AN ANSWER To a little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR A New and infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY Printed in the Year 1686. TO THE READER AT this time in which all that comes from Pen or Pulpit against Popery is of so good Coyn with PROTESTANTS that they have Re-printed a late in Scotland to amuse more the Ignorant People a little Book bearing for the Title A New Method c. I have resolved to put an Answer of it to the Press Altho' it pleases the Author to call it New I scarce find any New thing in it it containing hardly any thing which has not been Objected and Answered His turn indeed from the R. Catholick Religion to the Protestant was then New but it and all its Circumstances being of small or no importance to the publick I take no notice of it For the Dogmatical part of his Book since he runs through allmost all our Articles endeavouring so to blemish every one with his Pen that his Book seems more to be a Slanderous Libel then a Confutation of our Religion I have thought it was not amiss to give it such an Answer as might be both a Solution to what is Objected and an Explanation of our Tenets in that manner that it may appear how much they wrong us when the R. Catholick Religion is represented to the Common People as groundless and full of Superstition And for this latter Reason Courteous Reader you will excuse me if I am a little longer then seem'd to require the Answer of so small a matter To make my Work less tedious to those who will do me the Honour to Read it I have divided the whole into several Chapters Sections and Subsections with Titles relating to their different Subjects Fare-well Unto the Right Honourable JAMES EARL OF PERTH c. Lord High Chancellour of SCOTLAND Sir GEORGE LOCKHART Lord President of the Session GEORGE Viscount of Tarbet Lord Clerk-Register Sir James Foulis of Collingtoun Lord Justice-Clerk Sir John Lockhart of Cassle-Hill Sir David Balfour of Forret Sir James Foulis of Reidfoord Sir Roger Hogg of Hearease Sir Andrew Birnie of Saline Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn Sir John Murray of Drumcairn Sir George Nicolson of Kemnay John Wauchop of Edmistoun Sir Thomas Stewart of Balcasky Sir Patrick Lyon of Carse Senators of the Colledge of Justice and Ordinar Lords of Council and Session JOHN Marquess of ATHOL c. Lord Privy Seal WILLIAM Duke of Hamiltoun c. ALEXANDER Earl of Murray c. Secretary of State for the Kingdom of Scotland PATRICK Earl of Strathmore c. Extraordinar Lords of the Council and Session MY LORDS YOu are the Great Reasoners of this Nation our Wise Kings have judiciously set you on your Seats with Power to bring other Men to Reason Wherefore I hope you will not take it ill I beg your Patronage and favourable Look upon a Book which defends it self not so much by Authority as by Reason Passages from the Holy Fathers it backs by Reason to Passages of the Holy Scripture it submits with Reason for Faith is Superior to Reason and Reason it self tells us that to Faith we must submit our Reason Would we think that Man reasonable who would doubt to submit his Reason to God the Principle of Reason God will and ought to be Worshiped our Nature and Reason tells us but how we know not unless he himself reveal it Some thought the Deity they acknowledged was to be Worshiped with the Sacrifice of themselves or the Burning of their Children as some Pagans In the Old Law they thought God was to be Ador'd by the Sacrifice of Beasts But in the New we abhor such Sacrifices Roman Catholicks among Christians offer him daily the Sacrifice of his Son Incarnate Protestants condemn this Sacrifice and content themselves to Honour him with the improper Sacrifice of their Prayers and of sorrow for their Sins From this Variety of Judgement in Men as to the Worship of God Let us Reason My Lords certainly God is not at present content to be Worshiped by any of these waies I please for one disallows the other Judging it abominable If the Spirit of God moves me to one of these in particular the same Spirit cannot move another to abhor my way of Worship and condemn it and if it be the true Spirit that moves him who condemns me 't is not the true Spirit by which I am moved so that its impossible for Man to know by which way he ought to turn himself to God without a Revelation You see then 't is but Natural to expect it from him and that we would be all at a stand without it We find in our selves a violent inclination to Lust Intemperance and other Evils lay aside the Revelation of Original Sin the cause of these Disorders to whom shall we ascribe it Shall we say that God who made our Nature and all that is in it implanted in us these vitious inclinations No. They are Motions contrary to the Motions of his Spirit a Law contrary to the Law of God they formally oppose his Sanctity and contradict him speaking to us by Reason Rom. 7.23 They cannot be then from God but from whom else we had not known had we not had a Divine Revelation When we following our Appetites have worked against Reason Reason tells us we have offended the Author or Giver of our Reason but again in what manner we ought to make amends we know not without a Revelation We Christians then unanimously conceive that God has revealed both what he would have us Believe of him and what he would have us do to serve him And hold that all those Divine Truths are shut up in a Book we call the Bible We all run to this Book earnest to know what is our Duty to God which is indeed as the wise Man saies omnis Homo and without which in Truth nihil est omnis Homo But who shall Interpret this Book to us We see our greatest Divines cannot agree among themselves in the sense of it how shall meaner Capacities hope to understand it When we are at variance in our understanding of a Passage and which misunderstood is our Destruction 2 Petr. 3.16 Who shall be our Judge to set him who is wrong right and so compose our difference The Scripture it self by a conference of Passages My LORDS I appeal to your Wisdom and your Knowledge of the Duty of a Judge or a Man in your Station Is it not the part of a Judge so to give Sentence that all present may know who of the two Dissenting Parties is in the right or who is in the wrong according to the Judges Sentence But after the Scripture has said all it can to our learndest Men after they have conferred Passage with Passage in the Vulgar and Original Tongues Prayed used what other means you please excepting their submission to an Infallible Church Neither of them will avow
