upon the Veracity of God believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular resutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5. 39. Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17. 11. Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5. 32. Deut. 17. 18. 20. Deut. 28. 13. 14. Josh 1. 7. 8. Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1. 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lih 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6. 16. Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2. 16. Joh. 12. 48. Jam. 2. 12. Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1. 19. Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20 malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19. 7. yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1. 19. If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved though Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no
corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euclids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some account was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given
cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28. 20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after-times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peceat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8. 7. to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17. 8. c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High-Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17. 8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33. 4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16. 11. or what meant these general complaints Isai 56. 10. Jer. 6. 13. Jer. 14. 14. Hâ—s 9. 8. Ezek. 22. 25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v. 9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they
inform thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee Learned Rivet in Cathol Orthod tract 1. q. 8. observes the place to be thus sensed by famous Authors in the Romish Church by Cajetan the Author of the Glossa Ordinaria Lyranus and Hierom Oleastrius and that Lyranus from the restriction according to the Law refutes that absurd gloss of the Jewish Rabbins that if the Judge should say that the right hand were the left and the left hand the right talis sententia est tenenda like to which is that forecited saying of Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif cap. 5. If the Pope command Vice and prohibit Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vice to be good and Vertue evil But we have not so learned Christ the Judge was to give sentence according to the Law or as Ezek 44. 24. According to the Judgments of the Lord. I am not ignorant of the ordinary Cavil of Romanists that then the people were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim whether it were according to the Law I distinguish They were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim by an Authoritative Judgment it does not follow by a judgment of discretion in order to their own practise I grant This Romanists cannot deny unless they would devest the people of Reason and turn them into Bruits When Romish Missionaries labour to Proselite people to the Romish perswasion do they not labour to convince them that it 's more rational to believe their Church than to adhere to the Religion of Protestants Is not this to grant them a judgment of discretion How then can they condemn us for that which themselves allow Excellently said Clemens Alex. Stromat lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess the Learned Grotius in loc will not have these words according to the Law to be restrictive yet he denies that from the place the infallibility of the Sanedrim can be concluded the scope of the Statute being not to enjoyn all to believe what the Sanedrim did Decree but only non contra agere non contra docere not to act or teach contrary to the sentence of the Sanedrim How warrantably he thus glosses is not my concern now to examine only it overturns the notion of infallibility But are we not commanded to hear the Church Mat. 18. 17. Yes But does it therefore follow that the Church that is her Pastors assembled in a General Council cannot err in matters of Faith who would not smile at such an inference Are we not also commanded to hear not only the Catholick Church in her Oecumenick Councils but also in National or Provincial Assemblies yea and particular Pastors Luke 10. 17. He that heareth you heareth me Yet Romanists I hope will not thence conclude either Provincial or National Assemblies let be particular Pastors infallible Can any Romanist prove that the Church Mat. 18. 17. is only taken for a Pope or General Council Is there a Text in all the Bible where the Church signifies the Pope of Rome I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to instance it if they can Doth not the word Church in this Scripture comprehend all those Churches which cognosce of offences if therefore that Scripture furnish one argument for infallibility then the particular Churches of Scotland and England might claim infallibility as well as Rome Is it not evident from that context Mat. 18. 17 that there we are commanded to hear and obey the Church in her Censures and yet Romanists cannot deny but in her Censures she may err and proceed clave errante because in her decisions of that kind she depends on humane testimony See Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 18. it 's manifest therefore nothing can be concluded thence as to infallibility But how then are we commanded to hear the Church Answ In so far as she adheres to her Commission the Rule of Gods Word and thus she cannot deceive us if she or an Angel from Heaven go beyond that Rule they are not to be heard Gal. 1. 8. Yet lastly Giving and not granting that a General Council could not err whatâ—s that to the Pope and his Schismatical Conventicles which have no more of a General Council praeter nomen inane But Matth. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church I ask what Church if the invisible of the Elect then it touches not the question in hand concerning a visible Judge if the Catholick visible Church in her diffusive capacity then it 's yet from the purpose for as such she exercises no Juridical Power if the Catholick visible in her Representatives then he might as well conclude her impeccability as her inerrability for the Devil prevails over Souls by sins of practise as well as by errours in judgment But it 's confessed by all that impeccability of Councils cannot be concluded therefore neither inerrability I must remember him that his Fellow Jesuit Tirin as cited by Maresius controv 5. num 3. says it 's uncertain whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against which should be construed with the Rock or with the Church if it relate to the Rock then the words only affirm that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Rock upon which the Church is built which as Austin and many other Fathers expound is Christ himself yet granting that it were here said that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church how can it be proved that when the Pope or the major part of a General Council is smitten with a lesser Doctrinal errour that the Gates of Hell prevails against the Church Hath he not heard the distinction that albeit in such a case the Gates of Hell valent yet non prevalent they hurt the Church but do not wholly overthrow the Church To conclude all that I suppose can be inferred from that Scripture is that the whole Catholick visible Church shall not err in Fundamentals Indeed if the whole diffusive did err in Fundamentals the Gates of Hell should prevail then the Church should be extinguished But to prove the inerrability of the Pope and his Council from this Scripture the Pamphleter may improve all the assistance Rome can give him in his next Reply But hath not Christ promised to his Church Mat. 28. 20. Loe I am with you to the end of the world Answ If every one be infallible who have a promise that God will be with them then every Believer may claim infallibility because of the promise Joh. 14. 23. Is the presence and assistance of Christ with every one in the same measure and degree wherein it was to be with the Apostles Is not the promise of the presence of Christ Mat. 28. 20. conditional Doth he not say Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and then Loe in so doing I am with you to the end of the world Hath not then the Church of Rome forfeited her Claim to this Promise by enjoyning
confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4. 42. Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoncret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the praeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Scrm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14. 18. 21. which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence these two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28. 16. Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praefat. ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie shake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should
the City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Albertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append. ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 396. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Confutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensu potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they prefer the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wiâ—tily checked by Hierom Epist 102. ad Marcellam Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—aenosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not containing all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mot. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesiâ— si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy Doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is
habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non est via haec sed ruina si via tua est non illius Did not Christ by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil with another Deut. 6. 16. demonstrate that the Devil did pervert the Scripture contrary to its sense and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scripture What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear and really clear as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism and a real demonstration May not all those perversions of Scripture by Marcion tes Mauichees c. be sufficiently cleared without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Is it not apparent that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10. 8. that Moses was a Thief or Robber seeing he was faithful in all the House of God as a servant Heb. 3. 6. That place Joh. 10. 8. pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers who run without a Mission from God as Austin expounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas c. So Chrysest Cyril Theophil Enthym cited by à Lapide on the place none of which did Moses Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8. 12. as impious and ludibrious Is not Christ God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. therefore as Austin said excellently Tract 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem he is not the Sun but the Light which made the Sun As for that Tenet he charges upon the Waldenses they are vindicated from it by Learned Vsher de Christian Eccles success stat cap. 6. Edit 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist of Walden lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea Alphonsus à Castro albeit he following the Drove accuse them of it yet confesses that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses charges them with no such thing However surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20. 13. For the Magistrate Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain and Scripture expresly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally particularly Murtherers Numb 35. 31. So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture may be clearly confuted by Scripture if it were not so what could the Romish infallible Judge do What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place and not that which Hereticks pretend if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils They can bring no Objection against us which recoils not upon their own head He clamours pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture What then Ergo all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture or by firm consequence deducible from it Non sequitur There are not only seeming but real contradictiors betwixt the definitions of their Popes and Canons of their Councils one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope another decreeing that the Pope is above the Council and both approved by Popes for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance which subjected the Pope to the Council approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the Command of keeping the Sunday Answ I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's distinction Orat. 37. that quâ—dam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur quaedam sunt dicuntur There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture and luculently demonstrated thence against the Socinian though those words be not found in Scripture Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Scripture It 's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons and Sacraments and a sufficient Warrant to keep the Lords day be found there Yea have we not the word Person Heb. 1. 3. Who is the express Image of his Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logomachies which were among Ancients concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Command concerning the Lords Day besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture such as the practice of the Apostles the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 1. 10 the Apostolick Injunction 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it from the fourth Command in his Sabbatum Redivivum Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments I hope the Institution of Baptism and the Lords Supper is clear in Scripture and other Sacraments we know none As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster at which here he snarâ—s when he gets confidence to examine it he shall find it will abide the Test In fine could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Articles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture I should ingenuously disown them It 's further objected pag. 62. that many places of Scripture are flatly against Protestants and for Papists as Matth. 26. 26. Jam. 2. 24. 2. Thes 2. 13. yea he is bold to say that Protestants can never be able to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets These be big words but splendid untruths Can we bring no clear Scripture against any Tenet of Popery Is not that Scripture clear against their Dry Communions Matth. 26. 27. Drink ye all of it Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory Revel 14. 13. Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If they rest from their labours then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory Is not that a clear Scripture against Image-worship Exod. 20. 4 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven
question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquiuas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2. 13. which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articels of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alicujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians
as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of Controversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Demster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keeps the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be moved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their Present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1. 4. In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be
our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Aâ—enda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the feer of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mar. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the perfect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3. 9. had not his covetouâ—ness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Roynaudus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impâ—aches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which say she Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i.e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But what saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament as containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It
's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11. 16. If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7. 2. lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeres 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Caster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5. 11. and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication
against Mr. Dempster pag. 126 c. finding him to be of aâ—tergiversing humour so that albeit he was oft cavilling about the ambiguity of Scripture yet would he neither argue against the perspicuity of Scripture nor answer arguments brought for it I could judge no means so probable to convince him of his Errour as to pitch upon some Scriptures which Romanists say do most favour them and to demonstrate that these are clear for us I did begin with that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and offered to do the like p. 129. with other controverted Scriptures such as Luke 22. 32. Mat. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Joh. 21. 16. But though we exchanged divers papers thereafter Mr. Dempster had never the confidence once to examin that argument against Transubstantiation far less to fall upon other places The Scribler who now appears supposes he hath solved that argument as easily as Sampson broke the withes wherewith Deliah had tied him Judg. 16.9 Yet I hope to make him sensible of his mistake SECT I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words I first take notice that p. 112. he says I bring only a Philosophical Argument to prove that these wâ—rds This is my Body are to be taken in a Figurative sense But if he be pleased to review what I said he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine that I advertised Mr. Dâ—mpster Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. to prove the same conclusion Doth not the senses of all men in the world find real bread after consecration Did ever God deceive the senses of all men through so many ages If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed and the object within convenient distance how did Christ use it Luk. 24. 38 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Doth not consecrated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept Have not persons been poysoned thereby Will either meer accidents or the true glorified body of Jesus do so Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ I hope is above their consecration and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be Doth not two things verbum and elementum as Austin well observed Trac 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word concur to make up a Sacrament If the substance of Bread and Wine cease where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Analogy with the Body and Blood of Jesus Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible mysteries Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body that the Disciples who were scrupulous about far less matters would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious mysterie Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramental purposes as Gen. 17. 10. Circumcision is my Covenant Exod. 12. 11. The Lamb is the Passeover 1 Cor. 10. 3. the Rock is Christ Doth not Romanists acknowledge multitude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Supper As when the said 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken was it then broken Was there not there Enallage temporis So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood are there not more figures than one Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup Can either the cup or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution This is my body figuratively Is it not often called bread after the consecration as 1 Cor. 10. 16. 1 Cor. 11. 26 27. Let a man Examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation without making all these figurative Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man much more of their Saviour Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again Act. 3. 21. Are we not prohibited to believe these who say loe here is Christ or there or in secret Chambers Math. 24. 23. 25. Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention upon which according to them depends the consecration but also through many other contingencies such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words whereof the people can never have certainty they being but secretly whispered and though heard doth every one understand Latin Heard he never of the Priest who having many Wafers to consecrate said Haec sunt corpora mea What should I blot Paper with the absurdities which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places the â—enetration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point and the existence of accidents without a subject Doth not Renatus Des Cartes and many great Philosophers question if there be such accidents in the world as the Schools did commonly teach about the time of the Lateran Council Is it not a goodly article of Faith which is calculated to the variable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers which may have the vogue in one age and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks Is it not the height of Impudence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses that had not the Church interposed her definition no man could have from them concluded Transubstantiation It 's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear but the Lateran definition and
words relate also if not principally to questions of fact for he subjoyns aequum justum est ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen admissum est It s just that every mans cause be heard in that place where the crime was committed so that the perfidy of which Cyprian speaks may be expounded of unfaithfulness in judging of crimes and in examining of such questions of Fact I suppose Romanists will grant Popes may erre yea Cyprian a little after pleads the Authority of the African Bishops to be no less then of the Italian Bishops for judging in such cases Thirdly does not Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeium accuse Pope Stephanus not only of error but as mantaining causam haereticorum the cause of Hereticks against the Church Unless therefore St. Cyprian be made to contradict himself he cannot here assert the infallibility of the Romish Church Fourthly and lastly these words non potest habere accessum cannot have access must not be strained as excluding a possibility of erring Non potest being frequently taken for that which could not readily or easily be as matters then stood Examples might be brought from Sacred and prophane Writings yea and from Cyprian himself Luk. 11. 7. when the man said I cannot rise he meant not impossibility of rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impadent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder in necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatiean Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are
Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiquity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13. 10. we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice not only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinions against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inauditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient ears Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3. 2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with
