and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15.19 the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2.2 q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in carp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb Dei cap. 10. Be an Theol. Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virt tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Christianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2. Enchirid. cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset cemmonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whâ—t Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may upon the Veracity of God
believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular refutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5.39 Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17.11 Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5.32 Deut. 17.18.20 Deut. 28.13.14 Josh 1.7.8 Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lib. 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6.16 Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2.16 Joh. 12.48 Jam. 2.12 Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20. malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19.7 yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved thouâ—h Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yet there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatur but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui-pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Henthens were greater and their Learning not inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Maith 11.25 and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.20 Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men
speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8.38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10.47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16.33 The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3.15 There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1.2.3.4.5 Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did
to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Iâ—â—dov de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152 and Jesuit Azorins Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after-Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino-Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostelica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustoebium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11.52 Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare augere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an infallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are to be reduced to
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquinas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2.13 which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articles of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alioujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians concluding that the Humane Nature of Christ is changed into the Divine because as it s said Joh. 1. the Word was made Flesh so it s said Joh. 2. that the Water was turned into Wine If there were any strength in that Argument would it not rather follow that the Divine Nâ—tâ—re was changed into the Humane but the truth is that neither follows For after that the Water was made Wine it retained no more the
he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if be did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2. Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scriptutis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesis sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4.4 verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does bewray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catich 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity
Vertues surely if he in this were Heretical Gerson was Heretical also who both asserts and proves it by many arguments much less can either Wedlock or Virginity merit Heaven as Soto is brought in by Gerard de Eccles cap. 11. Sect. 6. Sect. 2 18. impiously saying Quod Virginitas fit satisfactio peccatorum maxima meritum Regni Coeâ—â—um Have not Popish Authors particularly Espencaeus noted that Hierom was pâ—rum aequas less favourable than in reason he ought to Chaste Matrimony How grosly did Pope Syricius deprave that Scripture Rom. 8 7. to disgrace lawful Marriage If therefore Jovinian ran upon the other extreme to affirm as Bell. de notis Eccles cap. 9. Sect. 13. says of Vigilantius Ecclesiasticos debere esseâ—uxoratos in that he was never allowed by the Reformed Churches they are for a licere not an oportere for the lawfulness of Marriage not for the necessity of it Excellently said S. Hierom lib. 1. cont Jovinianum where he is most in the praises of Virginity Circumcisio nihil est praeputium nihil est sed observatio mandatorum Dei nihil proded absque operibus caelibatus nuptiae As Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing without the keeping of the Commandments so neither Virginity nor Wedlock do profit to salvation without works of holiness But as persons in a married estate are saved if they continue in the Faith so also it is by the same Faith that they which live in a state of Virginity are to be saved To this I only add that of Nazianzen Orat. 11. Cum in haec duo vita divisa sit in matrimonium caelibatum atque hic quidem sublimior divinior sit verum laboriosior periculosior illud humilius tutius neutrum horum Deo nos omnino astringit aut ab eo dirimit Where comparing these two Estates he concludes Caelibat to be more sublime but Matrimony more humble and more safe and that neither of them does either joyn us to God or seclude from him The sixth objected Heresie is that with Pelagians we say the Children of Faithful Parents need not Baptism Had a Jesuit a Forehead capable of blushing he would never have upbraided us with Pelagianism for the World knows that they have indeed licked up the very Excrements of Pelagius as Jansenius hath demonstrated in his Augustinus But as to the Objection we are so from denying the need of Baptism to Infants that we say it 's necessary necessitate praecepti Indeed we dare not be so cruel as to condemn all Infants that die in the Womb and were never in a capacity to be baptized if we be stigmatized for Hereticks upon this account then the Ancient Fathers who by their long delay of Baptism shew themselves to be of the same Opinion must also be Heretical Doth not D. Morton Appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. cite a multitude of Romanists as Cajetan Gerson Catharine Cighius Tilmannus c. as being of the same judgment with us as to these things Are all these Hereticks and Pelagians also If it be said that Pelagians deny the necessity of Baptism also true but on other accounts then Protestants I elagians as supposing Infants guilty of no sin Protestants because Pardoning Mercy is not chained up and limited to means As Blastus the Heretick observed Easter at the time of the Jews Passover so did Polyerates and the holy Martyrs of the Greek Church but the different accounts on which they did it made the one to be held an Heretick and not the other So that the same sentiment held upon different accounts may be heretical in the one and not in the other The seventh and last Heresie is that with the Arrians condemned by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. we do not receive Tradition O stupendious impudency Did ever S. Austin condemn Arrians for not receiving Articles of Faith upon the sole Warrant of unwritten Traditions Doth he not expresly lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. appeal to the Scriptures for decision of Controversies betwixt him and Arrians Nec-ego Nicenum nec tu debes Arimineuse tanquam praejudicaturus praeferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius deteneris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utrisque communibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio câ—m ratiâ—ne concertet Could not the Deity of Jesus Christ which was the Article for which Arrians were condemned be proved by holy Scripture that Fathers behoved to flee to unwritten Traditions Are Romanists so miscarried with their hatred against us that they will shake the Foundations of Christianity to reach us a blow Doth not Bell. confess lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Divinity of Christ which is opposite to the Arrian Heresie habet expressa in Scripturis testimonia Shortly then to rectifie the mistake of this Pamphleter the thing which Austin blamed in Maximinus the Arrian was that Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not found in Scripture and therefore lib. 1. cont Maxim he brings in Maximinus saying Haeâ—voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à rnobis suscipiuntur This Austin solidly consutes lib. 3. cap. 14. shewing that the thing signified by the word was in Scripture Quid est homousion nisi miaus ejusdemque substantiae quid est homousiâ—n nisi ego Pater unum sumus and then appeals to the Scripture for the decision of the whole Controversie with the Arrians Nee ego Nicenum c. Thus have I shewed that the Pamphleters Objection is false in all its grounds as if either all the errours mentioned by Fathers were Heresies against Fundamental truths or that we owned all the errours enumerated in the Objection It 's further objected pag. 89. that Scripture would make a man think that one thing or at most two were necessary to salvation as sometimes the believing one point sometimes the doing of another Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place to Alms deeds in another and Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments teaches a Fundamental which Protestants say is impossible Is not this a daring impiety in a lafcivious Jesuit so to sport with the Scriptures of the Living God as if sometimes they made one thing only necessary to salvation sometime another For answer therefore he would first remember that our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Agenda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the fear of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any
But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some acconnt was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to until the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the
est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentence As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuiâ—y or ignorance For pag. 33 34 35 36 37. more like a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumorous iâ—vectâ—ve against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Cathalick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Demster against the necessiâ—y of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove
vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8.20 Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more iudibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23.28 What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of
Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. oâ—ntrov 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D. Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomel cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17.8 Mat. 18.17 Mat. 16.19 he should have said Mat. 18.28 20. 1 Tim. 3.13 he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Profelites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly
vindicated Deut. 17.8 in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17 in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19 in his cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28.20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15 in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peccat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8.7 to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17.8 c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17.8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33.4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.11 or what meant these general complaints Isai 56.10 Jer. 6.13 Jer. 14.14 Hos 9.8 Ezek. 22.25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v.
