say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salvation because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly in as much as it sends us to the Church all things necessary to Salvation When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely But in some places obscure in others clear what do we say more then Protestants who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear is not this to say that the less clear is obscure which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 't is only a part of his Infinite Perfection As we do not say that God is Finit because he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man or by which we say God and Man are two viz. natures SECT VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith but not alone we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice that the Man of God may be perfect 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect We seem sayes our Adversary to doubt of the Originals of Scripture since we ask a Protestant how he knows it is the Word of God As if the Air Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression proper to God alone did not show this sufficiently as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal Answer We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith But we have asked and ask without any Answer that has so much as a jot of Reason by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith Not by the Scripture it self because self Testimony is none were it Written in any place of it that this Bible containing so many and such Books is the Word of GOD for the Question returns how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD Now to say that she Scripture shows it self is frivolous For I ask what 's that to say the Scripture shows it self Is it that by Reading it rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed understanding this apprehension The Scripture is the Word of God By which apprehension he sees it is so before he Judges or believes If so then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God mov'd by the Word of God but by this apprehension which if you say is the Word of God then you admit a Word of God which is not Written and yet to you a Rule of Faith and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith than the Written Word of God Again that apprehension and inward Testimony of the mind for which it s believed that the Scripture is the Word of GOD and that it shows it self does it rise from this that the Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie and that the more or less Majesty of the Style in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves the whole thing is natural and so not the Word of God Next that Simplicity and Majesty of Style and what you please more is not so in every part of Scripture that I am bound for them to believe that that part is the Word of God For I pray what Air Simplicity or Majesty of Style is in the begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew when it s said there Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Author not Sacred as in Ioseph the Iew Now if you ask us why we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God We Answer because an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages and always believing it to be the Word of God has conveyed it to our Hands and that General approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority as often as any Controversie arose among the Faithful either concerning certain Books or the certainty of the Tradition it self If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God I Answer You may but first by claiming to this you leave your own Principle of denying Tradition Next tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter yet you have none for the sense in which you take it Subsect This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews Search the Scriptures John cap. 5. v. 39. Answer You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity And he proves it First by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them Secondly he proves it by his Works v. 36. Thirdly by the Testimony of his Eternal Father viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn his Miraculous Works and the Testimony of his Father and last of all he saies Search the Scriptures as if he should have said if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Arguments and Motives I have brought Take yet one more which is that since you think you have Eternal Life in the Scriptures Search them and there you will find that I am God because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me And this was said to their Doctors not to every private Person Secondly The Word Scrutamini in Lati◠〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉 dicative mood Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative as well as of the Imperative and so signisies you do Search the Scriptures as
Objection p. 52 We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediatly after Baptism Protestants have none p 57 Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory retorted upon Protestants p. 59 The Churches not permiting all Parts of the Scripture indefferently to be Read by all is justified And Her high Sentiment of this Word of God declared p. 61 The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith p. 65 This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants p. 65 The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Valgar Tongue p. 70 The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses p. 74 In the Eucharist our Senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object p. 77 Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion p. 80 Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images p. 85 The Protestants do not Adore GOD in Spirit and Truth nor the Roman Catholicks the Cross as GOD. p. 88 Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not withdraw us from God nor dishonour Christ p. 93 Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the Third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith p. 96 St. Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24 25 27. makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes p. 103 The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God p. 107 Religious Vows are allowable p. 111 The three Religious Vows of Poverty Chastity and Obedience are Evangelical Counsels p. 113 Vows put not a Man in a worse condition more then the Law of God p. 118 What is the Fruit of these Vows well observed p. 119 Answers the rest of this matter of Vows p. 122 A Recapitulation or short Repetition of the Contents in this Book p. 127 Answer to the Poscript p. 137 A Reason to prove the necessity of an Infallible Visible Guide p. 13â— ERRATA Pag. 5. Lin. 15. apponent R. opponent P. 7. L. 36. the first of R. the first part of P. 8. L. 3 after least add L. 4. after faction add P. 10. L. 4. can't R. can't L. 10. you R. you Ibid. L. 33. meet R. met P. 11. L. 2. a Infidel R. an Infidel P. 14. L. 26. Augustin R. Augustin L. 4. Conf. c. 5. P. 23. L. 10. one R. on L. 36. before R. before P. 24. L. 17. of the world blot out after the P. 24. L. 24. after Her add L. 3. c. 3. P. 37. L. 20. a possibiliiy R. a possibility P 39. L. 17. for all R. for since all L. 28. runs R run P. 40. L. 26 full out R. fall out P. 58. L. 23. to a R. to be a P. 59. L. 8. canses R. causes P. 72. L. 29. a vulgar R. an unknown P. 79. L. 31. indentification R. identification P. 82. L. 5. splear R. sphear