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
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
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
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
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
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