or then to have confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4.42 Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoneret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the proeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14.18.21 which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence those two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praesat ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie snake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should the
City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Allertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 39. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Consutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensie potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they preser the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wittily checked by Hicrom Epist 102. ad Marcelldm Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—â—nosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not emtaining all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mat. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesia si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is bold
Martyrs of all Sexes and Ages under most exquisite torments whose resoluteness could not proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit affectation of vain-glory want of sense of their sufferings or Philosophical fortitude but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles wrought not in corners or only among Favourites but in the open view of the world in the face of sagacious and desperate Enemies who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scripture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven among whom were Theâ—pâ—mpus and Theodectes one of whom as Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus was smitten with Madness and the other with Blindness for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Consciences beyond all natural force both for terrour and comfort yea and for sanctification also And besides are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures such as the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts the unfathomable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries which though Reason could never find out yet being once discovered Reason it self cannot but acknowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile the wonderful methods for satisfying Divine Justice reconciling sinners to God and pacifying afflicted Consciences And lastly not to mention more the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable insomuch that it 's beyond controversie amongst Christians though otherwise of various perswasions that the Scripture is the Word of God Hence Bell is forced to say lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius nihil est notius and a little after Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque est that is the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing Nay more he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures his words are Vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget Secondly If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things necessary to Salvation they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them which is Joh. 20.31 That we may believe and believing have eternal life If it be answered that they accomplish their end in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church or by the definitions of the infallible Judge this is easily repelled because either the Church and the infallible Judge gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly propound from Scripture or not if from Scripture then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly else could they not have been gathered from Scripture if the Church and the supposed infallible Judge have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture then the Scriptures does not cannot effectuate the end for which it was made viz. to work Faith in us and to guide us to Eternal Life but that end is brought about by the Church and by other means Romanists to use the phrase of a late Writer represent God speaking in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles that the Pope and his Parasites may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers lib. 10. de Trinit is no less excellent than famous Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam nocat quaestiones In absoluto nobis facili est aeternitas How impious is it to say that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived to satisfie different interests Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof Though Papists and other Hereticks do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible yet doth not their own practice at other times confute them Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions How impertinent were this kind of arguing if Scripture were not intelligible Neither can it be said that they argue thus only ad hominem against us for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us unless they supposed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true Yea does not this Pamphleter pag. 106 107 108 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express against the Doctrine of Protestants These Scriptures shall be considered in their own place Now only doth not his alledging them suppose them intelligible especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them 'T is true there be obscure places in Scripture yet as Austin lib. de util credendi cap. 6. excellently observes the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè piè ut vera Religio pâ—scit accedat i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer And again Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis exercemur obscuris ibi fames pellitur hic sastidium i. e. clear Scriptures feed us obscure places exercise us by the one our hunger is satisfied by the other our loathing is prevented And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum before his Commentaries on Job the Scripture is a River Planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet both shallow and deep wherein a Lamb may walk and an Elephant swim Thirdly Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 How could they accomplish this end if they did not contain all that is necessary to salvation If Romanists run to their old Evasion that what is wanting in the Scripture is supplied by the Church they are readily contuted for then the Scripture were not able to make us wise to salvation but the Church by other means should do it If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture either they are more sublime than these in Scripture or not Not more sublime Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity Incarnation Resurrection all which are undoubtedly in Scripture If then they be but inferiour Truths seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to writing how kept he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in
Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebraeâ—s non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Cauon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicca else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitic si alicubi repâ—reris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autonisati Cum haec distinctione discernere potenis scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praesat in Proverb and Ruffin in expâ—s Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non emnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to la yelaim to Scriptures To this common â—avil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scripturarum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Bâ—eerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits Severians manichees Arrians Carpocratians Montanists Donatists Anabaptists c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles
or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus caelum quâ—m habemus in Evangeliâ— testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis invenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as those To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clearin terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against M Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down-right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1.8 Next he objects That Hereticks for their Herâ—sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10.8 All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8.12 I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6 shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91.11 leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non