THE Church of ENGLAND Vindicated against Her Chief Adversaries OF THE Church of Rome WHEREIN The most Material POINTS are fairly DEBATED and Briefly and Fully ANSWERED By a Learned DIVINE LONDON Printed for C. Wilkinson T. Dring and C. Harper and are to be Sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet 1680. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy Seal and one of his Majestys most Honourable Privy Council My Lord THough learned Pens in most countries of Europe have travelled successfully these many years in discovering the impostures of Rome so as it might seem sufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates already extant on that subject Yet the sedulity of the ministers of that Church in proposing Sophisms often and long ago confuted in a new dress as if they were new topicks yea unheard of demonstrations thereby to ensnare unwary Readers doth impose a necessity upon sincere Lovers of Truth for undeceiving the simple to resume old Grounds from Scripture Antiquity and reason formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's This had the stronger influence upon me to write these cursory animadversions upon a Popish Pamphlet otherwise of small significancy because some through a lazy humour will not others being immersed in worldly entanglements hardly can peruse the large volumns of Chamier Whittaker Calvin Zanchius Jewel Usher Junius Chemnitius Gerard and other Champions for the Truth yea some are smitten with such a fancy of Novelty tha nothing doth relish with them unless it come smoaking from the Press I shall not deny but I was likewise moved with a just indignation against the disputing party among Romanists many of whom being by assed with interest seem to violent their own consciences in obtruding impostures on the World Can it be supposed that men of such raised parts and eminent learning who cannot but be sensible from their own failours of the weaknesses attending humane intellects should believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical decisions seeing those who often sit therein are known neither to be men of greatest learning and Piety nor ever did God since the foundation of the World entail infallibility upon an elective succession of persons chiefly when secular interests and intrigues of Policy have the chief stroke in the election Can they believe an universal Monarchy over all Princes and Churches to be setled by a divine denation on the Bishop of Rome seeing Scripture hath no vestige of that fifth Monarchy unless it be in the Apocalyptick predictions and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not spared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions Can they believe the lawfulness of Image-worship whatever Metaphysical distinctions they have coyned to put a fair gloss on the matter it being so expresly prohibited in the decalogue and no practice there of occurring in the Chatholick Church for three Ages and upwards after Christ whereof those great Antiguaries cannot be igno ant Can these great masters of reason believe the prodigius figment of transubstantiation which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius Ovid or Aesop and is so lueulently repugnant to the common sense and reason of all mankind that a great man among themselves going to Mass is reported to have been so ingenuous as to say Eamus ad communem errorem Can they justifie the Lawfulness of half Communions without fighting with their own consciences these being confessedly opposite to the primitive institution and to the known practice not onely of the Catholick Church but also of the Roman for many Ages who would not be moved with indignation that men should upon designe abuse their parts and wit to cheat the World I know not how to reconcile these men to themselves unless it be supposed that because they received not the Truth in love they are given up to strong delusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant Bellarmine Barronius Perron and others of that Cabal have said much for an ill cause They have indeed shewed themselves to be men of great parts but of very evil consciences They who devote their endowments to the patrociny of heresie would remember that errors in religion are such creasy and burdensome superstructures that the strongest shoulders must needs shrink under them My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the sequacious multitude in the Roman Communion who in the Simplicity of their hearts surrender themselves to the conduct of such teachers How grateful is it to these who love easie methods of Religion among whom are not only those of the meaner sort of people but also many of greater quality to be â—red from serious inquiries after divine truths by an implicite submission to infallible guides and having once intrusted their faith to those teachers how secure do they judg themselves being taught by no meaner Casuist then Cardinal Tolet that its not onely safe but also meritorius to believe the doctrines taught by their teachers though false on the matter untill they know that the Roman Church teaches otherwise Thus the leaders of these deluded people cause them to err Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers be sufficient apology for them at the great day This rather will be their condemnation that upon such a pellucide and improbable pretence they should have made small account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scripture which God hath charged those to search who would find eternal Life Joh. 5. 34. From this search nothing doth more deterr people then the thorny and litigious debates raised by School-men and Controversists as if men behoved turn Scepticks in religion if they did not implicitly intrust the conduct of their Faith to a Romish infallible guide But blessed be our God it s not a matter of such insuperable difficulty to find out the truth of Religion in the holy Scripture as they who design the inslaving peoples consciences do pretend If prejudices once being laid aside men would apply themselves sincerely to the use of appointed means For the wisdome of God hath with a perspicuity accommodated to the weakest capacities revealed these things which are necessary to Salvation according to that of Hilary In absoluto facili est Aeternitas Non per difficiles questiones nos ad vitam Aeternam vocat Deus and a greater then Hilary the Apostle of the Gentiles 2 Cor. 4. 3. If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and a greater then both our Saviour Christ Joh. 7. 17. If any do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God One thing I am sure it s much more easie to find out the true religion in Scripture then by any means whatsoever to attain a rational evidence of Papal or Council infallibility which yet ought to be presupposed before an implicite submission to Pope or Council Among the many evils of this generation nothing should more awake the friends of Truth zealously to appear for her interests
by the wounded man betwixt Jericho and Jerusalem Luke 10. 30 31 32. Did they not sin by not succouring him at that time Yet Romish Casuists deny that a sinner is bound to repent quum â—atâ occasione commode potest when he can do it conveniently as Escobar states the question Tom. 2. Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 8. Prob. 28. no not when he seriously calls his sin to remembrance or when a grievous calamity is upon him and his Country or upon Holy and Festival days as Vasque in Part. 3. Tom. 4. q. 86. dub 6 copiously declares Yea it 's one of their probable Doctrines which in practise may safely be followed that there is no command at all for repentance This also being avouched by a Grave Doctor Franciscus Victoria as testifies Escobar Cap. Cit. Prob. 24. But besides the Pamphleter takes for granted that the Command enjoyning Repentance is adequately affirmative which perhaps he may find to be of more difficult probation than he is aware of When positive duties are required to be done at such seasons the Command does surely include a negative the Command enjoyning Circumcision on the eighth day included a negative prohibiting delay beyond the day prescribed when therefore God Commands now to repent Act. 17.30 To day not to harden your hearts Heb. 3. 7 8. Now to return every one from his evil way Jer. 18. 11. it includes a negative prohibiting the delay of repentance He has another Cavil to the same purpose Ibid. Protestants says he teach mens best actions to be sinful and therefore must either confess Repentance at no time to be commanded or that God hath commanded us to sin A foolish and blasphemous inference For Protestants do not say that mens actions as to love God repent c. are sinful per se or in themselves but only that ex accidenti gradual defects cleave unto them for who can love God so well as they should Read he never that of Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet ex vitio est ex quo vitio non est justus in terra that is perfect love is in no man and what is less than it ought to be is stained with sin Hence it is that there is no just or sinless man on earth From this it only follows that God commands the action which in it self is good as love to God and Repentance though not the gradual defects which through our infirmity cleaves to them The contrary Doctrine of Papists and Quakers of a sinless perfection in time is repugnant to clear Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. and is pure Pelagianism as witnesses Hierom in his Dialogue betwixt Atticus and Critobolus lib. 1. and lib. 3. cont Pelag. But of this more hereafter cap. 7. Now only he cavils that it 's a jeering of Gods Commands to say they are impossible To this jeering Cavil it 's answered that it were absurd indeed to affirm the Command of God to be simply and absolutely impossible but not to say that there is an accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly through the pravity of our natures So much the Scripture affirms Rom. 3. 8. Joh. 12. 39. c. Excellently said Bernard Serm. 50. in Cant. Deus mandando impossibilia non praevaricatores fecit homines sed humiles As for his Squibs abous Repentance and recantation of Calumnies and other publick transgressions against Princes I know none more concerned therein than Jesuits Of their calumniating Genius some touch has been given in the Prologue Of the treasonable principles of Jesuits Mariana Suarez Bell. Santarell c. an account hereafter may be given The Author of the Hist of Cardinals Part. 1. lib. 1. pag. 15. observes this to have been always the design of Jesuits to aggrandize the Pontifical Authority with diminution of the Regal Have not the impious principles and practises of Jesuits against Princes given occasion to that Character which passes on them Hi Regnorum proditores Atque legum fraudatores Reges volunt jugulare Et sic plebem subjugare My second Argument was taken from the Doctrine of the Council of Florence in Instruct Armen and of Trent Sess 7. Can. 11. suspending the Efficacy of Sacraments from the intention of the Minister from which I concluded that all certainty of Faith according to Popish principles was over-turned for all their Faith depends upon the Authority of Pope and Councils but if the Efficacy of Sacraments depend on the intention of the Minister they cannot certainly know who is Pope or which is a lawful Council who is Baptized or who is Ordained the Efficacy of Baptism and Ordination which also with them is a Sacrament depending on secret intentions whereof they can have no infallible certainty In this Argument the Pamphleter says I both argued and answered whereas I only argued But indeed Jesuit Demster could neither argue nor answer Of the replies given to this Argument by this Scribler pag. 12 13. to supply M. Demster's defects I may say Sunt tricae Apinoe si quid levius istis As first he says There is greater assurance of the Priests intention than that Ministers use aright the Elements and pronounce the words of Institution As if we could have more assurance of secret thoughts of a mans heart than of words audibly pronounced or of visible actions performed before a whole Congregation Secondly God saith he hath promised that nothing necessary either to Faith or Salvation shall be wanting in his Church What then doth it therefore follow that our Faith must be built upon secret intentions whereof we can have no infallible assurance or doth he mean that a Priest can never waver in his intentions in ministring Sacraments Sure I am he has neither Scripture nor Canon of Council nor suffrage of Antiquity to warrant such a fancy Nay the Canons which suspend the Efficacy of Sacraments upon the intention of the Priest suppose the Priest may have undue intentions or perhaps he meant for I am here left to Divine at the Pamphleters intentions that no person uncapable of the Papacy can be chosen Pope So indeed Jesuit Valentia saith Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. Punct 7. Sect. 39. Col. 223. But this may be convicted of manifest falshood from History Did not Bennet the Ninth according to Onuphrius in Chron. Pontif. sit on the same Throne 22 years whom yet Glaber in Spondan ad Annum 1033. asserts to have attained it Symoniacally being about ten years of age But I satisfie my self at the time with the ruthful complaint of Platina in the Life of Sylvester the Third that such was become the state of the Papacy that he carried the Chair who gave most for it Certainly therefore these Romish Doctors who by the forecited Valentia's acknowledgment confess the Papal See not to have immunity from illegitimate Popes are the more ingenuous The Pamphleter replies Thirdly That the want of the Ministers intentiâ—n
formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of thâ—se could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconcile himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis dâ—scensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auraes Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prove it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag. 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popâ—sitive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Demster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently demands payment of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his demands only with stories of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reiterated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of â—mages the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the Catholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replies did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions he had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur
propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
Epistle written by Ibas Bishop of Edessa against Cyril and against the Ephesine Council to be Orthodox which was found by the fifth Gen. Council to contain most impious heretical and Nestorian Principles Is it not a ludibrious evasion of others to say The Pope as Pope cannot be a Heretick because how soon he turns Heretick be ceases to be Pope Alphonsus à Castro says they who answer thus Joeantur in re seria and in effect attribute no more infallibility to the Pope than to the meanest believing Colliar every Believer in this sense is infallible namely in sensu composito for how soon he turns Heretick he ceases to be a true Believer if every private Heresie degrade a Pope how then shall we know who is Pope or graced with infallible assistance seeing we cannot be certain but he entertains some private Heresie Among all the Subtersuges of Romanists I know none more ludibrious than that of Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. col 233. wherein yet they chiefly confide viz that the Pope may be smitten with a manifest errour or with an errour against which the Church hath given a prior definition and may endeavour to obtrude it upon others by his definitive Sentence but that he cannot give Sentence for an errour not manifest or for an errour against which the Church hath passed no former definition I am sure there is no Vestige either in Scripture or Antiquity for such a distinction nor yet is it agreeable to sound Reason it being much more easie to fall into an errour not manifest than into a manifest errour there being more means to preserve from manifest than from not manifest errours if therefore the Popes infallibility doth not secure him against manifest errours much less against not manifest errours if the Scriptures alledged for infallibility prove not his immunity from manifest errours how shall his immunity from not manifest errours from them to be concluded The Pope as a private person may be smitten with a not manifest errour by the confession of Valentia if then the exigence of the Church require a decision of that Controversie must not the Pope discern according to his private errour It 's a piteous off come of the Jesuit that God will take away the Pope by death lest he should pass sentence for such an errour A goodly pass indeed to which his Infallibility is brought M. Demster and this Pamphleter spake of Infallibility as a special assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding their Judge unto all truth but now it 's turned to an act of severity in killing the Pope lest he should give out an erronious sentence But seeing God in the depth of his Judgment hath spared Popes to confirm manifest errours by their sentences who shall assure us that he will not permit them also to confirm not manifest errours To this it 's answered That there is more hazard to the Church by a not manifest errour than by a manifest one for when the Pope defines contrary to a prior definition then he is known to be a Wolf and not a Pastor but when he defines a not manifest errour then there is no mean left to know him to-be an Impostor and so the Church were bound to assent to his erronious Sentence But this Reply takes for granted two manifest untruths First that there is no ground by which to discern Truth from Errour but the definition of the Church whereas when the Church is first to define a Truth she must have some sure ground why she gives Sentence for this rather than for the contradictory thereof consequently there must be a ground by which to discern Truth from Errour antecedent to the Churches Sentence Secondly that the Church is bound to assent to the erronious Sentence of a Pope But where ever did God so far inflave the Consciences of his people to erronious Teachers Moreover the hazard to the Romish Church appears to be much the same whether the Errour for which the Pope defines be manifest or not for by his definition it becomes not manifest to them he having a multitude of Parasites to devise distinctions and glosses to elude prior definitions as either not being definitions of the Church or not contrary to this As fell out when Leo the 10. passed his Sentence in the Lateran Council for the Popes Supremacy contrary to the definitions of the Church in the Councils of Constance and Basil how many Advocates were set on work to maintain that these definitions of Constance and Basil were no definitions of the Church or of Oecumenick Councils In a word so manifest it is that Popes may err in Cathedrâ concerning matters of Faith that the same is asserted by eminent Romish Doctors as Gerson Almaynus Pope Adrian 6. Alphonsus à Castro c. cited by Melchior Canus lib. 6. loc com cap. 1. and by Azorius Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 4. Yea the Jesuited Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is pronounced by Thomas Ab Albiis in Sono Buccinae tract 2. Sect. 22. not only Haeretica but Archihaeretica mater spurcissimorum errorum that is superlatively Heretical and the source of pestilent errours What need I more Doth not Pope Innocent the 3. confess the fallibility of Popes Serm. 2. de Consec propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possum ab Ecclesia Judicari if Pope Innocent truly assert the fallibility of Popes then surely they are fallible and if falsly by his false Assertion he demonstrated that Infallibility was not tyed to his Chair Next as to Councils Protestants have much more respect for real Oecumenick Synods consisting of Pastors from all true Churches of Jesus Christ than any Jesuited Papists Protestants acknowledge that real Oecumenick Synods are the Supreme visible Ecclesiastick Judge of Controversies of Religion and that they have choice promises of God for their assistance if they sincerely seek his glory and the discovery of truth Yet there not being promises that all the members of an Oecumenick Synod or greater part of them shall infallibly observe the conditions upon which that assistance of the Spirit may be expected Nay on the contrary seeing in these Meetings much may be done through faction or interest and those who come thither in simplicity may be byassed by the influence of others therefore we cannot assert an absolute infallibility of Councils But Jesuited Papists are so far injurious to Councils that they will not have Councils to be acknowledged except they be called by the Pope and swear subjection to him Yea and they suspend all their infallibility upon the ratification of the Pope Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 1. deals plainly Conciliorum Judicium tum firmum ratum est quum accesserit summi Pontificis confirmatio proinde ultimum judicium est summi Pontisicis so they esteem of Councils only as they serve their interests Upon this account Bell. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 4. divides Councils into those
and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. controv 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomol cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17. 8. Mat. 18. 17. Mat. 16. 19. he should have said Mat. 18. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 13. he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Proselites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly vindicated Deut. 17. 8. in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18. 17. in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16. 19. in his
many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocating Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3. 15. Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doâ—h stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est cogn scere esse primum ens c Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Nazianzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19 to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. columna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmatae quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13. 3. it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe concerning this
Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow crgo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Printer for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odifastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10. hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysost Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deceased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next bundle of testimonies
bold to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Ludov. de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152. and Jesuit Azorius Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostolica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustochium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11. 52. Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare angere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an insallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are
to be reduced to and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Consc praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15. 19. the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in corp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Be an Theâ—l Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virl tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Cbristianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2 Enchirid cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset commonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whyt Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may
such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of Martyrs of all Sexes and Ages under most exquisite torments whose resoluteness could nâ—t proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit affectation of vain-glory want of sense of their sufferings or Philosophical fortitude but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles wrought not in corners or only among Favourites but in the open view of the world in the face of sagacious and desperate Enemies who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scripture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven among whom were Theopompus and Theodectes one of whom as Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus was smitten with Madness and the other with Blindness for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Consciences beyond all natural force both for terrour and comfort yea and for sanctification also And besides are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures such as the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts the unfathâ—mable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries which though Reason could never find out yet being once discovered Reason it self cannot but acknowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile the wonderful methods for satisfying Divine Justice reconciling sinners to God and pacifying afflicted Consciences And lastly not to mention more the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable insomuch that it 's beyond controversie amongst Christians though otherwise of various perswasions that the Scripture is the Word of God Hence Bell. is forced to say lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius nihil est notius and a little after Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque est that is the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing Nay more he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures his words are Vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget Secondly If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things necessary to Salvation they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them which is Joh. 20. 31. That we may believe and believing have eternal life If it be answered that they accomplish their end in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church or by the definitions of the infallible Judge this is easily repelled because either the Church and the infallible Judge gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly propound from Scripture or not if from Scripture then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly else could they not have been gathered from Scripture if the Church and the supposed infallible Judge have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture then the Scriptures does not cannot effectuate the end for which it was made viz. to work Faith in us and to guide us to Eternal Life but that end is brought about by the Church and by other means Romanists to use the phrase of a late Writer represent God speaking in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles that the Pope and his Parasites may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers lib. 10. de Trinit is no less excellent than famous Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam vocat quaestiones In absoluto nobis facili est aeternitas How impious is it to say that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived to satisfie different interests Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof Though Papists and other Hereticks do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible yet doth not their own practice at other times confute them Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions How impertinent were this kind of arguing if Scripture were not intelligible Neither can it be said that they argue thus only ad hominem against us for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us unless they supposed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true Yea does not this Pamphleter pag. 106 107 108 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express against the Doctrine of Protestants These Scriptures shall be considered in their own place Now only doth not his alledging them suppose them intelligible especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them 'T is true there be obscure places in Scripture yet as Austin lib. de util credendi cap. 6. excellently observes the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè piè ut vera Religio poscit accedat i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer And again Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis exercemur obscuris ibi fames pellitur hic sastidium i. e. clear Scriptures feed us obscure places exercise us by the one our hunger is satisfied by the other our loathing is prevented And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum before his Commentaries on Job the Scripture is a River Planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet both shallow and deep wherein a Lamb may walk and an Elephant swim Thirdly Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3. 15. How could they accomplish this end if they did not contain all that is necessary to salvation If Romanists run to their old Evasion that what is wanting in the Scripture is supplied by the Church they are readily confuted for then the Scripture were not able to make us wise to salvation but the Church by other mean should do it If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture either they are more sublime than these in Scripture or not Not more sublime Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity Incarnation Resurrection all which are undoubtedly in Scripture If then they be but inferiour Truths seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to writing how kept
