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
in love with Errour by a few convincing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa ruunt sub ductis tecta columnis Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility as in the state of the Question it hath been described Ergo it ought not to be believed The sequel is evident especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Adversary is propositio per se nota or carries with it an intrinsick Evidence Nay Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authority where no Divine Authority is interposed there can be no assent of Faith The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith according to this Pamphleter If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge ought he not to have confirmed it by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fathers none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church would it not then appear that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge Though this Argument need no further confirmation till I come to canvase his objections yet for his conviction I will use this Induction If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be proved then either by Scripture or by Reason or by Fathers or by Tradition or by Miracle or by Enthusiasin or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word but by none of these can it be proved ergo not at all If my enumeration be defective let him or any for him supply it for confirming the Assumption I shortly run through the particulars 1. Not by Scripture for according to him I can neither know the Divine Original nor sense of Scripture but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius Nor 2. By Reason this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule as shall appear Cap. â— Natural Reason can neither be expected nor is it alledged by him to prove it Nor 3. By Fathers ought not the infallibility of the Fathers to be first proved before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony And how shall this be done seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fathers Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous dark and obnoxious to various constructions Are there not in them not only seeming but real contradictions Is it not beyond controversie that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture and the genuine sense thereof how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers and their genuine sense consequently the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers then none of the multitude should ever believe it Are they able in such a thorny question to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers or this Pamphleter is most unhappy for in all his Fartago of testimonies from Fathers there is not one asserting this thing as shall appear when I come to consider the objections Nor 4. By Tradition for besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here debated by Universal Tradition are there not as great debates concerning genuine Traditions and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures Is there not need of an infallible visible Judge to discriminate genuine Traditions from spurious How was the Church imposed upon by pretended Tradition concerning the Millennium and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition or if this Position can receive sâ—fficient evidence from Traditions why may not other Articles of Faith also and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge Hence the great Sticklers for the Traditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists are they not very uncharitable who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland Do they judge us so credulous as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles pretended to be wrought in the Indies or in Vtopia I sincerely profess one real Miracle should have more weight with me than a million of their Pamphlets Of Miracles I hope to speak more Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge instance who can 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false I the rather enquire this because Bell. lib. de not Eccles cap. 14. positively affirms that genuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge Then sure the infallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniquity Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible because himself says so Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity Ye can have no ground according to them to believe Scripture or Christ or any Article of Religion but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge that is saith the Jesuited party the Pope of Rome But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible Ye must forsooth take this upon his own word Is not this to make Christianity ridiculous Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome is
Tradition sure not by Melito Justin Martyr Athanasius Hierom the Council of Laodicea yea nor by Greg. 1. as D. Cosins hath fully demonstrated in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Occumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15 until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Latcran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Occumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Occumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jâ—nsenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinâ—ple Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostolot aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D. Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be nated saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of
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
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
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
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfac per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet. he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis bospitia dividimuâ— we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Sculs of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hâ—ll from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to Purgatory It would be remembred that among ancient Christians there were divers Errors concerning the state of the departed now justly disowned both by Protestants and Papists which might have given occasion to these Prayers as first many of them were of opinion that though all the Souls of the Faithful were in requie in a blessed rest yet they were not admitted to the Beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment Hence Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. to prove that many in the ancient Church were smitten with this Error he not only adduces testimonies from several particular Authors such as Irenaeus Justin Tertul. Origen Lactantius Prudentius Ambrose c. but also the form of Prayer for the dead in James Liturgy 2. Many were of opinion that all were to pass through a fire of Purgatory at the great day Yea 3dly some were of opinion that by the Prayers of the living the pains of the Damned were eased among whom were Chrysostom and Prudentius c. of which see Sixtus Senensts lib. 6. Annot. 47. I should not willingly mention these mistakes and errors of Fathers did not the importunity of Romanists constrain me to discover the
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