P. 83. L. 22. is not R. and it is not P. 86. L. 36. oscuratus R. obscuratum P. 92. L. 22. Ghost R. Host P. 93. L. 19. Intercessors R. Intercessors P. 95. L. 15. stahding R. standing P. 99. L. 11. ascent R. assent L. 12. ascented R. assented to P. 112. L. 3. tates R. States P. 128. L. 18. that is say R. that is to say P. 129. L. 27. we distinguish R. our distinguishing P. 130. L. 4. the disformity R. difformity P. 133. L. 28. meditation R. mediation P. 140. L. 23. ascent R. assent AN ANSWER To A little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR An infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY A Preamble THIS Rare Method so taking in the Fancy of its Author may have some Vanity in it but sure no Verity being found to be Compos'd Chymera-like of two Qualities which destroy each other It is said to be Infallible and New If Infallible it must be according to Protestants the Word of God or at least contained in it and by consequence Ancient and so not new If new it is not the Word of God nor contained in it and so not Infallible Again if new it is a meer Work of Reason and so not a Way to lead Men Infallibly to Truth in matter of Religion CHAP. I. Of our Speculative and Moral or Practical Divinity SECT I. Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity I Find our School Divinity is tax'd by our Adversary of a double Sacriledge which is that it both hinders Devotion and enervats Faith But this is a false surmise for how can it be possible that She which alone among all our Sciences makes it Her task to propose to us explain and confirm the Object of Faith and Devotion I mean first God and his Divine Attributs and next how we should Honour Him and behave our selves with his Majesty in our Worship to him should not promote but hinder Faith and Devotion Is it credible say I that this Science with all the endeavour and afforded Light should not help but rather remove us from our end If some short-fighted People think She moves more doubts then She satisfies with Her Solutions The fault is in their weak sight or tainted understanding not in Divinity As when in some the Ill affected Pallate loaths Meats which otherwaies are most wholesome Many things altho' most certain to R. Catholicks are discussed in this Science and brought by Reason to a rigid Tryal by which means doubts which do or may arise to the Enemies of our Faith find a clear Solution Thus Reason then overâ—ome by the very Arms of Reason does not only captivate Her self to obey Faith but moreover freely yields and joynes with Her against the Enemies of our Religion So against the Iews we demand if it was possible that God should become Man Against those who deny the veracity of Scripture if God can lie Against those who hold the Decree of Reprobation in God afore any foreseen Demerit either of Adam or his Posterity This Question is moved whether a Soul alltogether Innocent may be by an infinite Goodness designed to the Eternal Pains of Hell Against Athiests this Querie is made whether or no by the light of Nature one may demonstrate the existence of a God Thus different Questions are made concerning the possibility of different things Be cause the Enemies of our Faith as they easily pass from the denyal of the possible to the denyal of the actual existance of a thing so from the conviction of a possibility they are more easily drawn to avow the actual existence of a reveal'd Object Neither is this the work as our Adversary deems of idle Men unless he thinks them to do nothing
that he is condemned by Scripture then Scripture alone cannot be our Judge nor does God himself by Scripture alone decide our differences In the mean time without a Judge we are all loose in our Opinions Hence Confusion Fire Sword Church against Church and Dissention among the People to the Destruction of the Nation And what is the business What is the Quarrel They won't submit their Judgment to mine To yours And why should they submit their Judgment more to yours than you to theirs Who thinks himself to be void of wit or not to abound in Judgment quisquis in suo sensu abundat and if it be true that there is no Infallible Visible Judge why may not I hope that God gives me as much of his Divine assistance as to you since I use as much diligence as you to obtain it My LORDS do you see where we are What would the Law Book do in Scotland if your Lordships Wisdoms were not impowered and authorized by his Majesty to determine Causes What Cause does not find an Advocate to make the Law look favourably upon his Clyant Will we make God less wise to keep an Vnion in his Church than Kings to keep an Vnion in their Kingdom A Holy King most earnest to have Justice administred to his People if it were in his Power and he could with his ease enlighten his Judges with Truth in giving their Sentence would he not do it Does not God as earnestly desire as that Holy King that all Men come to the Knowledge of the Truth in matters of Faith if we may believe St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. v. 4. And cannot he if he please without any difficulty enlighten his Church and influence Her with an Infallible assistance in Her Decisions Why then shall we not think he has done so Since he has established Her to Govern us Act 20.28 and subjected us to Her Obedience Matth. 18.17 What do I say shall we not think he has done so Can a Christian rationally doubt yet of it after Christ's saying to Her Who hears you hears me Luc. 10 and after St. Paul's assuring us Eph. 4. that Christ made some Teachers in his Church that we might not waver And who can but waver and be ready to hearken to others who speak with more applause if he Judge his Fore Teachers Fallible in the great and last concern of his Eternity Grant this My LORDS which is evident enough that the Teaching Church of Christ wheresomever She be is Infallible in Her Decisions of Religion and the main Work is done for we will as easily find Her out by Her Marks set down in the Holy Scriptures as the Sun among the Planets in Sole posuit Tabernaculum suum Psal 18. he has made Her as Visible as the Sun What is unreasonable in all this Discourse But if the great Reason of looking strange on us be the imagined difformity of our Religion from the Word of GOD be pleas'd to cast your Wiser Eyes upon this little Book and with your Reason examine impartially the Reasons we bring for the R. Catholick Religion If here and there our Reasons seem to contradict your senses 't is to obey Faith to Her according to St. Paul Rom. 1. v. 5. We owe Obedience and such that we must sometimes captivate our understanding for this performance 2 Corin. 10. v. 5. 