he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3. 2. to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures
which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our assent to the Divine Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Applicaâ—ion is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae inrespect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 16. say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18. 28. mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or as in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Featly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a
thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses that he puts in the word sola in the Text which was not in the Original Car. Molinaeus says Calvin in his Harmony makes the Text trip up and down Castalio accuses Beza 's Translation of many errours M. Parkes taxes the Geneva Translation of many errours and so doth M. Burges and Hugh Broughton our English Version yea Broughton says that it causes millions of Souls to run to eternal flames and in the Versions made under Q. Elizabeth and K. James there be many diversities sometimes that put in the Text which was in the Margin and that in the Margin which was in the Text. To this first Atheistical invective against the holy Scriptures which for most part is stoln from Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. and tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 2. I answer first by retortion This Objection militates as strongly against Romanists as against us For after the same manner it may be enquired whether the definitions of their Church or infallible visible Judge namely the Decretals of Popes and Canons of Councils be the ground of their Faith and Religion in the Languages wherein they were first given out viz. in Greek or Latin or as Translated Not as Translated because the Translations are not Authentical but in so far as they agree with the Principals and the Principals by many are not understood But besides what assurance can they have that those Originals are not corrupted in the conveyance by fallible men Have not Learned Criticks discovered that many supposititious Decretals and Canons of Councils are obtruded on the Christian world by Romanists Hath not Isidore Clarius a Popish Writer noted as many Errours in the Vulgar Latin Version as any of those mentioned in the Objection have alledged in the Versions of Protestants consequently Romanists themselves must confess this Argument of the Pamphleter to be a Sophism seeing it overturns also the ground of their Religion Nay the same Cavil might have been moved against the Ancient Christian Church for in her also there were many who understood not the Hebrew Text yea some of the Fathers had little understanding of that Language then also there were innumerable Latin Translations made by fallible persons witness Austin lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 10. 11. though he do prefer cap. 15. the Italian Translation to the rest yet so far was the Ancient Church from esteeming it perfect that Hierom judged it needful to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew as himself reports lib. de viris illustribus cap. ult and to correct the errours of the Vulgar Version of the New Testament out of the Greek which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome as appears by Hierom Epist 123. Praefat. ad Evang. ad Damas and by Cassiod Instit lib. 1. cap. 12. Doth not the Pamphleter behave himself like an Atheist seeing his Objections against us militate against Christianity it self Is not this a strong demonstration that our Religion is the true Christian Religion that the Arguments of Papists against us are the Cavils which Infidels might use against Christianity it self Secondly Therefore leaving retorsion I answer absolutely that Scripture both in the Originals and when faithfully translated is the Rule of Faith If an Ambassadour deliver his mind by an Interpreter are not the words of the Interpreter the words of the Ambassadour Was not the Faith of the Ephesians built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. But it cannot be supposed with any probability that all the Ephesians did understand the Originals of the Prophets writings for they were not Jews therefore surely their Faith has been built on translated Scripture Neither can Christs Command of searching the Scriptures Joh. 5. 39. be restricted to the Originals only seeing himself and the Apostles did frequently cite the Scriptures according to the Version of the 70. Neither say Chamier Featly or D. Barron any thing contrary to this for they only deny Versions to be the Rule of Faith in so far as they disagree from the Originals yea then to speak properly they are not Translations at all I notice not much the wrong Citation of Chamier in whose lib. 1. cap. 2. there is not a Sect. 15. for the Pamphleter shews himself to be as implicite in his Citations as in his Faith Only it may be replied How can illiterate persons resolve their Faith upon a translated Bible seeing they cannot examine its conformity or disconformity with the Original they being ignorant of the Language But it may as easily be retorted How can an illiterate man resolve his Faith upon the definition of the Council of Trent or upon the Doway or Rhemist Translations or upon a Bull or Decretal of the Pope seeing he cannot examine if these be faithfully translated from rhe Latin What answer Romanists give we can give the same Had not the Pamphleter been disposed to quarrel he might have found this difficulty copiously cleared in that Cap. of D. Barrons Apodex which himself cited viz. tract 1 cap. 2. Shortly then for satisfaction of the Reader I answer that a person unskilled in the Original Language may not only have a humane moral certainty of the conformity of his English Bible with the Original upon the testimony of a Protestant Church and Learned Pastors but also as Camero in his excellent tractat de notis quibus verbum Dei in specie dignoscitur Not. 3. observes there is a special Divine Character in the Scriptures which is not to be restricted to the Original Languages but individually inherent to the Doctrine of Scripture in whatsoever Language if it be faithfully translated which the Author doth there copiously illustrate Among other things he uses this example pag. 32. Some of Averroes writings are translated into very barbarous Latin yet there is no judicious Reader saith he but will discern Averroes to have been a most Eloquent man the Tropes Figures and Metaphors being kept in the Version He compares a faithful Translation to a Picture drawn with Ink by which we may discern the lineaments and comeliness of the person represented thereby though not the colour So albeit there be some things accidental in the Original Language which a Translation cannot express yet still there is as much as may manifest the Divine Original of the Scriptures For further satisfaction in this thing I shall commend to the sincere Lover of Truth the perusal both of that Tractate of Camero and of an excellent little Treatise of D. Owen of the Divine Original Authority and self-evidencing light and power of the Scriptures Neither ought it seem strange to any that there should be such a self-evidencing light in the Doctrines of salvation contained in holy Scripture yea there is a kind of necessity it must be
corrupted by Arrians Macedonians and Nestorians whereas these Heresies were not broached in the times of most of those Authors Yea further he affirms that the Vulgar Latin Version was made before the Scriptuâ—es were corrupted where he insinuates that the Bible was not corrupted till after Hierom's time Hierom being the Author of the greater part at least of the Vulgar Latin by the acknowledgment of most Judicious Romanists as is shewed by Ludov. de Tena Isagog ad script lib. 1. diff 6. Sect. 2. How then could Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and Eusebius testifie of the corruption of Scripture seeing all those were dead before the time wherein Hierom did flourish It 's just with God that they who oppugne the Scriptures should not understand their own selves I answer secondly by retorsion Is there not more cause to question the Originals of that which they make the Rule of Faith I mean of Decretals of Popes and Canons of Councils how many supposititious Decretals have they obtruded as of Clemens Anacletus Euaristus Alex. Sixtus Telesphorus c. which though Gratian dist 19. cap. in Canonicis says that they should be reckoned inter Canonicas Scripturas yet our Learned Criticks have proved them to be supposititious as Cocus in Censura Scripterum veterum pag. 20. to 24. Rivet in Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 8 and others Yea is not the Faith of the Canons and Constitutions passing under the names of the Apostles justly questioned as may be seen in the same Cocus pag. 3. and 15 Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap 2.4 and Dallaeus de Pseudopigraphis how many supposititious Canons of Councils have Romanists obtruded Were not Popes of Rome long ago convicted by the African Fathers of pretending a supposititious Canon of the Council of Nice for Appeals to Rome yea do they do not daily obtrude the definitions of the Conventicles at Florence and Trent as definitions of Oecumenick Councils whereas it hath been often demonstrated that these Councils were neither free nor Oecumenick If the Transcribers of the Scriptures be obnoxious to mistakes how can the Transcribers of the Canons of Councils be infallible If transcribing of Bibles be obnoxious to errours is not the conveyance of Oral Traditions liable to as many nay to more mistakes Is it not more easie to guard against vitiating of written Books then the unfaithful conveyance of Tradition Are not Hereticks and men of unsound minds as much inclined to vitiate Traditions as the written Word By these it may appear that this Weapon of the Romanist wounds himself as much as us I answer thirdly It 's a blasphemous falshood to say the Scriptures in their Original are corrupted Hath God promised Mat. 5. 18. that one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the Law and yet hath he suffered the whole Original Scriptures which were given by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost to be corrupted I will not here enquire whether our Saviour meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one tittle The Hebrew Vowels and Accents as Piscator conceives or stroaks in the head of the Letters like horns which the Jews used in those Copies of the Bible which were kept in Synagogues as Capellus de punct Antiq. lib 2. cap. 14. affirms or whether a part of a Letter as Lud. de Dieu and Jesuit Maldonat on the place suppose or whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be taken us terms Synonimous as they are said to be by the Ethiopick Interpreter only it appears by the Series of the context that Christ understood some of the least things belonging to the integrity of the written Law If Divine Providence be so careful to preserve the least of these shall we imagine the whole Body of the Original Scriptures to be vitiated Hath the whole Catholick Church been so unfaithful to suffer such a precious depositum as the Original Scriptures to be lost Do not Romanists say that we have received the Original Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek from them Hath the Roman Church cheated us in this to give us vitiated Transcripts in place of the Originals should we then believe her fidelity or infallibility in other things if the whole Original Scriptures are corrupted I pray by whom or when was it done furely not by Jews as is proved by Jerom in Cap. 6. of Isai where also he cites Origen for the same thing with them accords Austin lib. 15. de civ Dei cap. 13. for either they corrupted them before the coming of Christ or after if before how is it that they were never reproved for so heynous a trespass by Christ or his Disciples He condemns them for corrupt glosses put on Scripture but never for vitiating the Letter of Scripture Nay does he not command his hearers to search the Scriptures Joh. 5. 39. Does he not still Appeal to Scripture for decision of all Controversies Would he ever have remitted them thereto had he known them generally to be corrupted if after Christ how then comes it that the testimonies of the Old Testament cited by Christ and the Apostles are to this day found in the Originals did Christ and the Apostles cite them as they were to be vitiated by the Jews if Jews had corrupted Scriptures would they not have chiefly corrupted those which spake of the Messias but those remain entire to this day yea as Bell. acknowledges lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. The Hebrew Text affords more clear and pregnant testimonies for the Messias than either the Greek of the 70 or the Vulgar Latin and produces instances to this purpose as Psal 2. where the Hebrew hath it Kiss the Son the 70 and the Vulgar Latin have Appraehendite disciplinam Joannes Isaac a Popish Author spares not to affirm as he is cited by Calov de puritate fontium Sect. 93. pag. 414. ducenta amplius argumenta quae Judaicas impietates refellunt in Hebraico textu quam in Latino planius contineri i. e. that the Hebrew Text affords 200 Arguments and upward against Jewish impieties more clearly than the Vulgar Latin How Religiously yea superstitiously careful have the Jews been of the Scriptures both of old and to this day Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evangel cap. 6. out of Philo de Judaeorum ex Aegypto profectione testifie that to his time not one word was altered in the Original If the Bible do but casually fall to the ground do they not endite a solemn Fast Have they not numbred all the words and Letters in the Bible so that a Letter cannot be lost without observation How putid is the Calumny of Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap 9. that this diligence of the Jews is only to perpetuate the corruption of the Hebrew Text made by the Masorites for which he is sufficiently chastised by Palovius Had the Masorites so corrupted the Bible would it not have been observed by the Karaits who because in all things they adhered
to the Scriptures are hated by the Traditionary Jews more than Christians At least how could it have escaped the observation of Christians Were there not Hebrew Bibles in the custody of Christian Churches How could Jews corrupt all these Is not this Cavil of the general corruption of the Original Scriptures so impious that many Learned Romanists have appeared against it such as Joannes Isaacus Professor of the Hebrew Language at Colen in his Book entituled Defensio veritatis Hebraicae Sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum Ludovious Vives in lib. 15. August de civ Dei Arrias Montanus in Praefat. ad Bibl. interlin Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth Sanct. Haeres 2. where he expresly says Dici non potest divinas scripturas veteris Testamenti aut Judaeorum aut Christianorum malignitate falsificatas yea he reckons the contrary Opinion as a pestilent Errour and Heresie Not to mention Pagnin Vatablus Marcus Marinus besides many others cited and followed by Lud. de Tena Isagog Sac. Script lib. 1. diff 3. Sect. 2 3. Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. charged Jacobus Chrysopolitanus and Melchior Canus for maintaining as this Pamphleter does that the Jews had corrupted many things in the Original Bible as men not having knowledge proportioned to their zeal However Bell. affirm that some few places in the Hebrew be corrupted wherein also Learned Protestants have laboured to shew his mistake yet he concludes Cae erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent Scripturae Sacrae integritas desideretur They who would see the purity of Original Scriptures asserted at length against Romanists I remit them to Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 12. Rivet in Isagog ad sac script cap. 8. Gerard in uberiori explicatione loc de scâ—iptura cap. 14. Calov Crit. sac de puritate fontium Sect. 93. where the last Author masters up seventeen Arguments for the purity of them to which only I add D Owens Judicious Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture But against this it is first alledged by the Pamphleter that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written Answer Some question indeed hath been made concerning the Language wherein the Gospels of Mat. and Mark and the Epistle to the Heb. were written but of none else I confess Ancients generally have supposed that Matth. Gospel was first written in Hebrew not only Jerom Praefat. Evang. ad Damas Epist 123. but also Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphan Chrys August c. yet this their Opinion seems to have been founded upon the Tradition of Papias a man of more Antiquity than Judgment says Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. ult And there are Eminently Learned men of Opinion that it was first written in Greek with whom Cardinal Cajetan does joyn neither are the Arguments contemptible by which they are thereunto induced But however even those who maintain that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew do yet acknowledge that it was translated into Greek by a person infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost some by John the Apostle some by James and generally others by an Apostle or Apostolick person and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was always used in the Christian Primitive Church as Authentick Barradius the Jesuit as is testified by Lud de Tena in Isagog lib. 3. dâ—ff 2. Sect. 1. thinks that Matthew himself wrote this Gospel both in Hebrew and Greek I know Baronius prefers the Authority of Matthew in Hebrew to the Greek Dico saith he quâ—d Graecus textus cujus fidei sit nisi collatus cum Hebraeo originali affirmare minime possumus but learnedly is that impious errour of the Cardinal contuted by Casanbon in apparat exercit 16. cap. 115. pag. 678. The like I say as to the Epistle to the Hebrews that many have judged that it also was written in the Hebrew Tongue yet there be not only Learned Protestants but also Romanists in the contrary Opinion The Apostles Argument cap. 9. from the nature of a Testament is a strong presumption that it was written in the Greek the Argument concluding forcibly from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so from the Hebrew Berith yet it 's also agreed that at least it was transcribed into the Greek Tongue by an Apostolick person whether Luke or Clement I am not to dispute As for Mark it 's true Baronius and Bellarmine affirm it was first written in Latin if so how then was the Latin Church so unfaithful as to lose that Original Latin written by Mark that being the only Book in Scripture that can be alledged to have been written in Latin For the present Latin Version of the Gospel of Mark is surely translated from the Greek as Cornel. à Lapide in his Preface to his Comment on that Gospel does not only confess but demonstrate by several passages of Mark 's Gospel That fancy of Baronius as if Mark 's Gospel had been first written in Latin is expresly contradicted by Jerom Praefat. Evang. Austin lib. 1. concordiae Evangelist and Isidore Hispal Praefat. lib. Test Novi who affirm that all the Evangels except that of Matthew were first written in Greek yea the Cardinal is solidly confuted by a Popish Bishop Lud. de Tena Isagog lib. 3. diff 6. Sect. 2. who says its certum apud omnes that Marks Gospel was written in Greek What need I more as to this seeing Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. confesses Quod Graeca editio Novi Testamenti universa Apostolos Evangelistas Authores habeat since therefore we have the Greek Edition of all the Books of the New Testament we have the Scriptures in those Languages wherein holy men infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost did write them The second allegation of the Pamphleter is that Calvin and Luther do sometimes call in question the purity of the Originals What then Are Calvin or Luther with us infallible Judges of Articles of Faith as Jesuits make the Pope May not this allegation be compensed in regard Eminent Popish Authors asserted the purity of the Originals I have looked that place of Calvin lib. 1. Instit cap. 13. cited by this Pamphleter and can assert that Calvin has nothing to that purpose throughout all that Cap. for in it he only disputes concerning the Trinity Nay I find the very contrary in that Book cap. 8. Sect. 10. yea and Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. censures Calvin as preferring too great purity to the Hebrew Text and calling it Purissimum Fontem Luther likewise and his Followers as Chemnitius Gerard Calovius c. are most zealous Assertors of the purity of the Originals If any thing any where have dropt from those men derogating from the purity of Originals it would but argue a piece of humane frailty in them and of as gross inconsistencies I can convict both Cardinals
in this Debate upon a narrow inspection of the place have observed that the words will not admit such a Parenthesis without manifest non-sense Yet least I should seem to injure him I here exhibit the formalia verba of the Pamphleter pag. 55. Protestants saith he take in also with those the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by S. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and others says Eusebius when the Ancient Hereticks the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God to support their Errours Let the ingenuous Reader judge if I have not exhibited the genuine sense of those words I know not whether to ascribe it to his ignorance or disingenuity that he charges Protestants as taking in or owning the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian corruptions of the Bible A Calumny so far from truth that to mention it is enough to refute it it may suffice to discover the occasion of so gross a mistake The Pamphleter steals this Objection in a Plagiary way from Jesuit Gordon of Huntly controv de verb. Dei cap 12. but had no wit to do it handsomely What Jesuit Gordon had branched forth in divers Arguments against the purity of the Greek Text of the New Testament this Pamphleter confuses together Jesuit Gordon in his first Argument said that Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and others in Eusebius did complain that Hereticks did corrupt the Scriptures and in another argument affirms that Arrians Macedonians Nestorians did pervert Scriptures Now the Pamphleter seems to have taken those Hereticks last named to be them of whom Irenaeus Tertull. and Origen did complain not considering that the Ages in which those Fathers wrote and wherein those Hereticks did arise would discover his Errour But against Jesuit Gordon and him I argue thus if the Scriptures were corrupted by Hereticks in the days of those Fathers then continued they not pure unto Hieroms time as Gordon the Jesuit alledges and consequently their own Vulgar Latin must be corrupted also as taken from a corrupted Original But because it 's not enough to retort an Argument let them take an absolute Answer from Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. Et si multa saith he depravare conati sunt Haeretici tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici qui eorum corruptelas detexerunt non permiserunt libros Sacros corrumpi That Hereticks attempted the depravation of the Scripture is granted but that either the Providence of God or vigilancy of the Catholick Church suffered them universally to corrupt the Scriptures so that the Text of Scripture is not fit ad gignendam fidem as Gordon the Jesuit blasphemously writes is simply denied That Irenaeus Tertull Origen and other Fathers discovered the practises of Hereticks against the Scriptures is a sufficient Evidence that those Hereticks were not able to accomplish their designs His sixth allegation is that Protestants never saw the Original Scriptures penned by Prophets Apostles and Copies are subject to faults Did never this Scribler reflect that it would be retorted upon him that they can no more produce the Translators Autograph of the Vulgar Latin than we of the Originals Neither have they the Autographs of the old Decretals or of the Ancient Councils and the Copies of these Books are doubtless subject also to faults I confess we pretend not to have the Autographs nor judge we it necessary yea it was naturally impossible that Paper or Parchment could have continued so long without corruption What Baronius relates of Marks Autographs at Venice may have place among their other Legends yet Cornel. Ã Lapide who says it is in Greek confesses that through Antiquity it is become illegible and consequently useless But does it follow that because we have not the Autographs therefore our Originals are corrupt if it be said that Transcribers are fallible are not the Transcribers of the Canons of the Council of Trent fallible also if notwithstanding they bear Faith shall not the Copy of Original Scriptures much more make Faith Cannot the Providence of God preserve the Original Scriptures Will not the fear of God make men more tender and circumspect in transcribing the holy Scriptures than in transcribing other Books Is not the Catholick Church engaged to be watchful lest the Scriptures of God should be corrupted If Universal Tradition make Faith in any matter doth it not concerning the depositum of the Scriptures His seventh and last allegation is of the various Lections of the New Testament attested by the Prefacer to the Biblia Polyglotta Should he not first have remembred how many various Lections are in the Vulgar Latin let him compare the Bibles of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. and read D. James Bellum Papale and men tell if there be not both various Lections and contradictions betwixt them The different readings betwixt the Clementine Bible and Hentenius Edition of the Vulgar Latin which the Divines of Lovain so highly esteemed would fill a Volum alone Secondly therefore it 's absolutely answered that many things are reckoned up as various Lâ—ctions in the Originals which are but Errata scribae aut Typographi i. e. escapes of the Press and all I believe are sensible that it is morally impossible that there should be various Editions of any Book without various readings of that nature yet may not Judicious persons comparing those Copies together discern their Errata's Are there not special helps in these cases for finding out the true reading in the New Testament such as the consideration of the Context the Analogy of Faith the more ancient and approved Copies Citations and Expositions of Fathers ancient Translations particularly the Syriack Neither do Protestants deny but use may be made of Latin Versions especially of more ancient Editions as was done by Erasmus in his Annotations yet not as a Rule but as a mean to be made use of in conjunction with the rest Who would be more fully satisfied as to these various Lections in the New Testament I remit them to Cal vius de puritate font um in Novo Testamento Sect. 134. c. and to D Owens Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture with his considerations on the Appendix and Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta Now only I add a luculent testimony from Sixius Senensis lib. 7. Bib. S. haeres 1. where pondering the like Objection from the various Lections of the New Testament he positively assâ—rts Graecum codicem qui nunc in Ecclesia legitur eundem illum esse que Ecclesia Graeca temporibus Hieronomi longe antea usque ad tempora Apostolorum usa est verum si cerum fidelem nullo falsitatis vitio contaminatum sicut continuata omnium Graec rum Patrum lectio lucidissime ostendit uno semper atque eodem Scripturae ten re legentibus Dâ—onysio Justino Irenaeo Melitone Origene Africeno Apollinario Athanasio Eusebio Bâ—siâ—io Chrysostomo Theophilacto atque allis nte post tempora