Far be it from us to impose with Romanists a gloss upon S. James which upon the matter would make him contradict S. Paul The word of the Lord is not yea and nay many have taken excellent pains to clear the harmony of these two Apostles and to vindicate this place of S. James from the Cavils of Romanists I will not here digress to examine the new notions of some late Learned Writers touching this matter whose way should I imbrace I might perhaps easily expede my self from Romish Cavils and leave also some considerable differences betwixt the Romish Party and Protestants in this matter But I confess I am afraid of new Methods especially in a matter of so great importance as the point of Justification And therefore holding to the more received grounds I shall remit the Reader to Reverend Bishop Downam his learned Treatise of Justification lib. 7. cap. 8. where he both discusses Bellarmine's Quibbles as also illustrates that place in S. James by an Elegant Analytick Exposition from ver 14. to the end of the Chapter Let it suffice at present to advertise the Reader that S. James uses neither the word Faith nor the word Justifie in the same sense with S. Paul nor does he debate the question which S. Paul handled or which is at this day tossed betwixt Romanists and us For clearing these things briefly I say first when S. James says we are not justified by Faith only he takes not Faith for a saving Grace of the Spirit receiving whole Christ John 1.12 purifying the heart Act. 15.9 and working by love Gal. 5.6 which is the only true Faith by which we are justified according to the Doctrine of S. Paul and the Reformed Churches But S. James takes Faith for a dogmatical assent to Divine Truths joyned with an outward profession but such as may be separated from good works as is evident from the series of his whole discourse particularly from ver 14. where the state of the question which S. James handles is propounded What doth it profit my Brethren though a man say he hath Faith and have not works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can that Faith save him by which it appears S. James whole discourse is concerning that Faith which a man saith he hath but may be void of good works Now that is not the Faith by which we according to the Apostle S. Paul's Doctrine affirm a man to be justified without the works of the Law for true justifying Faith is a living and working Faith But Jam. 2.17 Faith if it have no works is dead being alone I add secondly that when S. James says that a man is justified by works he does not speak as S. Paul of the true proper Act of Justification which is a Judicial Act of God really acquitting the sinner of guiltiness and from the wrath of God to which he was lyable but of a declarative Justification or of that which evidences a man to be in a justified estate or to be acquitted from guilt and wrath Nor needs this seem strange to any it being a Rule among Interpreters of Scripture quandoque tunc dicitur aliquid esse aut fieri quum esse intelligitur aut declaratur A thing is said to be done when it becomes manifest that it is done So Levit. 13.3.13 The Priest is said to pollute or cleanse the Leper because he declared him clean or unclean So Act. 10.15 What God hath cleansed defile thou not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declare thou not common or unclean And this word Justification is frequently taken in a like sense as Luk. 7.24.35 Rom. 3.4 1 Tim. 3.16 c. That so it is taken here Learned Protestants have evicted from the Context I only desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon verse 18. A man may say thou hast Faith and I have Works shew me thy Faith without Works and I will shew thee my Faith by my Works Where it 's apparent that the Apostle is enquiring after the Evidences of a Justified Estate which he concludes to be good works The chief difficulty which here seems to arise is that if the Apostle James did here speak only of a declarative Justification then he would have ascribed this Justification only to good works and not at all to Faith whereas the Apostle gives good works and Faith a conjunct interest in the Justification whereof he treats you see then how by Works a man is justified and not by Faith Answ This inference would perhaps have some strength had the Apostle been speaking only of the internal act of Faith but not at all when as hath been shewed the Faith spoken of is a professed Faith for the profession of Faith may concur with good works to declare and evidence a person to be in a Justified Estate Thirdly therefore and lastly for the full illustration of this whole matter we would carefully notice the different questions handled by the two Apostles S. Paul and S. James The Apostle S. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians having to do with persons who Pharisaically boasted of their good works and presumed as our Romanists do to this day to be justified thereby or at least joyned their good works with Faith in Christ as the ground of their Justification before God Therefore he disputes at length the same question which now is agitated betwixt Romanists and us what is the true ground upon which a sinner is accepted of God and pronounced by him Just as if he had perfectly kept the whole Law in his own person and to hammer down these proud Justitiaries he concludes that the only ground of this Justification of a sinner before God is the obedience of Christ laid hold upon by Faith and totally secludes good works from having any causal influence upon Justification which he proves besides many other Arguments by the most apposite examples of Abraham and David For if any could have been justified by works then surely Abraham and David persons of so Eminent Holiness had been justified thereby but not they as he shews Rom. 4. Ergo none at all But S. James on the other hand had to do with a kind of Epicures who abusing S. Paul's Doctrine of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law maintained there was no necessity of good works but only to profess Faith in Christ This is S. Austin's observe and not mine in Psal 31. Jacobus vult corrigere eos qui Paulum male intelligendo nolebant bene operari de sola fide praesumentes So that the question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet
reciprocal properties of Water but after that the Word was made Flesh the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word as being immutable and the Flesh or his Humane Nature remained Flesh And therefore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him that he had flesh and bonet Luke 24.39 Were it proper here for me to digress to a confutation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious and inconsequential without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge which the Pamphleter and all the Romish Party will not be able to do concerning the Protestant Religion Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy or cauterized Conscience who is bold to say that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnation of Christ Nay he shall find in its proper place that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted not only by other luculent Scriptures but also by these words of Christ This is my Body which they apprehend do most favour their Cause and which the Pamphleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists and by the Apostle S. Paul but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book than with the four Evangelists for one of them namely S. John has not those words where also my argument against M. Demster to this purpose shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types Symbols and Figures of his Body and Blood as they are termed by Fathers then surely he had a real Body and real Blood But does it from this follow that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence Nay on the contrary in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood And here by the way I must advise him not to expose his ignorance to such publick view as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost Hom. 6. as if Chrysost had written Homilies but upon one place of Scripture such Lax Citation will make people suspect that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers as they would make the world believe From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying Sect. 4. and he joyns with him Osiander