'T is true Reason is the Light of Man but Faith is the Light of a Christian To be a Man I must be Rational but moreover I must Believe to have the Title of a Christian God has given us both our Will and our Vnderstanding He will and with all Reason be Honoured by the one aswell as by the other I Honour him with my Will when I Obey his Law I Honour him with my Vnderstanding when I submit to Faith and seek no other evidence than his Word for all I Believe in order to my Salvation As my doing what otherwaies pleases not my Nature because God commands it is a perfect submission of my Will to his command so my Believing what God reveals to me by his Church which otherwaies I don't understand is a perfect submission of my Vnderstanding to his Word A Word worthy of our Adoration God by the force of his Word Created us by the bounty of his Word Redeemed us and by the Submission of our Judgment to his Word revealed to us by his Church expects to Save us Otherwaies not He that Believes not viz. all that he has revealed shall be Damned undoubtedly Mark 16.16 I know My Lords that if a Man find himself convinced to become a Catholick at this time the very fear of being thought to turn upon the account of Gaining or continuing in Favour is no small Stumbling-Block to Persons of Honour But if you have strong Reason on your side what Reasonable Man can wonder Should not they rather wonder to see you Men before in their Opinion so Reasonable now fail and fall from Reason or of so little resolution as to leave an infinite Good for a Good that is so finite so small I mean a conservation of esteem among the Vulgar Of this last I thought good to mind your Lordships in my great Zeal for your Souls and high respect for your Persons coveting to be in Christ MY LORDS Your Lordships most Humble Servant A TABLE Of the CONTENTS Of this BOOK A Preamble Pag. 1 Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity p. 2 Answer to what is Objected against R. Catholicks Practical or Moral Divinity p. 4 Protestants cannot be Sav'd even in the Opinion of our Adversary because they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation p. 6 Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of Christ p. 9 It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Belief p. 11 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd p. 13 The formal Protestant cannot be Sav'd p. 16 Formal Protestants are Schismaticks p. 22 Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages p. 26 Formal Protestants are Hereticks p. 29 St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior sully answered p. 31 Another Objection solv'd p. 35 'T is an Article of Faith that General approved Councils are Infallible p. 36 The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded p. 39 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical Definition p. 42 We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd General Council is Baptiz'd p. 46 The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity p. 47 A Word by way of entry into this matter p. 50 The Intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries
of CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when being of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom Since then the Actions of both the Church of England and Kirk of Scotland or of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Children have Written not with assurance but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true that there is a deposing Power in the Pope SECT II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd God sayes He illuminates all Men that come into this World Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds are not Protestants Men Answer They are Men and illuminated by God but if they resist this Light which is given them and equivalently tell God as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke Iob. 21. v. 14. Scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes They will be found more remote from Heaven then if they had not receiv'd it He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants Answer There 's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinderance to it and to grant it to him who puts none The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature make 's way to Grace But the Protestant who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace and untill he remove this obstacle by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith he continues in an impossibility to please GOD. O! but you are uncharitable sayes He to perswade the simple People that a Protestant can't be Sav'd I ask him can a R. Catholick be Sav'd If he saies no where is his Charity for us If he affirms we may then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd If so whom will you exclude from Heaven But to return to his Objection since he denies Charity to us and we only Faith to him Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul is not he in this more Uncharitable to us then we to him He goes on do not Protestants believe all Fundamentals contained in the three Creeds and Scripture I Answer First since that there are Fundamentals as condistinguished from Intigrals or not Fundamentals is a Fundamental point with him I ask in what CREED or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained If he can't find this then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral as he calls it Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us to wit that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense that we are bound to believe them under pain of Damnation when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church as reveal'd by God in the Scripture For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ meâ—t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man By this notion of Fundamentals we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian And therefore it is not given without ground or reason Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men did he command the things only which you call fundamentals to be Preach'd or the whole Gospel if things only you call Fundamentals why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel that it 's thought Damnable not only to add but to pair from it If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached and consequently to be believ'd how can he be sav'd who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it 's sufficiently proposd to him as reuealed by God SECT III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief NOw I come to his Achiles this dreadful Argument to Romanists this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Rational Solution It runs thus Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd followes a probable Opinion Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently The major saies he is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others And a probable Opinion is that which Learned Prudent and Pious Men hold But that a Protestant may be sav'd is an Opinion that Learn'd Prudent and Pious Men hold then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd Ans I distinguish the major in matter of Faith on which absolutly depends Salvation he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion I deny in other matters I grant If we hold a Priest to Sin and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles who makes use in the Baptism of a dying Child of that which is only probably Water having at hand sure Water Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Faith without which I cannot be sav'd when I have my choice of taking a sure way am not I bound to be as Charitable to my self in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour Again can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said such as the assent of Faith is to an object to command which she is only mov'd by a probable motive what it an Angel come after this assent is made from Heaven and tell me the thing I assented to is false as I fear'd or might have reasonably fear'd 't was having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary Might not he accuse me not only of Imprudence but also of boldness to make my self believe that God said it and so Father upon him as other articles of my Faith this which is found to be false which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is to believe it A Subsect 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be sav'd MOreover I deny that it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be Sav'd First Because the Church has defin'd the contrary which definition excludes all probability from that Opinion Secondly I deny that Learned and Pious Men hold that