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
for them 't is not the Churches fault tho' it may be the fault of some particular Pastor neglecting the Instruction of his Flock CHAP. VII Of our Ecclesiastical Discipline SECT I. Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith TO his saying the R. Church imposes besides the written Law so many Obligations on her Subjects that Popery is justly call'd a meer Slavery I Answer She imposes none not contained in the Law of God explicitly or Implicitly Since God has bid Bishops or the Teaching Church Govern the Church viz. the directed Church and Commanded us to hear Her or them 't is no more Slavery to us to Obey Her in Spiritual matters then for the Subjects of a Kingdom to Obey in Civil matters the Commands of a Vice-Roy or a Commissioner The Protestants indeed live in a Spiritual slavery according to their Principles because when they have Grace they are necessitated by it and when they want it they are necessitated by their concupiscence and so are ever without Liberty in Slavery The business our Adversary drives at in this Objection is this that the Church incroaches upon the Temporal Dominions of Princes by deposing Kings untying their Subjects from their Allegiance to them and giving their Lands to such as can Conquer them As may be seen in the third Chap. of the fourth General Lateran Council under Innocent the Third Answer Let our Adversary Read that Decree with the Eyes of a Divine and he 'l find that that Decree is not of Faith and therefore does not oblidge us to believe it The Decrees of Faith in that Council being gathered into the first Chap. Intituled de Fide Catholica The Tenets of the Catholick Faith Let him then learn to distinguish another time a Decree of Faith from a Decree of Precept The first oblidges always and every where the other not always nor every where but may be chang'd the circumstances changing As I said when I told how a General Council may be mended And this I show in this present Precept of the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third now ceasing For are R. Catholicks in France Germany England Scotland c. admonish'd to take that Oath of Ridding their Lands of Hereticks Or are they thought by the R. Church not good Catholicks because they do not do it Then you see this Oath may be omitted with a safe Conscience and Princes be without fear of having their Subjects free from their Obedience Moreover I say that under the general notion of Potentats Soveraigns are not comprehended no more then Abbots under the General Name of Monks tho' really they are Monks In fine if you will not be satisfied with these solid solutions remember that the Embassadours of Kings were present at the Council so that if they knew 't was mean'd also of their Masters and they did not oppose the Decree afore it was passed volenti non sit Injuria no Injury is done to him who is willing This Decree I know is a common place for Protestants not considering that they hit themselves on the Heel when they bring it against us giving us an occasion to reflect not by a mistake but with Truth upon them since the chief Principle supposed by the first Beginers of their Reformation was that it was Lawful not only to refuse all Obedience but to take Arms against their own Natural Soveraign for the Reformation of Religion If they deny this Principle as never supposed by their Predecessors then they must grant that the first Broachers and Abettors of their Reformation were all Traytors and Rebels since they begun it by Sedition and Rebellion against their Lawful Soveraigns in Germany France Geneva Holland and Scotland What was the great ground of the Bloody Scots Covenant Have we not seen of late a number of Clowns and Crafts-Men by their private Interpretation of the Bible free themselves from all due Obedience to their King and in their Conventicles endeavour to take from him all Royal Power by their seditious Sermons and Declarations as in those who were published at Sanchir and Rouglin Many of which remain so obstinate in their ridiculous perswasions that they will rather Dye then give any acknowledgment of submission to a most Gracious and Loving Prince You 'l say they are not true Protestants Answer I pray in what Fundamentals do they differ from you What a Childish Discourse is this which follows when he says that the Romish Church forbids Her Followers the use of their Rational faculty to find out the true Church Why then does She propose to our Rational Faculty to move it to Assent or to be confirmed in that we have Assented to marks out of Scripture of Her being the true Church Telling us first that we see in Her as was foretold Ephes 4. A perpetual and visible Succession of Pastors since the Apostles time Is it credible that God by a special Providence notwithstanding so many Persecutions would have Conserv'd that perpetual Succession of Pastors to teach Superstition and Idolatry And not Conserv'd a Succession of Pastors among Protestants to teach the true Religion As we then have the same Spiritual Power ever Descending and continued from the Apostles time so have we also with it the same True and Apostolical Doctrine Descending from Father to Son since the Apostles time to us Secondly That there is no Doctrine or Faith now Preach'd to all Nations according to the Command of Christ Matth. 