against Melancton It might be enough to tell him that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology it was as fitly entituled A liberty of Prophecying as the Pamphleters Book Scolding without Scholarship As the one discovered more scolding than either sobriety or Scholarship so the other took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow Quisque suos patimur manes It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks that in the mentioned Treatise he disputed the more sceptically to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions and consequently more tender to himself and others of his perswasion Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean Casuists may determine A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony I leave to be got from D. Shirman for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was objected by F. Johnson cap. 4. num 23. only I add that D. Taylor notwithstanding all his sceptical discourse in that Treatise demonstrates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed and he brings Sect. 6 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament by conferring of Scriptures confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives I am little concerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton for it 's but too well known that Andreas Osiander of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks did unhappily ingage himself in some Paradoxal Dâ—bates with his own Brethren Neither can his own Son Lucas Osiander in Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves how then can he rationally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper against M. Demster pag. 218 219. that it's the Reformed Religion agreed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their conressions which I defend and hope to make good not only against such a Scribler as this Pamphleter but also against the whole Conclave of Rome His digression concerning a private spirit from pag. 69. to 72. being wholly impertinent I judge unworthy of an Answer How oft have Protestants declared to the world they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms or secret objective Revelations This they leave to Quakers and to the Romish infallible visible Judge who having no external infallible Rule to walk by must proceed upon these But the Rule of our Faith is the publick external testimony of the Spirit in the Scriptures If under a pretence of excluding a private spirit he excludes a discretive judgment he excludes the use of Reason which Faith always presupposes or if he exclude the necessity of the Spirits assistance by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture he turns Pelagian and contradicts his own Authors who are constrained to acknowledge it As for any further use of a private spirit I had almost said of a Familiar when he hath cleared his Popes and infallible Judges of it we shall be near a settlement as to that thing An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit what it is and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of
Polit. lib. 4. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture is only termed Judge because its the Law of the Supreme Judge having an Authoritative Power binding upon the Conscience and it 's honoured with the Title of a Judge both in Scripture and in the writings of Fathers Joh. 8.48 The word that I have spoken shall judge him Joh. 7.59 Doth our Law judge any man said Nicodemus before it hear him Hence S. Basil Epist 80. ad Eustach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Austin de gr lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos Judex Apostolus Joannes But all this is only so to be understood that it 's the Law and sentence of the Supreme Judge I answer secondly by retorfion As many Hereticks put divers senses upon Scripture neither will they acknowledge themselves to be condemned thereby so are there divers and contrary senses put by Romanists upon the definitions of their pretended infallible Judge neither will any of them acknowledg that their sentiments are condemned by the Pope or Council I could make a Volum of instances of this nature I only pitch on two And first the Council of Trent has defined Sess 4. cap. 2. that the Vulgar Latin Version of the Bible be held as Authentick and that none presume to reject it upon whatsoever pretext Habeatur pro Authentica quâ—d eam nemo rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat Is this definition of the Council clear either to learned or unlearned Knows he not the interminable debates of Romanâ—sts concerning the sense of this definition Doth not Azorius the Jesuit Tom. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 3. testifie that Andreas Vega Andradius Sixtus Senensis Melchior Canus and Lindanus maintain that the Council of Trent intended not to vindicate the Vulgar Version from all errours either of Transcribers or of the Interpreter himself but only from gross errours relating to Faith and Manners To these Calovius crit sac de Vulgatae Versionis Authoritate minime Authentica Sect. 143. adds Driedo Mariana Isidore Clarius Brugensis Jodocus Ravenstein but others as Azorius himself loc cit Lud de Tena in Isagog ad script lâ—b 1. Difficul 6. cap. 1. 3. Pine ad praefat in Ecclesiast cap. 13. Sect. 2. Greiser defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 11. and many others hold that the Vulgar Version is not tainted with the least errour and this Debate was prosecuted with such animosity that as Calovius reports Sect. 143. out of Mariana they impeached one another before Judicatories with mutual Criminations and a Congregation of Cardinals was delegated to explain the sense of the Council yet neither to this day is that Debate finished Take another instance from the Bull of Pope Innocent the Tenth against the five Propositions of Jansenius which the Jesuits apprehend to be wholly in their favours and yet what various senses are imposed thereon by the Jansenists may appear from the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus subjoyned to the Notes of Wendrokius upon the Provincial Letters at Helmâ—stad Anno 1664. Hence it follows that if various senses imposed upon the sentence of a Judge conclude that the giver of those sentences is not the Judge of Controversies then both Pope and Council are alike to be degraded from being Judges I answer therefore thirdly That it s enough that the Supreme Judge give out Law so clear that all Subjects might understand his sentences if the disability be not from themselves And such are the Scriptures of God though the prejudices of Infidel Jews will not let them understand that Jesus is the Messiah doth it therefore follow that the Scriptures have not clearly declared him to be the Messiah or if Ebionites and Arrians will not acknowledge Christ to be God doth it follow he is not there revealed to be the true God or if Socinians will not acknowledge him to have satisfied Divine Justice is it not therefore clearly enough revealed in Scripture The Pamphleter spends Paper in vain to prove the consistency of the Law with a Judge for that is not denied by Protestants we acknowledge that Councils have a Judiciary Power and that the general sentences of Scripture may be applyed by them for determining particular Controversies But that which is in question is whether Pope or Council have an infallible assistance whereof we must antecedently be ascertained before we believe any Divine Truth This the Pamphleter should have proved but that here he doth not once touch Page 77. The Pamphleter raises no little dust with some Citations of D. Field especially in his lib. 4. cap. 14 18 19. as if he asserted the consenting judgment of them that went before us to be the Rule of Faith and not the conferring of places nor looking to the Originals and that never any Protestant taught otherwise for which the Pamphleter would excommunicate me from the Protestant Churches But who authorized him to declare who be Protestants and who not Ne sutor ultra crepidam Is there a syllable in all my Papers derogating from the due esteem of Fathers Did I not still offer to debate the truth of our Religion from Antiquity as well as Scripture Did I not conclude their Religion spurious because it differs in its Essentials from the Ancient Church I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to let me have an account of Universal Tradition for Adoration of Images half Communions Apocryphal Scriptures the Popes Supremacy the necessity of an infallible visible Judge c. How scurvily is D. Field dealt with by these men Does not the Doctor complain Append. ad lib. 5. Part. 2. Sect. 5. that for what he had written concerning the Rule of Faith he was censured by Romanists as framing a new Religion for Sir Thomas Mores Vtopia yet this Pamphleter on the other hand makes these Assertions of D. Field to be the Standard of the Protestant Religion It is a falshood that D. Field makes consent with those who went before us to be the only Rule of Faith or the sine quo non for interpreting of Scripture for lib. 4. cap. 14. he reckons forth seven Rules of Faith and that comes but in towards the Rear Again in cap. 19. he enumerates seven means for finding out the sense of Scripture among which the knowledge of Original Tongues and conferring Texts are not omitted Yea cap. 17. he positively asserts with Cajetan Andradius Jansenius Maldonat that in interpretation of Scripture we may go contrary to the torrent of Antiquity and he concludes them highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader wherewith the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let