Opinion Our Adversary foreseeing this our negative adds dare we say that Protestants are neither Learn'd nor Pious and then with a triumphing Jock he quots that Verse of Horace Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici To our Imagin'd confusion But fair and softly Would you think that a publick Professor of Philosophy should from a copulative deny'd inferr the negative of both the members as it from this deny'd copulative Our Adversary is a Souldier and a Physitian He should presently say then according to you I am neither a Souldier nor a Phisitian Who would not laugh at this Illation And consequently if I desire you not to laugh Reader or Hearer it is not at us but at him for his simplicity il ne faut pas chanter devant la Victoire saies the French-Man He should not have aplauded himself afore a clearer Eye then his had seen his Victory When I say Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious I don't say they are neither Learn'd nor Pious there 's a great difference between these two propositions I say that Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious because they who are Learn'd viz. in matters of Faith see the Truth and they who are Pious embrace it when they see it Since Protestants then do not embrace the R. Catholick Faith which has appear'd as the only true to all Antiquity as I may easily show and clearly shines to Men who have not their understanding vailed 2 Cor. 3.15 out of the Holy Scripture as I shall make appear anon either they do not see it and those are not Learn'd or they see it and do not embrace it according to that video meliora proboque deteriora sequor that is to say I see what is Good and approve of it but in the mean time I practice what is Evil and those are not Pious But while I say they are not Learn'd and Pious in order to Salvation I don't deny that many of them are very knowing Men in matter of Philosophy Astrology Mathematicks and such like Sciences and also Men of moral Lives But Quid mihi proderat saies St. Augustin Ingenium per omnes Doctrinas liberales agile cum in Doctrina pietatis errarem What did it avail me to have had a Wit fitted for all Liberal Arts whilst I was Ignorant of the Art of saving my Soul erring in the Doctrine of Piety Out of the True Church there is no Sanctity and without True Sanctity there is no True or solid Piety Let me give our Adversary one Light more by which he may see the weakness of his Argument I give and not grant that it is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd and suppose that Sempronius relying on it becomes a Protestant Now I say either Sempronius certainly believes that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture for they are no where else or not If the former then he does not rely upon a probable Opinion only for his being a Protestant but upon a certainty if the latter then he is not a true Protestant who has the Articles of his Faith not from Church or Apostolical Tradition but from Scripture only So a Man can never become a Protestant who must believe that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture relying only on this Principle 't is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd I ask again our Adversary whither this Principle a Man may follow a probable Opinion in matter of Religion Be a true or false Principle If false then a Man may prove a true Religion by a false Principle If true then a Man may prove the Religion which is false in the Opinion of our Adversary to be a true Religion by a true Principle which is absurd viz. the R. Catholick Religion is proven to be true because Catholicks of whom many are Learned and Pious nay some Protestants whose Authority makes with him a probable Opinion hold it to be a saving and consequently a true Religion SECT IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd And to prevent our answer he sayes that R. Catholicks as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material in this that the material is in an invincible Ignorance the formal in a vincible Ignorance But before he goes further I must tell him that he is either short of Memory or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks For R. Catholick Divines teach not that he is a formal Heretick who lives in a vincible Ignorance altho' grosly culpable and affected too if he be not pertinacious but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour Hence St. Aug. Epist 162. speaks thus Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi id est Who defends their Opinion tho false and perverse but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them are not at all to be counted Hereticks So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant may have stronger Arguments viz. as they appear to him against Transubstantiation then for it he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd I infer from that antecedent not and so may be Sav'd But and so is only a material Protestant according to the notion of a material Protestant given and agreed upon by our Adversary and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd not the formal But then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant for who knowing his Error defends it is an Hypocrite c. not a True Protestant Answer There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants Men I say carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their knowledge As among R. Catholicks there are but too many who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience And now not to speak of those who have been and are known to be of this Category I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said which is this It 's certain all the Arguments R. Catholicks bring for the proof of their Religion are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men as I could Name some come to us for Truth 's sake not only without any Humane inticement but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice and renouncing of natural satisfaction which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them when their Lives after they have left us are considered without passion Now if this be true that our
of Judgement So a drunken Man Dying tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness for a Blasphemy uttered in that time yet he may be damned for the Sin which brought him to this distemper of his Reason Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge there is no such an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance and not from knowledge A Fool upholding his Opinion against a number of Wise Men thinks this his Opinion proceeds from his knowledge which others have not and that he speaks with a great deal of sense In the mean while the Wise Men present pitty him seeing all he sayes is but non-sense and that all this Discourse in which he runs out proceeds from his Ignorance So that what he esteems in himself to be Light is truely Darkness CHAP. III. Our Adversary's Negative Proofs for the Salvation of Protestants Refuted SECT I. Formal Protestants are Schismaticks AFter our Adversary had endeavoured tho' as I hope you have sufficiently seen in vain to prove positively that Protestants may be sav'd in his second Sect. pag. 43. His aim is here to prove the same negatively i.e. that in their Religion there is no hinderance of Salvation Two things only as he Imagins may hinder from Salvation