literalem sensum alicubt manifeste non tradat and Sixtus Senensis lib 6. Bibliotheca Annot. 152. Affirmes that part of Scripture apertam esse dilucidam quae complectitur summa rerum credendarum principia pracipua bene vivendi praecepta exempla So that were I not resolved to keep you at your worke as an Opponent it were easie thus to redargue all which you have said If the Scriptures be clear in all that is necessarie to Salvation then the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath a clear ground to prove it self to be a true Religion But the first is true Ergo. The Sequell of the Major is so clear that your Romanists have no other evasion but to accuse the Scriptures sometimes of obscuritie sometimes of ambiguity as being capable of divers yea of contrarie senses And in this you imitate the old Hereticks as appears by that luculent testimonie of Irenaus lib 3. cap 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi variè sint dicta non possit ex bis inveniri veritas ab iis qui nesciunt traditionem The assumption is proved at length by PROTESTANTS in the controversies De Perfectione Perspicuitate Scriptura When you have tryed all the art of Iesuitical Sophistrie to disprove these popular discourses as in the height of your Spirit you are pleased to terme them I hope you shall find them both solid and impregnable This may silence your clamour that I should produce a ground by which the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be proved for you suppose that you are tyed to no more but to presse me to produce the grounds of the PROTESTANT Religion that you may impugne them But to silence this your vociferation you may remember first that I have demonstrated that you are tyed to doe more Had you indeed undertaken to prove the Hypothesis of the Atheist that there is no true Religion at all in this case you might have demanded of me a ground to prove a True Religion But when you affirme that there is a True Religion which hath peculiar grounds which can be verified of none else you were tyed to have produced these grounds and to have demonstrated that they could not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS Especiallie I having solemnlie appealed you to instance one ground requisit to prove the true Christian Religion whith is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS Secondly You had not onely in the generall affirmed that the True Religion had grounds to prove it self but you had particularly condescended upon one namely the knowledge of the assistance as seems infallible of the Clergie In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture before the true sense thereof can be known Whereupon in my last I told you this was expressly denyed by us PROTESTANTS and therefore appealed you if you could to prove it But you have been so farr from doing it that you have shamefully flinched from it as shall a little after appear But thirdly I have Ex superabundanti though not tyed thereto by rules of disputing given you a Ground of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS namely The Perspicuity of the Scriptures but not excluding the use of means in all things necessary to Salvation which you might have collected from that Intrinseck objective evidence of which I spoke from the beginning Onely remember that you call not upon me to prove this though it were easie to doe it and hath been done times without number by PROTESTANTS in their debates against your Romanists But now we are to keep the rules of disputing and you have acknowledged that it is your concernment As the Impugner when a ground is produced to impugne it And therefore you must either doe your worke or else become so ingenuous as to confesse that you are not able to impugne the truth of God In the mean time trouble me not with the cavils of your fellowes which have been often already refured by our Divines else I will remit you to the Authors who have examined these Sophisms before But if you have any new thing worthie of consideration you may propose it I wish you were moved by such principles as he who said 2. Cor. 13.8 We can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth Yet doe you as you will Fortis est veritas praevalebit I had shewed you in my last that your whole discourse concerning your foure Synonime propositions was both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wide from the purpose and likewise inconsistent with your Tridentine faith Yet so rare a disputant are you that you make no returne to these things what can I conclude but Qui tacet consentire videtur The reasons which I brought have so farr prevailed with you as to make you explicitly grant that of two propositions Objectivly Synonims the one may be brought to prove the other except when both are equally in controversie But this can be of no use for you in the present case untill you disprove the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in these things which are necessarie to Salvation which I beleeve you will finde beyond your reach This Hypothesis also takes off the cavill of Heretiks pretending a conformity with Scripture for these Hereticall vapours cannot stand before the radiant beams of Scripture-light You discover both your Humour and Ignorance in alleaging that it was a Shift in me to say That Religion being a complex of many truths it could not be proven at once Suppose a man had an hundred pieces to be tryed whether they be upright Gold or not Can I beseech you this be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone Suppose there were an hundred lines to be examined whether they be straight or crooked Can this be done but by applying each of them to the Rule Even so there being a multitude of points of Religion to be tryed whether they be agreeable to Scripture or not How can this be done but by comparing each of them with the Scripture I have admired nothing more since my encounter with you then your flinching toward the end of your Fourth Paper from your own Principle Viz. That the knowledge of the assistaence of the Clergie In actu primo is a necessarie prerequisite before the true sense of any Scripture can be known from which I had concluded you to be involved in an Inextricable contradiction I had besides reflected upon a Paradoxall yea and implicatorie notion of yours That something might be affirmed of an universall object distributively taken which cannot be affirmed of every particular under that universall I likewise discovered your Childish and inconsistent discourse concerning that word of David All men are liars I shew further that your last Dilemma concerning the Clergies assistance did fall so heavily on your own head that your Romists could have no infallible certaintie that they had any Clergie at all let be that they had this pretended assistance
Ancient Church And to instance if you can One difference in essentialls betwixt the faith of the Ancient Church and our Religion else it must be held for confessed that our Religion which you so much reproach is The truely Ancient Christian Religion and yours but the tares which the envyous one did latly sow in the Lords field and that your pretence to Antiquity is no better then the Gibeonits mouldie bread Ies 9.5.12 Towards the Conelusion you are so discreet as to upbraid me as Altogether ignorant of the nature of supernatural faith Because foresooth I would not acknowledge That the assent of faith which is given to articles of Religion must be founded upon the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounders thereof I suppose you meane the Clergie of whome you spake in your former Papers But First were you not concemed if you had looked to your reputation before you had taken the boldnesse to reproach me for Ignorance in this matter first to have cleared your self from these Contradictions wherein I have demonstrated you to be involved from your former assertions concerning This infallible assistance of the Clergie Secondly were you so shallow as not to discerne that you intangle your self in a New contradiction by this your present discourse For if everie supernatura assent of faith to a divine truth must be founded upon The foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder thereof then the first assent to The necessity of the foreknowledge of this assistance in the Propounder must presuppose it as being according to you An Act of supernatural faith And yet it cannot presuppose it because it is the first assent which the person hath concerning that assistance And consequently if it did presuppose a former knowledge of that assistance it should be first and not first Is not this a goodly Religion which you have that you cannot move one step in mantainance thereof without intangling your self still in contradictions But Thirdly either This necessity of the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder of divine truths which you make the foundation of all supernatural faith can be proven or not If not then all your faith is founded upon a fancie which cannot be proven If it can be proven why shunne you to doe it I haveing so often required it of you But now I will lay this Dilemma about you If it can be proven either it must be from Scripture or from some Unwriten Word to use your Romanists phrase Not from Scripture for according to you no sense of Scripture can be known unles first the Infallible assistance of the propounder thereof be known and therefore when one doubts of the infallible assistance of the proponer it is impossible according to your principles that this can be proven from Scripture Nor can you prove it by any Unwriten Word For you have asserted in your former Papers that a point of Religion To be true and to be conforme to the Writen Word of GOD are Synenima's and that the one of these cannot be proven before the other Therefore you cannot prove the truth of this point conceming the Clergies assistance meerly by an unwriten Word else it should be known to be true before its conformity to the writen Word were known which is the Contradictorie of your former assertion But besides to know the sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition or what ever else you will runne to as distinct from the Scriptures of GOD there is as great necessitie of The foreknowledge of the assistance of the propounder thereof as for the knowing of the true sense of Scripture And therefore before I assent to the true sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition by a supernatural Act of faith I must first know that the propounder is guided by an infallible assistance and consequently when one doubts of this infallible assistance of the propounder neither can it be proven by anie Vnwriten word Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition Expede your self from this Dilemma if you can without destroying your own principles by which you are locked up in Contradictions Nay more I here freely offer will you or any prove to me either From Scripture or Vniversal Tradition That the foreknowledge of such infallible assistance of your Clergie is a necessarie prerequisite before I can give a supernatural assent of faith to an article of Religion and I will turne Romanist Can I make a fairer proffer to you Will you not have so much compassion upon me as to make me your Proselyte But I may divine here and not be a Propher you will as scone remove the Earth out of its place according to Archimedes bold undertakeing as to prove your Hypothesis from either of these forementioned grounds Fourthly when you talke so liberally of this Assistance of the Propounder of articles of faith ought you not to determine whome you meane by This Propounder I hope you extend it not to all the people nay nor to all who have received Orders It was 〈◊〉 pretended that everie one of these was infallible whether therefore is it the Pope or General Council or both that you meane If you cannot agree among your selves who this Infallible Propounder is doe you not reel as to the Foundation of your faith I therefore require you againe to determine to me if you can An Infallible Propounder of articles of faith agreed upon by you Romanists and to produce the evidences for this infallibity from Scripture or Vniversal Tradition or Canon of general Council You would make the world beleeve that you had an infallible Propounder of divine truths and yet you cannot agree who he is Nor have any of the parties into which you are broken in this matter Evidence from your Romish principles for the infallibility of him or them whom they would place in Appâ—llo's chaire Pitch therefore on whome you will as your Iufallible Interpreter and let us see if his Infallibilitie can abyd the Test. Who knowes not how impiouslie your Popes have erred and that both In cathedra and extra cathedram How Pope Liberius subscrived to to the Arrian confession of the Council of Sirmium and to the condemnation of Athanasius How Pope Honorius being consulted by Sergius of Constantinople gave out sentence for the Monethelite Heresie How Pope Iohn the twentysecond denyed the immortalitie of the Soul Yea not to insist further in takeing this Dung-hill your own Platina in the life of Stephanâ—s the sixth records that it is almost the constant custome of the succeeding Popes to infringe Or wholly abrogate the decrees of their Predecessors Are these the infallible propounders of divine truths upon which our faith must be built It were easie also to give an account of the errours and lapses of Councils though I should be loath to derogat in the least from their due esteeme I shall therefore at present but mind you of that luculent testimonie of Austin lib. 2.