Hieronimi Patribus i. e. that the New Testament which to day is read in the Church is the same which the Greek Church read before and after Hieroms days from the time of the Apostles pure and without corruption Having discussed all those things which he brought to confirm his second Objection I now only take notice of his ludibrious Conclusion that seeing the Scriptures as he falsly alledges are corrupt therefore we have a necessity of an infallible visible Judge A goodly inference Is there no way to shoulder up a Pope but by treading down the Scriptures But supposing the Scriptures to be corrupted what benefit as to this can we reap by their infallible visible Judge Can he dictate to us new pure Original Scriptures When he could not preserve them in their Purity how shall he restore them to it If he declare which is pure Scriptures will he do it by a Prophetical Revelation Then he would look that his Enthusiasms be instructed by better Credentials than the Quakers or if he do it by other solid and convincing Evidences then it 's not the infallibility of the Judge but the evidence of his grounds that will warrant his definitions consequently his pretended Infallibility as to this thing is wholly insignifiâ—ant Objection Pag. 57. The Pamphleter enquires what infallible motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they relye on was ever set down in writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of the Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the innate light of the same Scripture shewing it self to be such to a well dispâ—sed â—iâ—d If the first do not Nicodemus and Thomas Gospels carry the same Tiilâ—s of Matthew and Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three Age werâ— not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authâ—rity of a Council of Câ—rthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther who rejects James Epistle with sâ—me others Answer 1 Doth not this Atheistical Cavil of Jesuits which hath often been confuted by Protestants fall as heavily upon themselves as upon us May not this same Query be made concerning the infallible motive which can prudently perswade Romanists to believe the infallibility of their visible Judge Is it his own testimony calling himself infallible or the innate light of his definitions shewing themselves to be divine If the first do not Quakers assert their own infallibility as well as he Doth not the Turks Alcoran affirm that it is of Divine Original as well as Popes ascribe their definitions to the Holy Ghost If the second how shall an innate light be granted to the definitions of their infallible Judge seeing it 's denied to the holy Scriptures of God It might be sufficient here to leave him only to grapple with his own Cavil But I secondly answer that a well disposed mind may be convinced of the Divine Original of the holy Scriptures both by extrinsick motives of Credibility and by the Intrinseca Criteria or the innate light of the holy Scriptures I say first by extrinsick motives such as the stupendious Miracles whereby it was confirmed which this calumniating Pamphleter would insinuate pag. 59. but with Jesuitical ingenuity that I did undervalue the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church the signal Judgments of God upon Enemies the invincible constancy of Martyrs c. Doth not Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2. by these and such arguments prove the Scriptures certissimas esse verissimas nec humana inventa sed oracula divina continere But besides these extrinsick motives of Credibility the holy Scriptures of God have intrinsick evidences of their Divine Originals as from the sublimity of the Mysteries which yet are wonderfully suited for bringing about the Salvation of Souls the untainted and unparallelled Sanctity of the Doctrine the plenitude of the Scriptures for instruction of the Judgment Reformation of the Life Consolation of the heart in all cases the admirable temperature of Simplicity and Majesty in the stile of holy Scriptures the great variety of Scripture purposes and the wonderful harmony thereof though Scriptures were written in different Ages Places and Tongues So that Bell says of the Pen men of Scripture they would appear non tam diversi Scriptores quam unius Scriptoris diversi calami This self evidencing light of the Scriptures Jesuits themselves are constrained to acknowledge in their lucid intervals Hence Greg. de Valentia lib. 1. de Analys fidei cap. 1. Deus ipse saith he imprimis est qui Christianam Doctrinam atque à Deo Scripturam sacram veram esse voce Revelationis suae interno quodam instructu atque impulsu humaniâ— mentibus câ—ntestatur atque persuadet And cap. 15. Cum multa sint in ipsa Doctrina Christiana quae ipsa per se illi fidem atque authoritatem conciliare possunt tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur ut est à Clemente Alexandrino observatum quod sua nescio qua admirabili vi divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit atque ad virtutem impellit It 's not simply because the Gospels of Matthew and Mark carry their names prefixed that we believe them to be of a Divine Original but as we are strongly induced thereto by the extrinsick motives of Credibility so our Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures with an admirable Soul convincing evidence The Pseudevangels of Thomas and Nicodemus and all Books without the Canon of holy Scripture are destitute both of these motives of Credibility and of that self evidencing light of their Divine Original Nor should it seem strange to any that I say Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures For all Faculties and Sciences must have first principles into which our assent must be terminated else we should run in infinitum I appeal to any that is not willing to be deceived whether it be not more congruous that Faith be resolved into that writing which God himself immediately did dictate by the acknowledgment of the Catholick Church then either into a Papal or into a Quaker Enthusiasm that have no other Credentials but because they say they are infallibly moved by the Spirit of God As for the Pamphleters allegtioan that the Fathers of the first Centuries did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture until the Council of Carthage it is manifest untruth Look to Mâ—lito his Catalogue of the Books of holy Scripture recorded by Eusebius lib. 4. Hist Eccles cap. 25. and Origen's recorded by the same Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 24. or of the Author of the Book de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. whom Papists hold for Denis the Areopagite or of Athanasius in Synopsi S. Script or of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. if they were not conform to the Canon of Scripture received by the Protestant Churches Any little seeming differences in the way of their and our
Enumeration ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture cap. 4 5 6. Is not Jerom so explicite for us in this matter in Prol. Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebrae's non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Canon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicea else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autorisati Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praeâ—at in Proverb and Ruffin in expos Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non omnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to layclaim to Scriptures To this common Cavil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all Hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scriptur arum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scriptur arum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Breerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits
Severians Manichees Arrians Carpocratians Montanists Donatists Anabaptists c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apâ—stolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid â—pulsamus caelum quum habemus in Evangelio testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum si quando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocunque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis â—nvenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as these To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanists have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clear in terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against Mâ— Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1. 8. Next he objects That Hereticks for their Heresie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10. 8. All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8. 12. I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lapide in Matth. 4. 6. shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91. 11. leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui
wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said to be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle Polit. lib. 4. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture is only termed Judge because its the Law of the Supreme Judge having an Authoritative Power binding upon the Conscience and it 's honoured with the Title of a Judge both in Scripture and in the writings of Fathers Joh. 8. 48. The word that I have spoken shall judge him Joh. 7. 59. Doth our Law judge any man said Nicodemus before it hear him Hence S. Basil Epist 80. ad Eustach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Austin de gr lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nâ—s Judex Apostolus Joannes But all this is only so to be understood that it 's the Law and sentence of the Supreme Judge I answer secondly by retorsion As many Hereticks put divers senses upon Scripture neither will they acknowledge themselves to be condemned thereby so are there divers and contrary senses put by Romanists upon the definitions of their pretended infallible Judge neither will any of them acknowledg that their sentiments are condemned by the Pope or Council I could make a Volum of instances of this nature I only pitch on two And first the Council of Trent has defined Sess 4. cap. 2. that the Vulgar Latin Version of the Bible be held as Authentick and that none presume to reject it upon whatsoever pretext Habeatur pro Authentica quod eam nemo rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat Is this definition of the Council clear either to learned or unlearned Knows he not the interminable debates of Romanists concerning the sense of this definition Doth not Azorius the Jesuit Tom. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 3. testifie that Andreas Vega Andradius Sixtus Senensis Melchior Canus and Lindanus maintain that the Council of Trent intended not to vindicate the Vulgar Version from all errours either of Transcribers or of the Interpreter himself but only from gross errours relating to Faith and Manners To these Calovius crit sac de Vulgatae Versionis Authoritate minime Authentica Sect. 143. adds Driedo Mariana Isidore Clarius Brugensis Jodocus Ravenstein but others as Azorius himself loc cit Lud de Tena in Isagog ad script lâ—b 1. difficul 6. cap. 1. 3. Piâ—e ad praefat in Ecclesiast cap. 13. Sect. 2. Gretser defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 11. and many others hold that the Vulgar Version is not tainted with the least errour and this Debate was prosecuted with such animosity that as Calovius reports Sect. 143. out of Mariana they impeached one another before Judicatories with mutual Criminations and a Congregation of Cardinals was delegated to explain the sense of the Council yet neither to this day is that Debate finished Take another instance from the Bull of Pope Innocent the Tenth against the five Propositions of Jansenius which the Jesuits apprehend to be wholly in their favours and yet what various senses are imposed thereon by the Jansenists may appear from the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus subjoyned to the Notes of Wendrokius upon the Provincial Letters at Helm stad Anno 1664. Hence it follows that if various senses imposed upon the sentence of a Judge conclude that the giver of those sentences is not the Judge of Controversies then both Pope and Council are alike to be degraded from being Judges I answer therefore thirdly That it s enough that the Supreme Judge give out Law so clear that all Subjects might understand his sentences if the disability be not from themselves And such are the Scriptures of God though the prejudices of Infidel Jews will not let them understand that Jesus is the Messiah doth it therefore follow that the Scriptures have not clearly declared him to be the Messiah or if Ebionites and Arrians will not acknowledge Christ to be God doth it follow he is not there revealed to be the true God or if Socinians will not acknowledge him to have satisfied Divine Justice is it not therefore clearly enough revealed in Scripture The Pamphleter spends Paper in vain to prove the consistency of the Law with a Judge for that is not denied by Protestants we acknowledge that Councils have a Judiciary Power and that the general sentences of Scripture may be applyed by them for determining particular Controversies But that which is in question is whether Pope or Council have an infallible assistance whereof we must antecedently be ascertained before we believe any Divine Truth This the Pamphleter should have proved but that here he doth not once touch Page 77. The Pamphleter raises no little dust with some Citations of D. Field especially in his lib. 4. cap. 14 18 19. as if he asserted the consenting judgment of them that went before us to be the Rule of Faith and not the conferring of places nor looking to the Originals and that never any Protestant taught otherwise for which the Pamphleter would excommunicate me from the Protestant Churches But who authorized him to declare who be Protestants and who not Ne sutor ultra crepidam Is there a syllable in all my Papers derogating from the due esteem of Fathers Did I not still offer to debate the truth of our Religion from Antiquity as well as Scripture Did I not conclude their Religion spurious because it differs in its Essentials from the Ancient Church I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to let me have an account of Universal Tradition for Adoration of Images half Communions Apocryphal Scriptures the Popes Supremacy the necessity of an infallible visible Judge c. How scurvily is D. Field dealt with by these men Does not the Doctor complain Append. ad lib. 5. Part. 2. Sect. 5. that for what he had written concerning the Rule of Faith he was censured by Romanists as framing a new Religion for Sir Thomas Mores Vtopia yet this Pamphleter on the other hand makes these Assertions of D. Field to be the Standard of the Protestant Religion It is a falshood that D. Field makes consent with those who went before us to be the only Rule of Faith or the sine quo non for interpreting of Scripture for lib. 4. cap. 14. he reckons forth seven Rules of Faith and that comes but in towards the Rear Again in cap. 19. he enumerates seven means for finding out the sense of Scripture among which the knowledge of Original Tongues and conferring Texts are not omitted Yea cap. 17. he positively asserts with Cajetan Andradius Jansenius Maldonat that in interpretation of Scripture we may go contrary to the torrent of Antiquity and he concludes them
highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader where with the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yâ—t there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatus but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur ear nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Heathens were greater and their Learning not
the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompâ—iam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sure Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest reqâ—â—re But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lucifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. câ—nt Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defensâ—res salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius hoc autem unde nunc agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidei or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicâ—laus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a General Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in expounding these terms they go by the ears among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion than a meer agreement in the formalis ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3. 11. Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitly and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib.
which he infers from his Syllogism viz. that therefore all Articles of Faith are equally ponderous and Fundamental that is unless he intend to equivocate that there is an equal necessity of the explicit belief of every one of them to the eternal salvation of souls This consequent I deny because though all revealed Articles be revealed by an infinite Verity and with an infinite certainty yet not with equal perspicuity and so are not with equal facility penetrable by our weak understandings nor is the explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nuâ—la pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Screne Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far â—â—ss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly contrâ—v â— de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvaoion 2 Tim 3. 15. Were they not written for this end Joh. 20. 3. that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1. 8. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Hermogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanosius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut loquamini quae scripta non sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Sermâ— de Psâ—udo
Prophetis en calce Ephraemi Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reâ—icuit Hierom. in Micah cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeâ—ctici aedificastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in vicinia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11. he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if he did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scripturis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesia sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4. 4. verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does be wray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catech. 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in
that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity denied to other Scriptures containing as necessary truths Seventhly What is that square of Ecclesiastick sense whereto the Pamphleter would level all Scriptural interpretations Is it Tradition Though Protestants with Vincent Lirinensis do grant to Tradition its due place among the means of interpretation of Scripture yet now I must enquire what if a question arise about Tradition it self Has not this Pamphleter told pag. 75. that then all must be referred to the definition of the present Catholick Church that is to their infallible visible Judge and so the result of all these Cob web distinctions is this They can grant that Scripture is clear in Fundamentals provided nothing be taken as the sense of Scripture but what their Pope or Infallible Judge pleases And consequently when Chrysost Austin c. say that Scripture contains clearly all that is necessary the meaning is that Scripture contains not the Articles of Religion clearly but points to one who can unfold them Are not these goodly glosses which Jesuits put upon Fathers Must the World be cheated with such ludicrous non sense as if the end of Scripture were to point out their infallible Judge and yet it cannot be known what is Scripture or the true sense thereof but by the sentences of that pretended infallible Judge Are all things in Scripture clear and yet nothing at all clear but to receive its clearness from the Romish Judge who is alledged to be pointed out in Scripture and yet there is not one word of him in all Scripture I pray in what Text of Scripture is the Pope of Rome his Triple Crown and Infallible Chair together with the enthusiastick square of Ecclesiastick sense treasured up in his breast I ingenuously profess I cannot find the place unless it be 2 Thes 2. 3 4. or Revel 17. 4 5. It 's objected by the Pamphleter pag. 99. that the Fathers who writ Catalogues of Heresies Irenaeus Tertull. Philastrius Epiphanius Austin c. did not distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and integrals among Divine Truths for they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently as damnable errours The Aerians are condemned as Hereticks by Epiphanius Haeres 75. And Austin Haeres 33. he should have said 53. for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church The Eunomians by Austin Haeres 54. for teaching that no sin could hurt a man if so be he had Faith The deniers of Free-will by Epiphanius Haeres 64. Vigilantius by Hierom for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Jovinian by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginity Pelagians by Austin lib. cont Julian cap. 2. for teaching that the children of faithful Parents need not Baptism as being born holy and the Arrians by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. for not receiving Tradition All which says the Pamphleter is the Doctrine of Protestants Whatever shew this Objection may have with ignorant persons yet I must advertise them it 's but a crambe recocta These Heresies have been often objected by calumniating Romanists Bellar. Breerly c. and as often confuted by Learned Protestants D. Field D. Morton Gerard Whittaker Rivet c. yea and many more Heresies have been retorted cum faenore out of the same Catalogues upon the Church of Rome Briefly therefore I answer two things and first that neither Papist nor Protestant can admit that all the Errours mentioned in the Catalogues of Epiphanius Philastrius Austin c. are Fundamental Are there not many condemned in them for Opinions in matters disputable undetermined and of small consequence and which respectively are acquitted in both sides Hence Alphonsus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresies And Bellar himself descript Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastriâ—s as Heresies which are not Heresies D Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for sâ—gmatizing persons so liberally with Heresie conceives that they used the word Heresie in a more gentle notion than now it is with us and in divers Paragraphs he endeavours to prove that all Errours mentioned in the Fathers Catalogues were not Fundamental yea he questions also whether the Fathers had sufficient Evidence in the matter of Fact to fix every one of these errours upon these persons It will not be amiss here to remember that D. Hackwell in his Apology lib. 3. cap. 8 § 1. records out of Aventinus his Historia Boiorum Anno 745. that Pope Zacharias and Boniface Bishop of Mentz condemned one Virgilius Bishop of Salsburg as an Heretick for holding that there were Antipodes and perhaps were induced hereto by the Authority of Austin lib. 16. de civit Dei cap. 9. and of Lactantius instit lib. 3. cap. 24. If he say that Learned Bishop was guilty of a Fundamental Errour and damned eternally for holding there were Antipodes he will expose himself to the ludibry of any ordinary Mathematician Besides if all be Fundamental Errours which are recorded in the Catalogues of Heresies I am sure Romanists do err Fundamentally Were not the Collyridians condemned as Hereticks by Epiphan Haeres 79. for worshipping the Virgin Mary The Carpocratians by Epiphanius Haeres 27. and by S. Austin Haeres 7. for adoring the Images of Christ and Paul the Angelici by Austin Haeres 39. by Theod. in Epist ad Coloss cap. 2. and by the Council of Laodicea Can. 35. for worshipping of Angels Manichees by Austin Epist 74. for granting Marriage to their Plebeians and persons of less perfection and prohibiting it to those that were more perfect and yet like Romish Monks and Priests they could dally with Concubines Hence Austin lib. 2. de morib Eccles Manich cap. 3. said of them Quod non Concubitum sed nuptias prohiberent Were not the same Manichees condemned by Leo the first Serm. 4. Quadrages for abstracting the Cup in the Sacrament the Basilidians by Eusebius Hist Eccles cap. 7. and the Helcefaitae for teaching the lawfulness of equivocation and dissembling Religion in time of persecution Is not the Doctrine of Implicite Faith noted as a pernicious Heresie by the Author of the Sermon contra diversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Euseâ—ius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
Caranza relates in Summa Concil for discovery of Wicklevists and Hussits utrum credat quod post consecrationem sacerdotis in Sacramento altaris sub velamento panis vini non sit panis materialis vinum materiale sed idem per omnia Christus qui fuit in carne passus Doth not Aeneas Sylvius or Pope Pius the 2d charge the Hussits as affirming the equality of the Bishop of Rome with other Bishops as disallowing prayers to and invocation of Saints departed as condemning the necessity of atricular confession and excluding confirmation from the number of Sacraments either then the Pamphleter must derogate Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me or any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who maintained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists if their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denies But takes no leasure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lombard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church It we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Marâ—yr which Reverend and worthy Mr. Rait hath reprinted 〈◊〉 his late book what the consonancy betwixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christianog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the confutor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4 viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so as to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sense But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacrifice in the Mass then as S Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayers far less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Nor 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them liberation from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cont Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238. 239. Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Unction as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D.
oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8. 3. that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12. 39. they could not believe Matth. 7. 8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles 7.20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodâ— impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7. 22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3. 2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veraeity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay inthis they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varaeity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He faith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasms ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1. 7. O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood frees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscenee remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7. 24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7. 25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Faith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2. 24. It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3. 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as
to this purpose in my tenth which yet wait for his examination His gloss upon Austins gemina that he meant only two chief Sacraments is to dilute he might as well say there are but two Planets or that Jacob had but two Sons meaning two chief ones But why should these only be called the two chief Sacraments seeing according to Romanists Pennance is more necessary to Salvation then the Eucharist I appealled my adversary to Instance so much as one Father that affirmed a precise septenary of Sacraments should we not heard of it if it could have been given It 's true that p. 122. He hath some insignificant hints at Denys and Austin and first he begins in Luther de cap. Bab. granting that Denys the Disciple of Paul stood for seven Sacraments I have not that Book of Luther by me to try the Citation But though the Pope would affirm it as well as Luther I can say from an ocular inspection that it 's a gross mistake Yea Bell. l. 2. de Sac. in genere c. 27. confesses that Denys in his Book De Hierarch Eccles which was the proper place of treating of Sacraments omits three of the Romish Sacraments Matrimony extream Unction and Pennance Learned Criticks have demonstrated that the works passing under the name of Denys the Areopagit were not written by the Areopagit Pauls Disciple nor as appears within the three first Centuries neither is that Author of the present Roman Faith nay on the contrary he is ours as to the main substantials in controversy he is not for communions under one kind nor for the Priests sole receiving nor for exhortations lessons and Prayers in a Tongue which people cannot understand nor for invocation of Saints or adoration of Images or Creatures nor for praying for Souls in Purgatory yea nor for Transubstantiation c. as may farther appear cap. 7. who will affirm he is for the Romish precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor less I may say either he hath not read Denys with advertency or he trespasses against the principles of Ingenuity If the Pamphleter can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken by Denys in the strict notion wherein a Sacrament is used in this controversie and that they are applyed by him to the seven Sacraments pleaded by the Romanists and to nothing else I shall acknowledge I have learned a lesson from him Next for Austin the Pamphleter says he hath all the seven Sacraments because forsooth in one place he gives the name of a Sacrament to one and in another place to another but to pre-occupy that cavil in my Tenth paper against Mr. Dempster I did advertise that Austin frequently uses the word Sacrament in a large sense and attributes it to many things which neither Papists nor we hold for Sacraments as to the Sign of the Cross meat given to Catechumens yea to Polygamy insomuch that Bell. lib. 2. de sac in gen cap. 24. Sect. Lotionem pedum non esse Sacramentum acknowledges that not only Austin but also other Fathers as Cyprian Ambrose Innocent 1. called many things by the name of Sacrament which are not proper Sacraments What need I more where ever said Austin or any Father that there be seven proper Sacraments neither more nor less 'Till this be proved is there not reason to hold Romanists as Innovators in this matter How comes this quibling Sophister who answers nothing to what was objected against their five supposititious Sacraments to snarle p. 117. at the Scriptures which I brought to prove Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Sacraments viz. Act. 2. 38 39. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. Is his Indignation so great that we admit not their five new coyned Romish Sacraments that he would turn out of the Church Baptism and the Lords Supper which beyond all peradventure are of Divine Institution and of perpetual observation in the Christian Church Did he forget himself when pag. 120. he brought one of the same Scriptures at which here he cavils to prove Baptism to be a Sacrament Doth a Jesuits breath add significancy to a Scripture which signifies nothing from a Protestant Or is his choler moved That I called Sacraments Seals of the Promises of Salvation Did not the Apostle call Circumcision to which Baptisme hath succeeded The Seal of the Righteousness which is by Faith Rom. 4 11. Is not Baptism by Theod. lib. de Divin decret epitome called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the earnest of future good things and the type of the Resurrection to come Doth not Basil lib. 3. contra Eunom say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must first Believe and then be Sealed by Baptism what should I cite Tertul. de paenit or Austin lib. 4. de Bâ—pt cap. 24. might he not have learned from Valent the Jesuite Tom. 4. Disp 3. q. 3. Punt. 1. That Sacraments are in a manner Seals of Divine Promises Doth he not also Punct 3. compare Sacraments to the Seals of Princes annexed to their Patents Ought he not at least to have been better acquainted with the Roman Catechism set forth by Pope Pius Quintus which teaches part 2 cap. 1. q. 7. that when Christ had promised forgiveness of sin and heavenly grace he did institute sensible signs Quibus eum quasi pignoribus obligatum haberemus atque ita fidelem in promissis futurum nunquam dubitaremus that is whereby we might have him obliged as it were by pledges and so we might never doubt of his fidelity in his promises Who could desire a more full explication of Sacramental Seals Doth not the Scriptures at which he cavils sufficiently hold forth that Sacraments are instituted for the obsignation of promises Is not this the ground upon which Peter Ast. 2. 38 39. exhorts those to be Baptised for the Remission of Sins because the promise was theirs if the Promise was theirs then their sins were already pardoned and so Baptism was to be administred for the obsignation of the Promise But says he there is no mention of Salvation in that Scripture how childish is this objection Is not Salvation contained in the Promise Is there not an Infallible connexion betwixt remission of Sin and Salvation Rom. 8. Whom he justifies them he glorifies Doth he Seal to any remission of Sin to whom he seals not Salvation Can the other Scripture 1 Cor. 11. This Cup is the New-Testament bear any other tolerable sense but that the Cup that is the Consecrated liquor in the Cup was a Seal of the New-Covenant Can any Romanist deny that this proposition The Cup is the New-Testament is figurative Can any say that the Cup was Transubstantiated into the New-Testament If it could have born another congruous sense ought it not to have been declared when this Sophister was quarreling at the sense given by me what needs more doth not Esthius a Popish Commentator in loc give this sense That which is contained in this Cup is that by which
Prophesied and spoke with Tongues Had it been otherwise how could Simon Magus so easily have discerned that they have received the Holy Ghost The sanctifying graces of the Spirit are not easily discernible but edifying gifts as speaking with Tongues do clearly manifest themselves But though though it were given that some sanctifying graces had been conferred by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles doth it therefore follow that it was a proper Sacrament Is every sensible sign by which grace is conferred a Sacrament Is not the Spirit given by Prayer and by Preaching of the Word which yet are no Sacraments How great things do Romanists ascribe to their Crucifixes and Holy Water which yet they make not Sacraments What should I speak of that Trash of outward Ceremonies which are added to Baptism Exsufflations Spittle Oyle Salt c. are all these Sacraments Doth not Bell. lib. de Bapt. cap. 25. Sect. 10. relate from Austin of Sanctifying of Catechumens by the Imposition of not Christ himself bless young children by Imposition of hands Mat. 19. 13 15. Yet Soto Coninck and generally the rest of the Popish Doctors deny that to be the Sacrament of Confirmation Was not Imposition of hands in solemn benedictions and ancient Jewish rite as may appear by Gen. 48. 14. Numb 27. 18 19 23. 2 King 5. 11. Mark 7. 32. and so not first institut by Jesus Lastly some practices of the Apostles make not alwayes a perpetual standing Rule for the Church But more for the vindication of that Scripture together with a confutation of all Bellarmins cavils may be seen in Dallaeus Disp de Confirm lib. 1. cap. 6. 9 10 11 12. as for the other Scripture for Confirmation from 2 Cor. 1. 21 22. there is mention indeed of establishing and anointing but its manifest from vers 22. it was with no material oyle but by the Holy Ghost and so much is acknowledged by Ethius on the place Is not Christ said to be anointed Psal 45. 7. Isa 61. 1. dare he say it is with material oyle Is there not a parallel Scripture 1 John 2. 27. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and it teaches you all things But sure that 's a mystical Unction by the Spirit for it abides is Internal and teaches all things which without too violent a Catachresis cannot be ascribed to Romish Confirmation For Pennance he cites other two Scriptures Joh. 20. 23. whose Sins ye shall forgive are forgiven and Act. 16. 18. And many of them that Believed came confessing their Deeds Both these places are sufficiently vindicated by Fulk against the Rhemists In a word it shall be enough to me to say that these Scriptures prove a Ministerial power of absolution and that distressed Consciences may disburden their Spirits by laying open their sins to faithful Pastors and in cafe of publick Scandal publick confession of Sin should be made All these Protestants do grant but that every one is bound necessarily to reveal all his particular sins how secret soever by auricular confession to a Priest and that he hath power to impose proper satisfactions to Divine Justice as Romanists teach concerning the Sacrament of Pennance Neither these nor any other Scriptures hold out Nor is there a visible sign such as I shew in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster to be necessary to the being of a Sacrament here Instituted by Christ For extream Vnction he cites Jam. 5. 14. and Mark 6. 13. Did I not shew in my last against Mr. Dempster pag. 266. That Bell. lib. 2. de Extream Vnct. cap. 2. Jansen Concord cap. 55. Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacrat Disp 111. Dub. 1. Num. 3. as also Suarez a lapide Carleton and many others deny that in the latter place Mark 6. 13. any Sacrament is held out ought he not to have examined Bellarmins arguments to the contray did I not also ibid. 1. shew that Cardinall Cajetan Comment in Jam. 5. affrms that from these words Jam. 5. 14. 15. no Sacrament can be concluded and he says as much of that place Mark 6. so that both these places are declared by eminent Doctors of the Romish Church to signify nothing as to the purpose in hand Did I not also plainly tell that both these Scriptures treat of an Unction in reference to a miraculous healing of diseased persons Ought not this interpretation to have been refuted if he had intended to Satisfy those that are judicious Many arguments might be heaped up to confirm the interpretation I have given I hint but at a few things And First that of Mark treats not of a Sacramental Unction as is acknowledged by the most eminent Champions for the Romish cause already cited to whom Greg. de Val. Dominicus a Soto Ruardus and many others may be added and who will deny it must answer both Bellarmins arguments and also these brought by our Divines Therefore neither is there any Sacrament in James For any who with indifferency of Spirit will compare the two places will find them exactly parallel and this the Jesuit Maldonat on Mark c. 6. hath sufficiently proved albeit his heat for the Romish interest made him falsly to jmagine a Sacramental institution Mark 6. 13. Secondly Sacraments are not principally instituted for the body but chiefly at least if not only for the soul But both these Unctions Mark 6. and Jam. 5. are chiefly for the body In Mark 6. mention is only made of bodily cure In Jam. 5. the healing of the body is both first and absolutely Spoken of and forgiveness of sin only in the second place and also conditionally therefore in neither place have we a proper Sacrament Thirdly the Romish greasy Unction is only administred to those that are desperatly Sick of whose recovery there is no hope but the Vnction Spoken of by Mark and James are not at all restricted to these therefore the present Romish Unction is different from them both Fourthly if James words are to be understood of Extream Unction why are Elders in the plural appointed to be called for seeing only one can officiat in that matter Lastly not to repeat what was objected against this in my last is it probable that if this had been a Sacrament instituted by Christ that the Fathers in the first three Centuries would have made no mention thereof how comes it that we hear not of it either in the constitutions under the Name of Clement or in Denys whom they hold for the Areopagit in his lib. de Hierarch had they not convenient opportunity of it Indeed Denys speaks of an anointing the Dead but of Unction of the Sick he hath no mention That it was wholly unknown to the ancient Church is learnedly proven by Dallaeus de extrem Vnct. lib. 2. who also examins all the Cavills of Romanists for this pretended Sacrament For Orders he cites 2 Timoth. 1.6 Stir up the gift which is in thee by laying on of my hands the most that this place
says not as the Pamphleter alleadges viz. that most of the Fathers did avouch Invocation of Saints But on the contrary affirm pag. 634. that for 350. years after Christ there was no Invocation of Saints in publica praxi Ecclesiae and that the first rise of it was about the year 370. in Nazianzen and Basils Panegyricks by Rhetorical Apostrophes and that also with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far were they from maintaining it to be an article of Faith It were tedious to go through all among all the testimonies cited by the Pamphleter there will not one be found who affirm that Popery was the prevalent Religion for 1400 years before Luther except Sebastian Frank whom Dr. Francis Whyte in the defence of Dr. John Whyte against T. W. pag. 324. declares to be an Anabaptist an unlearned malapert not spur Chemnitius as the same Author testifies calls him hominem petulantem indoctum Did ever Protestants acknowledge that the body of the present Romish Religion was received by the ancient Church such as half Communions picturing and adoring Images of the Trinity the whole present worship of the Virgin Mary the performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue the necessity of an Infallible visible judge the prohibiting of reading Scriptures in vulgar Tongues Indulgences the necessity of auricular Confession the necessity of the Priests intention to make Sacraments effectual the Popes Supremacy and Soveraignty over Princes c. Who is the Protestant that ever acknowledged these things to have been ever received in the Catholick Church I profess I never read of him nor knew him nor I believe shall he ever be found Whereas Jewel said That Truth was not known untill the Preaching of Luther and Zuinglius that must surely be understood secundum quid as Dr. Francis Whyte observes lib. cit pag. 267. for Jewel gave a most solemn challenge to Papists at Pauls Cross to make out one Article of their Religion out of one Father for 600. years after Christ which challenge he prosecuted against Harding What Dr. John White saith in defence of his way cap. 37. That Popery was a Leprosie breeding in the Church so Vniversally that there was no visible company appearing in the world free from it makes nothing against what is said Nay in these words he distinguishes betwixt the Church and that Leprosie of Popery and by saying that it was a Leprosie in the Church he affirms the existence of both The meaning of the Doctor only was that in these latter times wherein Popish errors and superstition spread so far in this Western part of the World though God with the rest even as those seven thousand in the days of Elias did with the rest of Israel Thirdly when some Fathers are charged with some errors which is all that these testimonies amount to it doth not follow that all the Fathers were smitten therewith Though Cyprian erred in the Rebaptization though Tertullian did Montanize Pope Liberius Arrianize many Asiaticks espouse the Quarto Deciman opinion Origen maintain positions which were justly anathematiz'd by the fifth general Council yet I hope all the Fathers much less the whole Church was not leavened with these errors Made I it not appear in my 9. paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 194. 195. that none are more profuse in censuring Fathers then Romanists Bellarmine spares not to say lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 6. that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Epiphanius c. cannot be defended that Tertullian was an Arch-Heretick and of no credit lib. 1. de S S. Beat. cap. 5. and lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. That Cypran did not only erre but also mortally offend lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. that Prudentius speaks like a Poet and not like a Divine lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. that Jerom was deceived lib. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. that Austin had no skill in the Hebrew lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 10. that himself little regarded Damasus Pontifical lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. that Sozomen was a manifest lyar lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 14. Neither is it only single Fathers they thus undervalue but oft-times will prefer three before 7. two before eight one before five of all which Dr. James gives luculent instances part 4. yea sometimes they condemn whoâ—e Armies of Fathers All the Fathers with one voice affirm saith Melchior Canus lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin Chrysost Euseb Ambrose Austin c. and as Dr. James observes some bring 200. others 300. Fathers to confirm this opinion yet what saith that Bishop of the Canaries of all these Cum nullus Sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contrarium probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur i. e. It s but a weak argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers yea the contrary notwithstanding their suffrages may be piously defended Are these the men who challenge us for undervaluing Fathers who put such contempt upon them In very deed they regard no Fathers further then they can serve their interest Both Scriptures and Fathers must stoop to the authority of the present Church of Rome that is the Pope How many bastard Fathers have they legitimated How many true Fathers have they castrated Hence is that observe of Dr. Don in his pseudo-Martyr cap. 6. Sect. 30. according to Romanists the Scripture is a Divin Law the writings or interpretations of Fathers a subdivin Law but the decretalls of Popes a superdivin Law whereunto Scripturs Councils and Fathers must bend and bow Yet I must do them right they have one evasion according to which they do wrong to no Father for if the Pope prohibit the writings of such an Author he ceases to be a Father he is but as Gretser the Jesuit phraseth it Vitricus a step Father Nor need Fathers complain of this usage seeing the Pope usurps the like Authority upon the Scripturs of God Neither shall Fathers be Fathers nor Scriptures be Scriptures except it please the Pope Is not this that man of sin that exalts himself above all that is called God I deny not but some Protestants may have been too rash in their censurs of Fathers perhaps not fully penetrating the scope of Fathers or not distinguishing betwixt their genuine and supposititious writings have supposed them to favour errors from which others yea and somtimes the same authors also upon better advisment have vindicated them As I cannot in this wholly justify the Magdeburgion Centurists so I cannot but notice how this Pamphleter hath either through ignorance or malice injured them He brings in the Centurists reprehending Cyprian Origen and Tertul in the third Century and Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters primacy and again reprehending Cyprian for owning the sacrifice of the Mass and generally confessing that the Fathers of the third age did witness the invocation of Saints