as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm
85. that Protestants do a gree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sores would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images also are religiously to be adored It s a Fundamental that God is to be invocated but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints It s a Fundamental that there is an Hell and Heaven but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to mortals sins It s a Fundamental that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals As for Instance if
there be a daily propriatory sacrifice in the Mass if there be a Purgatory for expiating sins of just men if there be merit of good works then Christ has not fully satisfied for all the fins of the elect nor fully merited eternal life to us Thus as Romanists do in directly overturn the soveraignity of princes by ascribing to the Pope a dominion over them in ordine ad spiritualia so also they overturn indirectly the Fundamentals of Religion by a super-addition of new Fundamentals SECT VI. Were the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussits of the same religion as to Fundamentals and Essentials with Protestants BEcause I maintained the affirmative the Pamphleter pag. 94.95 c. writs one invective against me But he might have known that this is no singular notion of mine the same being asserted by the learned Vsser de success eccles Cap. 6. Voet. desper caus Pap. lib. 3. Sect 2. Cap. 9. Morney myster iniqui pag. 730. edit 2. Flaccus Illiric catal test Verit. col 1498. c. edit Salmurien anno 1608 Dr. Francis Whyt in his reply to Jesuit Fisher pag. 105.130.139 Prideaux praelect de visib eccles Sect. 11. printed anno 1624. Hottinger hist eccles saeculo 12 Sect. 5. Cade Justif of Church of England lib. 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 3. Birbeck Protestants evidence Cent. 12. Paul Perrin in his History of the Waldenses Samuel Morland in his history of the evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont and by many others which were here tedious to relate The harmony as to substantials of Religion betwixt these witnesses of truth and the Protestant Churches the author mentioned have copiously confirmed both by the confessions and by the Apologies of the Waldenses and Bohemians and by the testimonies of learned Romanists particularly of Thuan Guicciardin Surius yea of Cochlaeus Bell. Gretser c. Hath not Voetius loc cit Sect. 4. shewed that the confession of Faith set forth by the Bohemians and Hussits was approved by Luther Melanchton Bucer Musculus and the University of Wittenberg that Wendelstin one of Luthers first adversaries pronounced the Lutherans novos Germanos Waldenses and that Jesuit Gretser called the Waldenses And Albigenses Calvinianorum atavos the Calvinists Progenitors Yea Pope Leo. 10. in his letter to Frederick Duke of Saxony recorded by Sleidan Comment lib. 2. sayes expresly of Luther quod Wickleffi Hussi Bohemorum haereses antea damnatas resuscitet That he revived the old condemned heresies of Whickleff Huss and of the Bohemians Certain it is that the remains of the Waldenses in France are incorporated to the protestant Churches But why should I resume what the forcited Authors have so largely demonstrated viz. that Lutherans derived their doctrin from Hussits and Hussits from Wicklevists and Wicklevists from Waldenses Mr. Perrin and Morland make mention of many of the ancient writings of the Waldenses which hold forth the conformity of their Doctrins with the Doctrins of Protestants particularly one written anno 1120. entituled What thing is Antichrist another about the same time entituled The dream of Purgatory and a third as ancient as the other two entituled The cause of our separation from the Church of Rome I shall only desire thee Reader to ponder the Articles of doctrine which were charged on the Waldenses either as related by the Magdeburgians cent 12. Cap. 8. Col. 1206.1207 or by Reginaldus in Calvino Turcismo lib. 2. Cap. 5. So virulent an adversary that modest Vsher calls him Turco-papista or as they are rehersed out of Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius 2. by Bishop Vsser and Voetius and than Judge whether in substantialls they agree with Protestants I exhibit only a few of them 1. That the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith 2. That the reading of the holy Scriptures ought to be granted to all ranks of persons 3. That there is no purgatory but that departed Souls go immâ—diately either to Eternal torments or Eternal joyes 4. That it s in vain to pray for the dead that being but one artifice to satisfie the avarice of Priests 5. That the Pope of Rome hath no supremacy over the Churches of Christ 6. That Messes are impious yea that its a fury to celebrate them for the dead 7. That the Sacrament of the supper ought to be given in both kinds 8. That its Idolatry to invocate and religiously adore departed Saints 9. That the Images of God and Saints ought to be destroyed 10. That confirmation and extream unction are not to be held among the Sacraments of the Church 11. That auricular confession is not necessary 12. That oyle ought not to be mingled with water in the administration of Baptism 13. That the consecration of holy water and palm crosses are ludibrous 14. That its improfitable to implore the necessity and suffrages of departed Saints 15. That saying of Canonick hours is but a trifling of time 16. That the order of begging Friers were invented by the devil 17. That the Romish Synagogue is the whore of Babylon these and diverse other Articles of their doctrin are collected out of the forcited authors by Vsser Cap. 6. Sect. 17.18 Now whether they who believed the ancient Creeds and assented to the decrees of the first 4. general Councils and maintained these particulars did not agree with Protestants in the substaâ—â—tials of Faith Let those judge who know the doctrine of Protestants But sayes the Pamphleter pag. 94. If I look upon them as being of the same religion as to substantials with us then I should justifie the erroneous and unchristian epinions which the Authentick records of those times testifie they did maintain Answer the contradictions of those records to one another in the particulars charged on the Waldenses have given just occasion to learned Protestants to convict those records of falshood and to vindicate the Innocency of the Waldenses see this prolixly done by Vsher-lib cit cap. 6. from â— 19. to the end Voet. disp causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 9. at also Hottinger and Birbeek in the places forcited did I not in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 130. bring in Paradius in hiâ— Annals of Burgundy and Gerrard in his french History testifying that impious opinions were maliciously imposed on them quod vitia corruptelas principum liberius repraehenderent should I then justifie what themselves did not justifie Neither does my assertion oblige me to maintain any of their real errors Is it any wonder that they living in so dark a time did not discover so clearly as we all the errors of Popery Have I not often told there may be unity in fundamentals where there are differences as to integrals But sayes the Pamphleter I should prove that those Sects were the Catholick Church spread through the whole World and that their doctrine had succession from the Apostles times It may be answer sufficient to remember my adversary that Protestants never affirmed that they who went under the name of the Waldenses were the whole
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap.