to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search where the True Religion is to be found prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting meerlie in this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be the True Religion which hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion You denying here the Subsumption were advertised of this one thing that a true principle or ground is not an indifferent nature but is essentially determined to prove and infer onely truth and so not to produce any thing for a principle or ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion which may serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be true After much fluctuation and many shifting toes and froes at lentgh you have pitched on two things which you say you will mantaine as solid grounds to prove the Protestant Religion to be true and to be distinguished from all false Religions The first is The perspcuity of Scripture in all points necessary to Salvation But it was showne you the great jugling that lyes under this answere For first by Scriptur of which is affirmed that it contains perspicuously all things necessary to Salvation must be understood the true letter and the true sense of the true letter of Scripture Ergo it cannot serve for a ground to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion except it be first proven that the Protestants hath both the true letter and Translation and likewise the true sense of the letter To this in which the maine point consists you give no answere nor brings no proofe but onely remits me to read your Protestant Authors whome you call Champions and who as you say have made all thir things clear as the Sun But wherefore doe you not produce the reasons of these your Champions that they may be examined and impugued Secondly It was asked how you could so boldly affirme that all things necessar to Salvation or rather that all the tenets which the Protestant Religion holds as necessary to Salvation were contained clearly in Scripture except first Drawing op a catalogue of all things that the Protestant Religion holds as points necessary to Salvation and as contradistinguished from all other things not necessary To this you answere now that a Proposition in generall may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of all particulars contained in it So we beleeve that all the dead shall rise though we cannot give a particular account of their persons But it seems this answere hath escaped your penne when you were thinking on other things For though I beleeve a proposition in generall when that proposition is revealed in generall But where is it revealed that all the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds for points nocessar to Salvation are clearly in Scripture For giving and not granting that this generall proposition All things necessar to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture were revealed by Scripture it self attesting it yet it doeth not follow that this other generall proposition is revealled All the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture or that they may be clearly deduced out of things clearly set down in Scripture Ergo it cannot be an object of divine faith but by deduceing it by Induction of particulars And to this serves your own example of a purse full of an hundred pieces of Gold for though I may beleeve in general that all the gold contained in that purse is upright gold if this were revealed in general by a sufficient authority yet prescinding from all authority affirmeing this I cannot assent that they are all and none excepted upright gold except taking them all one by one and putting them to the tryall because if only one of them were not upright the whole assent would be false Thirdly Though you say all things necessar to Salvation to be clearly set down in Scripture yet you require the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true knowledge of thir things and being demanded to specifie thir middes and what you meane by the due use of them And for answere to this you bring now onely a long Digression about rules to interpret Scripture slightin the maine print which is to show in this a difference betwixt you and these of a false Religion and whether these of a false Religion may not use as duely these middes as you can doe for attaining to the true sense of Scripture To this you onely answere that De facto they doe not use duely these middes and That the God of this world hath blinded their minds c. But what if they apply this to your self The second ground that you have pitched upon to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion and to be distinguished from all false Religion Is the conformity it hath with the doctrine of the first three Centuries But this cannot be a ground distinct from the conformity which you say your Religion hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Because giving and not granting that your doctrine had this conformity you cannot by this prove that it is a true doctrine since by you All these were fallible and might have erred And conformity with doctrine that may be error cannot serve to prove a doctrine to be true And if you reply that though they were fallible and might erre yet they did not erre because the doctrine they gave is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo the conformity with them is not a ground distinct from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Or else you might prove the conformity with the Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion to be a ground to prove the truth of your Religion and a distinct ground from the conformity which these Acts hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make good that the conformity of your Religion with the doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries is a distinct ground from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture you must give some Authoritie to the Fathers who were then whereby they were preserved from error though of themselves they were fallible And this must consist either in some intrinsecal quality inherent in them or in some special extrinsecal assistance founded on Christs promite And here you have likewise to prove that this
But all these My five answeres you passe so accurat an Antagonist are you except one branch of one reason in my Fourth Reply which also you misrepresent For you propose it as if I bad granted that a catalogue of necessarie truths could not be drawne up which you will not find in all my Paper That which I said was Cannot this general be proven that all things necessarie are contained in the Scripturs unlesse a precise catalogue of them be drawn And I brought sundrie instances to prove that an universal proposition might be proven without an induction and enumeration of al the particulars Yea your self here confesses That when an universal proposition is revealed or that revealed from whence it may be deduced then the universal proposition may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of particulars Whereupon I subsume But in Scripture that is revealed from which it may be concluded by firme consequence that all things necessarie to Salvation are contained in Scripture Ergo by your confession it must be granted that this universal proposition ought to be beleeved That all necessarie truths are contained in Scripture though a particular induction of these truths could not be made The Assumption is easily proven by all these Scripturs in which it is held forth that the Scripture is sufficient In suo genere as a rule to bring us to Salvation which you will find accumulated by our divines in the controversie De perfectione Scripturae And I instanced some of them in my last Paper purposlie to preoccupie this poor evasion of yours though you have not had the boldnesse to medle with them Hence Austin in Epist. 166. In Scripturis didicimus Christum in Scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam And Lib. De unitate Ecclesi cap. 3. Non audiamus haec dice haec dicis sed haec dicit Dominus Sunt certe libri dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi discutiaemus causam nostram And a little after Nolo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis Sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari And in cap 19. Vtrum ipsi Namely the Donatists Ecclesiam teneant non nisi de divinarum ScripturaruÌ„ libris canonicis ostendant The evidence of these testimonies made your own Stapleton In lib. 1 De principiis fidei cap. 24. To say Ecct apertissime dicit Augustinus in Scripturis quaerendam esse Ecclesiam ex ipsis Scripturis demonstrari Ecclesiam Hoc sane totum verissimum est So sayeth your Stapleton This truth is so clear that Theodoret was bold to say Dial. 1. Noli mihi humanis ratiocinationibus obstrepere ego enim in sola divina Scriptura acquiesco Dial. 3. Non adeo confidens sum ut ausim aliquid affirmare quod Scriptura silentio praeterit And Austin de bono Viduitatis cap. 1. Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit But perhaps now you think to betake your self to that subterfuge which you foist into the second edition of this Objection Giveing and not granting say you that all things necessarie to Salvation were clearly revealed in Scripture yet doth it not follow That all these things which the PROTESTANT Religion holds as necessary are clearly revealed therein But this poor evasion discovers grosse ignorance and inadverrence in you For if you had remarked what I have said in the explication of the termes in my First Paper you would have seen this preoccupied There I told you that by The Religion of PROTESTANTS we understand onely The True Christian Religion as revealed in the holy Scripturs And consequently where ever these things are revealed which are necessarie according to The True Christian Religion there also the necessarie points of Our Religion are revealed And to evidence that the Religion of PROTESTANTS and the True Christian Religion is the same produce if you can any one point which we hold as necessarie to Salvation which is not necessarie according to the True Christian Religion revealed in Scripture and I professe I will instantly disowne it and I know so will all ingenuous PROTESTANTS I Therefore warned you from the beginning when you undertooke to impugne our Religion that you undertooke the cause of an infidel namely to impugne the Christian Religion Hence some have well observed that they who would speake properly should not terme our Religion the PROTESTANT Religion but the Religion of PROTESTANTS It is not Religio PROTESTANS but Religio PROTESTANTIVM or the True Christian Religion professed by them who doe reject and protest against Popish errors and inventions Since therefore all the points that are necessarie to Salvation according to the True Christian Religion are revealed in Scripture as hath been confirmed by luculent testimonies both of Scripture and Antiquity for I will not be addebted to you for your Concessions then all the points which the Religion of PROTESTANTS holds necessary to Salvation are therein likewise revealed And consequently as you would beleeve all the pieces in a purse to be upright Gold if it were attested to you by a sufficient authority So you may beleeve all things necessarie to Salvation to be contained in Scripture this being attested by divine authoritie Or if you will not acquiesce to all this evidence of reason produce one article necessarie to Salvation or acknowledged by us to be such which is not contained in Scripture Let it be brought to the Touch-stone and examined But it seems ye Jesuits are more exact in trying your pieces of Gold then points of Religion For your pieces of gold must either have the Attestation of a sufficient authority or be brought to the Touchstone But you can take the points of your Religion Implicitly upon trust and your interest so bribes your judgement and affections that you will not come to the tryal by which the cheat may be discovered In your third Cavil you had propounded sundry idle Queries concerning the Means of interpretation of Scripture insinuaâ—ng That the use of these means is inconsistent with the Scripturs perspicuity In reply whereto I First not onely shew That the perspicuity of Scripturs was nothing impeached by the use of means of interpretation but also did prove both from Scripture and reason the Scripturs to be perspicuous Secondly I remembred you that your Romanists were as much concerned as we in resolving the questiones Concerning the means of interpretation of Scripture and besids that they were tyed to find out means for the sure interpretation of Canons of Councils Buls Breves Decretals of Popes many wherof ar purpostie contrived like Appollo's dubious Oracles to ludifie the Reader Thirdly I shew that PROTESTANTS devised no new Means of interpretation which were not still approven by the Christian Church and therefore to avoide prolixitie I remitted you to Augustin His foure books de Doctrina Christianâ— and withall to sundrie famous PROTESTANT Authors particularly to Chamier Whitaker Zanchre and Gerard to whome now I