28. v. 19. given to his Apostles but that of the Roman Church It s altogether amazing if the Protestant Doctrine be true and Evangelical Doctrine that GOD has never stirred up any of the Protestant Preachers to go with an Apostolical Spirit through Poverty Afflictions Persecutions c. as the Apostles did to instruct many Barbarous Nations in Africa Asia America but makes use only to give the knowledge of his Holy Name to them of Idolaters and Superstitious Romanists the true Preachers staying at Home with their Wives and Children Thirdly That moreover this Faith and Doctrine altho so Universal yet all the Believers thereof have such an Unity and Agreement among themselves in matters of Faith and such a subordination to the visible Head of the Church that they make as Christ said of his Sheep Iohn 10. v. 16. one Flock and one visible Pastor they both receiving all Spiritual Light Grace and Direction from their invisible Head and Pastor Iesus Christ Fourthly That the Doctrine of the R. Church leads evidently to a Sanctity of Life and Worship of God Almighty by a Sacramental Confession of Sins Fasting Praying Self-denyal Mortifications of the Flesh Good Works keeping GODS Commandements by Vows the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and many Ceremonies by which outward show we make appear our inward respect to God From hence it comes that in all Ages among the Believers of
the R. Church there has appeared publickly and visibly to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles that after their decease their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death having been first severely examin'd and discus'd and then approv'd they were after this Examination declared Saints and as such are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church If you say what is said of those Saints and their Miracles is but Fabulous Then I ask you if a Iew would say the same to you of our Saviours Miracles How would you convince him For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God Laying then aside Divine Revelation had Men at that time more Humane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles then we have now to believe the approv'd Miracles of our Saints From all I have said I infer First If the R. Church notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST he has no true Visible Church upon Earth since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church then these I have brought Secondly I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles were most reasonably perswaded and convinc'd that GOD directed them by his Spirit and spoke by their Mouths to others We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD and that He speaks by Her to us Since whatsomever motif you 'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church Now to make use of our rational faculty in order to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you 't is not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it This you have never done nor will ever do But to come nigher to you I ask by what motive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of the true sense and meaning of the word and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands he is mightily deceiv'd for God commanding us to Worship and obey him he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command and oblidges us to make use of them and consequently properly speaking there is no new burden impos'd upon us SECT II. Saint Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27 makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction Telling us Pag. 107. 't was a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless c. we may Eat Answer St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols viz. because they being Ignorant of it did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol in which onely the Sin was But if it fell out that one should tell them that such a Meat had been offerd to the Idol then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes because it is then forbidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent or at least from Eating a sull Meal till after noon or towards the Evening on their dayes of Humiliation When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the Devil or Scandalizing my Neighbour St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil From that antecedent is this a good Inference then when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church and by Scandal of my Neighbour I may Eat Flesh because it is good in it self and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that it may be 't was offer'd to Idols because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat so I was not told of it But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church Now to show how pleasing a thing to God and advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is remember that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the expiation of his Sins 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin say that his knees were weak through Fasting 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Favour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel Daniel 14. In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to overcome the Temptations of the Devil Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out but by Prayer and Fasting Math. 17. Our