a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles â— 20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1.8.10 blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5.3 his commâ—nds are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodo impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7.22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3.2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veracity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay in this they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3.4 let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varacity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He saith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasins ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1.7 O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead â— let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood trees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscence remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7.24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7.25 thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Paith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2.24 It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3.28 That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as well as the Fathers for in all the tenth of Mathew that testimony is not to be found There is indeed mention of the reward of a righteous man but that reward and merit are reciprocal correlats is more then all the Jesuits in Europe will prove Doth not the Apostle Rom. 4.4 distinguish betwixt a reward of Grace and of debt Is not the reward of the righteous the free gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.21 and therefore doth not presuppose merit how piteously do our missionaries cheat their proselites in this matter When we charge on them the proud and supercilions doctrine of merit they ordinarly alledge it to be but a calumny of Protestants yet here the
denial of merits is charged on us as a fundamental error Is not Bell. in the end constrained to take him to his tutissimum Do we contradict the appointment of God when we take the surest way What more ordinary for Romansts on dying beds then to renounce their merits I could give an instance of a near friend of mine whose memory I honour the most moral person I ever knew of that Religion who about half an hour before his death did solemnly renounce all his own merits and professed he had nothing to lean to but the merits of Jesus Christ alone It can be no good point of Religion that the best of them must renounce at death 10. Ibid. Sayes he We protest against Gods divine authority in denying the real presence contrary to the Scripture saying clearly this is my Body We deny not a real presence but a corporal and Capernaiâ—ical presence under accidents of bread and wine which Scripture no where asserts As Scripture says This is my Body so as expresly after consecration it s called bread 1 Cor. 11. and the heaven is said to contain his real Body nay as we shall prove cap. 5. If these words were not taken in a Figurative sense they should imply a manifest contradiction Knows he not S. Austins rule that when the proper sense of words does impart a flagitious crime then the genuine sense of Scripture is figurative now what a crime is this that the living body of Christ should be devoured by men nor can this be avoided but by taking the words in a Figurative sense 11. Ibid. We protest saith he against Gods command in forbiding Images as Idols he having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the ark of the Covenant Exod. 25. O daring impudency Is Image worship commanded by God Sure then the 2d command Exod. 20.4 5. must be none of Gods commands as indeed Papists have rased it out of some of their Catechisms yet we forbid not all Images but Images of God and the Trinity or Images of any thing for adoration Produce who can institution or approbation for that in all Scripture The Cherubims were indeed set above the ark but no command for their adoration 12. Sayes he We protest against Gods practice in denying honour to Saints contrary to 1 Sam. 2.30 them that honâ—ur me I will honour Who does not see this whole discourse to be a Rapsody either of calumnies or impertinent allegations Did ever Protestant deny honor to Saints We only deny that they are religiously to be adored Are honour and religious adoration terms reciprocal The civil Magistrate and living Saints ought to be honoured Yet I suppose this Pampheleter will not say they should be religiously adored And would he also infer from 1 Sam. 2.30 that God adores Saints the Creator his own creatures Might not such foolries have been rather expected from a child then from one who would be reputed a Rabbi 13. Ibid. he sayes we protest against Gods dispensation by denying the Power given to Apostles and their Successors to for give sins contrary to Joh. 20.23 whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven We do not protest against Gods dispensation we but protest against your imposing on consciences a necessity of auricular confession of all sins how secret so ever to your Priests which God never enjoyned We protest against your papal usurped power of indulgences which neither the Apostles not the Pastors of the ancient Church ever assumed We protest against an absolute authoritative power of forgiving sin by men who cannot infallibly know who are truly penitent and who not We grant to Pastors of the Church a ministerial and conditional power of absolution To them is committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.19 and no more is granted Joh. 2.23 The soveraign absolute power of forgiving sin is claimed by God as his Perogative royal Isai 43.25 Micah 7.18 Nor can it be ascribed to any creature without blasphemy For who can forgive sin but God Luk 5.21 yet a ministerial power of absolution is exercised by Pastours 1 by the ministery of the word 2. by the administration of the Sacraments 3. by prayer 4. by the relaxation of the censures of the Church as is Judiciously expounded by the Reverend Bishop of Armagh in his answer to the Irish Jesuits challenge cap. 5. and the sober and Judicious among Romanists themselves are forced to acknowledg that no more was given by Christ to the Apostles So Ferns annot In Joh. 20. and comment on Matth. cap. 16. though sayes he as he is cited by the said Bishop of Armigh it be the proper work of God to remit sins yet are the Apostles said to remit also not simply but because they apply these means whereby God doth remit sins which means are the word and Sacraments to which we add the relaxations of the censures of the Church and prayer 14. Pag. 109. He sayes we protest against the Satisfaction which Justice requires for our Sins even after the guilt is forgiven by denying Purgatory contrary to 1 Cor. 3. himself shall be saved yet so as by fire O the seared Consciences of Jesuits who are not afraid to write at this rate Know therefore that our protestation is against the injury which Romanists do both to the Justice of God and to the compleat satisfaction of Jesus Christ by asserting Purgatory If Christ have Satisfied justice fully then Humane Satisfactions in Purgatory are forged in their mint house at Rome If not borrowed from the old Platonists and Pythagorians If Justice were compleatly satisfied by Christ how can justice demand new satisfaction from the delinquent If the guilt be forgiven then all the obligation to punishment is dissolved so Justice can demand no further satisfactions We deny not but pardoned Saints such as David may be exercised with Paternal chastisements that they may be the more sensible how bitter and evil a thing it is that they have sinned against the Lord but proper satisfaction to Justice by departed Saints in a place you call Purgatory Scripture no where affirms Your eyes must be anoynted with papal Chrism that you see so clearly your Purgatory in that place 1 Cor. 3. I suppose Augustine was as clear sighted an interpreter as you yet to him it seemed not so clear yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood lib. de fid oper cap. 15. and quest 1. ad Dulcit It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory when as Thuan records lib. 13 2. he would enquire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Purgatory The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the perplexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concerning it in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. confesses it to be unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae one of the hardest places in all the Bible Before he can make use of it for his