Catholick Church in the Second or Third Centurie and argue thence as from a Principle especially when he hath to doe with an Adversarie who may admit the faith of the Ancient Church as a Test and will decline the Scriptures under pretext of obscarity or ambiguity Yea as I have said before A Divine may in such a case argue from the faith of one true Particular Church Suppose that an Original writ were either lost or blotted and blurred from which there hath been several Transumpts taken and that there were two persons pretending to have Transumpts but each of them questioning the fidelity of the others Transumpt This Question could not be decided by the Original it being supposed either to be lost or blotted utterly and blurred and neither of the two Parties willing yeeld to one another But there being found another Transump which both the Parties acknowledge to have been the First Copie that was taken from the Original Could there be any way so good for decyding the Question next to the compareing of both the Transumpts with the Original if it could be had or were clear as to compare the two controverted Copies with this uncontroverted Transumpt In this case would not he who shunned to bring his Copie to the tryall leave a strong presumption that his Paper were but a forged draught Now though all the authority which the unquestioned Transumpt hath was derived from its conformity with the Original yet in these circumstances it may have the place of a Test to distinguish betwixt true and adulterat Copies The application is obvious The Papists like old Hereticks accuse Scriptures as being blotted and blurred yea as in a manner lost The Originals if you may be beleeved being corrupted albeit indeed Scripture is clear and by the good hand of GOD preserved to this day Yet seeing you sometimes seeme to magnify Antiquity as if you did acknowledge the faith of the Ancient Church to be a faithful Transumpt from that authentick Original of the Scriptures what more condescension can we PROTESTANTS in this case show to you Then seeing you will not be judged by the Scriptures which are out Heavenly Fathers authentick Testament then I say to acquiesce that the cause betwixt us be tryed by that Transumpt which you seeme to acknowledge And when you decline this tryal also doth it not speake you out to be real Prevaricators and Cavillers But because some may wonder whence it is that you doe not onely decline a tryall by Scripture but also by Antiquity I will here open the Mysterie that lurkes under it Though you Romanists seeme somtimes to magnify Fathers Councils and Antiquity yet there are none who set them more at nought then you as if you put me to it I will make good by particular instances And therefore laying them aside it is onely your present Romish Church that is your sure Author-hold And by your present Church your Jesuited Partie meanes only the Pope I doe not stander you Hear your great Champion Gretser who comes in to succour Bellarmin at a dead lift Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bellarmin De ver be Dei colum 1450. Quando Ecclesiam dicimus esse omnium controversiarum fidei juaicem intelligimus Pontisicem Romanum qui pre teâ—pore praesens naviculam militantis Ecclesiae moderatur When we affirme sayeth 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 So that there is no security for your unhappie Religion unlesse ye be made Chancelours in your own Assyze If it be asked how shall any know that the Romish Church is the True Church The answere must be because she that is her head the Pope sayes she is the True Church If it be againe asked how shall it be known that the Pope is the Head of the Church The answere must be because he sayes he is it But how shall it be known that he is Infallible in so saying The answere must be because he sayes this is his prerogative And how shall it be known that the Romish Religion is the onely True Religion The onely plaine answere is because the Pope whose grandour is mantained thereby sayes it is the True Religion And how shall it be known that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is a Wrong Religion Because forsooth the Pope whose triple Crown is shaken by the Religion of Protestants sayes that it is an heretical Religion Alace abcel that poore simple people should be so miserably cheaâ—ed and seduced GOD I trust will erre long open their eyes to see these damnable impostures You had asserted in your last That every supernatural act of faith must be founded on the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the Popounders of divine truths To which in my last I had Replyed many thing most of which according to your custome you never once touch I must therefore reminde you of the heads of them As First you were demanded who these Infallible Propounders are Whether you Romanists can agree upon them Whether you can produce grounds for their infallibility from Scripture or Universal Tradition I hope you will not pretend every one of your Shavelings to be infallible Yea I brought luculent evidence that both Popes and General Councils may erre and have erred Secondly I asked whereupon the Faith of these pretended Infallible Propounders was builded and wherein they differed from Enthusiasts Thirdly supposing Pope or Council or both had this Infalliblity yet seeing the people receive their sentence from the mouth of such fallible and fallacious persons as you how can they be assured that either you have not taken up the sense of their Decrees wrong or that for base ends you doe not falsifie them And Fourthly how it can be known who are your Clergie men that are gifted with this assistance seeing the efficacie of Sacraments of which Ordination with you is one dependeth on the secret intention of the Priest But none of these doe you once touch Are not you fitter to be a Trencher Chaplaine to a Biggotted and implicit Proselit then a Disputant I Might here also comit you with the late Patrons of your Traditionarie Way particularly with Master Cressy who in his Exomologesis Cap. 51. Sect. 4. Acknowledges That the pastors of the Church proceed not now as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the holy Spirit but with prudential collection not alwayes necessarie and that to the Apostles such an infallible certainty of means was necessarie but not so now to the Church And in his chap. 40. Sect. 3. He acknowledges the unfortunatness of that word infallibility And said that he could find no such word in any Council and that there appeared no necessity to him that any PROTESTANT should ever have heard that word named let be pressed with so much earnestness and that Master Chillingworth hath combated that word
then apologize for me One Objection must needs be removed It may be asked how I doe charge the Iesuit as declyning to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity seeing he profers at lest to have one Controversie examined by Scripture Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments But let any rational person though a Romanist if he can but dispossesse his own mind of prejudice cognosce whether my Charge be just How disingenuous the Iesuit was in that seeming profer concerning the number of Sacraments is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered And 1. When did the Iesuit make this profer Only in his tenth or last paper imeÌ„diatly before his getting out of the nation Why did he it not sooner especially seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before and he had been frequently appealed to a discusse of particular Controversies Did he not in former papers positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity By Scripture because as he affirmes paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture By Antiquity also because sayeth the Iesuit paper 5. page 61 This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion Yea doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries in his 9. paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming profer at such a time after so many declinaturs ingenuous Romanists may judge But secondly Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures Transubstantiation Adoration of Images Communion under one kinde Papal indulgences Apocrypha bookes the Popes Supremacie over the whole Catholick Church and his Jurisdiction over Princes Yea had it not been shewed as the breviry of missives would permit that the Church of Rome doth grosly erre in all these Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these Let Romanists therefore againe judge whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity to prove the present Romish Religion erronious in all the foresaid particulars and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments doeth shew a through willingnesse to have the Truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity Thirdly If there he any Controversie tossed betwixt Rom mists and us where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies is not this it which the Iesuit hath pitched upon coÌ„cerning the number of Sacraments Must it not be acknowledged on all hands that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense a man may affirme that ther be more or fewer Sacraments But of this you may see more at length in the Aâ—swere to the Jesuits tenth paper page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural tryal who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies and only betaks himself to this wherein the Adversarie may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies But fourthly Doth the Jesuit really profer to have that on Controversie concerning the number of Sacraments betwixt Papists and us decyded by Scripture Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor fewer which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church Nor at all What then Only that he might seeme to say something he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments or that there be no more then two which is in very deed to require me to prove the Negative while he himself declynes to prove the Affirmative viz. That there is not only more then two but compleatly seven Though the Iesuits demand be irrational I hope I have satisfied it in its own proper place But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us concerning the number of Sacraments were not decyded except it be proven that there be precisely seven neither more nor fewer If there be not a precise septenary one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground Consequently the Iesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural tryal untill he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments which as yet he hath not done nor I believe will adventure to doe He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here But neither I suppose will these serve his turne But Fifthly what are all these ensuing papers but a demonstration of the Iesuits tergiversing humor In his first paper he proposed foure postulata like so many Oracles I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogisme but could never thereafter adventure on a second which was retorted in better forme against the Popish Religion more wayes then one but these Retortions to this houre remaine unexamined I denyed the Assumption of that long studied Syllogisme but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof In that Assumption the Iesuit had said that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture To repell that bold allegeance I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture which either the True Christian Religion hath or that the Popish Religion can pretend to which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants But he could never be moved to produce any Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders or to answere Arguments against their Infallibility At length being outwearied with his tergiversing I produced positive Grounds for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures and the disconformity of theirs viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and Conformitie with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries Hereupon he positively declyned both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries as a test to find out the Truth of Religion Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any viz Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine and the sense which Romanists impose to