Schism and Heresie But Protestants are free from both then they have no hinderance of Salvation as he concluds Schism saies he is a separation from the true Church and the true Church is that of primative Christians We grant all this But Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians this we deny And this which he should have chiefly proven and one which lyes the whole force of debate between him and us he passes over and slips away saying it has been proven by others This way of proving is indeed a new method but not infallible For why shall I believe him that others have done that which he with all their Light given him and his own dar'd not undertake to do himself Since he then could not prove that Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians I will not content my self to say that others have proven that they do differ but I will prove it to him I suppose that Christians in the third age I go no farther then the bounds he allows me did not differ from the second nor the second from the first in their rule of Faith and this supposed I say Protestants now have not the same Rule of Faith which Christians had in the first three Ages then they differ from them The Rule of Faith among those primative Christians was the Holy Scripture as interpreted by Christ the Apostles and their Successors not the Scripture as interpreted by every private Mans best understanding which is the Rule now among Protestants refusing to submit to any Counsel or Synods interpretation of a passage of Scripture if their Judgment stand against it The Disciples of Christ englightn'd as they were did not understand the Scriptures before Christ opened 'em to them and St. Peter Vicar of Christ in that function explaining the Scripture to those of his time told them it did not belong to any private Man to Interpret it 2 Petr. 1 v. 20 and Instanced that many had wrested or miss-Interpreted St. Pauls Words to their own Destruction 2 Petr. 3. v. 16. CHRIST said to Peter feed my Sheep not with Bread but with Doctrine As I cannot Feed that Child who willfully refuses to open his Mouth to receive the Food I offer him no more could Peter Feed those Christians with Doctrine had they refused to open their Ears and to bear it with submission Those Christians then wisely submited to Peter and their followers to his Sucessors being of an equal power to Instruct them for Christ promising to be with his Apostles to the end of the World did not mean with their Persons only who were not to exceed a hundred Years but also with those of their Lawful Successors And so the perpetual Custome of the Church hath been to have recourse in Controversies of Religion to the Sea of Rome it being necessary as St. Ireneus said in the 2. Age for all Churches to have their recourse to her Next to prove to me that the Protestants do not differ from the Primative Christians you must not only say but show me that your whole Church not only some private men takes the Scripture in the same sense their whole Church or leading Church took it in Show me some General Counsel of yours or a Body of Pastors to which you all unanimously submit and then I will understand what your Church holds otherwayes not And because you will not submit to any such Body I can never understand how you agree with the Christians of primative times Neither send me to your professions of Faith â—oâ— first in these all Protestants do not agree We agree say you in Fundamentals I ask what are the Fundamentals in which you agree with all other Protestant Churches Here you are at a stand And I also For if you don't assign me them how shall I know that in them precisely you all agree Beside most of the Articles of those Professions are meer Negatives of Catholick Articles unknown as you say not I to the primitive Christians and I say if they did not know those our Articles neither had they a knowledge of the Negations of them which is posterior to the knowledge of the things of which they are Negations And so not knowing those your Articles they did not in them agree with you But Romanists say you cannot say that they agree with the Christians who liv'd in the first three Ages because they have brought in many Novelties unheard of to them As the Invocations of Saints Adoration of the Holy Host Veneration of Pictures and the Popes power in order to teach us what we ought to believe for if you mean of the deposing power you know tho' some Catholicks hold it none is bound to believe it since the Church hath not defin'd it Ans You say we have brought in Novelties but you don't prove it But I say if those our Tenets you call novelties were not heard of in the first three ages neither were the denyals of them for the denyal is alwayes posterior to the knowledge of the thing deny'd these then denyals brought iâ— by you and believed by you with Divine Faith are Novelties brought in by you and consequently by them you differ from the primitive Christians Do not you believe for Example as an Article of Faith that there is no Transubstantiation If not then we Catholicks who believe Transubstantiation believe nothing contrary to Divine Faith And so of all the rest And by this means you will be found Guilty of Schism for leaving us You say its certain that standing to the Fundamentals we are Guilty of a Superstruction I ask once again what these Fundamentals of Christianity
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
to say that the Protestant Church is fallible Because if she befallible she may deny a reveal'd Truth and who told you she does not and so in sensu composito of Protestancy i. e. at the same time that she is Protestant she may become Heretick or be both at once Protestant and Heretick If you say she is Infallible and cannot become Heretick I ask how came the Romau Church which was once as true a Church as the Protestant Church is now since St. Paul saies Romans 1. v. 8. their Faith was anounc'd or Preach'd through the whole World to be fallible and Heretick If you say this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick is an Act of Science then it must rely upon an evidence No other but that of Scripture and so it returns to an Act of Faith If you say 't is an Act of Opinion only for one of these three either an Act of Faith of Science or Opinion it must be then the contrary is also probable then its probable that a Protestant is an Heretick and consequently it may be said without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice a Protestant is an Heretick or denyes a reveal'd Truth CHAP. IV. The Infallibility of General Councils defended SECT I. St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior fully answered OUr Adversary conscious to himself that we put the Definitions of approv'd General Councils in the number of reveal'd Truths Grants indeed that Protestants deny General Councils to be Infallible in their Decisions but their Infallibility saies he is no Article of Faith Else Augustin was an Heretick avouching de Bap lib. 2. contra Donatis c. 3. That General Councils gathered out of all the Christian World are often corrected the former by the latter the correction of a Council undoubtedly supposes a precedent Error and a Council to be Errable as every one understands that knows any thing Answer St. Augustin does not say often corrected but mended there is a great difference between these two Words the one supposes an Error the other only whatsomever defect it being deriv'd from menda which as Scaliger in his notes upon varro remarks comes from the Latin adverb minus and properly signifies any defect whatsomever