from Austin of Sanctifying of Catechumens by the Imposition of hands of presbiters yet that was not a Sacrament did not Christ himself bless young children by imposition of hands Mat. 19.13.15 Yet Soto Coninck and generally the rest of the Popish Doctors deny that to be the Sacrament of Confirmation Was not Imposition of hands in solemn benedictions an ancient Jewish rite as may appear by Gen. 48.14 Numb 27.18 19 23. 2 King 5.11 Mark 7.32 and so not first institut by Jesus Lastly some practices of the Apostles make not always a perpetual standing Rule for the Church But more for the vindication of that Scripture together with a confutation of all Bellarmins cavils may be seen in Dallaeus Disp de Confirm lib. 1. cap. 6.9 10 11 12. as for the other Scripture for Confirmation from 2 Cor. 1.21 22. there is mention indeed of establishing and anointing but its manifest from vers 22. it was with no material oyle but by the Holy Ghost and so much is acknowledged by Esthius on the place Is not Christ said to be anointed Psal 45.7 Isa 61.1 dare he say it is with material oyle Is there not a parallel Scripture 1 John 2.27 The anointing which he have received of him abideth in you and it teaches you all things But sure that is a mystical Unction by the Spirit for it abides is Internal and teaches all things which without too violent a Catachresis cannot be ascribed to Romish Confirmation For Pennance he cites other two Scriptures Joh. 20.23 whose Sins ye shall forgive are forgiven and Act. 16.18 And many of them that Believed came confessing their Deeds Both these places are sufficiently vindicated by Fulk against the Rhemists In a word it shall be enough to me to say that these Scriptures prove a Ministerial power of absolution and that distressed Consciences may disburden their Spirits by laying open their sins to faithful Pastors and in case of publick Scandal publick confession of Sin should be made All these Protestants do grant but that every one is bound necessarily to reveal all his particular sins how secret soever by auricular confessing to a Priest and that he hath power to impose proper satisfactions to Divine Justice as Romanists teach concerning the Sacrament of Pennance Neither these nor any other Scriptures hold out Nor is there a visible sign such as I shew in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster to be necessary to the being of a Sacrament here Instituted by Christ For extream Vnction he cites Jam. 5.14 and Mark 6.13 Did I not shew in my last against Mr. Dempster pag. 266. That Bell. lib. 2. de Extream Vnct. cap. 2. Jansen Concord cap. 55. Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacrat Disp 111. Dub. 1. Num. 3. as also Suarez a lapide Carleton and many others deny that in the latter place Mark 6.13 any Sacrament is held out ought he not to have examined Bellarmins arguments to the contray did I not also ibid. 1. shew that Cardinall Cajetan Comment in Jam. 5. affâ—rms that from these words Jam. 5.14.15 no Sacrament can be concluded and he says as much of that place Mark 6. so that both these places are declared by eminent Doctors of the Romish Church to signify nothing as to the purpose in hand Did I not also plainly tell that both these Scriptures treat of an Unction in reference to a miraculous healing of diseased persons Ought not this interpretation to have been refuted if he had intended to Satisfy those that are judicious Many arguments might be heaped up to confirm the interpretation I have given I hint but at a few things And First that of Mark treats not of a Sacramental Unction as is acknowledged by the most eminent Champions for the Romish cause already cited to whom Greg. de Val. Dominicus a Soto Ruardus and many others may be added and who will deny it must answer both Bellarmins arguments and also these brought by our Divines Therefore neither is there any Sacrament in James For any who with indifferency of Spirit will compare the two places will find them exactly parallel and this the Jesuit Maldonat on Mark c. 6. hath sufficiently proved albeit his heat for the Romish interest made him falsly to jmagine a Sacramental institution Mark 6.13 Secondly Sacraments are not principally instituted for the body but chiefly at least if not only for the soul But both these Unctions Mark 6. and Jam. 5. are chiefly for the body In Mark 6. mention is only made of bodily cure In Jam. 5. the healing of the body is both first and absolutely Spoken of and forgiveness of sin only in the second place and also conditionally therefore in neither place have we a proper Sacrament Thirdly the Romish greasy Unctâ—on is only administred to those that are desperatly Sick of whose recovery there is no hope but the Vnction Spoken of by Mark and James are not at all restricted to these therefore the present Romish Unction is different from them both Fourthly if James words are to be understood of Extream Unction why are Elders in the plural appointed to be called for seeing only one can officiat in that matter Lastly not to repeat what was objected against this in my last is it probable that if this had been a Sacrament instituted by Christ that the Fathers in the first three Centuries would have made no mention thereof how comes it that we hear not of it either in the constitutions under the Name of Clement or in Denys whom they hold for the Areopagit in his lib. de Hierarch had they not convenient opportunity of it Indeed Denys speaks of an anointing the Dead but of Unction of the Sick he hath no mention That it was wholly unknown to the ancient Churh is learnedly proven by Dallaeus de extrem Vnct. lib. 2. who also examins all the Cavills of Romanists for this pretended Sacrament For Orders he cites 2 Timoth. 1.6 Stir up the gift which is in thee by laying on of my hands the most that this place proves is that ordination is a standing Ordinance in the Church which the protestant Churches do not deny but no way conclude it a proper Sacrament I hope nothing needs to be added against this pretended Sacrament till he answer what is objected against Mr. Dempster only I must remember him that Estius on the place confesses that the gists here spoken of are Timothies Ministerial endowments consequently the grace here spoken of not being Sanctifying nor imposition of hands being a Sufficient Sacramentall sign as I shew against Mr. Dempster nothing can be hence concluded as to a proper Sacrament albeit Calvin as I advertised them grants that in a large Sense it may be termed a Sacrament For Matrimony he only cites Ephes 5.32 which thus he renders this Sacrament is great but according to the originall it is this is a great mystery Is every thing which the Scripture calls a mystery a Sacrament with them then the mystery of iniquity 2
power But the diffusive Church has a promise of perpetuity and Consequently that the essentialls of Faith shall be preserved in her If therefore the Faith of the ancient Catholike Church may be known by it the Faith of the present Church may be tryed Yet I ever made it but a secundary rule the holy Scriptures being the chief test but of this I treated more at large Paper 7. Pag. 231 232.233.234 Page 136. he says that I affirm that papists agree with us in all our positive tenets it seems Romish missionaries are so habituated in lying that they can hardly speak truth I never either spoke or thought so Papists are injurious to the truth not only by addition but also by substraction Do they not substract the cup in the Sacrament Do they not substract the substance both of Bread and Wine leaving only a specter of accidents to remain in the Sacramental Symbols Do they not deny the perspicuity of Scriptures and that all sins of their own nature merit eternal damnation c. in all which they hold the negative and we the affirmative The observe which he subjoyns that all cheif Heresies for most part consisted in negatives Is ludibrious all for the most part is all and not all But have not gross Hereticks maintained positive errors as Manichees duo principia Tritheits