the writing of this a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me correcting somewhat the dresse of it but nothing the matter which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition Reader know That the Corrections in the second Edition of the Iesuits second paper were only of some trespasses of Orthography which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER The Jesuits third paper An Answere to a Reply of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he labours to justifie that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion were not meere shifts and evasions May 5. 1666. YOUR reply is stuffed with words wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you calling them none-sense raw and indigested that you have a faint disputant that the matter is Recocta crambe c. But doe you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum Since every one who hath a tongue and penne may say or writ what he pleases or why may not all thir things be reponed with as good reason to your self calling you a faint disputant and that your discourses are raw and indigested and so a matter of so great importance as to discerne a True Religion from a false shall be resolved in a flyting whereof you have this advantage to have the first word Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way I propone to you againe this point that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimes at eternall happines after this life or intends to save his soule is obliged in conscience to quite it and to search for the True Religion prescinding or abstracting for now where this True Religion is to be found and insisting for the present in this only point that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it and assure your self that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta and alwise set before you till by sufficient heat you disgest and make good substance of it This point we proved by this one Syllogisme which againe is repeated to you That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Therefore the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion Here you deny the Subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and consequently you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a Religion grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and being pressed to produce your grounds to prove the truth of your Religion in stead of solide grounds you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions The first is That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti that is if they doe not alwise prove the defect is not in the Religion or in the grounds considered in themselves but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applyed But it was told you that it was a meer shift and that your obscure termes being resolved in good Scots signifies onely that your Religion hath objective and intrinsecall truth or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD but so that it is destuute of all speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answere can have no other sense but this is proven because all thir foure propositions are Synonima to wit A Religion to be a True Religion A Religion to be conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture A Religion to have objective and intrinsecall truth and evidence A Religion that is able to convince if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity These foure propositions being all Synonims and signifying the same thing and so all equally in controversie you cannot prove one by another but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium otherwise you must grant that your answere is a meer shift and which in good Scots signifyes only this That your Religion is true in it self but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true and so we must beleeve it to be true only because you say that it is And with this I set againe before you this Recocted Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that it is a True Religion that it is a Religion conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsecall truth and evidence that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed or else it hath no speciall ground or principles whereby all thir can be verified of it If it have speciall grounds let them be produced and examined if it have none let an ingenuous confession have place that it is groundless and destitute of all principles whereby it can prove these foure Synonime propositions to agree to it Which is confirmed because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false may affirme with as good reason and pretend that all these foure fore-named Synonime propositions may be verified of their Religion To wit that their Religion is a True Religion that their Religion is conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that their Religion is true Ex parte objecti and hath objective and intrinsecall grounds that their Religion is evident and true if it meet with an intellect well disposed All the answere and disparity you give is that they are fools and ye wise men that they are blind and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you with as good reasons as you doe to them The other shift that in stead of a solide ground you brought was this that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle to prove in generall your Religion to be true because Religion say you is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another But this answere is a meer shift whereby you would decline the onely and maine difficultie by bringing in a whole body of controversies which likewise can no wayes help you Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths to
be conforme to the true sense of such a text of Scripture you must first by some speciall ground or principle prove that your Clergie Men hath In Actu Primo such assistance and habilitie as is prerequired in men who should give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture since everie false Religion may pretend that they give the true sense though contrarie to the sense that you give To this you reply that it is a contradiction to say that before other particular proofs be proved to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God it must first be proven that their Clergie hath such abilitie and assistance in actu primo as is requisite to give the true sense of Scripture Because say you this same that the Clergie should have in actu primo such assistance is one particular truth and so if it should be proved before every particular truth it should be proved before it self And it seems you have great compleasance and are fallen in love with this answere as with a prime and unswearable subtilitie backing it both with prose and meeter and likewise advertiseing me to consider it But I likewise advertise you to consider how that in this you fight only with your own shadow For first may not a proposition be in it self one and particular and yet have an object universall in the which though it be contained yet the thing affirmed of that object doe not agree to it otherwise ye would by this prove that David contradicted himself when he pronounced this proposition All men are liars for if all men be liars and David be a man then he was a liar in saying all men are liars Next what makes it to the purpose whether the necessitie of particular assistance in actu primo in Clergy men to give the true sense in other particular truths what imports I say that this is so of an generall object that it is in it self one particular truth distinct from the rest it being sufficient that it be such a particular truh of whom other truths depends and of the which the people must first be convinced before they can be perswaded that other particular points proponed to them are revealed in such texts of Scripture Wherefore take this Recocted dilemma againe either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds or principles whereby mens understanding can be convinced that their Clergie is qualified In actu primo with such assistance and habilitie as is requisite to perswade the people that they give the true serse of the letter of Scripture or they have no such grounds or principles If they have then let them be produced and examined If they have no such grounds and principles they cannot exact of people to beleeve their glosse as the word of GOD since without this particular and interior assistance they can onely guesse at the true sense of the text of Scripture As to that you desire againe that I signe my answere with my name and that you require this because you would know with whome you deal and because it hath been observed to be one of the Romanists practises when they have the worst in debates to alleadge it was no Scholer that sustained such debate but some obscure person But good Sir in what Register did you find such a practique or whether they may not with greater reason be turned over upon your selves and who will not smile to hear you compare your self and your Divines with Catholick Authors Since it is known that the most part of the doctrine that you vent either in Pulpits or Schools is copied out of them The thing then desired of you is that you answere to the reasons proponed not careing by whom they be proponed Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits third Paper An Answere to a third Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan IS it not Ominous that this your third Paper beginneth with a notorious falshood in its very Inscription as if I in my second Paper had undertaken to prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Whereas it is manifest that in both my former papers I only sustained the part of a Defendant And this I did of purpose that it might be seen how you would discharge the Office of an Opponent under which you now appear clearly succumbing by your nauseating repetitions If the acrimonie of my Style in my last offend you ye may blame partly your own tedious repetitions and trifling in a matter of such importance and partly some scurrilous expressions which yoused and opprobrious accusations of tergiversation and diffidence where with ye loaded me in your second paper Because forsooth I would not gratifie you so farr as to take the Opponents worke off your hand So that what of this kind hath been owes its rise to you I admire nothing in you but your confidence That ye are not ashamed to offer to me a Paper bearing the inscription of a Reply when ye seeme as affrayed to touch the chief points in my Paper as you would be to handle a Serpent Did I not charge you with grievous Omissions in my last Why doe you not clear your self of that Fallacie in the third proposition of your first Paper Why doe you not answere to the Retorsions of your argument against your self Why doe you not either prove your Assumption or else refell the arguments by which I shew that ye were tyed to prove it Did I not demonstrate the pertinencie of all these particulars and withall conjured you to speake to them as you would not incurre the heaviest characters of Ignominie What construction after all this can your deep silence bear but that you are not able to acquit your self in these points Hath there been one article of controversie in any of your Papers which I have not examined whether therefore you or I be guilty of tergiversation or diffidence the unbyassed Reader may judge I am so wearied with your Tautologies that I should not have deignied this paper with an answere but that I know the clamorous impudence of many of your Party to be such that if no answere had been returned how insignificant soever your paper be they would have insulted and sung Victoria But let me ask you seriously doth the frequent repetition of this poor naked Syllogisme either help the forme or strengthen the matter thereof of both of which have been justly questioned Are battologies so savourie and delicious to your Popish palat will the ingemination of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extort an assent from these who have the use of their reason How oft will ye constraine me to tell you that I deny your Assumption and consequently the second branch of your ragged Dilemma which is wholy coincident therewith and that I have long desiderated the probation of both But seeing ye have some fancie for Dilemma's I will repone this one to you Either you