And the Apostles having to do with hypocrits who placed Righteousness in outward ceremonies utter diverse speaches in disgrace of legal rites not depressing the same in themselves but shewing they were unprofitable to such as abused them So Luther being opposed by adversaries who preferred the Fathers before the Scriptures correcting that abuse useth some broad speeches such as our adversary nameth against the errors of some Fathers not generally of all but otherwise when Fathers are lawfully used as witnesses and interpreters of truth he esteemeth them according to their worth and yeelds as much to them as themselves require and to verify this he cites two testimonies of Luther which to stop the mouths of rayling adversaries I here thought fit to insert The first is periculosum horrendum est audire vel credere quod adversatur unanimi testimonio fidei Doctrinae Sanctae Catholicae ecclesiae quam indejusque ab initio unanimiter servavit So Luther ad March Brandeburg tom 2. germ pag. 243. again patres evangelium fidem in Christum absque ulla hypocrist pure simpliciter tradiderunt ecelesiam ab junumeris erroribus expur garunt So the same Luther Comment in cap. 5. ad Gal. by this it may appear that Luther had a great honour for ancient Fathers and believed that the ancient Church was a true Church of Christ Consider fourthly the granting of Protestant Authors that the Church was overspread with error doth not conclude that they held the Church to have utterly perished Every error in Religion destroys not the being of the Church a maimed man is a man though not a whole man a leprous or paralitick man is a man though not a sound man so one erring Church if the error be not in the essentials and fundamentals of Religion is truly a Church of Christ though not usque quaque pura throughly pure and sound yea in as much as the Church is said to be erroneous her existence is supposed doth not the inexistence of an accident in a subject suppose the existence of the Subject After that the worship of God was grosly corrupted by Idolatry in Israel and Judah they remained visible Churches and begat Sons and Daughters unto God Ezeck 16. 20. So Learned Protestants acknowledg that after the Roman Church was polluted with Idolatry and other absurd errors yet she remained a visible Church though a very impure one So Calvin epist 103. 104. and lib. 4. instit cap. 2. Sect. 11. 12. Zanch. in Epist ad Comitem Barch and lib. de relig Christ cap. 24. Sect. 19. Iun. lib. sing de eccles cap. 17. Mornaeus de eccles cap. 2. Sect. ecclesia Latina cap. 9. Sect. Secundo quemadmodum Dr. Feild in append ad lib. 5. part 3. cap. 2. where also he shews the same to be the judgment of Luther Bucer Melanctiton and Beza Neither is this for the advantage of the Popish interest for most of these Authors acknowledg the Romish Church in these latter and corrupt times only so to be a visible Church as the Apostle predicts the visible Church to be the seat of the Antichrist When he says 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God Yea all of them look upon Apostat Rome as a Church so impure that the reformed Churches did but their duty and were not schismatical in making secession from her for she was the Author of the Schism not only by adhering so pertinaciously to her corruptions but also by imposing on others the owning of them as grounds of communion with her and by driving Protestants from her by Bulls and Excommunications because they could not own these corruptions in so much that as King James in â—esp ad Epist. Card Perronij saith Non fugimus sed fugamur How ever by this it may appear that the prevailing of errors over the face of the visible Church doth not totally destroy the being of the visible Church Yea Jesuit Valentia in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6 confesseth quasdam veritates fidei quandoque ob hominum negligentiam vel proterviam ingenij perversitatem demersas latuisse forsan adhuc latere that some Doctrins of Faith and not only probable opinions once delivered by the Apostles thorow the ignorance or perversness of men were for a time drouned and lay as it were buried until afterwards by the diligence and faithfulness of the Church they were revived And perhaps saith he some truths may be in that case at this very day Hence to the clamorous cavil where was our Religion before Luther may solidly be replyed It was as to essentialls at least where ever God had a visible Church and consequently not only in the Greek Syrian Aegyptian and Aethiopian Churches which remain visible Churches and more pure then the Roman but also our Religion was preserved in the Roman Church she likewise being a visible Church though a most impure one I say our Religion was preserved in her as the true Religion was preserved in the Jewish Church when she was defaced with gross Idolatry Neither should this seem strange especially seeing many thousands in the Roman Church then groaned for reformation as appeared by the conjunction of so many with Luther upon his first appearance I further add that we are not obliged to grant the same of the Roman Church at this time which we grant of her before the reformation For surely since the reformation the Church of Rome is greatly changed to the worse as Dr. Feild in the place last cited and Voetius in desper causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 3. cap. 3. have evicted by many Instances and particularly many things being now defined by her as Articles of Faith which formerly were only debated as School-opinions And yet perhaps notwithstanding all these alterations to the worse she may be in a large sense allowed the name of a Church vere ecclesia though not vera ecclesia as Learned men distinguish Consider fifthly though the phrases of some Protestants concerning the prevailing of error in the Church in these last times especially may seem broad yet Scripture Fathers yea and Romanists themselves speak as broadly in reference to times of Apostacy And. 1. for Scripture what expression would seem broader concerning the time of Antichrist then that Revel 13. 4. That all the world wondred after the beast and worshipped the beast and the dragon what would seem wider then the World Revel 18. 3. all Nations have drunk of the Wine of the wrath of her fornication and the Kings of the Earth committed fornication with her Did ever Protestants speake broader Language concerning the apostacy under the Romish Antichrist then is there spoken by the Spirit of God 2. as for Fathers how lamentably do they bewaile the general overspreading of the Arrian heresy ingemuit orbis miratus se factum Arrianum said Jerom. dial advers Lucif Remarkable is the discourse in Theod. lib. 2. Hist cap. 16. betwixt Constantius the Arrian
their Religion as it is set forth by Pius quartus confession of Faith and in the Council of Trent and let all the Jesuits upon the face of the earth find it out in the first three ages of Christianity if they can How far the broken fragments which this Pamphleter filches from his Fellows are from performing this work shall I hope be seen in Cap. 7. The second reflexion is If I appeal to the Faith of the Church of the first three ages then I must acknowledge one infallible visible Judge Answer I deny the sequel was it to any representative of the first three ages which I did appeal Is it not acknowledged that in the first three ages from that Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. there was no general Council which together with a Pope is made by this Pamphleter the infallible Judge Was it not to the Faith of the diffusive Catholike Church to which I did appeal to which neither Papist nor Protestant ascribes a juridical power But the diffusive Church has a promise of perpetuity and Consequently that the essentialls of Faith shall be preserved in her If therefore the Faith of the ancient Catholike Church may be known by it the Faith of the present Church may be tryed Yet I ever made it but a secundary rule the holy Scriptures being the chief test but of this I treated more at large Paper 7. Pag. 231 232. 233. 234. Page 136. he says that I affirm that papists agree with us in all our positive tenets it seems Romish missionaries are so habituated in lying that they can hardly speak truth I never either spoke or thought so Papists are injurious to the truth not only by addition but also by substraction Do they not substract the cup in the Sacrament Do they not substract the substance both of Bread and Wine leaving only a specter of accidents to remain in the Sacramental Symbols Do they not deny the perspicuity of Scriptures and that all sins of their own nature merit eternal damnation c. in all which they hold the negative and we the affirmative The observe which he subjoyns that all cheif Heresies for most part consisted in negatives Is ludibrious all for the most part is all and not all But have not gross Hereticks maintained positive errors as Manichees duo principia Tritheits three Gods the Nestorians two persons in Christ John of Constantinople that himself was universal Bishop c. Is he not so ridiculous in reckoning the negatives of Hereticks that as would seem he could not distinguish betwixt an affirmative and a negative Among negative Hereticks he reckons the Nestorians whose Heresy consisted in a positive ascribing two persons to Christ and the Marcionits for maintaining that Baptism should be reiterated Is not rebaptization a positive Papists maintain seven Sacraments should others maintain twice seven were they not Heretical Papists add Apocrypha Books to the Old Testament If others added the evangells of Thomas and Nicodemus to the New Testament were they not Hereticks Papists say dulia should be given to Saints should others assert the lawfullness of Latria to them were they not Hereticks There may therefore be Heresy in positives But what though all Hereticks maintained negatives which yet is false doth it therefore follow that all who maintain negatives are Hereticks Is a Syllogism in 2da figura ex omnibus affirmantibus good Though it were so the Papists could not clear themselves from Heresy for they also differ from us in negatives This only in passing to shew the ludibrious quibling of Sophisticating Jesuits CHAP. VII The Truth of the Religion of Protestants evicted by the Conformity thereof with the faith of the Primitive Church in the first three Ages and the falshood of the present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the Faith of these Ages THere being but one Faith Ephes 4. 5. or one true Christian Religion which undoubtedly was conserved in as great purity by the Church in the first three Ages as in any other time consequently among the many pretenders to Religion in these days their Religion must only be true which agreeth in essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those Ages and that surely must be a false Religion which is discrepant in Essentials from that primitive Faith Whereupon I subsume but so it is that the Religion of Protestants doth agree in Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those times and the present Romish Religion doth certainly disagree Therefore the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion and the Popish Religion is false and impious The evidence of the first proposition is so clear that the Pamphleter in a peculiar Section from pag. 139. labours to justifie the present Romish Faith by some abusive Pretexts of Antiquity as if the Fathers of those Ages did clearly speak for them and against Protestants in all the chief controverted points It remains therefore that I prove the Assumption In order to which I only premise that a Religion may differ from that ancient Faith in Essentials or in points necessary to Salvation two ways viz. Either by denying some Articles of faith which she held as necessary or by coyning others as necessary which she held not This premised For evicting the conformity of our Religion as to all Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first ages it may be sufficient to renew to all Romanists my appeal mâ—de to Mr. Dempster pag. 4. pag. 54. to instance one Essential of Faith wherein we differ from the Christian Church in those Ages that is to pitch upon one Article held as absolutely necessary by the Catholick Church of those times and denied by the Reformed Churches or one Article which the Reformed Churches hold as absolutely necessary and those ancient Churches held not If we may judge of what other Romanists can say as to this matter by the ten Instances which the Pamphleter from pag. 139. has scraped together from their common Place Books I hope the ensuing examination of them shall discover more the consonancy of our Religion with the ancient Christian Religion and the dissonancy of the Romish Religion Or if we measure the Essentials of the ancient Christian Faith by the ancient Creeds and Confession of Faith these being drawn up as tests to distinguish them of the Church from others which as is supposed by learned Divines would not answer their end if they did not contain the Articles which the Church in those days held as necessary Then surely the Protestant Churches do agree with the ancient Church in all Essentials of Faith For all the Reformed Churches do cordially own all the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Primitive Churches not only in the first three ages but also much lower such as the Apostolick the Antiochian Nicen Constantinopolitan Athanasian as also these of Ephesus and Chalcedon neither have the Protestant Churches made a super-addition of new essential Articles unknown to
Church but as Chamier judiciously observes tom 2. de Oecum Pontif. lib. 13. cap. 23. the Catholick Church advising them not to joyn with any schismatical party but to adhere to those who did keep the unity of the Catholick Church The same is the importance of that which Cyprian says Epist 73 ad Jubajanum which perhaps this Pamphleter in his Collection from others has taken for Epist ad Jul. Nos unius Ecclesiae caput radicem tenemus We keep the head and the root of the one only Church but there he makes no mention of Peter at all So that the meaning is we keep the unity of the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are members and branches What though the Church of Rome be termed the Chair of Peter Is it not usual with Fathers to mention the Chairs of other Apostles as may be seen in Tertul. de praescript cap. 36. or had Peter himself jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles No verily Yea the Apostolick function being supream if the rest had been subordinate to Peter they had been supream as being Apostles and not supream as being subordinate to Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc eraut utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stillingfleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Menas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. The second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinâ—m and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri sine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta
Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8. 38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10. 47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16. 33. The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus it a persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3. 15. There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James
Barronius ad an 221. n. 6. confesses non est perinde exploratae fidei of the intercession of Saints neither of which are denyed Who may not see a vast difference betwixt intercession and invocation Saints in time do intercede for the Church and sure their charity being inlarged in Heaven they cease not to intercede for her But the Question is if we be to invocate them Religiously or if they know all the particular wants of Souls on Earth This is more then will be proven either by Scripture or primitive Antiquity That lamentation or penitential of Origen is declared apocryphal by Pope Gelasius witness Barron ad an 253. n. 118. Concerning that of Denys lib. de hierarch Eccles cap. 7. it hath oft been told Romanists particularly by Dr. Will. Forbes controv 3. cap. 3. Pag. 308. By Dallaeus lib. 1. de object cultus religios cap. 8. and by Dr. Fern in his answer to Scripture mistaken Sect. 2. pag. 262. That it is spoken of the Prayers of the living for the dead not of Prayers to the dead and cannot but be obvious to any that have read the Book it self He cites Cyprian lib. 4. Epist 9. speaking of the commemoration of the sufferings of Martyrs but Cyprian has nothing to that purpose in that Epistle Only he vindicates himself from some calumnies to Florentius Pupianus indeed lib. 3. Epist 6. he speaks of the memories of the Martyrs but what is that to invocation The sufferings of Martyrs were commemorated to excite the living to follow their footsteps but not for invocation Might he not have Learned from Austin lib. 22. de civ dei cap. 10. Martyres nominari non invocari that Honourable mention is made of them in the publick service of the Church but not invocated None of the testimonies alleadged for invocation or adoration of Saints have a shaddow of Pertinency but that of Justin Martyr apol 2. and that is an egregious imposture and so long agoe discovered that Cardinal du Perron in his large dispute concerning invocation of Saints with King James the sixth is ashamed to alleadge any thing out of Justin Martyr But this Simpleton scrapes out any thing he finds in Bell. It s objected therefore by Bell. lib. de beat Sanct. cap. 13. that Justin Martyr Apol. 2. taught that Christians did worship God the Father and the Son and the whole hoste of good Angels and the holy Ghost could there be a greater indignity done to this holy Father and Martyr then to make him ascribe the same Religious worship to Angels which is given to the Father Son and holy Ghost Are not Papists themselves ashamed to be so gross and shall we beleeve that in enumerating the objects of worship Justin would have put Angels before the holy Ghost Doth not the same Justin expresly affirm a little after Pag. 150. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore we worship God alone If then it be asked what Justin Martyr says in the place objected Answer Justin says only that we worship the Father and the Son who teaches the whole hoste of good Angels and the holy Ghost so Justin makes only God the Father Son and holy Ghost the object of adoration and Angels only are said to be taught by the Son of God Yet the Cardinal is not ashamed to impose that blasphemy on Justin Martyr as if he had asserted Angels should be adored with the Father Son and holy Ghost whom this Pedantick Pamphleter follows That this is the genuine sense of Justin any may see by looking on the Text of Justin Pag. 45. edit Comelin and the version of Langus a Popish Author who has rendred the words of Justin in Latin as I have Englished them and yet further this may be confirmed seeing Pag. 47. where Justin is again discribing the object of adoration we worship says he first the Father secondly the Son and thirdly the holy Ghost without any mention of Angels at all How much Romanists have wrangled with their own consciences in this matter of invocation of Saints may appear when their Jesuit Suarez in defens fid cathol lib. 2. cap. 9. n. 21. acknowledges that Christians may be saved though they do not invocate Saints and Cardinal Perron declared to Isaac Casaubon he had never all his time invocated Saints except he had fallen to be at a procession then he had said with the multitude ora pro nobis and Wecel in methodo concordiae as cited by Dr. Will. Forbes Pag. 285. wished that invocation of Saints might not be held as an Article of Faith Yea Rivet in his animadversions upon Grotius Notes on Cassanders Consultation art 21. brings in Wicelius utterly condemning invocation of departed Saints as injurious to God and our Saviour Christ Jesus And many of their Doctors have denyed invocation to be an Act of Religion as Thomas 2. 2. q. 81. art 1. Vasq in 3. part tom 1. disp 98. cap. 1. and Valent lib. 3 de Idol cap. 7. Yet Bell. lib. 1 de beat Sanct in ord disp will have it eximium adorationis genus How in the Roman Church the adoration of Christ is obscured by the invocation of the Virgin Mary and of other Saints may be seen in Cassander in defens libelli de officio viri pii Pag. 849. and 850. edit paris 1616. and in consult de merit intercess Sanct. seeing they are invocated with more confidence then Christ himself neque id à vulgo tantum imperito factitatum est saith he sed Doctorum etiam scriptis concionibus comprobatum do they not thus pray ora patrem jube filio c. O faelix puerpera pians scelera jure matris impera Redemptori Yea not only do they invocate and adore Saints recorded in Scripture but also Saints of their own canonization Doth not Bell. lib. de beat Sanct. cap. 8. affirm it to b◠the common opinion that this power of canonization does appertain to the Pope and cap. 9. that those whom he Canonizes without doubt are to be worshipped Yet have they neither Scripture nor Antiquity for this Yea this being a matter of fact according to their own principles the Pope may surely erre therein And Consequently they may pray to damned reprobats in stead of Saints as Cassand in Consult de Ven. Relig. tells how the bones of a robber were adored in stead of the reliques of a Saint This might afford us a sixth demonstration of the Novelty of the present Romish Religion That Saints are to be invocated being an Article of the present Romish Religion But not of the Ancient Christian Religion in the first three ages SECT VII A Seventh Instance of Novelty concerning Crosses and Images examined and retorted THe Pamphleter in his seventh Instance saith Protestants deny the use of the Cross and Images Have Jesuits lost all shame with their ingenuity How grosly is this question mis-stated Do Protestants deny the use of Images and crosses May not Images be seen dayly adorning the walls of
this was one of the Errors of the Pelagians that men in this life might keep the Law perfectly without sin as is held out by Hierom in his Dialogue betwixt Atticus and Critobulus Cont. Pelag. lib. 1 and lib. 3. and is expresly condemned by Fathers both before and after Pelagius by Justin Martyr dial cum Tâ—yph edâ—t comm pag. 252. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Cyprian de Orâ—t Dom. we are taught that we sin daily being commanded daily to pray for forgiveness of Sin Should I transcribe aâ—l which might be brought from Hierom. Austin c. after the stating of the â—elagian Controversy I might fill a Volumn Hence Hiâ—rom lib. 1. adver Pelag. haec est hominis vera sapientia se nosâ—e â—mperfecâ—um and in câ—p 4. ad Galat. nâ—mo potest explere legâ—m â—unctâ— facâ—re quae justa sâ—nt And August Epist 200. ad Aseâ—lâ—â—um lex dâ—cend non concupâ—sâ—eâ— hoc posuit non quod hâ—c valeamus sâ—d ad quod proficiâ—ndâ— tendamus As for that old Pâ—â—ag an objection That God commands nothing which is Impâ—ssible Answer nothing which is in it self and simply impossiâ—le it s granted Nothing which we accidentally render impossible to our selves it s denyed Are not they who are judicially obdured who sin against the Holy Ghost bound to Repent are not Devils bound not to Sin will you therefore conclude that all these have strength or grace sufficient to keep the Law of God But let Auâ—tin de Peâ—fect Justit cap. 6 ratioc 13. Answer this obâ—ection as moved of old by Celestius the Pelâ—gian Ideo esse culâ—am hâ—minis quod nâ—n est sine peccato quia sola homâ—nis voluntâ—te eâ—t â—ut ad iâ—â—am necessiâ—atem veniret Thus have I run through the Pamphleters 10. Instances and now let him reflect upon hâ—s Imaginary Triumph pag. 153. 154. wherein the insults over Protestants as if they lay prostrate at the feet of this Conquerour and exposes them to the ludibry of the world as disowning Fathers charging them with Errors and maintaining a Religion flatly opposite to the Doctrin of Fathers but I hope this may be a document to him henceforth to study so much sobriety as not to sound the Triumph before the Victory The First APPENDIX to CHAP. VII Containing another Decad of Romish Novelties in Religion BEfore I desist from this enquiry after Romish Novelties the Adversary must be advertised that though he had acquainted the Church of Rome in the Ten foregoing Instances in which I hope his failour by this time may be manifest yet had he not done his work For she hath Innovated grosly in many other particulars whereof I shall present here another Decad which the Catholick Church of the first Three Ages did never approve Instance First the present Romish Church holds the Books of Maccabees Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith Baruch Wisdom for Canonical Scriptures and Anathematizes them who do otherwise So the Council of Trent Sess 4. Decret 1. But the Church in the first three Ages held no such thing as is evident from the Catalogues of Melito in Euseb Hist lib. 5. cap. 24. Of Origen in Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Of Athan in Sinopsi and of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. Of Hierom in Prol. gal or praefat ad lib. reg and Prol. in lib. Solom ad Paul Eustoch and Prol. in lib. Sol. ad Cyromat Heliod yea Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Is not only constrained to yield us Hierom but also cap. 20. grants that Melito Epiph. Ruffinus and Hilary do follow the Jewish Church in the Canon of Scripture Now sure it is that the Jewish Church did never acknowledge the forecited Books for Authentick Scriptures I appeal all the Antiquaries of Rome to bring me one evidence from the first three Centuries of their Trent Canon of Scriptures This was objected by me to Mr. Dempster pag. 8. pag. 171. but yet I am waiting a Reply The greatest Pretext for the Ancient Pedigree of the Trent Canon including the forecited Apocriphal Books is that of Becan the Jesuite In Compend Manual Controv. lib. 1. cap. 1. qu. 1. Sect. 2. That the Council of Trent received is from Pope Eugenius 4. in the Council of Florence and Eugenius from Pope Gelasius in a Roman Council of his time Gelasius from Augustine Augustine from the Third Council of Carthage and the Council of Carthage from Innocent the First who saith Becan lived Anno 402. But this is such a Fallacious Story as ambitious men of base Extract are apt to forge to make their descent to be esteemed honourable For first it 's so noturly evident and proven by so many that these late meetings at Trent and Florence were no legitimate General Councils that I should hold it lost time to insist in probation thereof Secondly that Canon of Scripture attributed to the Council of Florence seems to be supposititious seeing there is no mention of it either in the History of that Council written by Silvester Sguropulus who was present thereat or in the Tomes of the Councils set forth by the Authority of Pope Paul 5. Anno 1612. or in the Edition of Binnius Anno 1618. Yea Dr. Cosin in his Scholastical History cap. 16. Num. 159. and 160. observes that it is not to be found in any of the Editions of the large Tomes of the Councils by Pet. Crab c. The first mention we have thereof being in Caranza's Epitome of the Councils It is a strong suspition of Forgery when more is in the Epitome then in the large Volums of the Councils Nay further that whole instruction to the Armenians which is said to be given by Pope Eugenius 4. in the Council of Florence whereof Caranza makes his Catalogue of the Books of Scripture to be one Article is likewise questioned seeing it is dated in the Year 1439. 10. Kal. December five months after the dissolution of the Council for it had been dissolved in the Month of July proceeding Thirdly it s a large leap which Becan makes from Eugenius and the Council of Florence unto Gelasius the first and his Roman Council near about a 1000. years this is a great hiatus and gape in the Pedegree Fourthly that Decree of Gelasius with his Roman Council of Seventy Bishops as also Innocent the first his Decretal to Exuperius looks to be supposititious and the rather seeing there was no mention of them till Isidorus Mercator began to vent his Sophistical wares 300. years after the Death of Gelasius and 400 after the Death of Innocentius Who would see more to prove the Forgery of both may peruse Dr. Cosins Scholast Hist of the Canon of the Scripture Sect. 83. 86. 87. Fifthly I have already shewed cap. 3. Fol. 1. that neither Austin nor the Council of Carthage ever meant that these Books were strictly Canonical that is given by Divine inspiration to be a publick rule to the Church for confirming Articles of Faith though they might be read in the