A Master Painter draws a Lady his piece is prais'd as well done having all its just proportions and perfectly all her Features Another Master draws her again with a little more Life he is also said to have drawn her well nay to have mended the other So well suffers a Latitude without the Compass of Error The first did well but as we say in Latine minus Benè Altho' two Scholers compose a Theam both without Error yet one may have made minus Benè then the other i. e. with less Elegance If you ask me in what this amendment of a General Council was or may be made I Answer if you will have this amendment to be the correction of an Error of a General approv'd Council it is to be understood in some matters of Fact or some precepts of maners which depending of the circumstance of Time Place and Persons may have been right and good at one time and in convenient at another and therefore chang'd by reason of the change of circumstances And that this was the meaning of St. Augâ—stin I prove by his following Words pleanary Countils may be amended the former by the latter when saies he by some experiment of things that is Opened which was shut up and that known which lay hid I ask can we know by any experiment of things how many persons are in the Divine Nature How many in CHRIST how many Sacraments No but the Truth of a Fact which lay hid with time may come to Light and so alter the mind of the Judge You 'l say the matter in Question here with St. Augustin and the Donatists was a matter of Faith Ans The matter which gave the occasion to Augustin to speak of General Councils I grant the matter at which he hinted in these last Words plenaria Saepe priora posterioribus emendari I deny and with ground Because when he speaks of the Letters of Bishops and of Provincial or National Councils he uses these Words Licere reprehendi Siquid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est which import a capacity of down right Error as I said afore And speaking of General Councils he cautiously uses the Word Emendari which imports only some defect whatsomever All this is strongly confirm'd by his saying in the same Chap that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his Opinion had the point in his time been defin'd by a General Council And again by what he sayes Lib. primo de Bap. contra donat Tom. 7. that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General Council how can this be true if in his Opinion a General Council may Err I ask again had there been more then the first four General Councils the fourth being that of Chalcedon held under Leo the first the year of our Lord four hundred and fifty which four General Councils St. Gregory respected as the four Evangils when St. Augustin said this and yet he sayes Saepe Emendari had he seen any mended in matter of Faith Lastly I give to take from you all Scruple that a General Council may be mended as to the want of a more clear Explication by a posterior when experience shows us that some new arising Errors demand a more ample Declaration of some point of Doctrine already defin'd But that New Declaration gives you no more a new point of Doctrine then I give you a new Rose when I blow out a bud which is in your hand you have no more of a Rose than you had before but only a fuller sight of it No more have you of the truth in such an Explanation then you had before but onely a clearer sight of it In fine if a posterior Council might correct a former in matter of Faith 't would serve for nothing for why am I more sure of this than they of the former This were only to breed confusion and foment division while the adherents of one party clash with the other since neither has Infallibility as you suppose A Subject Another objecton solv'd OUr Adversary brings another passage out of St. Augustin against Maximian an Arian Bishop lib. 3 cap. 4. But first St. Augustin has not wrote any thing against any Arian Bishop called Maximian as you may see in the Index of his Works He has indeed written three Books against Maximinus an Arian Bishop but in the fourth chap of the third Book he quot's there is no such thing as this passage which he sets down thus Neque ego teneor concilio Niceno neque tu Arimenenci Neque standum tibi est Authoritati hujus nec mihi illius Ponenda materia cum materia causa cum causa ratio cum ratione examinanda res Authoritate
Scripturae Neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this nor I to the Authority of that Let us set matter to matter cause to cause reason to reason the thing is to be examin'd by the Authority of Scripture How ever I explain the passage without difficulty Thus St. Agustin seeing that the Authority of the Council of Nice was of no force with the Arian who rely'd upon no other Council but that of Arimini To draw him out of his hole he provok'd to an Authority common to both viz. to that of the Holy Scripture And this is common in the Schools for Men to lay aside their private priaciples and argue from one which is agree'd on by both parties The sense then of St. Augustin if this passage be his may be this neither am I so tyed to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini that we may not make use of another principle which is common to both SECT II. 'T is an Article of Faith that General approv'd Councils are Infallible AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture or defin'd by some General Council But that the Decisions of General Conneils are Infallible is neither clearly contained in Scripture nor defin'd by a General Council Therefore 't is not an Act of Faith sayes he that the Decisions of General Councils are Infallible He demands in what Book Chapter and Verse of Scripture or in what General Council this Article is contained Answer First either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles If out of Protestant Principles then he added ill the second part of his disjunctive since 't is of no weight with them If out of Catholick Principles he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive because 't is deny'd by Catholicks For we deny that it is requir'd that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture nay that all our Articles be contain'd there or in General Councils either since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition which enters in and assures us with equal Authority Wherefore I first deny the Major which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing 2. Giving not granting the Major I deny the Minor and say that Article of Faith is clearly contained in the same Scriptures in which its clearly contained according to Protestants that their General Synods do not Err in the Decision of Controversies arising among them for if as they think it is elearly proven by those passages that their Synods do not Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost I say it s clearly proven by the same that our General Councils cannot Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error And by this their acknowledging that their General Synod may Err tho it does not Err they discard their Synod of Authority and disown themselves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church that hearing them we may not waver like Children and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine Ephes 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fallible I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile There 's no impossibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had when Ephes 4. He made some Pastors in his Church that we might not waver 3. I prove our assertion thus 'T is an Article of Faith to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity because it s clearly set down in Scripture according to Protestants as all other things necessary to Salvation But that a General approved Council or the teaching Church is Infallible is as clearly set down in Scripture as appears by many passages of the same for Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction and threatens us there with Damnation or the punishment of an Ethnick if we do not harken to Her and consequently tells us that she is Infallible for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong Who hears you hears me saies CHRIST to his Disciples going to preach Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well instructed then also he is infallibly sure who is instructed by the Church St. Paul saies that Christ made some Pastors as I said above Ephes 4. v. 1. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine Hence we inferr that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith for if I thought them fallible I might still waver which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Then 't is an Article of Faith to believe that a General approv'd Council or the Teaching Church is Infallible If our Adversary still deny this I desire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture to prove the most Blessed Trinity as I have brought for the Infallibility of a General Council or the Teaching Church And since I am confident he cannot he has as much Reason to believe the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one SECT III. The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded I Ask in the case of General approv'd Councils Erring would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church contrary to CHRISTS promise Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teachable Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church otherways how are these bound to teach them or feed them with Doctrine as CHRIST commanded the Church when he said to Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. v. 15 16 17. if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them Now if they hearken to them teaching by their fallibility Erronious Doctrine the Blind leads the Blind and so both fall in the Ditch Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell And does not thus Hell prevail against them And what an Interpretation The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it is this of our Adversary That the Church of CHRIST will remain altho' Invisible notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST 1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible Did not the Faithfull then know one another and where
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
Nice nor you the Council of Arimini as to prejudge one another to wit because Austin was cast by the Council of Arimini as Maximinus was cast or condemned by the Council of Nice Nec ego hujus Authoritate nec tu illius detineris that is neither am I taken convinced by the Authority of this of Arimini or you by the Authority of that of the Council of Nice viz. because as I reject the Authority of the Council of Arimini so you reject the Authority of the Council of Nice Scripturarum Authoritatibus non quorumcumque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet Let mater contend with matter cause with cause and reason with reason by the Aurthorities of Scriptures which are not proper to each of us as the Nicene Council is to me and that of Arimini to you but common witnesses to both 2. Now see how he has falsified this passage to make appear that St. Augustin did not stand to the Authority of an approved General Council Where he saies neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini St. Austin saies Neither ought I to alledge the Council of Nice nor you the Council of Arimini Is this the same in Words or Sense He goes on Neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this i. e. of the Council of Arimini nor I to the Authority of that i. e. of the Council of Nice St. Austin has the quite contrary saying neither am I taken convinc'd by the Authority of the Council of Arimini nor you by the Authority of Nice Now be pleased to look back to pag. 35. and there you will find my Explication of the passage and how it does not hurt us at all or imply any apprehension in St. Augustin of Fallibility in a General approved Council 2. That Romanists are subject to be tortured with doubts of their Baptism 3. That we have an inticement to Sin by relying on Purgatory 4. That one distinguish Venial from Mortal Sin opens a Door to loosness 5. That we don't allow every one to read the Scripture 6. The Novelty of Transubstantiation the occasion of Idolatry and Hypocrisie in it 7. Our relying on the Mediations of Saints and our own Merits 8 Our mixing Superstition and Idolatry in our Divine Worship 9. Our not Adoring God in Spirit and Truth but under corporal shapes and having our recourse to the help of Saints 10. The diâ—â—ormity of our Ecclesiastical Discipline from primative times 11 Câ—r not serving God with freedom of Spirit but indangering our Souls by Vows Answer First our Faith does not believe the Decrees of Errable but of general approved and consequently infallible Councils as I have shown Chap. 4. in 3. Sections After all this I avow our Faith is an obscure knowledge and as St. Paul speak Hebâ— â—â— v â— a perswasion of things not appearing Buâ— 't is not so weak as that of Protestants that it needs the evidence of sense to support it 2. We have no reason to be tortured with doubts of our Baptism as may be seen in what I said Chap. â— in the 2. and 3 sect But Protestants have when they read in the Gospel Io. 3. v. 3. unless one be born over again by Water he can not see the Kingdom of Heaven Because they know their Church doth not look upon it as a thing necessary to Salvation and that many are wilfully at least among the Presbiterians permitted to Dye without it 3. We have no incitment to Sin by our belief of Purgatory because we believe the Pains of that place are greater than any Torment we can suffer in this World And who would willingly purchase to himself the pleasure he may enjoy by his Venial Adhesion to a Creature by the pains of the Stone Colick Gout Of Fire Rack Wheele and all that ever was suffered in this Life by a Malefactor But the less Godly of Protestants may have some encouragement to slight Sin believing that an Act of Faith at their Death will do the turn and if they be of the Elect they are sure to have it 4. We admit the destinction between Mortal and Venial Sin strongly grounded on Scripture a just Man falls seven times or often and rises up again Prov. 24.16 who remains just in his fall does not incur Damnation by it And Luke 1. v. 6. If Zachary and Elizabeth did not keep the Commandements of God perfectly in the Protestants sense At least their breaches of the Law were not Damnable bereaving them of their Justice and of the Friendship of God From Matth. 