can prove the Assumption of your Syllogisme or not If you can give I pray you a specimen of your Acumen and tergiverse no longer If ye cannot then professe ingenuously as the truth is that ye have undertaken a work which ye cannot performe And it is no wonder that here you be at a Non-plus For if the Christian Religion revealed in Scripture hath grounds to prove it self to be the True Religion which none but a down right Infidell can deny then surely the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth not grounds to prove it self For the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the Christian Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures as I told you in the explication of the terms in my first Paper And consequently what ever solid grounds were brought either by these Ancient Apologists Iustin Martyr Tertullian Athenagoras Arnobius c. Or are held out in the moderne tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald yea in your own Vives to prove the truth of the Christian Religion these also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Nay doe not you Romanists acknowledge the most of all our Positives So that the great question which remains is Whether you Papists have any evidence for your superadditions And is it not your concernment to shew this But when I think upon your Tautologizing way it calls to my minde the custome of children who when their memorie failes them in saying their lesson least they should seeme to say nothing they will needs ingeminate the last word Away then for shame with these childish unmanly and insipid repetitions You blot much paper needlesly with foure Synonima propositions But I might advertise you first that your discourse concerning them is wide from the purpose For it supposeth that I am now proving the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the True Religion which is not at present my work But seeing ye have undertaken to impugne it my bussines is to cleat it from your cavills Secondly I doubt if ye can reconcile what ye have said of the Equipollencie of these foure Propositions with your Tridentine Faith For if it be the same thing for a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforme to the Scriptures then it cannot be true which your Councill of Trent hath defined that Unwritten Traditions are to be received Pari pietatis affectu with equall devotion as the written Word of GOD. For if this Tridentin Canon be true the truth of Religion cannot stand adequatly in its conformity to the Scriptures but partly in its conformity with the Scriptures and partly in its conformity with unwritten traditions and consequently your fore-mentioned propositions cannot be adequatly Synomma's You may bethink your self whether ye or the Councill be in the Error But thirdly granting these propositions to be Synonima's that is to have an Objective identitie I pray by what Logick will ye prove that one of them cannot be brought to prove the other Is it not lawfull to argue á Definitione ad Definitum betwixt which there is an objective identity Doe not Logicians acknowledge an identity betwixt objective Premisses and the Conclusion And therefore though a True Religion be a Religion cōforme to the Scripturs yet there is no absurditie in proving the truth of Religiō by its cōformity to the Scripturs Even as to use your old example from which ye are fallen off as seems because it made so much against you An action to be honest and conforme to the Law are Synonima's and yet the best way of proving it to be honest is to prove its conformity to the Law By all this it appears that your plain Scots which ye are not ashamed againe to repeat is plaine Non-sense as I demonstrated in my last For the truth of Religion consisting in its conformity with the Scripture may be demonstrated by holding out its conformity with the Scripture An objective evidence of a Religion being nothing else but a ground whereby the truth of Religion may be demonstrated it is unconceivable how a Religion can have objective evidence and yet want a ground whereby to manifest it self to be a True Religion If here you but understood your own self I hope there would be no more controversie as to this betwixt us So that the matter is not obscured by my terms as you say but by your contradictory Non-sense As to your frivolous oft repeated cavill that a false Religion may pretend the like conformity and objective evidence it was confuted so fully in my last that I shall remit you to what was then said Though Anaxagoras and Hypochondriack Persons may mantaine Snow to be black Shall that make others who have their eyes in their head and the use of their Reason turne Sceptickes and question whether it be white or black Towards the close ye passe by many things as your coustome is which I hade said concerning the assistance of your Clergie men In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture And ye only labour to extricat your self from that Contradiction wherein I shew you to be involved but all in vaine Nay ye involve your self the more by affirming That a proposition may have an universall obiect whereof it self is a part and yet that something may be affirmed of that universall object which cannot be affirmed of that part of the object A rare notion forsooth implying a manifest repugnancie But I am loath to digresse to a Philosophick debate with you Can any thing I pray you be affirmed of every man which cannot be affirmed of you and me As for that proposition of Davids All men are liars which you bring to illustrate your paradoxall notion How could you make use of it in your argueing with me untill first you proved your infallibility For if you may be beleeved I can take no sense of it from you untill you first prove your self infallible which I suppose you pretend not to But it is your ill luck to be still involved in contradictions Yet to speake more particularly of this example and not to take up time in enumerating the severall acceptions of this Syncategorematick particle All it may be evident that David did not take it Universally of all men in reference to all their sayings else he had not only convicted himself of a lie but also charged all the penne men of holy Scriptures as liars in all that they said Which I beleeve no rationall Person will affirme It must therefore be restricted to one of two Either to these who had said that DAVID should be King and if thus it was indeed an over-reaching and false assertion in DAVID For among these the Prophet Samuel was one And no wonder that DAVID did over-reach in this for he acknowledges he spake it in Festinatione in his haste Or secondly to which I rather encline it must be understood thus every meer man of his own nature is prone to lying and fallible as your Esthius and A Lapide upon Rom. 3.4 And many others doe
expound it And so it holds universally and can be affirmed of every one who is a meer man and yet David not be guilty of actuall lying in speaking so Nay this sentence of Davids reaches a deep stroke at the pretended infallibility of your Clergie except ye can prove that they have a speciall gift of infallible assistance which I beleeve you will doe when you prove your assumption Namly Ad Graecas Calendas that is to say Never You are then so farr from having any subsidie from this saying of DAVID that while you goe about to expede your self you doe involve your self the faster But I leave you in this thicket untill I consider your other evasion For Mus miser est uno qui tantum clauditur antro You therefore except this truth Concerning the assistance of the Clergie from being in the condition of other particular truths As if the knowledge of this were to be presupposed before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures But this shift yeelds you no more succour then the former Nay it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction which I thus demonstrat A Religion and the severall points thereof to be true and to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's according to you Therefore no point of Religion can be known to be true untill it be known to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture But that the Clergie should have such assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture is one point of Religion as you affirme Therefore it cannot be known to be true untill its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known And yet upon the other hand you say that before the true sense of any Scripture be known we must first know that the Clergie hath such assistance to give the true sense of it Ergo that the Clergie hath such assistance must be known before the true sense can be known And consequently the assistance of the Clergie In actu primo must be known before the sense of Scripture and not before the sense of Scripture Now what need have you of Ariadnes clue to wind your self out of this labyrinth By this it is easie to consider what we are to think of your last Dilemma Either say you The PROTESTANT Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that the Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not if it hath let them be produced and examined if it hath not then the People have no ground to beleeve their Teachers Who seeth not how easily this may be retorted upon your selves For either the Romish-Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that their Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not If it hath let these grounds be produced and I doubt not but upon examination they shall be found light If it have none then the poor deluded People have no ground to beleeve their Romish Doctos Nay it were easie if I did not fear too great prolixitie to demonstrate that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion then it can doe on us For how I pray you can your Romists know that they have any Clergie at all Seeing the being of their Clergie depends upon a condition whereof they can have no infallible certainty Namely the intention of the Ordainer as is defined both in the Councill of Florence and Trent And if they cannot know who are their Clergie Men farr lesse can they know that they have this assistance so much talked of Againe If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance be such a prerequisit then it ought to be defined to which of the Clergie this assistance is entayled Whether to all or onely to some and who these some are whether the Pope or General Councill But as to this ye are not agreed among your selves Nay as I hinted in my last some of your chief Doctors mantaine both Pope and Councill may e rt Define then if you can who these are that are to give the sense of Scripture with this pretended assistance Therefore to answere directly to your Dilemma If you speake of infallible assistance I absolutly deny that the knowledge of such infallibity In actu primo in the Clergie is a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture may be known And now againe the probation of this will ly upon you Which I beleeve ye shall find as difficult as the probation of your Assumption Can I not give an assent to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case unlesse first I know him infallible Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd unlesse first I be satisfyed as to his infallibility In actu primo I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle and beleeve nothing you say till you prove your infallibility But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake Know that our Peoples faith is not built on our Authority We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith we are but helpers of their joy 2. Cor. 1.24 But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergie In actu primo for giving the true tense of Scripture as a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture can be known which the PROTESTANTS deny I therefore appeal you to prove this to be a necessarie prerequisit if you can Ye are not a little commoved that our Divines should be compared to yours It is long indeed since the pride of the Romish Clergie made an eminent Person say Odi festum istius Ecclesiae but I may say without vainity to the praise of GOD there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches such as Calvin Beza Juel Whitaker Morton Usher c. Who lake onely some years to make them be enrolled among the Fathers Neither indeed doe I desire them to be otherwayes compared with your men then as one would compare Austine Jerom or Athanasius with the Hereticks of their time Yet would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one classe Some we know have been of a more moderate principle then the Grandees of your faction for which cause many of their writtings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius How are you not ashamed to say that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits is copied out of your Authors Do we I pray you reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit Doe we cite your Authors but to confute them Or doe we make further use of them except in common truths wherein we and ye agree as we make use of Heathen Authors and as Virgil made use of Ennius to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii or as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Vipers
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