Church for a more ample instruction how to lead a regular course of Life Austin lib. 18. de civ dei cap. 36. expresly distinguishes the Books of Maccabees from these that are strictly canonical Nor is there mention of the Maccabees in that Canon oâ— Câ—rthage either as it is set down in the Greek Code or in the collection made by Cresconius not to speak of the scruples that are raised concerning the reality of that Canon oâ— Council by which it was made of which I leave the Reader to Dr. Cosins Hiâ—â— Sâ—ct 82. But sixthly admitting Innocents decretalls and Gelasius deâ—ree and the Canon of Carthage to be real yet all fall within the fifth Century for Innocent whom Becan sets in the first place is said to have lived Anno 402. And Gelasius was in the end of that Century about the Year 494. and so falls short of the first three ages I add eventhly and lastly that sure it is that neither by Innocent nor Gelasius nor the Council of Carthage yea nor by the Council of Florence could these Books be declared to be strictly and properly Canonical for most eminent Doctors in the Roman Church who could not be ignorant what these Councils and Popes had defined denyed either all or some of them to be Canonical such as Lyranus Antoninus Abulenfis Cajetan c. When Melchior Canus had objected these Authors to himself lib. 2. cap. 10. he Answers cap. 11. ad tertium illos ignorantiâ Labo âsse Where Melchior Canus brings on himself the suspicion of dis-ingenuity and of desperateness on his cause when he hath no other evasion but to say that the most eminent Doctors in the Church of Rome understand not what was defined to be Canonical Scripture by the Church By all which it may appear that â—ustly Learned Protestants have concluded that the present Romish Canon was so far from being acknowledged by the Ancient Church that it was never defined as an Article of Faith until the late Trent Coâ—venticle Here it miâ—ht make a good Problem why they of the Roman Church who so much undervalue the Scripture are so veâ—ement to have the Apocrypha Books eurolled in the Scripture-Canon But judicious Dr. Don Serm. 73. hath disclosed the Mystery viz. the design of Romanists being to undervalue Scripture that they may overvalue their Traditions and sentences of their visible judge therefore they put the name of Scripture upon Books of a lower value that the unworthiness of these additional Books may cast a diminution upon the Books which truely are Canonical when all are made alike A Stratagem forsooth well becoming the man of sin Instance second the Council of Trent sess 4. decret 2. hath Authorized the vulgar Latin version of the Bible to the authentique rule of Faith passing by the Originalls of the Hebrew and Greek the like cannot be pretended to be done by the Church in the first three Centuries Romanists will have much a do to prove that the vulgar Latin as now set forth by Clement the eighth was extant in these three Centuries Sure I am that the Ancient Fathers even they who flourished after the third Century were so far from teaching that the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek of the New were to be corrected by this Latin version that they held all versions were to be corrected by the Original Take for all Hierom Epist. ad Suniam Fretelam and August lib. 2. de Doctrin Christ cap. 15. Instance third the Council of Trent sess 22. cap. 8. and Can. 9. declares it not to be expedient that the publick worship of God should be performed in a Language known to the multitude and anathematizes them who teach otherwise So taught not the Christian Church of the first three ages as hath oft been demonstrated by our Divines from Orig. lib. 8. Cont. Celsum Justin apol 2. Tertul. Apol. 39. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Chrys Basil Austin At present let that of Origen suffice lib. 8. contra Celsum every Nation saith he Prays to God in their own proper Language Yea the more ingenuous among Romanists confess so much Hence Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones caetera omnia fiebant in Lingua vulgari So also Cassander in Liturg. cap. 28. Yea Bell. himself lib. 2 de verb dei cap. 16. from Justin Martyr Chrysost Cyp. and Hierom acknowledges that in the primitive Church the whole multitude joyned in the puâ—lick services saying Amen which supposes they understood what was said And a little after he saith that in process of time that custom was changed and a Clerk was substituted to say Amen in name of the People Consequently by Bellarmins confession the Roman Church in this particular hath innovated And of that Clerk also Suarez in 3. part tom 3. q. 83. art 4. disp 83. sect 1. Is not ashamed to say nunc non est necesse ut minister linguam intelligat in qua missa dicitur that now it is not necessary that the Minister understand the Language wherein Mass is said Cajetan is better advised who in 1 Cor. 14. confesses it were for more edification that the worship were performed in a known tongue So doth Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. and Cassander in defens offic pii viri Pag. 141. wishes that according to the Apostles command and practice of the Ancient Church Gods worship were performed in a known tongue So far is this worshipping of God without understanding now practised and taught by the Romish Church from that reasonable service which God requires Rom. 12. 1. that Austin exposit 2. in Psal 18. compares it to the chattering of Parrots and Crows and lib. 4 de Doct. Christi cap. 10 quid prodest saith he locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis yea in decret Greg. 9. lib. 1. tit 31. de offic jud orb cap. 14. It s ordained that Cities where are people of different Languages men be provided to celebrate Divine service according to the diversity of Languages and Justini an in Novel 123. Statutes that holy things be celebrated with a loud and distinct voice that the hearts of the hearers may be raised up to the greater devotion which could not be if then the worship had not been performed in an intelligible Language In the Roman Pontifical Readers are commanded lectiones sacras distincte aperte ad intelligentiam aedificationem fidelium proferre It is as easie therefore to reconcile Adultery with the Seventh Commandement as the present way of the Romish Church either with Scripture or Antiquity It s true in many places of the West publick worship was performed in Latin but it s as true that the Latin Tongue was then generally understood by reason of the Roman Colonies Yet Romanists want not some presidents for their barbarous worship such as the Hereticks called Osseni in Epiphanius haeres 19. and the Hieraclionitae in Austin haeres 16. who taught to pray with obscure word
to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible assiistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to untill the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex super abundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. 20. Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3. 15. I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3. 15. but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176 by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2. 2. 3. Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 19. Ephes 4. 11. But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2. 2. 3. Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16. 19. Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18. 19. I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4. 11. which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Church to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with
Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No surely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180. 181. he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold out that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Councils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Catholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Pamphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm That real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo
are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2. 9. that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an Imposter Yea Bell. affirms lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. that there can be no infallible certainty whether such a thing be a true Miracle or an illusion of the Devil ante approbationem Ecclesiae before the approbation of the Church Behold then how these Romish impostors run in a circle proving the truth of their Church by Miracles and the truth of Miracles by the testimony of their Church One of the two they must acknowledge either that Scripture hath a self evidencing Light which will ruin their whole interest or that Miracles cary not with them a self evidence and consequently are impertinently brought as the first and most evident note of the true Church I leave it to the deliberation of our adversaries which of the two they will chuse In the second place it would be considered that there were indeed glorious miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles nor do we deny that there were Miracles there after in the primitive Church also yet all these are Impertinently alleadged by Romish Authors as to this present Debate For certainly none of the real Miracles done by Christ or his Apostles or afterwards in the days of Irenaeus Justin Martyr Cyprian Gregory Thaumaturg were wrought to prove that the Roman Church in these last days is the only Catholick Church or that the present System of Romish Faith as defined in the Council of Trent or expressed in Pope Pius the Fourth his Creed is the only true Christian Faith Have I not shewed Popery as now it stands was not known in these days These Miracles prove the Truth of the Christian Religion in those days which I have shewed to differ in Essentials from the Trent Religion but to agree with the reformed Religion How miserably the Pamphleter comes off as to Miracles in ancient times may be apparent to any that takes notice of his citations pag. 187. 188. His first citation from Justin Martyr q. 28. is out of a Book acknowledged to be spurious by their own Authors Bell. Possevin Sixtus Senensis and Azorius yea nor was it written within the first three Centuries as is evicted by learned Criticks And besides the Author of these questions mentions not a Miracle wrought for any Popish Tenet far less for the complex of all Only that at the Sepulchres of Martyres Miracles were done to confirm the truth of the Christian Faith not the worship of Reliques That of Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 58. speaks only of Miracles wrought by living Saints for conversion of Infidels What is that to the Romish interest As for the Miracles of Greg. of Neocaesarea commonly called Thaumaturgus there is no mention of them for a hundred years after his time until Greg. Nyssen If they were all real is it not strange that Eusebius who uses to be very punctual in these things has not a touch of them That Orat. of Nyssen de vita Greg. is called by Scultetus Somnium Somniorum surely there be very fabulous things therein as that the Virgin Mary and John came down from Heaven to teach him his Creed which Dr. Beard retract cap. 12. compares to the Poetical Fiction of Apollo teaching Esculapius the Rules of Physick and to the Rabinick Fable of the Angel Sanballets being Adams School-master and Nyssen himself is charged by his Brother Basil as a simple and credulous man But what Did Greg. Thaumaturg work any Miracle to prove the whole System of the present Romish Religion to be true No such thing can be alleadged only in some of his Miracles he is said to have used the Sign of the Cross What then Do not Protestants particularly Hospinian lib. 2. de templis cap. 20. acknowledge the sign of the Cross as used by Ancients to testifie that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour to have been lawful though now it be superstitiously abused Romanists now give Religious adoration yea that of Latria to Crosses But no ancient Author testifies that ever Greg. Thaumaturg did so What is cited from S. Cyprian Serm. de lapsis as relating Miracles to prove the Corporal presence of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Jesuitical falshood these Miracles did prove the Divine Institution of the Sacrament of the Supper the mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of Christs human Nature represented by the Sacramental Symbols but no more of the figment of Transubstantiation then of Mahomets Alcoran These are all the citations he has for the first three Ages of Christianity if there be one Miracle here to prove the present Trent Religion to the only true Christian Faith let any who are not willing to be deceived judge The like impertinency may be discovered in the next three succeeding Ages for the whole Story of the Invention of the Cross by Helena the Empress and Mother of Constantine and the Miracle reported by Ruffin and Nicephorus to be wrought at that time appears to be fabulous Is it probable that Eusebius who wrote four Books of the life of Constantine would have omitted it Dellaeus is large in confuting it lib. 5. de object Cultus Relig. c. 1. But suppose it were true was that Miracle wrought to confirm any point of Popery far less all No verily the only design of it if real was to show that Jesus who was Crucified on that Tree was the Saviour of the World Helena and the Christians of those days had not learnt to adore the Cross Hence S. Ambrose de Obitum Theodosii says Regem adoravit non lignum she adored Christ but not the Tree That of Epiphanius Heres 30. looks also to be fabulous and
their Authors forge so many Miracles that he was ashamed of them The same is regrated by Vives and Polydore Virgil by the Germans in their centam gravamina art 7. Gerson de secta flagellantium as is noted by Gerard saith that Miracles are now to be suspested the World in its decrepit Age being abused by the fancics of lying Miracles as old doting men are with Dreams It would fifthly be considered that Heathens can pretend to as specious Miracles as the Popish Church Doth not Tacitus Hist lib. 4. report how Vespasian the Emperour cured one Blind another Lame Doth not Austin lib. 10. de civit Dei cap. 16. relate a multitude of Heathenish Miracles as that a Vestal Virgin did draw water with a Sieve to prove her Chastity that Claudia tying a Ship to her Girdle drew it after her which neither men nor Oxen could remove by all their strength Is it not reported by Aelian de animalibus lib. 9. cap. 33. that Aesculapius restored a woman to life after her Head was cut off Doth not Austin Epist 5. talk much of the miracles of Apollonius Thyaneus and Apuleius Hath not Philostratus wrote Eight Books of the miracles of Apollonius insomuch that Hierocles dared blasphemously to prefer them to the glorious Miracles of our Blessed Saviour Did not the Donatists so much glory in their miracles that Austin called them tract 13. in Joh. mirabiliorios If it be answered with Bell. they were but lying wonders that the Devil sat upon the Eye of one and the Leg of another whom Vespasian is said to have cured that when he ceased to annoy he might seem miraculously to cure It would be remembred the same may be replyed concerning the Romish Legendary Miracles An exact parallel may be seen betwixt Popish and Heathenish Miracles in Crakanthorp defens Eccles Anglic. contra Spalat cap. 66. Pagans may as soon prove the truth of their miracles as Romanists of their late Legendary Romances Who can set limits to the Almighty that he shall not work miracles for the good of mankind without his Church Miracles therefore cannot be a reciprocal note of the Church Ought not Romanists at least to remember Bellarmin's Reply concerning the Miracle wrought by a Novatian Bishop lib. de notis Eccles cap. 14. Factum esse non in confirmationem fidei Novatianae sed Catholici Baptismi Why may not Protestants likewise answer if any Real Miracles have been wrought by Romanists such as Xavier in the Indies these were not wrought to confirm Popish Errours but the common Principles of Christianity But sixthly Hath ever God promised that the Church in all Ages should enjoy such a gift of Miracles that no Society should be acknowledged for a true Church which is not confirmed by present Miracles I find no Scripture saying so but on the contrary cautioning us that we be not seduced by the lying signs and wonders of Seducers Matth. 24. 24 25. especially of Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 9. Revel 13. 13 14. Did not Romanists pretend to Miracles The See of Rome should want one of the signs of the Great Antichrist Ancient Fathers believed not a perpetual necessity of Miracles saith not S. Austin expresly lib. 22. de Civ Dei cap. 22. Possem dicere necessaria fuisse prius quam mundus crederet ad hoc ut crederet mundus quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat requirit magnum est ipse prodigium qui mundo credente non credit Will ye not at least regard Greg. Hom. 29. in Evang. We use saith he to water young Plants when they be new set which watering then ceaseth after that they have taken root so were Miracles necessary for the first Seed-plot of the Church to the sound rooting of multitudes in the Faith To the like purpose speaks Chrysost Hom. 23. in Joh. Is it not acknowledged by many Romish Doctors that now there is no necessity of Miracles except it were for the conversion of Infidels For this Espencaeus Delrio Roffensis and Josephus à Costa are cited by D. Morton Appeal lib. 3. cap. 17. Sect. 4. to whom Gerard Sest 275. adds among the rest Cornel. Mussus saying Haec signa facta sunt ut Religio plantaretur nunc autem eâ plantatâ non sunt necessaria As also their great Preacher Didacus Stella not sparing to affirm that Miracles now damnum potius afferrent quam commodum would rather be hurtful than profitable I cannot but in the seventh place remember Romanists that they take for granted which Learned Protestants will not yield that there have been no Miracles wrought in the Protestant Churches If Melancthon saith Whittaker controv 2. q. 5. de notis Eccles cap. 12. may be credited who was a faithful and modest man Luther was honoured of God to work Miracles D. Willet in Synop. Papismi controv 2. q. 3. of the fifth note of the Church records many Miracles wrought by Protestants and that for the conversion of Papists Nor can it but seem strange to hear Romanists talking so much of their Miracles and yet can work none among us Protestants whom they hold for Hereticks and Infidels if they can work Miracles why have they not so much compassion to our Souls as to work them before intelligent Protestants One Miracle wrought before our eyes would have more impression than a thousand Fabulous Legends of Wonders pretended to be wrought in the Indies among the Antipodes or in Vtopia But this is a strange prejudice against their pretended Miracles they can work none of them before rational Protestants I cannot but record a story of a Nun in Spain which was cryed up for Miracles insomuch that when Charles the First King of Great Britain then Prince of Wales was there by the entreaty of the Infanta he was perswaded to go and see her It was reported to the Prince she would be sometimes lifted up into the Air and be as fresh as a Rose although she was surrowed with Age but she could not do any one Feat before the Prince although she could never have shewed her Miracles in a better time but the Prince was of too strong Faith for that Spirit she was acted by and therefore she could shew none but crede quod habes habes This Relation I have from Edward Chisenhale in his Catholick History against D. Vane cap. 7. pag. 180. Therefore to shut up this discourse of Miracles whatsoever prodigies are wrought to confirm Doctrines repugnant to clear Scriptures are lying signs and wonders but Invocation of Saints Religious Adoration of Images Crosses Relicks the transubstantiated Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Purgatory c. are all Doctrines repugnant to clear Scripture as Learned Protestants have proved and I in this Tractate have made good as I had occasion therefore surely Romish prodigies to confirm these are lying signs and wonders Away therefore with that oft repeated Song from Hugo de Sancto Victore which Bell. Breerly Lessius D. Vane and this Pamphleter with the rest do