three Gods the Nestorians two persons in Christ John of Constantinople that himself was universal Bishop c. Is he not so ridiculous in reckoning the negatives of Hereticks that as would seem he could not distinguish betwixt an affirmative and a negative Among negative Hereticks he reckons the Nostorians whose Heresy consisted in a positive ascribing two persons to Christ and the Marcionits for maintaining that Baptism should be reiterated Is not rebaptization a positive Papists maintain seven Sacraments should others maintain twice seven were they not Heretical Papists add Apocrypha Books to the Old Testament If others added the evangells of Thomas and Nicodemus to the New Testament were they not Hereticks Papists say dulia should be given to Saints should others assert the lawfullness of Latria to them were they not Hereticks There may therefore be Heresy in positives But what though all Hereticks maintained negatives which yet is false doth it therefore follow that all who maintain negatives are Hereticks Is a Syllogism in 2da figura ex omnibus affirmantibus good Though it were so the Papists could not clear themselves from Heresy for they also differ from us in negatives This only in passing to shew the ludibrious quibling of Sophisticating Jesuits CHAP. VII The Truth of the Religion of Protestants evicted by the Conformity thereof with the faith of the Primitive Church in the first three Ages and the falshood of the present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the Faith of these Ages THere being but one Faith Ephes 4.5 or one true Christian Religion which undoubtedly was conserved in as great purity by the Church in the first three Ages as in any other time consequently among the many pretenders to Religion in these days their Religion must only be true which agreeth in essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those Ages and that surely must be a false Religion which is discrepant in Essentials from that primitive Faith Whereupon I subsume but so it is that the Religion of Protestants doth agree in Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those times and the present Romish Religion doth certainly disagree Therefore the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion and the Popish Religion is false and impious The evidence of the first proposition is so clear that the Pamphleter in a peculiar Section from pag. 139. labours to justifie the present Romish Faith by some abusive Pretexts of Antiquity as if the Fathers of those Ages did clearly speak for them and against Protestants in all the chief controverted points It remains therefore that I prove the Assumption In order to which I only premise that a Religion may differ from that ancient Faith in Essentials or in points necessary to Salvation two ways viz. Either by denying some Articles of faith which she held as necessary or by coyning others as necessary which she held not This premised For evicting the conformity of our Religion as to all Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first ages it be sufficient to renew to all Romanists my appeal made to Mr. Dempster pag. 4. pag. 54. to instance one Essential of Faith wherein we differ from the Christian Church in those Ages that is to pitch upon one Article held as absolutely necessary by the Catholick Church of those times and denied by the Reformed Churches or one Article which the Reformed Churches hold as absolutely necessary and those ancient Churches held not If we may judge of what other Romanists can say as to this matter by the ten Instances which the Pamphleter from pag. 139. has scraped together from their common Place Books I hope the ensuing examination of them shall discover more the consonancy of our Religion with the ancient Christian Religion and the dissonancy of the Romish Religion Or if we measure the Essentials of the ancient Christian Faith by the ancient Creeds and Confession of Faith these being drawn up as tests to distinguish them of the Church from others which as is supposed by learned Divines would not answer their end if they did not contain the Articles which the Church in those days held as necessary Then surely the Protestant Churches do agree with the ancient Church in all Essentials of Faith For all the Reformed Churches do cordially own all the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Primitive Churches not only in the first three ages but also much lower such as the Apostolick the Antiochian Nicen Constantinopolitan Athanasian as also these of Ephesus and Chalcedon neither have the Protestant Churches made a super-addition of new essential Articles unknown to the Primitive Church in those times Nay so clear are Reformed Churches in this matter that we appeal all the Enemies of the Reformed Religion to try our conformity to the ancient Christian Church in all Essentials with the most rigid discuss that is imaginable But on the other hand the disconformity of the present Romish Faith with that ancient Catholick Faith may be obvious to any by comparing those ancient Creeds with the present Popish Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth in which a multitude of Articles are super-added such as the Septenary number of Sacraments the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Innovation of Saints Adoration of Images and Reliques the power of Indulgences the Magisterial Supremacy of the Church and Pope of Rome over the whole Catholick Church yea and all the Articles of the Council of Trent are concluded as necessary to Salvation Which certainly are not to be found in any of the ancient Creeds Nay the Roman Creed subjoyns these to the
rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impudent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder is necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatican Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of Faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euolids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church
Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex superabundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3.15 I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3.15 but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176. by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2.2.3 Math. 16.19 Math. 18.19 Ephes 4.11 But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2.2.3 Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16.19 Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18.19 I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4.11 which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Ghurch to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No
furely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180.181 he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold our that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Gouncils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Gatholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Famphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm that real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2.9 that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an
not that it was not soo eâ— ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters napsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish figment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1. The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz. the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist
explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Serene Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far tiss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Were they not written for this end Joh. 20.3 that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1.8 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Herinogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicieutibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut lequamini quae scripta â—â—n sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Serm de Pseudo Prophetis en calce Ephraeâ—ni Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reticuit Hierom. in Micab cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeretici aedisicastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in viciuia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11.