but commend yowr ingenuity in that yow confesse cleirly that all the things that yow have spoken hithertoo in so long lybells ar not true grounds but onely reasons to show that yow wer not obliged to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion and so yow Disowne and recant them all as taken under this formalitie But let them be called as yow please either grounds or shifts to disoblige yow from producing of grounds yet the mâ—ine point remains alwayes that they may be with as great reason assumed be an false Religion as be yow and so all this time yow have been pleading â—swell for an false Religion as for yowr own After yow have Disclaimed and recalled under the formalitie of grounds all things that yow so copionstie have spkoken of hithertoo Now you prodoce your Achilles in which yow professe that yow will own as a ground of the truth of yowr Religion to wit Scripture taken as containing perspicuously all things necessarie to Salvation So that Scripture taken under this formalitie is the onely ground distinctive of your Religion from all false Religion But let us goe on here sofilie that it may appeare better the juglings that lurbs under this answere and the labyrinth and obscuritie that yow have involved yowr self in For first by Scripture of which yow affirme that it is a distinctive of yowr Religion from all false Religion must be understood the letter of Scripture taken in the true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost So that to containe all things necessarie to Salvation with perspicuitie is affirmed of the letter of Scripture taken with this true sense as contradistinguished from all false sense Ergo it cannot serve for a distinctive ground of yowr Religion from all false Religions except first yow prove that the sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost and that all other senses which doe not coincide with yours are false and erronious Because according to your self Scripture is not a ground to distinguish your Religion from a false Religion but in so farr as it is suppoued to containe and that with perspicuitie all things necessarie to Salvation and againe it does not containe this but so farr as it suppons and is taken for the letter of Scripture with the true and genuine sense Now I ask how can you assume the letter of Scripture taken with the true sense for a ground to prove your Religion to be true and to be distinguished by this from a false Religion Except first yow show with pregnant and convincing reasons that this sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost Neither does it avail yow that which yow now here infinuate that the sense which yow give must be the true sense For the conformitie it hath with the sense holden by the Church in the first three Centuries Because this claime to Amiquity is common to all Sexts And so yow cannot mak vse of it except first yow bring some solid reason to prove your claime to be more just then theirs Secondly I ask yow how can yow affirme so boldly that all things necessarie to Salvation ar contained and that perspicuously in Scripture except first yow draw up A list or a catalogue of all things that are necessarie to Salvation as contradistinguished from all other things not necessarie and whereof a great pairt ar likewise eleirly contained in Scripture and Scripture it self makes no mentione to distinguish the one from the other For according to the rules yow gave your self it cannot be but blindlings affirmed That all the peices of Gold that one hath in his purse ar upright Gold except they be all produced to be tryed Thirdly you say that all things necessarie to Salvation are perspicuously in Scripture but with this limitation and supposition That the means for the interpretation be duely used so that Scripture is not of it self alone so perspicuous in all things necessar to Salvation except there interveene the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true sense of Scripture But heir againe yow plunge your self in a new labyrinth of obscuritie for I ask what ar thir means and what you mean by the due use of them And whether the people without your preaching can duely use thir means by the due use of them attaine to the knowledge of all things necessar to Salvation as well as your Clergie men can doe whether a false Religion and acknowledged by your self to be a false Religion may not use duely thir middes aswell as yow Now I know all thir things will be called by yow nonsense childish things and not worthie of the sublimitie of your understanding and such railing will be all the answere that I will get Likewise when you was asked whether a man can beleeve a thing to be true precisly for this motive because it is revealed and spoken by GOD unlesse he be assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of him that propons such a thing To this you answere here That a Preacher may propone and give the true sense of Scripture and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve the thing proponed to him though he have no antecedent knowledge conifying him that the Proponer hath such assistance that he cannot propone a false revelation in place of a true as a Iudge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve that the sense given is the true sense though he have no antecedent knowledge that the Judge hath infallible assistance But in this answere yow 〈◊〉 your self altogether Ignorant of the nature of supernaturall faith Since supernaturall faith is not everie sort of assent and adhesion but an assent above all things and an adhesion with such firmnes as can be given onlie to the supreame authoritie of GOD when he speakes a thing Now I aske how is it possible that the intellect who in matters of faith hes no other motive to induce it to assent bot the meer authoritie of the speaker can produce any assent whereby it adheres above all things and with all sort of firmnes to a thing which it knowes not otherwise to be true bot precislie because GOD hes spoken it and revealed it except there preceed a knowledge certifying that GGD speakes by the mouth of him that propones such a thing and that he cannot deceive him in saying GOD to have spoken a thing which he hes not spoken or else one would either suspend his assent or else not give it in that highe degree of firmnes and adhesion which is necessarly required to supernaturall faith and which he is oblidged to give in case he knew certaâ—nlie that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man And the example which you bring of a Judge giving the sense of the law confirms manifestly that yow ar altogether Ignorant
with too too much successe I Know Master Cressy finding that this his assertion had given offence to sundrie Zelots of you Romish Church published afterwards an explicatioÌ„ of these words But what an unhandsome dis-ingenuous retreat he made is judiciously discovered by Master Tillotson In his booke Entituled The Rule of faith part 2. Sect. 4. Where also he showes that the same principle of infallibility hath been contradicted by Whyte Holden Rushworth the late pleaders for your Traditionarie way You may see more of the Contradictions of your Iesuit-Party who contend for the infallible assistance of your Propounders and the late Patrons of your Traditionarie way held forth by Master Stillingsleet in his Appendix to Tillotsons Rule of faith § 10. And you may try how you can reconcile these your intestine discords about the ground of your faith before you expect others to close with either of you But you not dareing to reply to any of these foure forementioned particulars studie onely though in vaine to extricat your self from Two contradictions wherein I left you enwrapped The First was this If all supernatural faith be founded on the previous assurance of the Propounders infallibility then the first assent to this infallibility most presuppose the previous assurance of this infallibility as being an act of faith and not presuppose it as being the first assent to this infallibility To this you answere not without your usual reproaches of ignorance as if forsooth you were an illuminat and profound Doctor you answere I say That the prerequired knowledge of the Propounders assistance you meane infallible Is not an act of faith but an evident assent founded on the motives of credibility But this miserable subterfuge affords you no help For First either you meane that all the assent which is given to the Infallibility of your Propounders is Evident founded upon the Motives of credibility or beside that pretended Evident assent you hold also that this Infallibility is beleeved by an Assent of divine faith If you meane that it is onely known by that pretended Evident Assent then the Infallibility of your Propounders should not at all be De fide or an article of faith Consequently it should be no Heresie to deny or impâ—gne the Infallibility of your Popes or Councils so the very foundatioÌ„ of your Romish faith should be overturned If therefore you say that beside this Evident assent the Infallibility of your Propounders is also beleeved by an assent of divine faith then either that Assent of faith is resolved into the previous pretended Evident assent or not If it be resolved into it then your Assent of faith should be Divine faith Ex hypothesi for such you suppose it to be and yet not Divine faith as being ultimatly resolved into that pretended Evident Assent and having for its Formal Object these Motives of Credibility which according to you are Evident and so not a proper Formal Object for an assent of Faith but in very deed as shill after appeare they are but fallacious grounds of this pretended Infallibility If therefore againe to evite this Contradiction you say that this assent of Divine faith is not resolved into that Previous evident assent then that previous Evident assent contributs nothing to cleare the maine difficulty wherewith I urged you which was to hold forth the Formal object which moves you to give the first Assent of divine Faith to the Infallibility of your Propounders which I call upon you to doe if you can But I beleeve you will find that no ground of such an Assent of divine faith can be assigned without contradicting either your self or Scripture or evident reasone Let but the Credentials of your Propounders be impartially examined and it will appeare that the Faith that you give to their infallibility deserves not the name of a prudential Humane faith let be of a Divine faith Any judicious man who is versed in your Controversie Writers may see all the starting holes to which you can rune But I wil wait til I see to which of them you doe betake your self lest you should say that I fight with an Adversarie of my own devising Now onely I shall desire you to consider this Demonstration à posteriori Your Propounders have certainly erred De facte and Dogmatically both in Cathedra Extre Cathedram as I shew in my Sixth Paper therefore it is impossible to assigne a solid ground why their Infallibility should be beleeved by a Divine faith unlesse your divine faith be of such a nature that by it you may assent unto falshoods But Secondly I adde this that the whole foundation of your subterfuge is a grosse falshood namely that there are Motives of credibility which doe evidently conclude the infallibility of your Propounders Produce if you can these Motives and frame your arguments from them and I undertake through the grace of GOD Sub periculo causae to discover the falshood and fallacie of them In the meane time lest you runne from the point let me remember you that the Question betwixt us is whether there be such Motives of credibility which doe Evidently prove your Propounders to be Infallible And therefore take heede you digresse not to speake of the Motives which perswade the Credibility of the Christian Religion For the Christian Religion may be Credible though we have no previous assurance that your Propounders are Infallible Could I find an evident demonstration of the Infallibility of any Propounder I should instantly captivat my understanding to such a Persone Demonstrat therefore from your Motives of credibility that your Propounders are Infallible and produce a solid Formal Object of the first Assent of faith thereto and I shall ingenuously acknowledge that you have made your escape from the Contradiction objected to you But if you doe not demonstrat their Infallibility as I am sure you cannot be you as ingenuous on the other hand to acknowledge that you are shut up in a Contradiction as in yron chaines and that thither you are led by the Principles of your Religion From these things the impertinency of your example taken from Attrition and Contrition may appeare First because it is clear from Scripture that Attrition doth usualy goe before Contrition But that an assurance of the Infallibility of your Propounders must goe before every act of Divine Faith can no way be proven either by Scripture Reasone or your Motives of credibility as shall be made evident Solutione argument or 〈◊〉 Next because Attrition and Contrition have distinct and assignable Formal objects as is both confessed by your self and might be luculently also cleared from Scripture But the Formal object of this first pretended Assent of divine faith to the Infallibility of your Propounders is not assignable as hath been shewed already It might here be a divertisement to the Reader to give an account of the Vertigo of your Authors concerning these Motives of credibility They who are curious may find a
come to the examination of particular Articles I engage to disclaime the Religion of PROTESTANTS if it be not found to be so and shall onely demand but the like ingenuity readynesse and engagement from you that you will renounce your Romish superstition if is neither be In terminis in Scripture nor solidly deduceable from these things which are there plainlie revealed If there be not enough said to put an end to your general whifling Cavils let these who are not fascinated by prejudice judge Is it not time after the exchange of nine Papers to come once to the matter for you are not as yet come to it The rest of your Paper you pretend to spend in examining the Answeres given by me to this your forementioned Cavil Concerning the sense of holy Scripture But it would seeme you had been either dreaming or drunke when you wrote this for you bring me in only making Two answeres whereas indeed I have made Seven of the two which you mention only one of them is to be found in my Last Paper But however I will try how you behave your self in examining these That which you say is my First Answere is indeed my Fifth as you will find when you awake from your sleep and looke on my Paper But before I take in your Reply I will first propose my former Answere not in your words for I seldome find them faithfull but in my own as I proposed them in my Last My words then were these This Assertion of yours that before we can prove the truth of our Religion from the Scripture we must first prove this we have the true sense of the Scripture bad need of a verse favourable and benigns interpretation else it is perfect Nonsense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove that we have the True Religion before we prove that we have the True Religion These were my words and if the inference be not solid upon the Supposition laid downe therein these who have common sense may judge Yet to this you have made Three Replyes but each of them more ludibrious then another Your First Reply is a pedantick whifle about formall Praecisions you say That I shew my self to be altogether ignorant of the nature of formall praecisions which have vertue where they interverne to make a sufficent distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme For all your pretended skil of these Pracisions there are schoole Boyes with us who could adventure to the lists with you concerning them Yet I confesse in some sense you may commence Doctor in the matter of Praecisions For you have a notable faculty of praescinding from the purpose But if you had said any thing to the point you should have shewed that there interveens a Formall Praecisions sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and Probleme betwixt these two V.Z. That our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost And this That our Religion is the true Religion Can you either conceive or conclude that our Religion is contained in the Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost and not conceive Ipso Facto and Formaliter that it is the True Religion Especially seeing from the beginning of your Papers you have acknowledged That a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforms to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's You may try in the next how you can prove this for you still leave the greatest part of your worke behind you But in the Second place from this pedantick notion you proceed to a more absurd position as if heere There were an objective distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme still out of your Modestie Vphraiding me with Ignorance For say you The True Religion and truths contained under the letter of Scripture are separable one from another because all the truths of Scripture may be yet not compâ—uÌ„â— any ReligioÌ„ at all to wit if there had been no obligation imposed upon us to beleeve them And hereupon You conclude me ignorant of the nature of True Religion A greater cry me I confes then the ignorance of the nature of formal Praecisions Onely you had need to guard well that this your insolent accusation doe not recoyl upon your own head For First were you not sophisticâ—ting Ab Ignoratiore Elenchi you should have concluded that our Religion may be contained in the Scripture as the true sense hereof and yet make up no Religion at all But who sees not this to be a manifest contradiction And yet these were the two which you ought to prove to be separable for that was the Supposition whereon my Inference was builded But Secondly what ignorance and absurdity doe you bewray when you say That all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be and yet make up no Religion at all I will instance to you a few Scripture truths which it is impossible they should be and not make up a Religion Matth. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve John 20.31 These thinges are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and beleeving ye might have life through his name 1. John 3.23 This is his commandement that ye should beleeve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ These Scripture truths cannot be unlesse they concurre to make up a Religion and the reason is evident which also destroyes your fond Supposition and pretended reason to the contratie because they include in them a Form all obligation of worshiping GOD and beleeving in order to the obtaining or Salvation Do not you the refore bewray brutish ignorance of Scripture and of Religion when you say That all truths contained in the Scripture may be without an obligation to beleeve them and so compound no Religion at all For it is one Scripture Truth that we are commanded and obliged in Scripture to beleeve these truths in order to the obtaining of Salvation Your Third Reply is nothing lesse ludibrious then the former Two in which you say That what was said in that answere of mire to you may be said by persons of another Religion alswell as by us And who doubts but Hereticks may justly repell your Noneseâ—se May not Hereticks be otherwise solidly confuted albeit they laugh at your ridiculous Cavils I hope these transient to ches may suffice to discover with how little successe you have dealt with that Fifth Answere of mine which you call the first For I judge it unbeseeming for me in handling so weighty a controversie as this Whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Papists be the true
nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion it remaines alwise in that state as hath been often told you that a man is in who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaime Calvine as the author of your Religion and claimes to Iohn Hus and the Albigenses at last to be upon your side though the world knowes that theyâ— were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrocinie that you make to defend your patriarch Luther that he did not leap out of the Catholick Church but only out of the Romish Church though if you had done compleatly this defence you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhâ—â—e and with which he did keep externall communion when he left the Roman Church Good Sir leaving all your Paterga's remember that the occasion of this debate was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholick Dectrines and being desired to give some good solid ground for the truth of your own religion whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to imbrace it You did very stoutly undertake the bussines did bragingly protest that ye would mantaine the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever before whomesoever or in whatsoever place or time but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion Your first refuge was that you as the Defendant was not obliged to produce any ground but all the burthen incumbed on me as the Opponent to prove that you had no grounds And in this you behaved your self just as if one should come as sent from the Council to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Councill of Aberdene a charge to apprehend a persone as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince and the L. Provest desiring to see his Commission he should reply that he was not obliged to show his Commission but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion and being demanded that you show your grounds whereby the truth of it may be mantained you reply that you are not obliged to produce grounds but that another should prove that you have no grounds not considering that religion is a positive thing and a complex of positive dogm's and so cannot be mantained to be true but by producing of positive grounds and the shifting to produce them will make all to give sentence that it is destitute of solid grounds Your next refuge was that your Religion was proven to be true because it was conforme to Scripture that is to say to the true sense of the letter of Seripture Now this pretended conformity was proven to be meerly imaginary and groundlesse because as it is impossible that a thing can be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense exceept it be proven that there is a true sense Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style and by a judicious and school way to produce some soild ground whereby mens understanding might be convinced that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost of the letter of Scripture To this you answered first that it makes a Non-sense to say that a Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be proven that there is a true sense Now I ask you where lyes here a nonserse or point me out any thing here that is not most cleare Indeed you in place of this my proposition did substitute one of your own and with your own words and I willingly grant to you that yours makes a Non-sense Next you seeme to chasse because I taxt your discourse to be founded upon grosse ignorance both about the nature of Formall Precisions and about the nature of True Religion and to this you reply first that to speake to you of Formall Precisions is a Pedantick thing But is it possible that you who professeth your self to be a Divine should so slight Precisions since they are the very quintessence of all superiour sciences and Aristotle might teach you that there is no science of particulars but in so far as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision and that every science hath his own particular abstraction whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences Next you remit me to your School-Boyes who will teach me the nature of Formall Precisions I am glade that Scholers are so learned but if it be so they out-shut their Master and knowes more nor their Master at least showes to know as appeares in this same answere that you make here For I telling you That the objective grounds of precisions is separability and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture and True Religion and that on both parts because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture Since there was true religion in the World before there was any Scripture writen And on the other part All the truths revealed in Scripture might be though they componed no Religion to wit If GOD had so revealed them that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to beleeve them as he might have done or wherefore might he not have done it Now to impugne this you bring texts of Scripture to prove that De Facto this obligation to beleeve is not seperat I speake of Separability and what GOD might have done and you argue against Actuall separation as if I had said that De Facto there is no obligation to beleeve things revealed in Scripture Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking Or were not well applyed to you those civill termes that your self use in this Paper to wit that you behoved to be drunke or dreaming when thir things escaped your penne Likewise how grosse mistaking is it to say That I granted that a Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture are Synonima's whereas I said only this Ad Hominem and to argue you out of your own principles who admits no rule of divine truth but the writen word And in this you imitat many other of your Champions who as I told you else where did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves Your second answere is that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is proven to be a true sense because it coincids