5. v. 23. You see there are some Sins Guilty of Hell others not Guilty of Heil Fire and such Sins we call Venial call them as you please so you distinguish them from failings depriving Men of the Friendship of GOD. But this does not open the Door to loosness for the reason I brought in my third Answer but the denying of this distinction opens the Door to a perpetual disturbance of mind dread and fear in a Protestant of Dying suddenly as many Dye after he has spoken an idle Word for this idle Word according to our Adversary is a Damnable breach of the Law of GOD and deserves his Eternal Wrath as being of an illimated Malice as he speaks and can't be forgiven in the other World but must be repented here under pain of Damnation Luke 13. v. 5. I suppose he won't say that Protestants have a Priviledge to repent afore hand for Sins to come 5. The Church does not indeed allow every Ignorant Person to read indifferently the whole Bible least by their misunderstanding some hard passages they find Death where others find Life As the Manicheans from that passage of Io. 8. v. 12. I am the Light of the World held that Christ was the Sun as St. Austin relates Trac 34. in Io. And the Seleutians misunderstanding that passage Math. 3. v. 11. he will Baptize you in the Holy Ghost and Fire made use of Fire instead of Water in Baptism witness the same St. Aug. Heresi 59. But she orders the Pastors to give out of it as St. Paul did not all to all but Milk to some and stronger Food to others See out of the following passage of St. Augustin that 't is not necessary that every one read the Holy Scripture Homo saies he fide spe charitate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos Itaque multi per haec tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt Aug. L. 1. de Doctr. Christi c. 19. A Man born up by Faith Hope and Charity and immoveably retaining them has no need of the Scripture unless it were to teach others So many by these three live in the Desert without the Scriptures 6. The Term Transubstantiation is new as the Term Omousios of the same substance against the
not negatively but positively that Protestants may be saved How then does he steer another Course as he terms it than they How is his Method New When he sayes for the most part the Learned Protestants took the negative way of proving Protestancy he as good as avows that a part of them took the positive way and therefore in that his Method is not New 3. He sayes his Method is Infallible in this sense that it contains such Arguments that nothing but meer obstinacy can hinder any understanding to yield to them Answer Is it meer obstinacy that hinders our understanding to yield when we have as clear Scripture for the Infallibility of the Teaching Church as he has for the chief Articles of his Faith as that of the B. Trinity Incarnation and Justification by Faith only See Pag. 38. When we have Apostolical Tradition When we have a strong Reason as this which follows A Reason To prove the necessity of an Infallible Visible Guide IT belongs to the infinite goodness of God and his special Love to Man above all other Creatures not to leave him in an extream perplexity for his Salvation and that unavoidable But if Man be left every one to his own particular Judgment in every particular Article of Faith without an Infallible Visible Guide he can't but be in an extream perplexity for his Salvation and that unavoidable Then God has not left Man without an Infallible Visible Guide I prove the minor because the resolution of our doubts is in matters most obscure and unfindable with certainty by the best of Wits and the sincerest of Consciences as the Mystery of the B. Trinity Incarnation c. Then I can't but be in an extream perplexity whether I am right or wrong in my private discerning what I ought to believe in these matters For shall I presumptuously think I am right in my Opinion of Religion when I see my self opposed by a World of others as witty in their thoughts as I and as Moral in their Actions Or shall I out of Humility leave my Opinion to joyn with another But he without an Infallible Visible Guide can give me no more assurance for his Opinion than I could have given him for mine So I am where I was in a perplexity Whatever way I turn my self I am oppressed with a dreadful and just fear of not hitting upon the right way of Salvation with a just fear of not falling upon the true sense of the H. Scriptures and if I mistake I mistake to my Eternal Damnation If I am right in my Faith since there is only one true Faith all who do not joyn with me are wrong and if one of my Opposers be right I and all who oppose him ate wrong and so thousands sincerely following their own Judgement may be Damned This does not stand with the special Love of God to Man but it belongs to his infinite goodness to give us so sure a Guide that simple People or Fools as the Prophet Isaiah speaks c. 35. as well as the Learned following this Guide may not Err. This Guide is the Teaching Church to which God has given such Testimonies Testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis Psal 92. of its being evidently credible to all that he speaks to Men by Her that the meaner Capacities laying aside Passion and Temporal Interest cannot but see 't is She he will have us hear for our Spiritual Direction The motives of Credibility move my Judgment to bring me to Her but being brought to Her I do not believe for my Judgment but for the Veracity of God who I see speaks by Her As when you bring to me a Man who speaks Divinely of God I carry him Veneration mov'd to it not by your bringing of him but by the worth and gift of God which I discover in the Man So my Judgments bringing me to the Church is a meer mental approximation as your bringing that Divine Man to me or Wood to the Fire is a Physical one both meer conditions sine quibus non having no positive influence on my assent or the effect This Judgment of mine God will have because I must Work like a Man and not like an insensible Agent which is brought as Fire to the Subject it must burn or Work upon 4. He saies that these propositions Protestants may be saved And that they may be saved more easily and with greater security than Romanists are self evident Principles Answer Why then does he so busie himself to prove them Who undertakes to prove that the whole is greater then each part of it Why not because it s a self evident Principle which needs no Proof 5. The Infallibility of the Church tho' it may have some Degree of Probability is not an Artitle of Divine Faith Because faies he it s neither clearly set down in Scripture nor defined by a General Council Answer He must be very Ignorant of Catholick Principles or willing to appear so who does not know that Apostolical Tradition is enough to make to us an Article of Faith without Scripture or the Decree of a General Council Moreover that Infants and Young Children are to be Baptized is the third proposition of the 27. Article of the Church of England Can he prove me that by clear Scripture I am sure he can't Is it not an Article of Faith that 't is unlawful to Rebaptize Where is that set down in clear Scripture 6. Articles of Faith sayes he are those Points which are agreed upon by all true Christians Answer If those points be Articles of Faith which are agreed upon by all true Christians Then that is not an Article of Faith on which all true Christians do not agree Then 't is not an Article of Faith to our Adversary that we are justified by Faith only because some true Christians deny it Yet it is the 11. Article of the 39. of the Church of England Away with those New notions and let us hear the Church Ask for the Old Paths and walk therein and yee shall find rest for your Souls Jerem. 6 v. 16. The Church the Church said Luther to himself in the begining of his decline while Grace was yet strugling with his Nature art thou Wise alone Happy if he had given way to that Motion but yielding more to his Passions of Lust and Pride Grace fo◠him and then his ill Will wholly perverte◠Understanding I wish this Thought may 〈◊〉 our Adversary enter seriously into himself become Wise in time FINIS