man who is bound in conscience to supply the necessities of the poor Baunius as cited in the Jesuits Morals pag. 341. affirms that a man is not bound to restore what is taken by many petty thefts whatever the total sum thereof may amount to The Author of Pyrotechnica Loyolana pag. 44. shews from the mystery of Jesuitism that they hold a Son may steal from the Father that Servants may rob their Masters to make their wages proportionable to their service that a Religious man may quit his habit to go and steal as well as go incognito to the Stews that Cheating is lawful under the notion of their contract Mâ—hatra yea Baunius as cited in the Jesuits Morals pag. 343. saith that a Wife or Children being called into Judgment to see themselves ordained to confess what they have put aside taken or usurped of the moveables inheritance or goods of the deceased are not in Conscience to confess it and because they may be brought upon their Oaths and obliged to swear before a Judge he gives them this expedient Nevertheless that they may not lye and so doing forswear themselves the prudent Confessor shall teach them that they are to frame a conception in their minds according to which they may form the Answer and Oath which they may make by the Command of the Judge to justifie and make him believe their Innocence Is not this to add perjury to theft Of the theftuous practises of Jesuits according to these their principles a large account is given in a Tractate entituled The Moral practise of Jesuits Nay they teach how to make Simoniacal transactions without sin by ordering of the intentions as is shewed in Pyrotechnica Loyolana pag. 44. I only add tenthly that Jesuits teach gross violations of the ninth Command not only by their equivocations and mental reservations at which I hinted before but also by saying that it is allowable to defame an Adversary by charging him with crimes whereof he is not guilty as is shewed by Montalt Epist 15. These Principles of Lying being instilled by Jesuits into the Emperesses Ladies the whole Court was put into a combustion by false reports until Quivoga the Capucin convinced the Empress of these pernicious lying Principles of Jesuits Time would fail me in reckoning forth the impious Doctrines of Jesuits these few hints I hope may suffice to demonstrate that the Doctrines of Popery and more especially as maintained by Jesuits have a Native tendency to impiety Well did the Apostle 2 Thes 2. term it a Mystery of Iniquity The Pharisaical Cob-webs of pretended Piety wherewith this Pamphleter from pag. 199. would commend their Religion are easily swept away As 1. He talks of the glorious Temples and Hospitals c. which they have built Have not Heathens and Mahumetans done the like How glorious was the Temple of Diana at Ephesus How stately are the Mosche's of Mahumetans at Constantinople Did not Herod build the Temple of Jerusalem with such magnificence that some think it did exceed the glory of Solomon's Temple Did not Pharisees build the Monuments of the Prophets Is it not said of Apostate Israel Hos 8. 14. he hath forgotten his Maker and buildeth Temples Doth he not remember that the same Objection was made of old both by Heathens against Christians and by Arrians against the Orthodox In a word therefore we do allow comely Edifices for the Worship of God and endowments for pious uses It 's the observation of that Learned and Ingenuous Person Doctor Don Serm. on Matth. 5. 16. that there have been more endowments for pious uses in this last Century since the Reformation in England than was in any one Century when Popery prevailed only this I must add it 's not curious Fabricks but pure Doctrine and spiritual worship which do demonstrate a true Church but Popish Temples are full of Idols Superstition and Idolatry He objects secondly they have thousands of Monks who have renounced the world and live chastly and contemn riches and pleasures and so have Mahumetans their Votaries and Recluses I believe it will trouble Romanists to give a Scripture Warrant or President from the first times of the Gospel Church for those who could be useful to the Church to shut themselves up in Cells from all converse with men Who knows not how unlike the Monastick life at this present in the Romish Church is from that which at length crept into the Church in ancient times yet we should not so much blame them who betake themselves to Monastick retirements if they gave themselves to the serious study of Mortification and to the true exercise of Religious Duties prescribed in the holy Scriptures But the devotion of Romish Monks is for most part meer Superstition consisting in the observation of some Rules invented by superstitious persons as Francis Dominick c. What impiety is acted under a pretence of Monastick austerity I hinted before Now let any consider what great Mortification it is under a pretence of Poverty to go into stately Palaces endued with rich Revenues under a pretence of Fasting to feed on such chear as a Sensual Epicure would prefer before sumptuous Feasts under a pretence of Chastity to Vow against Marriage which is Gods Ordinance but not against other fleshly impurities Hence Bell. gives this reason why it 's less sin for a Priest to Fornicate than Marry because by Marrying he violates the Vow of Continency implying they vow not against Concubines Lastly many who retire to Monasteries do it either on a tedium of worldly business or discontent or superstitiously to expiate some atrocious crime desperatio facit Monachum But thirdly says he they have Saints as Gregori 's and Leo 's and Caelestin ' s. c. But who gave their Pope power of Canonizing Saints Is not this an Innovation unknown to Antiquity How can the Pope infallibly know the Sanctity of others when he cannot be sure of his own Nay have not many of them lived like incarnate Devils Have they not Canonized some for Money others to promote superstitious ends yea some who never were Do not their own Authors such as Cardinal Cajetan question the Popes Infallibility in Canonizing c. I suppose he will not say all their Pope Leo's and Gregori's were Saints I believe not Greg. the Second who pronounced Hezekiah an Heretick for breaking of the Brazen Serpent nor Greg. 9. who tyrannized over Frederick the Second Who may not pass for a Saint among them seeing Greg. 7. that Brand of Hell has a place in their Calendar why have they not added Leo the Tenth who looked on the Gospel as a Fable to bear him company As for Caelestin's was that Sanctity or Simplicity in Caelestine the Fifth to be cheated by Boniface the Eighth out of the Popedom to an Hermitage But Boniface fearing he might revoke that Sanctity shut him up in Prison where he died for displeasure that he had been fooled out of the Papacy But fourthly He pitches on
his considerations of the Church of England Reformed cap. 4. Secondly according to the principles of both these not only of them who hold the Pope to be a Petit Antichrist and a Fore-runner of the Great One but also of them who affirm him to be the Grand Antichrist our Lord under the Papal Tyranny preserved a Church in these Western parts and consequently many great truths such as the Trinity and Incarnation and the substantials of many Ordinances particularly of Baptism and of Ordination albeit both of them were clogged with additional corruptions yet in evidence that the Reformed Churches held their Baptism and Ordination valid they did not rebaptize or reordain those who had been baptized or ordained by the Church of Rome Neither need any think strange at this who remember that it 's predicted of the Great Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God From which it follows that though Popes be the Great Antichrist yet Orders being one of these remains which God had preserved under Antichrists Usurpation Ordination conferred by Antichristian Ministers not in so far as Antichristian but as retaining some of Christs goods might be valid Thirdly I add that in this the Wisdom and Goodness of God doth greatly appear that under the prevalency of the Tyranny of the Papal Faction he would preserve a Church and thereby transmit to Posterity the Holy Scriptures which did luculently discover the corruptions of that Apostatized Church and convey down orders to Ministers who by vertue of their Ordination were authorized and obliged to endeavour the Reformation of the Church Fourthly that our Reformers did not set up a new Church but did reform the old Apostatized Church so that there needed no new Ordination or immediate Call but only faithfully to improve the power given them in their Ordination to shake off and witness against the corruptions of that lapsed Church And fifthly and lastly this must be added though Ordination was clogged with corruptions at the time when our Reformers received Ordination in the Church of Rome yet was not Ordination in the Romish Church by far so corrupt as now it is for then Pope Pius the Fourth his impious Oath which he imposed upon all persons to be Ordained was not contrived By all this I hope it may appear that our Reformers Ordination was valid though received by Romish Ministers and yet the Romish Party not vindicated from Antichristianism It 's further objected that Protestants look upon Romanists as Hereticks and consequently ought to look upon Ordination from them as null Answ That sequel is null Do not Romanists maintain that Orders imprint an indeleble character on the Soul which neither Schism nor Heresie can extinguish and that Sacraments conferred by Hereticks are valid and particularly of this Sacrament of Orders Jesuit Connick Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 20. dub 9. Num. 84. concludes Certum omnino est Episcopum Excommunicatum Haereticum degradatum validè conferre ordines i. e. It is altogether certain that Orders conferred by a Bishop Excommunicated Heretical and degraded are valid And though Protestants acknowledge no such Sacramental character impressed on the Soul yet they affirm that by Ordination a power is conferred which is not utterly made void by every Schism or Heresie so that though Schismaticks or Hereticks act irregularly in ordaining yet Orders conferred by them are not null and void Neither are they whom Schismaticks or Hereticks ordain bound in conscience to propagate the Schism or Heresies of those who ordained them yea by relinquishing the Schism and Heresies of their Ordainers what irregularity was in their Ordination is supplied and they come into a capacity of conferring Orders regularly which their Ordainers abiding in Schism or Heresie could not do Hence it apparently follows that though Romanists be both Schismatical and Heretical and act irregularly in conferring Orders yet the Orders conferred by them to our Reformers were not only valid but also the Reformers by relinquishing the Heretical Doctrines and Schismatical principles and practices of the Church of Rome and by owning the Catholick Truths oppugned by Romanists had the defects and irregularity of their Ordination supplied Thus Romanists themselves answer concerning the Bishops whom they own who had been ordained by Cranmer in the time of Schism as they call it saying they attained the regular use of their Orders by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Mary's time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome they ought not then offend at us for making use of the same Reply to them I shut up this Answer to this Objection with that saying of S. Austin Epist 165. Et si quisquam traditor subrepsisset albeit some Traytor had crept into the Church he means the Roman in which too too many Judasses have been seen since that time nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae aut Innocentibus Christianis it should nothing prejudice the Church or Innocent Christians From pag. 203. to 207. he breaks forth into a Flood of Thrasonick Clamours as void of truth as of sobriety as if Protestants acknowledged the Popish Church to be the most Ancient Church and ever to have possessed the greatest part of the Christian World converting Nations working Miracles and that the Church before Luther should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture and thereupon vainly misapplys to the Romish Church that word of Tertull. Olim possideo prior possideo The falshood of all these hath been already as copiously demonstrated as the nature of this Tractate would permit And particularly it hath been shewed that one of our great Exceptions against the Popish Church is her Novelty under a Mask of falsly pretended Antiquity That the Complex of their Trent Religion is latter than Luther and that the truly Catholick Church continued in all Ages having both the Letter and sense of holy Scripture and Substantials of Faith maintaining the same Religion which the Reformed Churches do to this day consequently the Reformed Churches are truly a part of that Catholick Church from which Romanists do Schismatically separate themselves Though Romanists had more Antiquity than they have yet that of Tertull. lib. de Veland Virg. Cap. 1. might stop their mouths Nec veritati praescribere potest Spatium temporum vel patrocinia personarum vel privilegia Regionum Neither length of time nor Patrociny of persons nor priviledges of Countries can prescribe against Truth SECT V. A Brief Reparty to his Conclusory Knacks THe vain Knacks where with he shuts up his Treatise pag. 207 208. are solidly confuted to my hand by Learned and Judicious Mr. Rait in his Vindication of the Protestant Religion pag. 268. for with the same froathy talk his Adversary also had concluded his Scriblings It shall be enough therefore to me to make this Retorsion on Romanists They have Faith without Verity Unity of Interest without Unity of Judgment a Catholick Church without Catholicism excluding the greatest part of
perhaps both of us did bewray somewhat of humane infirmity but if therefore either of us should be concluded contentious hardly could Hierom Austin Ruffin Chrysostom Epiphanius yea Paul and Barnabas escape the like character I ever had an high respect for that Reverend and Worthy Person and do honour his memory as for other eminent Gifts and Graces so in special for his faithfulness and zeal against Romish Idolaty and I hope e're long to live in Eternal Concord and Bliss with him I judge it indeed duty to contend cum vitiis against errour and ungodliness against Popery Quakerism Prophaness and Atheism Yet I have such affection to persons smitten with these diseases that even for this Railing Jesuit I can pray that his spite against the Truth and against me for the Truths sake may not be laid to his charge I would trespass too much on the Readers patience should I insist to resume the rest of his ludibrious Raillery Perhaps to compense the softness of his Arguments he hath designed to stone me with reproaches but he would remember that Gratian Gaus 5. q. 1. from the Council of Eliberis Can. 52. thunders out an Anathema upon Pasquillers And a greater than these the Royal Prophet Psal 31. 18. Let lying lips be put to silence which speak grievous things proudly and presumptuously against the righteous To conclude the Reader may know that the reason why this Reply was so slow in coming abroad was not that it was not soo er ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters rapsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish sigment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1.
The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work◠some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist as if he had been the ancient S. Ambrose B. of Millan whereas by looking on the Errata where S. is appointed to be expunged the Reader may understand that the Epithet Saint was not in the Authors Copy By the same means diverse other mistaks of the impression may be cleared especially seeing it is hoped that these which are not set down may easily be observed by the judicious Reader It is likewise granted that many trespasses are committed in the punctation but there was necessity to leave these to the Correction of the intelligent Reader Where the Printer found in the Coppy this figure § he ordinarily hath printed Sect. and so hath sometimes put twice Sect. in one place Some of those escapes are noted amongst the Errata that by them the Reader might easily pass judgment on the rest And if he would be at pains to correct the errours with his pen he would oblige the Author and ease those of trouble who afterwards should make use of his book If either Jesuit or other Reader impute any of these or such like escapes unto the Author he will discover more prejudice against the cause or person of the Author than either judgment or discretion However the Errata is subjoyned for the use of ingenuous lovers of truth It is to be noted that whereas cap. 3. Sect. 3. page 94. Lyranus Paulus Burgensis Valla Cajetan are joyned with Erasmus Pagnin Arias Montanus c. the meaning is not that the first four Authors had translated entire books of Scripture as the latter had done but that those also in their Expositions of Scripture did frequently recede from the Vulgar Latin and corrected it Likwise where as it is said cap. 3. Sect. 3. pag 95. that Romanists can only object against our translations of Scripture some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no authority that is to be understood of Castalio Broughton Carolus Molinaeus and others of that quality cited by the Pamphleter But there a touch should have been given how the Pampheter had abused an expression of King James in the conference at Hampton Court viz. that the Geneva translation is the worst of all English translations This expression of the King the Pamphleter abuses to impugne the Scriptures being the rule of Faith which his Majesty never intended nor was his meaning that the Geneva translation composed Anno. 1560. By the English Exiles who fled thither in the Reign of Queen Mary or that the other English translations the faillours whereof were likewise briefly hinted at by the King did not contain all things necessary to Salvation Yea the particular trespases noted by his Majesty in the Geneva bible were in the Marginal annotations not in the translation it self Thereal design of the King was to hold forth that no English translation then extant had arrived at the perfection which were not only to be wished but also by more industry might be attained whereupon his Majesty gave special order to compose the English translation which we now by the mercy of God do enjoy It were good that Romanists had as much ingenuity to acknowledge the errors of their vulgar latin as lastly corrected by Clement the eight a specimen whereof hath been exhihited by Francisus Lucas Brugensis If any be not satisfied with the touch given of the Keri and Chetib pag. 102. 103. they are remitted to Sixtinus Amama his dissertation de Keri Chetib in coronide ad Grammaticam Martinio Buxtorfianam where though that learned Author seem to make large concessions concerning the Keri and Chetib and the various lections yet neither do they overthrow the doctrine of the reformed Church concerning Scriptures being the rule of faith as Amama himself in the Answer of some objections endeavours to clear It is also to be noted that whereas in page 472. Clements Epist 1. is pronounced spurious The Authors designe was not to censure Clements first Epistle to the Corinthians lately published by Mr. Patrick Young which Rivet Crit. sac lib. 1. cap. 8. Commends as savouring of primitive simplicity and Hottinger in Elencho librorum supposititiorum saith de ea Nostri nihil durius pronunciarunt for that is not the Epistle cited by the Pamphleter but another passing under the name of Clements first Epistle to S. James which is justly concluded spurious And albeit the Epistle were genuine yet the testimony adduced from it is impertinent seeing it speaks not of the Popes supremacy but partly of that which was common to S. Peter with the rest of the Apostles namely that he was called Fundamentum Ecclesiae which is also attributed to the rest Eph 2. 20. Rev. 21. 14. and partly of his personal prerogatives and indowments in regard whereof he is said to be potentior omnium which might well consist with equality of jurisdiction DEdic pag. 3. li. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 35. r. lib. 13. p. i2 l-39 r. Rom. 8.3.8 p 14. l. 19. r. twelve years p 23. l. 21 r. diffusive p 24. l. 14. r. diffusive l 28. r. Donatists might have p. 51. l 31 r. those Fathers do only compar p. 52. l. 20. ◠against F. Johnson p. 53. l. 22. r. 18 Mat 28.20 p. 57. l. 7. r. Exod. 32. p 62. l. 10. r. Evangelium p. 65. l. 30. r. lib. 2. de Concilits ◠67. l. 35. r. contra Epist Fundamenti p. 72. l. 34. in place of Isidor Clarius r. Lucas Brugenesis l. 38 ◠diffic 4 Sect 2. p. 73 l. 21. r. a spara◠senses
so considering the posture of humane affairs For seeing the World is divided into so many various Languages whether the Lord thought fit to reveal the Doctrine of salvation by a written Instrument such as the Scriptures or by the definition of a visible Judge as Papists pretend yet it behoved to be delivered in some one Language and seeing those Truths were by the confession of both Parties to be conveyed to others of different Languages by the means of fallible persons either there behoved to be an intrinfick evidence in the Doctrine to shew that it came from God which we affirm or the most part of the world should only have a moral and humane certainty of those Mysteries of salvation which the plurality both of Papists and Protestants do judge insufficient to salvation It 's no Phanatical Enthusiasm therefore to say that souls enlightned by the Spirit of God without the knowledge of Greek or Hebrew Languages in a faithfully translated Bible may see the wonders of Gods Law I say no more than Cassiod Instit lib. 1. cap. 16. Quid in illis literis utilitatis suavitatis non invenies si purissimo lumine mentis intendâ—s i. e. What spiritual utility or suavity will not be found in those divine writings if thou look on them with a pure eye Neither doth he restrict this to the Original Languages and therefore cap. 21. speaking of Hierom Beatus Hieronymus saith he Latinae Linguae dilatator eximius qui nobis in Translatione Divinae Scripturae tantum praestitit ut ad Hebraeum fontem paene non â—geamus accâ—dere He so highly commends Hieroms Translation of Scripture as if there were not much more need of the Original and therefore supposes that translated Scripture could be a ground of Faith Learned Hornbeck Part. 1. Theol. pract lib. 1. cap. 3. records many instances of holy persons both Ancient and Modern who felt a divine convincing and converting power in the Scriptures such as is not to be found in any other writing What serious Christian can but acknowledge that there is a stupendious Majesty yet tempered with an admirable sweet condiscention in the Scriptures Though there be sublime Mysteries in holy Writ which Natural Reason could never have discovered yet all of them are wonderfully suited for carrying on the work of a sinners salvation the like whereof is not to be found in any other Religion whatsoever Whereupon Learned Divines do conclude that in the Complex of the Principal or Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity is an intrinsick evidence of their Divine Original And concerning the stile of holy Scripture Camero hath an excellent expression Tom. 3. pag. 138. Est divinum aliquid in Scripturae stilo quod effari non possum persentiscitur tamen i. e. there is some divine thing in the stile of holy Scripture which I cannot express yet it is felt which he illustrates by this simile when an Angel appears though he assume an humane shape there is ever something peculiar in the Apparition which strikes the mind of the Beholder with an apprehension of somewhat extraordinary Is it then any wonder there be something peculiar in the Scriptures of God to demonstrate their Divine Original Though I speak for the self-evidencing light of holy Scripture I do acknowledge the great usefulness of the Motives of Credibility in their own place for they prepare the mind for discerning this Divine Light resplendent in the Scriptures If this do not satisfie pertinacious Romanists they may at last consider what their Learned Cardinal de Lugo hath said disp 1. de fide Sect. 7 8. where he maintains at length against his Fellow-Jesuits that the first assent given by Christians to Scriptural Revelation is immediate and not founded upon any Prior objective ground Indeed he calls it obscure and inevident but withal infallible most certain and immediate yea he particularly denies it to be founded on the testimony of the Church Miracles or constancy of Martyrs c. only he affirms that a man comparing Scriptural Revelation accompanied with such Miracles the death of Martyrs the approbation of so many judicious Doctors c. with the Idea which he hath in his mind of a Divine Revelation finds such a consonancy betwixt them that without any discursive inference he immediately assents to that Revelation as Divine which the said Author illustrates by this similitude as when saith he a man receives a Letter from his Friend or hears him speak at a distance he compares the Characters of the Letter and the Voice which he hears with the Idea which he hath in his mind of his Friends Writing or Voice and so without any argumentation concludes this is his Friends Writ or Voice and such he supposes to be our first assent to Divine Revelation This Notion of the Cardinal for which he disputes with much Learning and acuteness quite overturns the whimsies of the Pamphleting Missionaries who would have the first assent to Scriptural Revelation to be grounded on the testimony of the Church or definition of their infallible Judge As for the Clamours of the Adversary that the Protestants mentioned in the Objection have charged the Translations of one another with Errours and Discrepancies Ought he not to remember that there be as great variety and contrariety betwixt the Versions made by Popish Authors such as Lyranus Paulus Brugensis Valla Cajetan Erasmus Pagnin Arriat Montanus c. Had those imagined a perfection in the Vulgar Latin would they have dissented from it so often Do not Vega Andradius Driedo Mariana affirm that the Council of Trent when it declared the Vulgar Latin to be Authentical Scripture never intended to assert its freedom from Errour Doth not Isidore Clarius a Popish Bishop aver that he has amended 8000 places in the Vulgar Latin and yet left many to be corrected yea so many were the Errours of the Clementine Translation that one spared not to call it the New Transgression But forbearing to recriminate I answer first Had not this Pamphleter resolved to abuse his Reader by often confuted Cavils he might have learned from our Authors that those Censures for most part are rather the superfaetation of over reaching passion than a rational and composed Verdict of our Translations Might he not have found how the Learned and Modest Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam Sac. cap. 12. doth chastise both Castalio and Hugh Broughton for their Petulancy upon more Judicious Translators than themselves May not Joseph Scaligers testimony of Beza's Translation preponderate Castalio's Censure In quibus faetus supra caput extulit omnes Ille tuorum operum summa caputque liber Quo penetrale novi reseratur foederis quo Discussa lucem nocte videre datur When the passage of Hugh Broughton alledged by the Pamphleter had been objected by F. Johnson to D. Shirman the Doctor in his Reply pag. 962. spares not to call him passionate Hugh and withal shews that the main thing which offended Broughton at