might have been revealed and no obligation laid upon us to believe them And in this you blame me That I only proved by the Scripture-instances which I brought that there is no actuall separation betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion but did not prove them insenarable But if you looke againe to my Paper you will find that your inadvertencie is onely to be blamed For I did prove the absolute inseparabilitie betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion Which againe I thus demonstrate according to the grounds laid downe in my Last If all the truths in Scripture cannot be without an obligation to believe them in order to the obtaining of Salvation then All the truths of Scripture cannot be except they compound a Religion But the first is true therefore also the last The Sequel of the Major is clear because this is the only pretence upon which you suppose that all Scripture Truths may be and yet compound no Religion because they may be and yet no obligation be laid upon us to believe them If therefore they cannot be except an obligation be laid on us to believe them then surely they cannot be except they compound a Religion It remaines therefore only that we prove the Assumption that they all cannot be revealed without an obligation to believe them and this is cleare from the Scriptures cited in my Last Paper because this is one of the Truths in those Scriptures that we are obliged to believe these Truths And I cited purposlie these Scripturs to prove this And therfore it is impossible that all Scripture truths can be and we not be obliged to believe them For this is one Scripture truth that we are obliged to believe the Truths revealed in Holy Scripture What now I have demonstrated more prolixlie I set downe clearly enough though more succinctly in my Last Albeit it seemes you have been so taken up with your Precifive airie Notions that you have not understood the Paper which was sent to you But to prevent your further mistake in this I thinke it fit to let you know that I distinguish betwixt these two I doe indeed confesse that a Religion may be though nothing be coÌ„mitted to Writing And this was the case of the Ancient Church before Moses But this concernes not our present debate But the thing I deny is That all the truths contained in Scripture way be and yet make no Religion at all And this I hope now I have demonstrated against you both in this and in the former Paper Though your Notional precisions have made either your sight or your judgement Preseind from the Paper which you should have examined and consequently from the purpose By these hints you may consider whether you have added any strength to your insignificant Objection Concerning the sense of Scripture But because you are still harping upon this Cavil About the sense of the Scriptures It would appear that you Looke upon Scripture as so obscure as not able to be a ground for decision of controversies in Religion unless there be some infallible visible-judge I shall desire you to consider how different you are in your apprehersions as to this matter from the Ancient Church in which the decision of Controversies in Religion was committed sometime to Secular persons yea sometime to Heathens which your self will confesse not to be Infallible Have you not read that writing which passeth under the name of Vigilius Bishop of Trent in which there is a dispute betwixt Sabellius Photinus and Arius upon the one side and Athanasius on the other concerning the Trinitie and Deitie of the Lord Jesus Christ and Probus a Heathen is constituted judge to determine betwixt them not according to his own fancy but according to the proofes which they should produce from the Scriptures and after hearing of both he gives sentence for the Truth This dispute you will find set forth among Cassanders works from Page 460. and the sentence of Probus the Judge page 506. c. I doe not say that this Conference was real for the Collocutors were not contemporarie Yet the Learned and Ancient Author of this Dialogue who by some is supposed to be Pope Galosius doth clearly insinuate that the most sublime Mysteries of Christianity are so luculently revealed in Scripture that a meer Pagane may finde out the true sense of Scripture concerning them Have you nor tâ—ad in Epiphanius haeres 66. how that Archelaus an Orthodox Bishop had a dispute against the pernicious Heretick Manet in Caschara a City of Mesopotamia and how by commone consent they â—â—bâ—â—icâ—ed unto Foure Heathen Judges to Marcipus a Phil sâ—ph to Claudius a Physitian to Aegialous a Gramariare and to Clerbâ—lus a Sophister who after hearing adjudged the Victorie to Archelaus And this was no fiction but a reall deed What should I tell you how Laurentius a secular person was Arbiter in a dispute betwixt Augustine and Pascortius an Arian as appeares by Austineâ— Aepist 178 Or how Marcellinus a Tribune did preside by the appointment of Honorius the Emperour at a conference betwixt the Orthodox and the Donatists as Augustine holds forth Tom. 7. in Brevic. Collat Doe not all these make it evident that the Ancient Church did not apprehend such impossibility of finding out the true sense of Scripture without the previous decision of an Infallible visible judge How did Christ command us to Search the Scriptures John 5.39 if their sense be unsearchable Is not this on controversie in Religion whether there be a necessity of an Infallible visible judge and Propounder and who he is And who I pray you shall determine this if not the Scriptures If you have an Infallible Propounder without whose decision the sense of Scripture cannot be attained how injurious is he to the Christian World who will not put forth a clear Comment upon the Whole Scriptures for the finall decision of all Controversies Why doth he not at least give a Decision concerning these inrestine debates among your selves as betwixt your Dominicans and Jesuits c. Are you so farre deluded as not to know that this Fable of Infallibility is the cunning imposture whereby men of your imployment have laboured of a long time to cheat the World But now these of the Traditionarie way among you beginne to perceive that the World is too wise to be still cheared by that one Trick therefore they are betaking themselves to another Method but as fallacious as the former You have a Querie which you expect that I should notice You desire to know When Luther leapt out of the Church of Rome as you phrase is if there was any Church on earth with whome he had visible Communion May ye not be ashamed to move such a Question to me I having convicted you of so many Falshoods and Foolries concerning your last discourse of Luthers separation from Rome and of a Lying Prophesie which you following Bellarmine and Cachlaeus imposed
delyvered without the holy scriptures But secondly I might argue thus ad Hominem against you were it not that I feared too great Prolixity if there be any more then these two it would be some or al of your five pretended Sacraments Confirmation Pēnance Marriage Extrem Vnction or Ordination But none of these farre lesse all of them therefore there are no proper Sacraments at all besides these two which we acknowledge The sequel is clear for there are none else besides these which you can allege Yea if I prove that any one of these is not a proper Sacrament the Infallibility of your Church and consequently the whole structure of your Religion is gone To insist upon the probation of this last Assumption at large would engage me upon too voluminous a discourse You may see it largely done by Chamier tom 4. lib. 4. à cap. 7. ad 32. treating severally of each of these pretended Sacraments and more succinctly by Maresius tom 2. contra Tirinum controv 20.23.25.26 and 27. no to remit you to many Authors Now only to give you a short hint I say that none of these your five pretended Sacraments have all the forementioned conditions of a Sacrament and consequently none of them are properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament First then to beginne with Confirmation The Matter thereof which we call the Visible signe or Element sayes your Pope Eugenius the fourth and your Council of Florence in Decrete ad instructionem Armenorum and your Roman Catechisme part 2. cap. 3. quaest 6. Is oyle mixed with balsome consecrated by a Bishop The Forme of it or words to be pronunced at the celebration thereof As the same Eugenius Catechism ibid quaest 10. do declare is Sigte signo crucis confirmo te chrismate salutis in nomine Patris Filis spiritus sancti But there is no divine institution either of that matter or forme recorded in all the New Testament as your own Authors are constrained to acknowledge particularly Suarez in 3. part tom 3. quaest 72. disp 33. sect 1. 5. If the signe you use in Confirmation be not of divine institution then it cannot seale to the Soul the promises of Salvation nor is it of necessity perpetually to endure in the Church If you say that you have a Divine institution for it though not in the Scriptures yet attested by unwriten tradition You must first prove the Canon of the Scriptures to be imperfect and then demonstrate by universal tradition in all ages that there was a divine institution of Chrisme mixed with balsome as the matter of a distinct and peculiar ordinance together with these words which you now use in the Romish Church which you may finde a difficult task Nay your famous Jesuit Escobar confesses that these words which you call the forme of this Sacrament were not instituted by CHRIST Hear himself lib. 12. Theol. Moral Sect. 2. cap. 14. probl 15. num 116. Christus sayeth he verba illius formae non determinavit sed Ecclesiae determinanda reliquit That is Christ determined not the words of this forme but left them to be determined by the Church As much is confessed by Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure As Suarez testifies tom 3. in 3. part quaest 72. disp 32. sect 2. concerning your visible matter of this Sacrament viz Oyle Olive mixed with balsom that neither were these instuted by Christ So that now it is tossed among your selves as a Probleme whether Oyle mixed with Balsom be the necessarie matter of this Sacrament And many Authors of great fame among you mantaine the negative as you may find in Escobar lib. 12. Theel. Moral Sect. 2. cap. 12. probl 3. num 78. And in Suarez tom cit disp 33. sect 1. If therefore you say that imposition of hands is the visible signe in Confirmation as Bellarmine seemes to doe lib. de confirm cap. 2. § Jam vero medium albeit afterwards he likewise capp 8. and 9. pleads for the necessity of the Unction also you may see this copiously confuted by Chamier tom 4. lib. 4. de sacram novi Testamenti cap. 10. Take now but these passing hints And first imposition of hands may be a Rite but who can say that it is a substantial signe or such a signe as may congruously be termed an Element Secondly how can that be the Visible signe of this pretended Sacrament which neither belonges to the matter nor forme thereof if Pope Eugenius and your Roman Catechisme have rightly designed them Thirdly how can that be the peculiar signe of Confirmation which is commone to other Sacraments according to your Romish compuration particularly to Ordination and Extreame Unction Well did Austine speake concerning this Rite of imposition of hands lib. 3. de Baptismo contra Donatistas cap. 16. Quid est aliud manus impositio nisi oratio super hominē Fourthly either by this imposition of hands is meaned the Unction with Chrisme or some distinct Imposition If the first no institution thereof is mentioned in Scripture If the second though imposition of hands some times was practised by the Apostles for conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost yet there is no command for the perpetuity of it Hence Suarez loco citato sect 4. determines that no Imposition of hands distinct from the Unction is of the Essence of this pretended Sacrament of Confirmation But your Cassander in Consultatione art 13. brings in Hoscot a learned Doctor in the Roman Church as questioning whether Confirmation be a proper Sacrament What respect judicious Calvine had for Confirmation in a sound sense himself declares lib. 4. institut cap. 19. § 4. But how much and justely he dislykes your Romish pretended Sacrament of Confirmation and the superstitious Rites thereof may be seene ibid. from § 5. to the 13. But though you Romanists pretend a kind of zeal for Confirmation as a proper Sacrament yet have not many of your late Casuists Jesuits disputed it almost into contempt Is it not a Probleme among you whether there be any command of God or of the Church to receive Confirmation Or whether it be so much as a venial sinne to omit it when a person hath convenient opportunity for it Hath not your Jesuit Escobar diverse problemes to this purpose lib cit cap. 16. problem 31.32.33 c Yea doth not Escobar positively mantaine that there is no command either divine or ecclesiastick for it Hear himself problem 31. num 181. Existime sayeth he nullum dari nec divinum nec ecclesiasticum praeceptum confirmationts recipiendae That is I judge that there is no command either of GOD or of the Church to receive confirmation A noble Sacarment forsooth which persons are not bound to receive even when they have convenient opportunity for it yet lest he should seeme to be alone of this judgement he cites for the same in his next probleme num 183. Henriquez Coninck Lessius Tolet Reginaldus Ledesma Vivaldus Sayrus Valentia Bonacina