Ought he not at least to have been better acquainted with the Roman Catechism set forth by Pope Pius Quintus which teaches part 2 cap. 1. q. 7. that when Christ had promised forgiveness of sin and heavenly grace he did institute sensible signs Quibus eum quasi pignoribus obligatum haberemus atque ita fidelem in promissis futurum nunquam dubitaremus that is whereby we might have him obliged as it were by pledges and so we might never doubt of his fidelity in his promises Who could desire a more full explication of Sacramental Seals Doth not the Scriptures at which he cavils sufficiently hold forth that Sacraments are instituted for the obsignation of promises Is not this the ground upon which Peter Act. 2.38 39. exhorts those to be Baptised for the Remission of Sins because the promise was theirs if the Promise was theirs then their sins were already pardoned and so Baptism was to be administred for the obsignation of the Promise But says he there is no mention of Salvation in that Scripture how childish is this objection Is not Salvation contained in the Promise Is there not an Infallible connexion betwixt remission of Sin and Salvation Rom. 8. Whom he justifies them he glorifies Doth he Seal to any remission of Sin to whom he seals not Salvation Can the other Scripture 1 Cor. 11. This Cup is the New-Testament bear any other tolerable sense but that the Cup that is the Consecrated liquor in the Cup was a Seal of the New-Covenant Can any Romanist deny that this proposition The Cup is the New-Testament is figurative Can any say that the Cup was Transubstantiated into the New-Testament If it could have born another congruous sense ought it not to have been declared when this Sophister was quarreling at the sense given by me what needs more doth not Esthius a Popish Commentator in loc give this sense That which is contained in this Cup is that by which the New-Testament Sancitur confirmatur is ratified and confirmed Was it pertinent for this Caviller when oppugning our Doctrine of the Sacraments being Seals of the Covenant to digress as he doth pag. 120. to another question Concerning the efficacy of Sacraments Do we deny their efficacy God forbid The Pamphleter tracing the footsteps of Bell. lib. 2. de effect Sac. cap. 2. says We make Sacraments but nuda signa bare signs But this is an egregious Calumny as may appear not only by the private Writings of Protestants but by our publick confessions particularly the Scottish confession Art 21. Quicunque uobis detrahunt quasi affirmâ—â—emus vel crederemus Sacramenta nihil aliud esse quam nuda vacua signa injuriam nobis faciunt contra manifestam veritatem loquuntur so also the Belgick confession Art 33. We do indeed deny that Sacraments confer grace ex opere
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
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
theft Of the theftuous practises of Jesuits according to these their principles a large account is given in a Tractate entituled The Moral practise of Jesuits Nay they teach how to make Simoniacal transactions without sin by ordering of the intentions as is shewed in Pyrotechnica Loyolana pag. 44. I only add tenthly that Jesuits teach gross violations of the ninth Command not only by their equivocations and mental reservations at which I hinted before but also by saying that it is allowable to defame an Adversary by charging him with crimes whereof he is not guilty as is shewed by Montalt Epist 15. These Principles of Lying being instilled by Jesuits into the Emperesses Ladies the whole Court was put into a combustion by false reports until Quivoga the Capucin convinced the Empress of these pernicious lying Principles of Jesuits Time would fail me in reckoning forth the impious Doctrines of Jesuits these few hints I hope may suffice to demonstrate that the Doctrines of Popery and more especially as maintained by Jesuits have a Native tendency to impiety Well did the Apostle 2 Thes 2. term it a Mystery of Iniquity The Pharisaical Cob-webs of pretended Piety wherewith this Pamphleter from pag. 199. would commend their Religion are easily swept away As 1. He talks of the glorious Temples and Hospitals c. which they have built Have not Heathens and Mahumetans done the like How glorious was the Temple of Diana at Ephesus How stately are the Mosche's of Mahumetans at Constantinople Did not Herod build the Temple of Jerusalem with such magnificence that some think it did exceed the glory of Solomon's Temple Did not Pharisees build the Monuments of the Prophets Is it not said of Apostate Israel Hos 8.14 he hath forgotten his Maker and buildeth Temples Doth he not remember that the same Objection was made of old both by Heathens against Christians and by Arrians against the Orthodox In a word therefore we do allow comely Edifices for the Worship of God and endowments for pious uses It 's the observation of that Learned and Ingenuous Person Doctor Don Serm. on Matth. 5.16 that there have been more endowments for pious uses in this last Century since the Reformation in England than was in any one Century when Popery prevailed only this I must add it 's not curious Fabricks but pure Doctrine and spiritual worship which do demonstrate a true Church but Popish Temples are full of Idols Superstition and Idolatry He objects secondly they have thousands of Monks who have renounced the world and live chastly and contemn riches and pleasures and so have Mahumetans their Votaries and Recluses I believe it will trouble Romanists to give a Scripture Warrant or President from the first times of the Gospel Church for those who could be useful to the Church to shut themselves up in Cells from all converse with men Who knows not how unlike the Monastick life at this present in the Romish Church is from that which at length crept into the Church in ancient times yet we should not so much blame them who betake themselves to Monastick retirements if they gave themselves to the serious study of Mortification and to the true exercise of Religious Duties prescribed in the holy Scriptures But the devotion of Romish Monks is for most part meer Superstition consisting in the observation of some Rules invented by superstitious persons as Francis Dominick c. What impiety is acted under a pretence of Monastick austerity I hinted before Now let any consider what great Mortification it is under a pretence of Poverty to go into stately Palaces endued with rich Revenues under a pretence of Fasting to feed on such chear as a Sensual Epicure would prefer before sumptuous Feasts under a pretence of Chastity to Vow against Marriage which is Gods Ordinance but not against other fleshly impurities Hence Bell. gives this reason why it 's less sin for a Priest to Fornicate than Marry because by Marrying he violates the Vow of Continency implying they vow not against Concubines Lastly many who retire to Monasteries do it either on a tedium of worldly business or discontent or superstitiously to expiate some atrocious crime desperatio facit Monachum But thirdly says he they have Saints as Gregori 's and Leo 's and Caelestin ' s. c. But who gave their Pope power of Canonizing Saints Is not this an Innovation unknown to Antiquity How can the Pope infallibly know the Sanctity of others when he can not be sure of his own Nay have not many of them lived like incarnate Devils Have they not Canonized some for Money others to promote superstitious ends yea some who never were Do not their own Authors such as Cardinal Cajetan question the Popes Infallibility in Canonizing c. I suppose he will not say all their Pope Leo's and Gregori's were Saints I believe not Greg. the Second who pronounced Hezekiah an Heretick for breaking of the Brazen Serpent nor Greg. 9. who tyrannized over Frederick the Second Who may not pass for a Saint among them seeing Greg. 7. that Brand of Hell has a 〈◊〉 in their Calendar why have they not added Leo the Tenth who looked on the Gospel as a Fable to bear him company As for Caelestin's was that Sanctity or Simplicity in Caelestine the Fifth to be cheated by Bâ—niface the Eighth out of the Popedom to an Hermitage But Boniface fearing he might revoke that Sanctity shut him up in Prison where he died for displeasure that he had been fooled out of the Papacy But fourthly He pitches on some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and
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
not that it was not soo eâ— ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. 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 pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters napsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish figment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. 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 and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1. The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz. the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist