collectivly taken or the Catholick Church cannot erre in Essentials if the faith of the Catholick Church in these ages can be found out in the undoubted writings of the Fathers in these times then Conformity with their Religion will irrefragably prove Our Religion to be the True Religion as to all Essentials Yea if from the writings of the Aâ—â—ients in these ages we can find what was the faith of any one true Particular Church we may solidly argue thence as to the Truth of Religion in essentials For though a true particular Church may erre yet so long as it is a True Church it retaines the essentials of faith else it were not a true Church This Distinction which I have proposed is not mine onely but of our PROTESTANT Writers in this question concerning The Churches infallibility As you may see in Whitaker De Ecclesia quaest 3. cap. 1. Doctor Field His way to the Church lib. 4. cap 2. And others So that it is no evasion I propound to you but the received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and hence the rest of this your cavil on which you foolishly dilate may be cut off If we grant say you Any infallibility to the Church in these three Centuries how did that gift expyre in the fourth and after following ages It is easily Answered This infall blility which we grant to the Collective body of the Church as to the Essentials and Fundamentals of faith agrees to her in every age else the Church in some ages should be utterly lost But though we grant that the whole Catholick Church cannot erre in Fundamentals be not so foolish as to apply this to your Romish Church You might as well say that Italians are the collective body of mankind as that you Romanists are the collective body of the Catholick Church Remember Jeroms smart admonitioÌ„ In Aepistola ad Evagrium Orbis major est urbe Only this I adde that though the Catholick Church be exempted from error in Fundamentals in every age yet the Church in all ages is not blest with Equal purity and splendor For in some ages the Integrals may be much more vitiated then in others Yea some particular Churches may erre in Fundamentals and so cease to be True Churches and many of these who were eminent Lights in the Church may be smitten with these Fundamental errors and the sincere Professors of the truth may be reduced to a great Paucitie and through persecution be scattered into corners as in the dayes of Athanasius Quando totus orbis miratus est se factum Arianum Lest therefore you cavil further at the restricting of my argument to these First three Centuries you may remember the first occasion of it which was this as you will find in my Fourth Paper I was speaking of the Ancient Apologists in the first Three Centuries who pleaded the truth of the Christian Religion against Heathens And I appealed both to Their grounds and their Religion in these dayes that it might be tryed whether our Religion were not agreeable to theirs in all Essentials and whether the solid grounds which they brought for the truth of the Christian Religion did not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS This I say was the occasion of limiting the argument to these ages though it might have been extended further Yea and as then we told was extended further by Bishop Juel and Crakanthorp even to the Sixth Centurie so also is it by learned Whitaker Contra rarionem quintam Campiani Nay others have extended it to all ages Nor need you carp at the limiting of the argument to the first Three Centuries For the faith of the Catholick Church in these Three ages was the faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages For there is but one Faith and therefore if it be proven that our Religion was the Religion of these ages it doth consequently follow that it was the faith of the Catholick Church in all ages So that this is the most compendious way to try whether a Religion be the faith of the Church in all ages by ascending to the fountain I mean to these first three centuries concerning which there is least doubt made by any Party and which was lesse viriated by superstition or errors in integrals then was the Church in some after times I come now to your second Evasion wherein you pretend That conformity with the Ancient Church is at least no distinct ground from conformity with the Scriptures seeing the truth of the faith of the Ancient Church can onely be proven by its conformity with the Scripturs But the vanity of this subterfuge doth easily appeare For First whether it be a Distinct ground or not yet if it be a Real ground why decline you to be tryed thereby You must surely have an ill conscience and know your wares to be sophisticat that they cannot abide the light Secondly If these grounds be not distinct how doth your Melehior Canus In his booke of commone places distinguish them giveing the first place to the Seripturs of which he treats Lib. 2. only the Sixth to Ancient fathers of whome he discourseth Lib. 7 Or how doth Bellarmin and other your Controversists ordinarly distinguish their argumeÌ„â—s founded on Scripture from the arguments founded upon Antiquity But Thirdly wholly to remove this cavil I grant that the truth of Religion in any former age may be proven from its conformity with the Scriptures and therefore that conformity with the holy Scriptures is the onely Primarie ground of discerning a True Religion from a false whereupon I did put it in the first place Yet we may abstract Pro hîc nune from this way of procedour and argue from the faith of the Church in some ages without proceeding at the time to examine the truth of every point by the Scripture And the rather seeing in Scripture there are general promises of the perpetuity of the Church and consequently of preserving in her all fundamental truths If therefore we can have evidence that this was the faith of the Catholick Church I meane of the whole collective in any age then I may conclude this is the true faith and the True Religion and consequently what is agreeable thereto must also be the True Religion for nothing can be consonant to truth but truth From this it appeares that sisting in the Religion of the Catholick Church in the Second and Third Centurie as a Principle upon the general promise of the Churches perpetuity without a further progresse for the time to examine the truth of every particular it may become in some manner a Distinct ground of argueing from that according to which every point is severally reduced to Scripture-tryal Even as in Subalternas sciences the Conclusions of the Subalternant science are made use of as Principles without making a further progresse The Astronomer takes the Geometricians Conclusion as a Priuciple not seeking a Demonstration thereof So may the Divine in some cases take the faith of the
our Reformed Divines have often offered to disput against you Romanists the controversies of Religion out of the Fathers Did I not show you this before from Juel Whitaker and Crakanthorp And how often doth learned Calvine in his Institutions confute you Romanists from Antiquity as your transubstantiation Lib. 4. cap. 17. § 14. Your Communion under one kinde Ibid. § 47. 48. 49. 50. The necessity of Auricular confession Lib. 3. cap. 4. § 7. Your Papal Indulgences Lib. 3. cap. 5. § 3. 4. The Popes supreamacie over the whole Catholick Church Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 3. 4. 5. c. Yea and not to insist in reckoning out particulars when he is treating of Councils and their authoritie Lib. 4. cap. 9. § 1. Veneror Councilia sayeth he ex animo suoque in honore apud omnes esse cupio and a little after Sicuti ad plenam doctrinae nostrae approbationem totius Papismi eversionem abunde verbo DEI instructi sumus ut nihil praeterea requirere magnopere opus sit ita si res flagitet magna ex parte quod satis sit ad utrumque vetera Concilia nobis subministrant where Judicious Calvine affirmes that out of Ancient Councils both the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be confirmed the Papal superstition confuted From all this may it not appeare how ludibriously you say that I seeme to be hatching a New Religion of my own Am I not offering to defend the received Religion of PROTESTANTS and to have the truth thereof tryed By its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Primitive Church Is the Ancient Religion a New Religion Is the Religion both of Ancients and PROTESTANTS a Religion peculiar to me Will you not blush that such foolish Non-sense should have droped from you But you have another trifling Shift Before say you That conformity with the faith of the Ancient hurch in the first three Centuries be admitted as a Test by which the truth of Religion may be discerned it ought to be proven that all the necessaries of the Christian Religion are contained in their writings which are now extant But First may it not with better reason be resorted on you that before you had rejected it from being a Test you ought first to have proven that there were some necessaries and essentials of the Christian Religion no where to be found in any of the writings of these three ages If any be wanting produce them and your evidence of their absolute necessity If you can produce no necessarie article that is wanting why decline you the tryal But the truth is you Romanists mantaine such a desperat cause that if either Scripture or Antiquity be Umpyre you must surely be condemned There is no way to get a favourable Interloquitur for you but by setting up your Infallible Propounders that is your own selves to be Supreame judges to the whole World If such a Religion be not to be suspected let the World judge But Secondly doe not you Romanists boast bigly sometimes of Universal traditions And here by the way I tel you I shall never declyne to have all the Essentials of Religion tryed by the famous rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis in Commonitorio primo contra Haereses cap. 3. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus est creditum But if any of the necessaries or essentials of Christianity are not to be found in the writings of the Three first Centuries how shall we have a Perpetual and universal tradition for these seeing the current is supposed to be broken off at the fountain for three hundred yeares thereafter Must we take the voice of your Present Church as an Oracle to tell us what was beleeved by the Church so many ages agoe though there be no record left that such a thing was ever beleeved We must examine her Credentials before we become so implicite to her in matters of Fact But Thirdly If any of the Necessaries of Christian Religion be altogether wanting in the writings of Ancients of these ages how did your Gualterius the Jesuit undertake to prove the truth of your Religion by the testimonies of the Church in all ages It is true he was most unhappie in his undertaking in so much that Chillingworth in his Defence of Doctor Potter part 1. cap. 2. § 119. affirmes that he heard an able man of your Religion say That Gualterius had not produced one pertinet testimony in the first three Centuries The like may be said of Ioannes Andreas Coppenstenius a Predicant in his Historical supplement to Bellarmine who undertakes the like but with as little successe Yet doe not such undertakings suppose that all necessary and essential truths of Religion may be found in the writings of these times Sed laterem lavo I doe but lose my travell what wonder to see a Thief declyne the Court and jurie He knowes upon tryal he must be condemned I have pressed you to come to be examined either by Scripture or Antiquity or both or to produce any other solid way of discerning a true Religion from a false but you declyne all Have I not just cause therefore to discharge finally with such a babling Lucifuga After I had signed my last Paper that known Distich dropped from my pen in a Postscript Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta Corruct mundi desinet esse caput At this you behoved to have a fling though you scarce said any thing to the controversall points of the Paper Bot sie say you yat yis your Prophesie be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris Prophesie who when he lept out of the Churche did brage yat with tue yeiris Preaching he wold abolische and eliminat all Poprie out of the world sa yat ester yir tua yeiris yair wold be no mor in the world nather Pop nor Cardinalis nor Monkis nor Nunnes nor Mase nor Belis c. I have set down your own words with your own spelling that the Reader may discerne what a Famous Clerke you are But here I must Querie you in a few particulars and First how call you this my Prophesie Are they not the lines of a Germane Prince Were they not sent to Pope Gregorie the ninth by Frederick the second the Emperour who felt the heavie hand of your usurping Popes as other Princes have done Secondly how cal you Luther our Patriarch We indeed honor Luther and Calvine as precious servants of GOD. But we make neither of them Pope or Patriarch or Master of Sentences Non sumus jurati in verba Magistri Our faith is pinned to no mans slieve Though you be implicit Slaves to the Pope yet we to no man Thirdly what Church I pray you doe you mean when you say that Luther did leape out of the Church Is it the Catholick or universal Church But when I pray you did the Roman Church become the Catholick a part become the whole Are not the Grecian Russian abyssine c Churches parts of the Catholick
PAPISMUS LUCIFUGUS OR A faithfull Copie of the Papers exchanged betwixt Mr. IOHN MENZEIS Professor of DIVINITY in the Marischal-Colledge of ABERDENE and Mr. Francis Dempster Iesuit otherwise Sirnamed Rin or Logan WHEREIN The Iesuit declines to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity though frequently appealed thereunto AS ALSO Sundry of the chief Points of the Popish Religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity yea to the Ancient romish-Romish-Church TO ALL WHICH Is premised in the Dedication a true Narration of a verball Conference with the same Iesuit Tit. 1.10.11 There are many unruly and vain Talkers and Deceivers Whos 's mouths must be stopped who subvert whole houses teaching things which they ought not for filthy Lucres sake Aug. lib. 2. de Bapt. con Don. cap. 6. Non afferamus stateras delosas ubi appendamus quod volumus quomodo volumus pro arbitriâ— nostro dicentes hoc grave hoc leve est Sed afferamus divinaâ—â— stateram de Scripturis sanctis tanquam de the sauris Dominicis in illa quid sit gravius appendamus Immo â—on appendamus sed a Domino appensa recognoscamus ABERDENE Printed by IOHN FORBES Younger Printer to the TOVVN Anno Dom. M.DC.LXVIII BON ACCORD Insignia Vrbis abredoniae Unto the Right Honorable M R. ROBERT PATRIE of PORTLETHEN Lord Provest Bailies ALEXAND R. ALEXANDER IOHN SCOT IOHN DUNCAN IOHN SMITH ANDREW SKENE Dean of Gild GILBERT BLACK Treasurer And to the rest of the honorable COUNCILL of ABERDENE RIGHT HONORABLE It was not any supposed Worth in these Papers which moved me to consent to the publishing of them But because our Romish Adversaries had the confidence openly to triumph in City and Country though I hope without ground as if their Champion Master Dempster had left not me only which had been no great matter but also the Religion of PROTESTANTS at a great losse and disadvantage Who Who am I the meanest of the thousands of ISRAEL that any infirmities of mine whether supposed or reall should be charged on so GLORIOUS a CAUSE which is the invincible Truth of the Most High GOD may bid a defyance to all the Goliahs and Hoasts of Romish Philistins Hath not the Reformed Religion stood as an impregnable Rock against all the assaults both of Speculative and Pragmatick heads and bloody hands which have been kept at worke these many years in opposition thereto by the See of Rome Who then that is but one remove from madnesse can imagine that the insignificant scufle of this Iesuit should endanger it I freely confesse what I have said or can say is infinitly below the dignity of the CAUSE which I mantaine yea and exceedingly short of what eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches have said and can further say in behalfe of our Religion Must it not argue either height of prejudice or pitifull shallowness to impute whatsoever deficiencies of such an one as Me to Religion it self Wherefore Reverend Learned Pious Iudicious Persons with whome I did communicate all these Papers when they were exchanged have judged it sit that all should be faithfully published that the World might have a new demonstration on how small grounds to say no worse our clamorous Romanists can triumph as if they were more then conquerours Well may that saying of Austin in Psalm 32. Be accommodated to them Non remanet iis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis quae tanto est languidior quanto se majores vires habere aestimat There only support is the infirmity of an high or overweening stomach which is so much the more feeble as it overvalueth its own strength It hath been the usuall artifice of Hereticks when they could not conquer Truth by their captious argueings to load the assertors thereof with reproaches Austin complained of such dealing both from Pascentius a champion of the Arrians tom 2. Epist. 174. As also from the Donatists tom 7. in Epist ad Donatist post collat What wonder then though Romanists who are so Hereticall in their Doctrines be Acted by the same Calumniating Genius Learned Doctor Prideaux lect 9. de visib Eccles § 11. Hath been at the paines to present his Reader with a multitude of instances of most impudent Calumnies wherewith Romanists have aspersed faithfull witnesses of truth I will not rake in that dung-hil Only let me remember you that Romish practises of this nature were long agoe so known to the World that learned Doctor Featly before that he and Doctor Francis Whyte engaged in their disput with Fisher and Sweet two Iesuits could easily presage and foretell to the pitcher of the field that whatever were the issue of that combat and at whatever disadvantage the Iesuits should be left yet he and his Colegue Doctor Whyte should be conquered in effigie and led in triumph in many a Pageant at Doway Bruxels Rhemes and Rome as afterwards fell out Yea so impudent were the Romanists that Doctor Weston told at Sainct Omers to a Protestant Lord who had been present at the disput viz. to the Earle of Warwick that the two Iesuits had acquitted themselves so admirably well and with so much advantage to the Romish interest that two Earles and an hundreth Auditors were gained to the Church of Rome and of these Earles this noble Lord to whom the Doctor spake was affirmed to be one who could not but smyle as these ludibrious Legends For the Earle well knew there were not near an hunder persons present at the Conference nor one PROTESTANT staggered thereby Yea the person for whose satisfaction that conference was principally intended though before he had his own doubts yet after the debate professed that he was fully resolved as to the Reformed Religion All this is testified by judicious Doctor Featly in the Relation of that Conference Should it then seem strange to any that the tristing debate wherein I have been lately engaged with this Iesuit hath been so grosly misrepresented by men of these principles Who could have expected any thing else Doe men gather grapes of Thorns or Figs of Thistles Yet as to my own particular interest I could have borne all their reproaches remembring that of the Ancient Quisquis volens detrahit famae meae nolens addit mercedi meae But judicious Lovers of Truth finding Religion it self to be thrust at through my sides laid bonds upon me to give the World a faithfull account of that whole transaction though otherwise I could willingly have destined these poor Papers so farre as they concerned me to perpetuall silence Since therefore Very Honorable this scufle with Mr. Dempster fell out under the intuition of your Authority I judged it incumbent to me to present you with this brief ensuing account thereof As you in your Civil Capacity and we your Ministers in our Ecclesiastick Lyne travelled to suppresse Error and Vngodlynesse in this CITY We had frequent opportunity to deal with Persons of a Popish perswasion When we
Yet to these things and many more which here were tedious to me to repeat you make no more particular Reply then if they had never been objected to you It your silence the strongest confutation of your Adversary All I find you saying is What contradiction can it be to say that the actual operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primuÌ„ But Quid hoe ad Rhombum Was this the question betwixt you me whether the Actus secundus did presuppose Actum primum From which no more can be concluded but that they who give the true sense of scripture when they give it have assistance In actu primo to give it which no Protestant or rationall man ever denyed Yet if you understand your Iesuits principles the Actus secundus or actuall operation doth not necessarlie presuppose such an infallible assistance In actu primo as here you seeme to plead for For according to them Omnia quae tenent se ex parte actus primi in free agents may consist Cum actu vel actu contrario vel actus negatione But to leave this the question betwixt you and me was as appears by your former Papers Whether the knowledge of the Clergies assistance in actu primo be a necessarie prerequisite before we can know the sense of Scripture given by them to be true Which is vastlie different from what you now assert Who seeth not the difference betwixt this proposition He that gives the true sense of Scripture when he gives it hath assistance in actu primo to give it And that other Before I can know the sense given by such an one to be true I must antecedently know that he hath assistance in actu primo to give it It is true one cannot exercise the operations of Seeing and Hearing which are your own examples unlesse he have a sufficient abilitie In actu primo to exercise these operations But he may exercise them although he doth not know and actually reflect upon the facultie which he hath In actu primo A beast both Sees and Hears so doeth an Infant who yet cannot reflect upon the Actus primus of these operations I can hardly say whether in this prevarication you have discovered more craftie falshood you must excuse this plainnesse follie or impudencie Onely henceforth I commend to you that rule of Ruffin Lib. 1. historiae Ecclesiasticae cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere Afterwards you bring your old Dilemma upon the Stage againe but in a more ludibrious dresse then before Either say you we can produce some speciall grounds whereby may be made manifest that our Clergie men are qualified in actu primo with sufficient ability to give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture and then let them be produced or we are destitute of them and then it is impossible that our Clergie men can give the true sense of Scripture Because it is impossible to doe any thing in actu secunde without a speciall hability in actu primo to doe it And so they can onely guesse at it Who doth not see how this judicious Dilemma such as it is doth recoyl upon your own head Mutatis mutandis But I did canvase it so fully in my last both by retortion and direct answere which you have not as yet adventured to take under your consideration that I must remit you back to what was then said Only now I take notice of your ludibrious confirmation of the latter branch of your Dilemma viz. that if we cannot prove antecedently that the Clergie hath assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture then it is impossible that our Clergie can give the true sense Because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secunde without a speciall abilitie In actu primo It is a wonder to me how ever such a Childish consequence could drop from the pen of one who wold be reputed a Scholer Is the Sequel good A negatione probationis ad negationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse Because you or I cannot prove that such a thing is doth it therfore follow that it is not Because I cannot infallibly prove you to be Mr. Dempster the Iesuit Doth it therfore follow that you are not he who but a child wold conclude that because I cannot prove Antecedenter and a priori that such a Doctor of the Church hath an assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture therefore he hath it not The Spirit breaths on whome and where he pleases The assisting influence of the Spirit may be given when I cannot demonstrat A prtori that such a one hath it Hic nunc But surest arguings in such cases are A posteriori from the effect Such an one hath given the true sense of Scripture Ergo he had the assistance of the Spirit to give it Had you but consulted with your Romanists Principles you would have found that you were under a necessity to acknowledge the truth of this For you pretend not to conclude peremptorily and antecedently of any Doctors of your Church that they have this assistance In actu primo for giving the true sense of Scripture except of your Pope in Cathedra and generall Councills yea some of your Authors dare not conclude so much of them Will you the refore say that none beside the Pope and the generall Councills can give the true sense of Scripture You cannot prove antecedently by any Medium that Tostatus Toletus Pererius Esthius A Lapide c. had assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture For none of these were Popes Nay nor can it be proven A priori that Aâ—stine Jerome or Chrysostome had this assistance In actu primo Will you therefore conclude that none of these ever gave a true sense of Scripture but onely guessed at it But the root of your mistake is that you apprehend the objective ground on which our belief to such a truth is built must be the Perswasion We have that such a Doctor is guided by such an infallible assistance which is a manifest untruth For whereupon I pray you is that perswasion grounded That must surely have another foundation But because you had so often insinuated this therefore I did appeal you and againe doe appeal you to produce Grounds for this pretended Infallibility of your Clergie or else I will take your silence for an evident desertion of your cause Your last brawl is because I had said that what ever solid Grounds were brought by Tertullian and the rest of the ancient Apologists to prove the truth of the Christian Religion or are to be found in the late Tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald and Vives De veritate Religionis Christianae These also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Who say you will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian
to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search where the True Religion is to be found prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting meerlie in this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be the True Religion which hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion You denying here the Subsumption were advertised of this one thing that a true principle or ground is not an indifferent nature but is essentially determined to prove and infer onely truth and so not to produce any thing for a principle or ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion which may serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be true After much fluctuation and many shifting toes and froes at lentgh you have pitched on two things which you say you will mantaine as solid grounds to prove the Protestant Religion to be true and to be distinguished from all false Religions The first is The perspcuity of Scripture in all points necessary to Salvation But it was showne you the great jugling that lyes under this answere For first by Scriptur of which is affirmed that it contains perspicuously all things necessary to Salvation must be understood the true letter and the true sense of the true letter of Scripture Ergo it cannot serve for a ground to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion except it be first proven that the Protestants hath both the true letter and Translation and likewise the true sense of the letter To this in which the maine point consists you give no answere nor brings no proofe but onely remits me to read your Protestant Authors whome you call Champions and who as you say have made all thir things clear as the Sun But wherefore doe you not produce the reasons of these your Champions that they may be examined and impugued Secondly It was asked how you could so boldly affirme that all things necessar to Salvation or rather that all the tenets which the Protestant Religion holds as necessary to Salvation were contained clearly in Scripture except first Drawing op a catalogue of all things that the Protestant Religion holds as points necessary to Salvation and as contradistinguished from all other things not necessary To this you answere now that a Proposition in generall may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of all particulars contained in it So we beleeve that all the dead shall rise though we cannot give a particular account of their persons But it seems this answere hath escaped your penne when you were thinking on other things For though I beleeve a proposition in generall when that proposition is revealed in generall But where is it revealed that all the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds for points nocessar to Salvation are clearly in Scripture For giving and not granting that this generall proposition All things necessar to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture were revealed by Scripture it self attesting it yet it doeth not follow that this other generall proposition is revealled All the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture or that they may be clearly deduced out of things clearly set down in Scripture Ergo it cannot be an object of divine faith but by deduceing it by Induction of particulars And to this serves your own example of a purse full of an hundred pieces of Gold for though I may beleeve in general that all the gold contained in that purse is upright gold if this were revealed in general by a sufficient authority yet prescinding from all authority affirmeing this I cannot assent that they are all and none excepted upright gold except taking them all one by one and putting them to the tryall because if only one of them were not upright the whole assent would be false Thirdly Though you say all things necessar to Salvation to be clearly set down in Scripture yet you require the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true knowledge of thir things and being demanded to specifie thir middes and what you meane by the due use of them And for answere to this you bring now onely a long Digression about rules to interpret Scripture slightin the maine print which is to show in this a difference betwixt you and these of a false Religion and whether these of a false Religion may not use as duely these middes as you can doe for attaining to the true sense of Scripture To this you onely answere that De facto they doe not use duely these middes and That the God of this world hath blinded their minds c. But what if they apply this to your self The second ground that you have pitched upon to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion and to be distinguished from all false Religion Is the conformity it hath with the doctrine of the first three Centuries But this cannot be a ground distinct from the conformity which you say your Religion hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Because giving and not granting that your doctrine had this conformity you cannot by this prove that it is a true doctrine since by you All these were fallible and might have erred And conformity with doctrine that may be error cannot serve to prove a doctrine to be true And if you reply that though they were fallible and might erre yet they did not erre because the doctrine they gave is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo the conformity with them is not a ground distinct from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Or else you might prove the conformity with the Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion to be a ground to prove the truth of your Religion and a distinct ground from the conformity which these Acts hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make good that the conformity of your Religion with the doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries is a distinct ground from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture you must give some Authoritie to the Fathers who were then whereby they were preserved from error though of themselves they were fallible And this must consist either in some intrinsecal quality inherent in them or in some special extrinsecal assistance founded on Christs promite And here you have likewise to prove that this
praesenti that the object thereof doe exist in that article of time wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced But according to you Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced for according to you Christs Body is not in the Sacrament till all the Words be ended Therefore the proposition according to your Glosse cannot be true And yet it must be true as being the word of him who is truth it self And consequently it must be Ture and Not True Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigma's but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth in so much that what one of them affirmes the other confutes As these hints prove the falshood of your Romish glosse so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS is manifest from the Series of the context For if by the pronowne Hoc or This Christ meaned the bread then the sense of the proposition must be figurative But by the pronowne This he surely understood the bread Ergo c. The Major is clear because disparats cannot be predicated of one another but Figuratively The Minor is easily proven Because what he tooke blessed and did breake of that he said This is my Body as is clear from the Series of the context But undoubtedly he tooke blessed and brake the bread therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronowne This. And consequently the sense must be Figurative Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS Said not Austin Contra Adimantum cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui That is when he gave the signe and figura of his Body And long before him Tertullian Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem cap. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Corpus suum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo ad est figura Corporis mei Could Calvin or Beza have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christs proposition to be Figurative I know your two Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron have scrued up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation But Spalatensis Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles cap. 6. à num 22. Ad numerum 164. not to mention other Authors hath copiously examined and fully vindicated all these testimonies and clearly demonstrated that the Church in the first Eight Centuries was in the same judgement as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Reformed Churches By this touch the judicious Reader may discerne whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds The like might be shewed if our expositions and yours were compared of other much tossed Scripturs such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18 Upon this rock I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of truth Iob. 21.16 Feed my sheep c. And this were the most compendions way to try whether your expositioÌ„ or ours were the more genuine This also was the advice of Augustine of old Lib. 3. Contra Maximin Arianum cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Arâ—minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illus detineris Seripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque proprys sed utrisque communâ—bus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratic cum ratione concertes It is true throogh prejudice interest or blindnes men may oppose the most luculent truth after all these meanes But then the whole defect is as we have often advertised you Ex parts subjecti on the part of the subject And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scripturs perspicuity in al things necessarie to Salvation In your next section as you declined a tryal by Scripture so likewise you shun to have your Religion tryed by Antiquity and you pretend two noble shifts The first is that according to us al these in the first three Centuries were fallible and therefore though our Religion were conforme to theirs it will not follow that it is the True Religion I doubt if ever any had to doe with such a shamelesse tergiversing fellow For First suppose it were true that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion and I admit their Religion as to all essentials to be a Test whether ours be true or not with what face can you decline it Know you not that Maxim of Law Testem quem quis inducit pre se tenetur recipere contrase Secondly how could you say That we affirme that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible seeing in these centuries were the Apostles whome we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine But Thirdly by saying That we mantains that all in these ages even excepting the Apostles and pen-men of holy writ were fallible and subject to errors you discover your self to be either grosly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS or to be a base scurvie sophister which will appeare by distinguishing two words in your assertion For First the particle All may be taken either Collectively or Distributively And Secondly Errors of Religion are of two sorts Some in points fundamental and essential some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity This being premised I propose this Distinction If you meane that we mantaine that All in these ages Collectively taken that is the whole Catholick Church may erre in Fundamentals and Essentials it is a most absurd falshood for PROTESTANTS mantaine no such thing We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church Isa 59. ver 21. Matth. 28 ver 20. c. But if the whole Catholick Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age then the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth It is True sundrie of your Writers either through Ignorance or through their calumniating Genius have charged this on PROTESTANTS that they mantaine that the Church may utterly fail But this is so impudent a slander that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants cap. 13. Notandum sayeth he Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere nam Calvinus cateri Heretici id concedunt If therefore this be your meaning you charge PROTESTANTS falsly But if you onely meane that All in these ages taken Distributively remember that now we speake not of Apostles or of pen-meÌ„ of holy writ or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetick spirit might erre in things not Fundamental this is granted Yet this hinders not but that the truth of our Religion may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church For though every one Distributively taken may erre in Integrals yet seeing Al
though I was onely the Defendant yet being out-wearied by your Cowardlynesse Have I not demonstrated that in sundrie chief points of controversie such as the Perspicuity and perfection of Scripture the fallibility of Popes and Councils and in the matter of transubstantiation that the PROTESTANTS had the right and true sense of Scripture and that you Romanssts were in the trespasse But you as a Catholick Doctor have one Catholicon by which you coufute all that your Adversarie objects namely by calling it a Digression for with that Reply you have satisfied your self throughout all your Papers Onely as to the last Specimen which I gave you concerning Transubstantiation you think you come off with honour by saying That it savours of what I taught my Scholars this last year Are not you a brave Champion indeed who are as afraid of an Argument that hath beene handled in the Schools as you would be of a Crocodile What sport would your men have made had our Whitaker Iunius Chamier and Danaaus declined to examine Bellarmins arguments because he had handled them before in that Colledge where he was Professor But whereas you say That the Argument which I brought against your transubstantiation seems to have beene the summe of all that I taught in the School this last year you shall know that I have not been accustomed to such laziness as to drone whole years like you upon one Syllogisme As in these forementioned particulars I have demonstrated that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and not you the same might be showen in all the rest of the points of controversie betwixt you and us and hath beene abundantly done by our Divines But to propose more Arguments to you is but Margaritas porco projicere For it would seeme you dare graple with none of them Fourthly I must advertise you of a Radical error which leades you into many more For you seeme still to suppose that who ever are a true Church must have one general ground from which the truth of all the points of Religion which such a society doe owne may be demonstrated without an examination of particulars And this if I mistake not is your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leades you into all the rest of your errors And therefore you still wave the examination of particulars and call for such a general ground But in this you show extreame basenesse that you neither prove the necessity of such a Principle nor yet produce that Principle by which your and our Religion is to be examined Only you insist still upon one general false Hypothesis as if it were an undenyable Axiom and a Datum Whereas in very truth a true Church may mantaine the fundamentals of Christianity and yet alas have the Tares of some errors mingled with the Wheat as is largely demonstrated by our Divines in that Question Num Ecclesia possit errare And therfore there is not one General Ground to be expected proving that all the points of Religion mantained by such a society are truth without examining particulars And this may be strongly confirmed Ad Hominem against you For if there were any such Commone Ground it would be the Infallibility of your Propounders but not this as I have proven in my former Papers Nay I have so soundly cudgelled this your Romish principle in my Last that you durst not once mention it in this your Eight Paper How ever if there be any ground which you suppose to prove the truth of Religion as a Test which none can justly decline I appeale you to produce it and I undertake by the helpe of GOD to show that either it is a false ground or else that it agrees to the PROTESTANT Religion Fifthly this Assertion of yours That before we câ—in prove the truth of our Religion from Scripture we ought first to prove that we have the true sense of Scripture had need of a very favourable and benigne interpretation else it is perfect non-sense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our ReligioÌ„ is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove we have the true ReligioÌ„ before we prove that we have the true Religion A noble stick of Romish non-sense Sixthly how easie were it to demonstrate against you Romanists that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture seeing in most of all the Positives of our Religion you doe agree with us as that there is a GOD that he is to be adored and that there are three Persons c. Consequently The PROTESTANTS sense of Scripture must be the true sense else your Religion cannot be true You must either acknowledge that vve have the true sense of Scripture or condemne your ovvn Religion The chief controversie that remaines betvvixt you and us is concerning your Supernumerarie Additions as vvhether not onely GOD is to be adored but also Images and Crosses and not onely GOD is to be invocated but also Saincts and Angels c. That is vvhether there be so many more Supernumerarie senses of Scripture besides those vvhich PROTESTANTS mantaine and you Papists dare not deny Whether I say besides these there be other senâ—es of Scripture mantained by you Romanists and denyed by us Ought not you then to prove these your Supernumerarie senses And are not vve sufficiently vvarranted to adhere to the Negative except there be solid grounds for these Superadded sexses vvhich I beleeve neither you nor the vvhole sâ—lb of Jesuits shall be able to shovv though you get a superaddition of all Lucifers Acumen But Seventhly and Lastly Seeing nothing will satisfie you unlesse I though onely the Defendant doe also prove against you the Negative that is that not onely Our sense of Scripture is true but also that these Your superadded and supernumerarie senses are not true therefore to draw you if it be possible our of your lurking holes I will try you by this Argument The sense of Scripture given by your present Romish Church in many things contradicts the sense given by the Ancient Romish Church Ergo the sense put upon Scripture by your Present Romish Church in many things cannot be true The Sequel is cleare because two contradictories cannot be true If therefore you confesse that the Ancient Romish Church had the true sense of Scripture which ye must doe or else destroy the great foundation of your Religion namely the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome in all ages then wherein you contradict the Ancient Romish Church therein surely you deviat from the true sense of Scripture It remaines therefore onelie that I confirme the Antecedent which I doe by a few cleare Instances Instance first Your present Romish Church mantains that Images are to be adored Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by the
found in it Yet what scurrilous and dung-hil eloquence the Iesuit useth in his next Paper vvithout any provocatioÌ„ is obvious to any Reader But next I appeale to all rationall Persons vvho shall peruse these Papers vvhether he gives not just cause for smart Language by his nauseating Repetitions shameful Preteritions and impudent Calumnies for vvhat I knovv vvithout a parrallel In so much that sometimes he vvould inscribe his Papers vvith a splendid Calumny affirming that I had disovvned all vvhich I had said before So he did in his sixth Paper When these his Papers were disseminated among the Popish Proselyts without my Answeres who tooke all the Iesuits bold Assertions for Oracles and were ready thereupon to clamour through the Country would not such dealing have moved the Choler of a Person of ordinary Meeknesse It was the saying of a great Iurist Non irasci ob eas causas I ob quas irasci oporteat stultoruâ—â— est Yea Aristotle affirmes it to be an Act of meeknesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch was not afraid to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet if either Master Dempster or any for him will hereafter prosecut this Debate in a Rationall and Civill way they may be assured of as Courteous and Civil Entertainment as they shall give But leaving these things I have made bold to superscribe your HONOURS NAMES to these Papers Your known Affection to the True Reformed RELIGION and your zeale for promoting the wel-fare of this Famoâ—â— CITY the Happynesse whereof is more wrapt up in the Interest of Religion then in any Earthly concerne suffer me not once to doubt of your Willingnesse to undertake the Patrociny of the Truths herein asserted The Obligations are so many and so great which ly upon me from this CITY and from the MAGISTRATS and COUNCIL'L thereof especially these twenty and one yeares last bygone wherein I have been through Mercy officiating though weakly in the publick Ministry of the Gospel among you beside the Personall respects which I owe to your selves who at present doe possess the Chair that you may justly challenge a Proprietie in all my performances It is therefore become a Probleme with me whether this poor Present which I humbly tender to you ought not more properly to be termed the Payment of a just Debt then a SYMBOL of GRATITUD But under whatsoever notion you shall be pleased to accept of it I shall surely be the more deeply addebted to you I adde no more only the GOD of all Grace and Truth rebuke a Spirit of Errour Prophanesse and Idolatry which hath Alas fermented too too many in this Place That this City may become a City of Righteousnes a Faithful City wherein Mercy and Truth may meet together Righteousnes and Peace may kisse each other and the Cognizance thereof may be IEHOVAH SH AMM AH The LORD is there I conclude with that Apostolical supplication in behalf of you our Governours The very GOD of Peace sanctifie you wholly I pray GOD your whole Spirit Soul and Boâ—â—â—e preserved blamelesse unto the comming of our LORD IESVS CHRIST So prayeth he who is YOVR HONOVRS In all humble observance Iohn Menzeis To the Impartial READER BEside the historical account of this affair given in the Dedication I have yet some few things whereof to advertise thee Know therefore that necessity and not choyse did put â—e upon this whole undertaking I was provoked by solemne challenges first to a vocal debate then to exchange of Papers and lastly by insolent clamours to the publishing of all I believe no discreet Person will ascribe this appearance in Print to vanity For I acknowledge the debate is inglorious the Papers which I had to examine being so very insignificant I may indeed be blamed for wasting Oyle and Paines to confute such tristes But Mr. Dempster and what dropped from his mouth or pen how frivolous so ever were so admired I had almost said adored by our Romish Apostats that had I not answered him and published both his Papers and mine I should have been judged by many as wanting in duty to the PROTESTANT Interest Who in such an exigence would not rather submit to have his labour censured as unnecessary then to be deemed unfaithful to the Truth T 's true on whose worke had been only to state Controversies and to argue pro and con might have said more in a very few sheets for the satisfaction of an ingenuous lover of truth then is said in all these Papers But I have been constrained to follow the anomalous motion of a tautologizing Iesuits Who could never be induced to speake to any particular Controversie Sundry times I stated Controversies and hinted at impugnations of Romish Doctrines but could prosecute nothing unlesse I would fight with my own shadow for the Adversary had not the confidence to speake to any particular And besides these Papers were not at first designed for the presse but as privat missives to give a check to a petulant Caviller Many things may passe in privat missives which are hardly tolerable in tractats designed at the first contrivance for publick use So true is that saying Aliud est uni scribere aliud omnibus More of my worke stood in discovering the prevarications of the Iesuit then in canvasing his Arguments This readily will not have so savoury a rellish with thee yet I hope it will be judged excusable in me when the circumstantiated case wherein I stood is considered However to compense this losse I intended by way of an Appendix to have added some Arguments against the Popish Religion As First from its direct Contrariety to cleare Scriptures in many weighty points 2. From its Novelty and Dissonancy from the faith of the Ancient Church notwithstanding the vain and deceitful pretences of Romanists to Antiquity 3. From the manifold and grosse Idolatry established thereby 4. From its Contrariety to Catholick Vnity and the Schismatical constitution of the present Romish Church though Romanists have the confidence to glory as if they were the only Catholicks 5. From the Impious reproaches which Romanists and the Present Romish Religion doe throw upon the Holy Scriptures 6. Because the Popish Religion is greatly injurious to the Satisfaction and Merits of our Blessed REDEEMER the LORD IESVS CHRIST 7. Because Poperie overturnes all certainty of divine faith or rather to use the expression of learned Mr. Pool who hath given a blow at the root of the Romish Church because of the Nullitie of divine faith in the Romish Religion 8. Because many of the Principles of Popery have a manifest tendency to practical ungodlynesse and particularly Iesuits who are as it were the soul of the present Court and Church of Rome and the chief Emissaries for promoting the Romish Interest doe mantain principles opposit to sound Christianity and Mordlity Yea there is scarce one Command in the Decalogue whereof grosse and impious â—olations are not justifyed by these Men I whereof a considerable account is
all who dissent from them Now it can hardly be told what influence bold Assertions from persons of reputed gravity especially joined with high pretences and some plausible Sophisms will have upon credulous apprehensive or melancholy persons yea upon most of people who are not well grounded in Religion and some way studyed in the Controversies But fourthly Both Romish Seducers and Quakers joyne issue in this that the persons they intend to prey upon may have nothing to guard them against their Seduction they reflect heavily upon the holy Scriptures and Faithful Ministers The Scripture say they is but a dead letter Ambiguous Obscure capable of diverse yea contrary interpretations and insufficient to terminat controversies in Religion They reproach Ministers as Hyrelings they load them with calumnies and the trespasses of some few they charge upon the whole function by which meanes they so abuse poor people that they despaire of good by consulting either with the Scriptures or Ministers These Seducers deale with poor people as the Wolves in Demosthenes his Apologue to the Senat of Athens who offered to make peace with the Sheep if they would put away their Dogs but the Wolves intended to prey upon the poor Sheep when once their Guardians were gone They therefore who would not betray their own Soules to these Imposters would bring every thing to the Scriptures as to a test Isaiah 8.20 and would consult with their Spiritual guides I meane the Ministers of GODS Word Mal. 2.7 The serious consideration of these few overly hints may be useful through the LORDS blessing against the growing defection of these times Let it with-all be thought upon what heavy Characters the Scripture sets upon Apostacy and Seducers I commend to this end the reading of these Scriptures Heb. 10.38 2. Pet. 2.1.2.3.2 Thess 2.9.10.11.12 1. Ioh. 2.19 Matth. 24.24.25 2. Cor. 11.13.14.15 And in particular there be most dreadful threatnings against Complyers with Romish Babylon which may make the eares of all that hear to tingle I mention but one at the time Revel 14.9.10.11 If any man worship the beast and his Image and receive his marke in his fore-head or in his hand the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out with out mixtur into the cup of his indignation and he shall be termented with fire and brimstone and the smoke of their terment ascendeth up for ever and ever Shall not then these who are ensnared by Romish Impostors hearken to the call Revel 18.4 Come out of Babylon my people that ye be not partakers of her fins and that ye receive not of her plagues I know Romanists turn these things off as not concerning them But if a common Whore can as Solomon sayeth Pro. 30.20 Wip her mouth as if she had done no wickednesse is it any wonder that the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth Revel 17.5 endeavour to palliat her Villanies with floorishes of words School-distinctions especially having so many thousand Iesuits and other Ianisary's under pay for that effect Will Antichrist when so ever he appeares proclaime himself to be the Antichrist Will he not dissemble the matter Why else is his worke tearmed a Mysterie of iniquity 2. Thess 2.7 Why is it said that the Beast Revel 13.11 Hath two hornslike a Lamb why hath the great Where upon her fore-head writen Mysterie And if great Authours doe not misinforme us the same is writen upon the Popes Mitre Have not Learned PROTESTANTS in their debates on this subject made it more then Probable that the Papal faction is that Antichristian state spoken of in Scripture I shall only now remember you of the Reply which Sir Francis Bacon gave to King James when he asked at him whether the Pope were the Antichrist If said Sir Francts a hus and cry were made after the Antichrist and I should apprehend the Pope I would make him clear himself of the markes of the Antichrist before I would let him goe Perhaps this warning shall not have much influence upon them who have already devoted or rather mancipated themselves to the Popish or Quaker interest For Heresy is a pertinacious disease Sin is never so dangerous as when it is covered with the mantle of Truth or Duety It was the ingenuous confession of a good man Error meus erat Deus meus That once his Errours were his Idols and then it seemed as hard for him to forsake them as to renounce his GOD. O how piteous is the case of deluded Soules who esteeme their Apostacy from Truth their Blaspemyes and Idâ—latry acceptable service to GOD Yet though Israel play the Harlet let not Judah offend Hos 4 15. Let me therefore obrest these who through Mercy are preserved from the contagion of Popery and Quakerisme as they regard the Eternal Salvarion of their Soules that they would hearken to the peremptory Scripture-caveats against Apostacy 2. Pet 3.17 Beware lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your stedfastnesse Revel 3.11 Behold I come quickly hold fast that which thou hast that no man take thy Crown 1. Cor. 10.12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he slandeth take heed lest he fall Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling Jud. 24.25 And to present you faultlesse before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy to the only wise God our Saviour be glory and Majesty Dominion and Power both now and ever AMEN Cicero Tantam semper potentiâ—ns veritas habuit ut nullis machinis aut cuâ—usquam hominis ingenio aut arte subverti potuerit licetâ— in 〈◊〉 nullun Patronum aut defensorem obtineat tamen per scâ—ipsa defenditur A faithfull Copie of the Papers exchanged betwixt Master IOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinty in the Mareshall Colledge of ABERDENE and Master Francis Dempster Jesuit otherwise Sir-named Rinne or Logan The Jesuits first Paper For Master IOHN MENZEIS whose Answere is civilly required according to his promise 1. GOD Almightie who is supreame Lord hath decreed for man eternall happinesse after this life and howbeit he might have decreed to give it him absolutely without any condition yet de facto he hath tyed the obtaining of it to certaine conditions to be fulfilled upon our part whereby Christs blood and passion is applyed to us and amongst these conditions one is that we be of one true faith and one true religion 2. Since that by Gods decree eternall happines and salvation is tyed to one true religion this true religion must be sufficiently furnished with grounds and principles whereby it may prove it self to be a true religion which grounds and principles are so determinat to trueth that they cannot serve to prove a false religion to be a true religion 3. It is to be supposed that all parties agrees in this conditionall proposition that they would submit their judgements and belief with all firmnes to any thing if they knew certainly that God had spoken
it or that the sense that is given to such a text of scripture were the true sense or the sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words Since then that all must agree in this conditionall proposition all the controversie must be reduced to this what partie purifies this conditionall that is to say what part hath more solide and stronger reasons that they have the assistance of the holy Ghost to give the true sense of the letter of the word of God 4. As it is impossible for one to prove himself an honest man except he can shew some distinction betwixt him and a knave and that there can be verified of him something which is not applicable nor can agree to a knave so it is as impossible for a religion to prove it self to be a true religion except it can assigne some distinction betwixt it and a false religion and that there can be verified something of it which cannot be verified nor applyed to a false religion Out of these premisses is deduced this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true religion which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God But the Protestant religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God Ergo it cannot be a true religion May it please the answerer of this syllogisme to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion or that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor cannot be assumed to prove a false religion to be a true religion or to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God as the ground and principle that one produces to prove that he is an honest man must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man or if he alleadge that the ground or principle whereof he serves himself is only misapplyed by a false religion then he is obliedged to assigne some good reason whereby he showes that it is well applyed by him and misapplyed by the other Likewise he is intreated to answere shortly to the point and lay aside all long homilies and excursions least by multiplying many words he incurre suspition that he seeks onely to obscure the matter that the weaker sort may not penetrat nor see through his weakness 20 Apryll 1666. Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits first paper An answere to a paper from an anonymous person of the Popish profession commonly supposed to be Master Francis Dempster alias Logan IT had been sufficient for me upon the first reading of your paper instantlie to have returned this or ely answere NIGO MINORIM I deny your minor For I found but a poor naked Syllogisme the assumption whereof is splendidlie false and ye have not so much as added the shaddow of a proofe to confirme it Neither can ye be exempted from being tyed to prove it because it is a Negative as shall afterwards appear Yet for the clearing of truth and also if it may please GOD for your conviction I have added these following animadversions 1. And first Ye lay down foure previous Propositions as so many oracles which might extort an assent from any Reader But you must give me leave to tell you how specious soever they seeme to you they want not their own flawes Take one instance from your third proposition wherein there is an egregious fallacie committed in your explication of that conditionall wherein ye suppose all parties to agree For it is one thing to know that the sense given to such a text of Scripture is the true sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words which is the condition at first mentioned by you and it is a quite other thing to know that he who gives the sense hath the assistance of the holy Ghost to give that true sense which ye hold out as the explication of the former This latter savors rankly of that erroneous Popish tenet concerning the necessitie of an infallible visible judge of controversies Now is it handsome under pretence of explayning a proposition wherein all agree to foyst in one of the maine points of difference as if that also were agreed upon could there be a greater cheat put upon a simple Reader 2. But secondly It had been of more use then all these your propositions to have laid down the Thesis which ye were to oppugne and to have explained the terms thereof Since therefore ye have omitted it it will be necessary for me to doe something to it least we seeme to fight Andabatarum more as Persons blindfolded The Thesis then which we defend and you oppugne is this The Protestants Religion is the True Religion Take these few hints of explication of the terms By True Religion We understand the true doctrine of salvation concerning God and the right way of serving and worshipping him By the Religion of Protestants we mean the Christian Religion contained in the holy Scripturs By Protestants these Christians who protest against and doe reject Popish-Errors and additions to Scripture truths So that Christianitie is our Religion and our Protestancie is not our Religion but our rejection of your Popish corruptions If then ye consider the importance of the Thesis which ye impugne ye will find that ye undertake a hard work nay an Infidells cause Namely that the Christian-Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures and held by these who are called PROTESTANTS because of their rejection of Popish-Errors is not the true Religion 3. Thirdly Because ye so oft make mention of some peculiar Grounds and Principles which the true Religion must have to prove it self to be the true Religion and which cannot be verified of a false Religion which ye illustrat by the similitude of an Honest-man and a Knave I desire that these two things may be noted in reference to this which may perhaps give some light to the whole matter And first these Grounds and Principles must be understood ex parte objecti on the part of the object not of the subject That is to say that the true Religion hath sufficient Grounds in it self to manifest it self to be the true Religion if it meet with a well disposed intellect For to use your own similitude an Honest-man may have Ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a Knave albeit a fool cannot discerne it So the true Religion may have Ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an Infidell or Heritick whose foolish minde is darkened Rom. 1.21 cannot take it up Secondly The prime peculiar difference of the true Religion from a false stands in its
their fellowes who have travelled long in this work have been able to effectuat nothing by all their vast Volumes And have ye the confidence to doe the bussinesse by this one naked Syllogisme But that I may shut up these lines remember ye cannot now call upon me to shew a peculiar ground or evidence which the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath to prove it self to be the True Religion and that it is conforme to the True sense of the Scriptures For Religion is not one individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot all be proven at once or with one breath though there be none of them but through the mercie of GOD we are able to demonstrate against any Adversarie But now it lyes upon you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption Instance therefore if ye can one Ground Necessarlie requisit for evidenceing and proving the True Religion and its conformitie to the True sense of the Scriptures which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS which I hope I may confidently say neither you nor any of your fraternitie shall ever be able to doe Aprill 24. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTCRIPT August lib. De unitate Ecclesia contra Epist Petiliani cap. 3. Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum authoritati utriqueue consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus Ibi quxramus Eccesiam ibi discutiamus cansam nostram Idem Patrlo infra Ergoin Scripturis sanctis Canonitis Ecclesiam requiramus It is desired that any Answere which shall be returned be subscrived as the Author would have it taken notice of Apryll 28 1666. The Jesuits second paper A Reply to an Answere made be Mr. IOHN MENZIES to a discourse of a Romane-Catholick shewing that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be a true Religion or a Religion wherein men can save their Souls I Have perused your paper and find that in writting â—â— are like to your self in conference by mouth because in both much that you may seeme to the simple sort to say something The controversies that we have in hands about the means to know a True Religion and to distinguish it from a false Religion is not of small concernment neither hath it so narrow dimensions as within the compasse of them it 〈◊〉 not able to detaine for a little while all the pith or force of 〈…〉 or be leaping out be the sides to mix it with other digressions about traditions visible judge of controversies untimely retortions of Arguments c. Which maketh nothing to the present difficultie which may be fullie â—nded without mentioning any such things Laying them closs aside and purposely â—â—ske nuing all your excursions as out of the line and swelling only of tergiversations and diffidence to answere directly I lay againe to your doore this point viz. It is impossible that the Protestant Religion can be proven to be a True Religion or the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternal life and consequently that whosoever aimeth at eternall happiness after this life or intendeth to save his Soule is oblidged to quite it and to make search to find out the True Religion Prescinding for now where this True Religion is to be found since the present difficulty is only to shew that Protestant Religion cannot be it This point I proved by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculias ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. Ergo it cannot be a True Religion To this Argument you answere first carping it that is not in forme as having two Premisses Negatives but in this you are farr mistaken for the Negation in one of the Premisses is not taken Neganter but Infinitanter and doth not affect or light upon the Copula but is a part of the subject of the Proposition Next you answere as you say directly admitting the Major and denying the Subsumption to wit that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall ground or principle to prove that it is conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD and so denying that it hath no speciall ground or principle you consequently must affirme that it hath some speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be destinguished from a false Religion and to be conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now lay all these things together first that under your own hand writ ye have undertaken to mantain the Protestant Religion to be a True Religion Next that you grant a Religion cannot be True except it have some peculiar ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be Ture or conforme to the True sence of the letter of the word of God Thirdly that you deny that the Protestant Religion hath not thir speciall grounds and principles whereby she may prove herself to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now let any be judge whether to weind your self out of this labyrinth and without manifestly deserting of your cause ye be not oblidged to produce these peculiar grounds or principles whereby you say that Protestant Religion is furnished to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Which likewise may be extorted by this Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion is furnished with sufficient grounds or principles to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD or it hath no such principles if it have no sufficient principles then confess ingenuously it is a groundles Religion if it have them then let them be produced and examined And why doe you reserve keep them up since the producing of them is necessarie to mantaine and defend the truth of the Protestant Religion are they perhaps invisible or are you ashamed to bring them to light only remember that the grounds or principles that you produce to this effect to prove your Religion to be True must be speciall and have this propriety that they so prove the Protestant Religion to be True or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of God that they cannot be affirmed to prove a false Religion and which you your self holdeth for a false Religion to be a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. As the ground or principle which is produced to prove Honesty or one to be an honest man must have this propriety that it cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest-man Lastly in your paper you insinuat two superficial and fleeing shifts and evasions which doth nothing help you The first is that the Protestant
Religion hath ex parte objecti intrinseck grounds and principles whereby it is constitute a True Religion though it hath not ex parte subjecti But this onely is to bring new obscure termes which put in good SCOTS signify onely the same which hath been said hitherto to wit that Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformitie with the true sense of the letter of the word of GO'D but is destitute of all speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to have such intrinsecall and objective truth and conformity But I pray you what false Religion is there that may not with as good reason apply the same termes to themselves and say that their Religion is true ex parte objecti and hath intrinsecall and objective evidence truth and conformity with Scripture though they cannot shew this ex parte subjecti Likewise they have as great Reason as you to say that their Religion and the truth of it may be made evident if it encounter with an understanding well disposed though it cannot be made evident to fools So you are pleased civilly to call all those who have their understanding of such temper that they cannot see the truth of your Religion The other shife and evasion is that Religion is not one individual truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven at once or in one breath But what makes this to your purpose since that before you can prove any one of those particular truths to be conforme to the true sense of the text of such a Scripture you must first produce some speciall ground or principle to prove that your Clergie-men in Actu primo hath such assistance or hability as is prerequired in men that should give out to People the true sense of particular texts of Scriptures or else how can men be induced to beleeve that the sense which you give is the true sense since every false Religion might pretend with as great reason as you doe that they give the true sense though plaine contrane to the sense that you give In the end of your paper you desire me to subscrive and to put my name to the answere that I make as you have put to your name to yours but this your demand doth not seem rationall since your condition and mine are not alike for you are at home and as a Cock on your own midden and there must lurke some other thing under this demand since it can make nothing to your cause who proponeth the reasons against if they be pertinent and to the purpose Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Iesuits second paper May 2. 1666. An Answere to a second paper from the traffiquing Romanist who commonly passeth under the name of Mr. Francis Dempster alias Logan YOur consident undertaking to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS made me once to expect great things But for what I can yet discerne Parturiunt montes c. I did truely nauseat to read this your raw and indigested paper in which you wholly passe by the most materiall points in my Answere and are pleased to reflect on them as unnecessarie excursions that so your Omissions might seeme lesse criminall A very easie subterfuge by which any faint disputant may decline to meddle with these difficulties which he sees would nettle him But that I may keep you closse to your work I must crave leave to reminde you of some of these omissions and yet to desire that first ye would cleare your self of that fallacie wherewith I charged the third proposition of your first paper Whether it were an impertinent excursion to discover an egregious fallacie in one of these propositions which ye laid down as a foundation of all your ensuing superflâ—â—cture the indifferent Reader may judge Secondly I desire you to answere directly to the retorsions whereby I inverted your Syllogisme against your self and your Romanists Is there any thing more ordinary in School debates then retorsion of Arguments or when the grand debate betwixt you and me is whether the PROTESTANT RELIGION or Popery be the True Religion was it untimely or impropper for me to shew that the weapons which ye bring against the Religion of PROTESTANTS doe strick at the very foundations of Popery And thirdly I desire you to prove the assumption of your Syllogisme denyed by me or else to refell the Arguments whereby I shew that though it be a Negative yet this is no sufficient ground to turne over the opponents office upon me If you doe not performe these things to all which ye are tyed by the rules of disputing I beleeve ye shall hardly escape from being censured by judicious Readers as an Ignoramus I shall not insist upon the evasion which ye have devised to cloak the informalitie of your Syllogisme ex omnibus negativis pretending that in one of the propositions you take the Negative Infinitanter not neganter Although you have not been pleased to tell in which of the propositions it is so taken and though there be no indifferent Reader but would look upon all the Propositions as simple Negatives neither could you in our Language expresse them more Negatively if you intended to affect the Copula with the Negation Yet I shall passe this seeing I have onely used this transient insinuation to admonish you to look better to the forme of your Syllogismes and withall did shew you a clear way how to have corrected your error without â—unning to these Termini infinitantes Onely you must remember that if your Nâ—gatio infinitans fall in the Minor then it becomes an Affirmative and so your pretence of liberating your self from being tyed to prove it doth wholly evanish There be diverse other things in your paper deserving severe castigation but they are truely so Iudibrious that it is irksome to me once to mention them Nay hardly shall any thing materiall be found in the whole paper beside the repetitions of what ye had said in your first Yet lest the wrapping up of all these in generall should give you occasion to say that my complaint were groundles I shall therefore branch forth two or three of the particulars And first Ye seeme to strengthen your Syllogisme with a Dilemma which yet upon the matter is nothing but Recocta crambe the same thing in a new dresse And thereupon you insult not without petulancie as if you hade nothing to doe but to triumph saying Hath the Religion of PROTESTANTS no principles whereby to prove it self Are they invisible or are you ashamed to produce them Soft I beseech you Is the Sun invisible because the blind Mole doth not see it Did I not tell you that the Religion of PROTESTANTS hade peculiar grounds and principles to prove it self to be a True Religion Did I not likewise declare wherein this chief Ground and Principle consisted Namely in its conformity to the Will of God revealed in the holy Scriptures Which neither Popery nor any false Religion hath or can
have Were you so dull as not to take up this or if you did why did you not either acknowledge it or at least goe about to disprove it I find you indeed a little after objecting thus What false Religion is there that may not say with as good reasone that they have the like conformity with the Scriptures But did I not pre-occupie this cavil in my first paper and by your own example of Honesty and Knavery illustrate the whole matter know therefore againe that it is not pretended but reall conformitie with the Scriptures which demonstrats a True Religion A Knave may pretend but not with good reason conformity with the Law which he hath not And the only way to discover him is to compare his actions with the Law whereby the dissonancie thereof will appear A man may be so absurd though contrary to reason as to affirme a crooked lyne to be straight But when his lyne comes to be applyed to the rule the obliquity thereof is clearly discovered Just so Popery and other false Religions may prerend albeit with as little good reason a conformitie to the word of GOD. But learned Divines by applying the rules of Scriptures to them have demonstrated their obliquity and dissonancy as with a Sun beam Hath not this been the way how our Lord Christ his Apostles the aneient Fathers and the faithfull witnesses of Truth confuted Heresies and false Religions in all ages But secondly In your next section you prevaticat yet more grosly For whereas I had said that the True Religion hath sufficient grounds ex parte objecti to prove it self to be a True Religion Ye offer thus to make Scors of my words That the PROTESTANT Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformity to the sense of the letter of the word of GOD but that it is destitute of all speciall grounds to prove it self to have such objective truths and conformity to the Scriptures I beleeve rarely hath such contradictory Nonsense been heard You might aswell if I had asserted Snow to be white have concluded that I mantained it to be black Did I not make plaine Scots of my assertion in my own paper explaining it thus That is to say That the True Religion hath sufficient grounds in it self to manifest it self to be the True Religion if it meet with a well disposed intellect Or if ye would have it yet clearer take it thus The True Religion hath such grounds to manifest its truth That if it be not taken up and assented to it is not through any defect in the Religion but through the defect and indisposition of the subject which it meets with You doe acknowledge that I affirme the PROTESTANT Religion to have Objective evidence If it have objective evidence how can it want grounds to manifest it self to be the True Religion what else I pray you can be meant by Objective evidence but grounds Exparte objecti to manifest it self Let this be a Caution to you that you doe not henceforth substitute your Non-sense as an explication of my assertions Thirdly In your penult section ye involve your self in a palpable contradiction saying That before any particular truth of Religion be proven to be conforme to the true sinse of Scripture it must first be proved that the Clergie hath such habilities and assistance in actu primo as is requisit for giving out the truesense of Scripture If you mean infallible assistance ye not only take for granted what ye know all PROTESTANTS doe deny but also ye declare that no sense of Scripture can be taken off your hand or such Traffiquers as you Seeing according to your Romish principles none below the Pope or generall Councill are the subjects of this pretended infallibilitie Yes not only are your own men divided in this whether this infallible assistance be entailed to the Pope or Councill but also some of your greatest Rabbies have concluded that both Pope and Councill may erre And if so who then according to your Arguing should give the true sense of Scripture But leaving this to let you see how your own words entangle you I shall desire you to consider this Enthymeme Before any particular truth of Religion be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the Scriptures this must first be proven that the Clergie hath such requisite habilities and assistance In Actuprimo for giving the true sense Ergo this truth concerning the Clergies habilities and assistance must be proven before it be proven which implyes a manifest contradiction The Antecedent is your assertion The Sequel is clear Because that the Clergie should have such assistance according to you is one truth of Religion If therefore it must be proven before every truth it must be proven before it self Is not this not only to contradict the truth but your own self Who would not pitie a Person smitten with such a Vertigo Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse Go not henceforth to cavill that it is either through diffidence or tergiversation that I decline to prove the contradictorie of your Assumption The Grounds on which I have done it are these First because that I resolve to keep with you exactly the rules of disputing And therefore seeing you have taken upon you the office of an Opponent you must eitâ—â—er doe his worke or else acknowledge that the PROTESTANTS Religion is such aâ— you cannot impugne Secondly because to prove the PROTESTANTS Religion to be a True Religion is to prove the severall Articles of our Religion to be conforme to the Scriptures which as I said cannot be done with one breath But if you desiderat to see it done I shall remit you to Chamieri Panstratia Catholica not to mention the workes of other Champions for the Truth In the mean while remember I have appealed you and yet againe doe to instance any One Ground necessarly requisit to prove the True Religion which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS In the close of all you offend that I should have desired you to signe your papers And your language concerning this savours of a Dunghill But I shall ingenuously tell you why I did desire it That I might know with whome I deal For this hath been observed as one of your Romanists practises when ye have been worsted in debates then to alleadge it was no Scholler that sustained such a debate but some obscure Person Againe therefore it is required of you that you would signe your papers as you would have them regarded I once intended with this paper by way of retaliation to have sent you some demonstrations that Popery cannot be the True Religion But as yet I have spared because I confesse it is lâ—kesome to me to grapple further with you untill ye discover some more stuffe Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT Augustinus de doctrine Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. In iis Qua aperte posita in Scriptura sunt inveniuntur illa omnia qua continent fidem moresqueue vivends After
the writing of this a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me correcting somewhat the dresse of it but nothing the matter which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition Reader know That the Corrections in the second Edition of the Iesuits second paper were only of some trespasses of Orthography which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER The Jesuits third paper An Answere to a Reply of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he labours to justifie that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion were not meere shifts and evasions May 5. 1666. YOUR reply is stuffed with words wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you calling them none-sense raw and indigested that you have a faint disputant that the matter is Recocta crambe c. But doe you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum Since every one who hath a tongue and penne may say or writ what he pleases or why may not all thir things be reponed with as good reason to your self calling you a faint disputant and that your discourses are raw and indigested and so a matter of so great importance as to discerne a True Religion from a false shall be resolved in a flyting whereof you have this advantage to have the first word Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way I propone to you againe this point that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimes at eternall happines after this life or intends to save his soule is obliged in conscience to quite it and to search for the True Religion prescinding or abstracting for now where this True Religion is to be found and insisting for the present in this only point that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it and assure your self that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta and alwise set before you till by sufficient heat you disgest and make good substance of it This point we proved by this one Syllogisme which againe is repeated to you That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Therefore the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion Here you deny the Subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and consequently you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a Religion grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and being pressed to produce your grounds to prove the truth of your Religion in stead of solide grounds you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions The first is That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti that is if they doe not alwise prove the defect is not in the Religion or in the grounds considered in themselves but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applyed But it was told you that it was a meer shift and that your obscure termes being resolved in good Scots signifies onely that your Religion hath objective and intrinsecall truth or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD but so that it is destuute of all speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answere can have no other sense but this is proven because all thir foure propositions are Synonima to wit A Religion to be a True Religion A Religion to be conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture A Religion to have objective and intrinsecall truth and evidence A Religion that is able to convince if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity These foure propositions being all Synonims and signifying the same thing and so all equally in controversie you cannot prove one by another but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium otherwise you must grant that your answere is a meer shift and which in good Scots signifyes only this That your Religion is true in it self but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true and so we must beleeve it to be true only because you say that it is And with this I set againe before you this Recocted Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that it is a True Religion that it is a Religion conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsecall truth and evidence that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed or else it hath no speciall ground or principles whereby all thir can be verified of it If it have speciall grounds let them be produced and examined if it have none let an ingenuous confession have place that it is groundless and destitute of all principles whereby it can prove these foure Synonime propositions to agree to it Which is confirmed because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false may affirme with as good reason and pretend that all these foure fore-named Synonime propositions may be verified of their Religion To wit that their Religion is a True Religion that their Religion is conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that their Religion is true Ex parte objecti and hath objective and intrinsecall grounds that their Religion is evident and true if it meet with an intellect well disposed All the answere and disparity you give is that they are fools and ye wise men that they are blind and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you with as good reasons as you doe to them The other shift that in stead of a solide ground you brought was this that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle to prove in generall your Religion to be true because Religion say you is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another But this answere is a meer shift whereby you would decline the onely and maine difficultie by bringing in a whole body of controversies which likewise can no wayes help you Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths to
can prove the Assumption of your Syllogisme or not If you can give I pray you a specimen of your Acumen and tergiverse no longer If ye cannot then professe ingenuously as the truth is that ye have undertaken a work which ye cannot performe And it is no wonder that here you be at a Non-plus For if the Christian Religion revealed in Scripture hath grounds to prove it self to be the True Religion which none but a down right Infidell can deny then surely the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth not grounds to prove it self For the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the Christian Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures as I told you in the explication of the terms in my first Paper And consequently what ever solid grounds were brought either by these Ancient Apologists Iustin Martyr Tertullian Athenagoras Arnobius c. Or are held out in the moderne tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald yea in your own Vives to prove the truth of the Christian Religion these also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Nay doe not you Romanists acknowledge the most of all our Positives So that the great question which remains is Whether you Papists have any evidence for your superadditions And is it not your concernment to shew this But when I think upon your Tautologizing way it calls to my minde the custome of children who when their memorie failes them in saying their lesson least they should seeme to say nothing they will needs ingeminate the last word Away then for shame with these childish unmanly and insipid repetitions You blot much paper needlesly with foure Synonima propositions But I might advertise you first that your discourse concerning them is wide from the purpose For it supposeth that I am now proving the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the True Religion which is not at present my work But seeing ye have undertaken to impugne it my bussines is to cleat it from your cavills Secondly I doubt if ye can reconcile what ye have said of the Equipollencie of these foure Propositions with your Tridentine Faith For if it be the same thing for a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforme to the Scriptures then it cannot be true which your Councill of Trent hath defined that Unwritten Traditions are to be received Pari pietatis affectu with equall devotion as the written Word of GOD. For if this Tridentin Canon be true the truth of Religion cannot stand adequatly in its conformity to the Scriptures but partly in its conformity with the Scriptures and partly in its conformity with unwritten traditions and consequently your fore-mentioned propositions cannot be adequatly Synomma's You may bethink your self whether ye or the Councill be in the Error But thirdly granting these propositions to be Synonima's that is to have an Objective identitie I pray by what Logick will ye prove that one of them cannot be brought to prove the other Is it not lawfull to argue á Definitione ad Definitum betwixt which there is an objective identity Doe not Logicians acknowledge an identity betwixt objective Premisses and the Conclusion And therefore though a True Religion be a Religion cōforme to the Scripturs yet there is no absurditie in proving the truth of Religiō by its cōformity to the Scripturs Even as to use your old example from which ye are fallen off as seems because it made so much against you An action to be honest and conforme to the Law are Synonima's and yet the best way of proving it to be honest is to prove its conformity to the Law By all this it appears that your plain Scots which ye are not ashamed againe to repeat is plaine Non-sense as I demonstrated in my last For the truth of Religion consisting in its conformity with the Scripture may be demonstrated by holding out its conformity with the Scripture An objective evidence of a Religion being nothing else but a ground whereby the truth of Religion may be demonstrated it is unconceivable how a Religion can have objective evidence and yet want a ground whereby to manifest it self to be a True Religion If here you but understood your own self I hope there would be no more controversie as to this betwixt us So that the matter is not obscured by my terms as you say but by your contradictory Non-sense As to your frivolous oft repeated cavill that a false Religion may pretend the like conformity and objective evidence it was confuted so fully in my last that I shall remit you to what was then said Though Anaxagoras and Hypochondriack Persons may mantaine Snow to be black Shall that make others who have their eyes in their head and the use of their Reason turne Sceptickes and question whether it be white or black Towards the close ye passe by many things as your coustome is which I hade said concerning the assistance of your Clergie men In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture And ye only labour to extricat your self from that Contradiction wherein I shew you to be involved but all in vaine Nay ye involve your self the more by affirming That a proposition may have an universall obiect whereof it self is a part and yet that something may be affirmed of that universall object which cannot be affirmed of that part of the object A rare notion forsooth implying a manifest repugnancie But I am loath to digresse to a Philosophick debate with you Can any thing I pray you be affirmed of every man which cannot be affirmed of you and me As for that proposition of Davids All men are liars which you bring to illustrate your paradoxall notion How could you make use of it in your argueing with me untill first you proved your infallibility For if you may be beleeved I can take no sense of it from you untill you first prove your self infallible which I suppose you pretend not to But it is your ill luck to be still involved in contradictions Yet to speake more particularly of this example and not to take up time in enumerating the severall acceptions of this Syncategorematick particle All it may be evident that David did not take it Universally of all men in reference to all their sayings else he had not only convicted himself of a lie but also charged all the penne men of holy Scriptures as liars in all that they said Which I beleeve no rationall Person will affirme It must therefore be restricted to one of two Either to these who had said that DAVID should be King and if thus it was indeed an over-reaching and false assertion in DAVID For among these the Prophet Samuel was one And no wonder that DAVID did over-reach in this for he acknowledges he spake it in Festinatione in his haste Or secondly to which I rather encline it must be understood thus every meer man of his own nature is prone to lying and fallible as your Esthius and A Lapide upon Rom. 3.4 And many others doe
expound it And so it holds universally and can be affirmed of every one who is a meer man and yet David not be guilty of actuall lying in speaking so Nay this sentence of Davids reaches a deep stroke at the pretended infallibility of your Clergie except ye can prove that they have a speciall gift of infallible assistance which I beleeve you will doe when you prove your assumption Namly Ad Graecas Calendas that is to say Never You are then so farr from having any subsidie from this saying of DAVID that while you goe about to expede your self you doe involve your self the faster But I leave you in this thicket untill I consider your other evasion For Mus miser est uno qui tantum clauditur antro You therefore except this truth Concerning the assistance of the Clergie from being in the condition of other particular truths As if the knowledge of this were to be presupposed before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures But this shift yeelds you no more succour then the former Nay it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction which I thus demonstrat A Religion and the severall points thereof to be true and to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's according to you Therefore no point of Religion can be known to be true untill it be known to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture But that the Clergie should have such assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture is one point of Religion as you affirme Therefore it cannot be known to be true untill its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known And yet upon the other hand you say that before the true sense of any Scripture be known we must first know that the Clergie hath such assistance to give the true sense of it Ergo that the Clergie hath such assistance must be known before the true sense can be known And consequently the assistance of the Clergie In actu primo must be known before the sense of Scripture and not before the sense of Scripture Now what need have you of Ariadnes clue to wind your self out of this labyrinth By this it is easie to consider what we are to think of your last Dilemma Either say you The PROTESTANT Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that the Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not if it hath let them be produced and examined if it hath not then the People have no ground to beleeve their Teachers Who seeth not how easily this may be retorted upon your selves For either the Romish-Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that their Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not If it hath let these grounds be produced and I doubt not but upon examination they shall be found light If it have none then the poor deluded People have no ground to beleeve their Romish Doctos Nay it were easie if I did not fear too great prolixitie to demonstrate that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion then it can doe on us For how I pray you can your Romists know that they have any Clergie at all Seeing the being of their Clergie depends upon a condition whereof they can have no infallible certainty Namely the intention of the Ordainer as is defined both in the Councill of Florence and Trent And if they cannot know who are their Clergie Men farr lesse can they know that they have this assistance so much talked of Againe If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance be such a prerequisit then it ought to be defined to which of the Clergie this assistance is entayled Whether to all or onely to some and who these some are whether the Pope or General Councill But as to this ye are not agreed among your selves Nay as I hinted in my last some of your chief Doctors mantaine both Pope and Councill may e rt Define then if you can who these are that are to give the sense of Scripture with this pretended assistance Therefore to answere directly to your Dilemma If you speake of infallible assistance I absolutly deny that the knowledge of such infallibity In actu primo in the Clergie is a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture may be known And now againe the probation of this will ly upon you Which I beleeve ye shall find as difficult as the probation of your Assumption Can I not give an assent to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case unlesse first I know him infallible Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd unlesse first I be satisfyed as to his infallibility In actu primo I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle and beleeve nothing you say till you prove your infallibility But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake Know that our Peoples faith is not built on our Authority We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith we are but helpers of their joy 2. Cor. 1.24 But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergie In actu primo for giving the true tense of Scripture as a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture can be known which the PROTESTANTS deny I therefore appeal you to prove this to be a necessarie prerequisit if you can Ye are not a little commoved that our Divines should be compared to yours It is long indeed since the pride of the Romish Clergie made an eminent Person say Odi festum istius Ecclesiae but I may say without vainity to the praise of GOD there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches such as Calvin Beza Juel Whitaker Morton Usher c. Who lake onely some years to make them be enrolled among the Fathers Neither indeed doe I desire them to be otherwayes compared with your men then as one would compare Austine Jerom or Athanasius with the Hereticks of their time Yet would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one classe Some we know have been of a more moderate principle then the Grandees of your faction for which cause many of their writtings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius How are you not ashamed to say that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits is copied out of your Authors Do we I pray you reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit Doe we cite your Authors but to confute them Or doe we make further use of them except in common truths wherein we and ye agree as we make use of Heathen Authors and as Virgil made use of Ennius to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii or as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Vipers
flesh to compound a soveraigne Triacle I am sorrie that as your Paper began with a falshood in matter of fact you must excuse my plainnesse so it should be shut up with another Sic respondent Ultima Primis You may not expect that I will trifle away more time in answering your frivolous unsubscrived Tautologies Either therefore leave your repetitions and doe the worke of an Opponent seriously or else you will constraine me to give a publick account to the World of your trifling and tergiversation Turpe est difficiles habere nugas Aberdene May 9. 1666. John Menzeis The Iesuits fourth Paper Answere to a third Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS whereby he labours of new to perswade that the Grounds which he produces for the truth of the Protestant Religion were not meere shifts and evasions 28. of May 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Mr. IOHN MENZEIS till Iune 2. YOVR third Paper bearing the date of the ninth of May Did not come to my hands before the twenty seventh of May. Neither know I wherefore it hath been so long keept up Since as I am informed you did first dyt it to your Scholers who out of zeal to the reputation of their Master did use all diligence to disperse many copies of it and although it be not authentick and subscrived with your hand with the solemuities used in your former paper yet for the ordinarie straine of digressions not making to the purpose I doe acknowledge it for yours And it is pleasant that you say that you marvell that I passe over in silence and does not answere But how can you marvell at this since I have alwayes protested to you and protest to you againe that I would closse misken and take no notice of any thing that is out of the way and which does not concern the decision of the present controversie to wit Whether the Protestant Religion can be shown to be a True Religion by any ground or principle which may not serve with as great Reason to prove any false Religion to be a True Religion And so soone as you who hath bragingly undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion shall produce any such ground whereby it may appear that you put your self at least in the way either to give some satisfactory answere or at least to confesse ingenuously that you have no such ground for your Religion I oblige my self and shall finde you Surtie that I shall answere at length to all your Digressions to all your Retorsions and likewise shall disput with you at great leasure about the rules of Logick and shew how groslie you are mistaken in confounding Objective negations with formall negations as if a formall affirmation might not fall upon objective negations united be an objective affirming Copula As for your injurious and undervaluing words both in Greek and Latine wherewith your paper is stuffed calling all things brought against you Tantologies Battologies Insipid and Childish things and Non-sense c. I told you before that any man that hath a tongue may heap up and utter injurious words even against GOD himself And this way of proceeding would be thought by the judicious to be a clear testimony of a deserted cause and that since by sufficient reason you cannot propt the tottering truth of your Religion at least by Digressions Injurious words and other practises you will shoulder and hold up your reputation before simple people who adjudges the Victorie to him who rails most As if the means to try a True Religion from a false were not of such high concernment it self alone as did deserve to confine both your thoughts and penne within the gyre of it So that without wrouging the weightines of the matter ye cannot decline to squable about other things before it be fully ended Laying then aside as before all other things as out of the rod this is laid againe before you that the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion nor the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever armes at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and betake himself to a diligent search for the True Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting for the present is this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This point is proven at before by this Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a true Religion Though you leave off to call this Syllogisme a Crambe recocta being conscious to your self not to be able to produce sufficient heat to dissolve and digest it yet you call it a poor and naked Syllogisme which if it be as you say it beggs this favour of you that you will cloath and cover the nakednesse of it with some fitting answere Only be pleased to remember that since you deny the subsumption and so puts your self in obligation to produce grounds for the proofe of your Religion that the grounds you produce must have this propertie that they cannot serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be a True Religion As the grounds which serves to prove one to be an honest man must have this propertie that they cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest man Neither doe you satisfie in saying that Honestie consists in a conformity of actions with the Law as Knaverie in a deformity of actions to the Law this I say does not help you because this is onely to explicat the terms and to draw the lineaments not filling up the fields and vacuities For the present controversie is not wherein consists objective Honestie or objective Knaverie nor wherein consists objective truth of Religion or objective falshood of Religion but suppoining the one to consist in a conformity or difformity of actions to the Law and the other to consist in a conformity or difformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD it remains to shew by some speciall ground wherefore of one man is verified this objective Honestie and not of the other and wherefore of one Religion is affirmed this obiective truth and not of the other To this you answere that this is easily known be applying and comparing onely the actions of both with the Law and the tenets of both with the word of GOD as the obliquity and crookednesse of a rule is presently known by applying it to a straight and even rule and with this popular discourse you think to have cleared and exhausted
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
texts of Scripture and let thir grounds be produced and shown that they cannot be assumed with as great reason to prove that the Clergie of a false Religion hath this ability In actu primo or else you are destitute of speciall grounds and then it is impossible that your Clergie can give the true sense of Scripture because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secundo without a speciall ability In actu primo to doe it So that all the ability that your Clergie is furnished with In actu primo is onely to guesse at the true sense of Scripture and wherefore should people pay you Stipend for guessing since they are endued with sufficient ability themselves and without you to guesse at the true sense of Scripture In this your last Paper you adde a third shift to wit that all the grounds whereby Tertullian and other Fathers proved the truth of Christian Religion against Paganes proves likewise the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion But who will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian Religion but your PROTESTANT Religion And what Christian Religion is so false which may not with as great reasone assume this shift of yours As to that whereby you remitt me to the grounds which Morney Grotins and others of your own Authors brings I pray you since they are your own take all the help you can of them and either be distilling or squeezing all their writs Expresse me one solid ground to prove the truth of your Religion which may not with as great reason be applied to prove a false Religion to be a true Religion Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits fourth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan TO apologize for your long silence you alleage that my third Paper dated May ninth came not to your hands untill May twentyseventh and that it was unsubscrived and hade been first dictated to my Scholers To which it is answered that on the ninth of May I sent an authentick copie of that paper to the Gentle-man of your profession by whome the rest both of yours and mine were addressed If he hath neglected to deliver it to you untill the twentyseventh of May you may call him to an accompt and put him to Pennance at your next shriveing for being so negligent of the concernments of his Ghostly father Whereas you say it was unsubscrived I can hardly beleeve you yet if it be so it hath been a lapse of memorie But you are not In bona fide to object that omission to me who never had the confidence to signe any of your papers However Quod scripsi scripsis what I have written I have written And to give evidence that I am ready to mantaine what ever is in that Paper against all the fry of Jesuits transmit to me with a confident hand the copie which I sent and it shall be returned with my subscription manuall As to the alleagance that it was dyâ—ed to some Students before I sent it to be conveyed to you it is a grosse untruth For it was not communicated to them or to any else untill the week thereafter which I was the more easily inclined to doe hearing how busie your Romish proselyts were to disseminat your Papers and that with the addition of impudent calumnies But beleeve me I should not have accused you for your delay if at length you had supplied the omissions of your former Papers and done the work of an Opponent neatly and throughly as ye were required Sat cuò si sat benè But you must give me leave to give you a free Character of this Paper I finde it to be nothing but a Rapsodie of Railings Repetitions Tergiversations yea and shamefull flinching from your own principles So that if I mistake not it had been more for your credit utterly to have kept silence For Stultus est labor Ineptiarum By this time it appears that it is lost labour to presse you any further to make a Reply to the principall points of my former Papers For now you protest you will not doe it and you cloak your shamefull tergiversation with this pellucid excuse that these things in my Papers were out of the way That is if you may be beleeved impertinent But who beside you will say that it was impertinent for me to discover a fallacious Sophistication in the ground of all your discourse What ingenuous person would not have judged himself concerned to clear himself of such an imputation Yet though this hath been now foure times charged on you ye think it not pertinent to vindicat your self Who besides you but will acknowledge that it was pertinent for me to demonstrate that by your own discourse you had ensnared your self in Contradictions and had cut the sinews of your Romish and Tridentine faith What a poor Advocat then are you for the Romish cause and an unworthy Stipendiarie to your Master the Pope who have no more to say but that it is not pertinent for you now to speake to these things But what need I wonder at this Seeing you judge it impertinent to prove the Assumption of your own syllogisme which I had not onely requited you to doe but also condescended to demonstrate by many Mediums that you were tyed to doe it And yet it seems not pertinent to you either to prove it or to refell these my arguments Shall onely impertinencie be pertinent with you I doubt if that cowardly boast shall raise up your falling reputation that if I should answere according to the method which you prescribe that is if I would liberat you of the burthen of proving your Assumption then you would answere not only to all these my Digressions as for the salving of your credit you are pleased to terme them but also dispute at leasure with me about Logicall Rules and I know not what notionall whimsies concerning Formall and objective negations Quid dignum tante feret hic promissor hiatu When I compare your bigg but conditionall braging with your lean performances at present I remember of him in Plutarch who was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Semper dicebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunquam dabat He was liberall in promises but nothing at all in performances If you be so able to expede your self in these particulars what mean you by all these shifts and dilatours Quinon est hodie cras minus aptus erit If you were once become so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you cannot prove your Assumption I would so farr commiserat you as to grant you an exemption But till then how can you expect courtesie at my hands Might not a man of your years have learned so much discretion as not to prescribe methods of answereing to his Adversarie Vaine debates for victorie and not for truth doe not become grave persons Yet I purpose never to decline to exchange a
Religion but your Prot estant Religion And then your choier is stirred that you should be remitted to our Authors Morney and Grotius I confesse smyling and silence are your best Topicks But laugh you fret you you must hear truth Are there I beseech you more true Christian Religions then one that you say As if there were no Christian Religion but your Protestant Religion Sayes not the Apostle Ephes 4.5 Una fides unum baptisma One faith one Baptisme We shall not therefore declyne this Iest Prove if you can our Religion not to be the Religion of the purest ancient primitive Church in the first three Centuries or that there is an essential difference betwixt their Religion and ours and I shal yeeld to you the Buckler and grant that our Religion is not the true Religion But you may sooner pull the Sun out of his Orbe then performe this Nay if I were not resolved to keep you at the probation of your Assumption I might argue thus That Religion which in all its essentials agrees with the Religion of the purest and most primitive Antiquitie in the first three Centuries must be the true Religion But the Religion of PROTESTANTS in all the essentials thereof agrees with the Religion of the purest and most primitive Antiquitie in the first three Centuries Ergo the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the true Religion The Major you must admit or else condemne the primitive Church yea and Christianitie it self The Assumption is evident by comparing our Religion with the apologies of Tertullian Iustin Martyr Athenagoras Arnobius c. I appeal you out of all the authentick writings of the Fathers of these three Ages to produce one essential difference betwixt their Religion and ours But on the contrary it were easie from this same Principle to demonstrat that your Romish Religion is not the true Religion Thus If the Romish Religion differs in its essentials from the Ancient Christian Religion in the first three Centuries then the Romish Religion is not the true Religion But the Romish Religion differs in its essentials from the Ancient Christian Religion in the first three Centuries Ergo the Romish Religion is not the true Religion â— The Major is clear the true Christian Religion being but one For proofe of the Assumption I remit you to that Formula fidei or Romish Creed contrived by Pope Pius the fourth which is set down by Onuphrius in the life of the said Pope to which all the Bishops of your Church must solemnly swear In which after the Constantinopolitan Creed there be added many articles which never were either in the Apostolick Creed or in the Nicen. Or in the Athanasian or in the Constantinopolitan or in any other Christian Creed much above the space of three hundred years after Christ Nay in it all the articles defyned in the Councill of Trent are declared to be Fides vera Catholica extra quam neme salvus esse potest the true Catholick faith without which there can be no Salvation Now I appeal you to produce any evidence from the indubitat writings of the first three Centuries that this was the faith of the Catholick Church in these three Ages Which if you doe here under my hand I engage to become a Papist If you cannot as I am perswaded you are not able then confesse that your Religion is not the true Christian Religion Nay learned Divines amongst the rest Crakanthorp in his Defens Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalat cap. 15. num 4. And long before him Bishop Iuell in a Sermon preached at London Anno One thousand five hundreth and sixtie appealed the Doctors of your Church to produce either Church Councills or Fathers for the space of six hundreth years after Christ who mantained all these Articles which now are concluded by the forementioned Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth to be necessarie to Salvation And yet to this day none of your men have been able to performe this Was it I pray you a point of faith necessary to Salvation in the first three Centuries I might goe much lower to acknowledge the Church of Rome the Mother and Mistris of all Churches Or the headship of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Catholick Church What meaned then the opposition made to Pope Victor by Polycrates and the Asiaticks or by Cyprian and the Africans to Pope Stephanus not to mention others Or was it a part of the Christian faith necessarie to Salvation in the first three hundreth years that Images were to be adored that there is a Purgatorie after this life That Bread and Wine are transubstantiated into the Body of Christ That the Communion ought to be given under one kynd abstracting the Cup from the people As to this last I shall present to you the testimonie of your own Cassander by which you may judge of the rest In Consult Art 22. Satis compertum est vniversalem Christi ecclesiam in hunc usê™ diem occidentalem vere seu Romanam mille amplius a Christe annis in solenn ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione utramê™ Panis Vinâ— speciem omnibus ecclesiia Chrsti membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum Scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est You needed not to have offended that I remitted you to Morney and Grotius especially I having joined with them your own Vives and these Tractats not having been written in opposition to you Papists But against Jews Heathens and Mahumetans And it was but shallownesse in you to desire me to squeeze them for one ground to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion seeing I did appeal to all the solid grounds that ever were made use of either by Ancients or Moderns either by these of the Eastern or Western Church either by PROTESTANTS or Papists to prove the Christian Religion against Heathens that it might be examined whether these did not likewise prove the PROTESTANT Religion to be true Squeeze you them all and if you find it not to be so Herbam dabo Onely I must adde that these last named Authors were Persons of such eminent learning that neither you nor I need to be ashamed to learn a lesson from them This much further I have written then once I intended to have done so long as you hold on in your trifling straine But untill you answere to all the particulars of this Paper and to these you have omitted in my former Papers know that I will looke upon any thing that comes from you as unworthie of a Reply I shall close with that saying of Cyprian Epist. 40. Qui mandatum Dei rejictunt et traditionem suam st atuere conantur Fortiter a vobis nobis et firmiter respuantur Aberdene June 9. 1666. John Menzeis The Jesuits fifth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he continues to perswade that the grounds which he produced for the truth of the Protestant Religion were not
meer shifts and evasions June 13. 1666. THIS your fourth Paper carying the date of the ninth of June came to my hands the twelth of June and in it you make a more ample muster of your ordinar digressions contumelies and misapplyed Eruditions though you know that the better sort esteems this weak-mens weapons and clear testimonies of a deserted cause but it seems all one to you if by this means you can uphold your reputation with the Vulgar sort who seeing you blot so much Paper remains in conceit that you retaine still your post If I had the qualities to render me worthie of your friendship I would in a homelie and friendly manner suggest to you a compendious way to spare Paper observing onely thir three omissions First that you omit all exeursions out of the way that is to say that you omit all these things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully deeyded Secondly that you omit all contumelies and undervalueing words as more besetting a scolding Wife then a Scholer Thirdly that you omit all these things which cannot favour your Religion but with this inconvenient that in the same degree in the which it favours you it must favour and shelter a false Religion and which is holden by your selves for a false Religion And I hope that you will grant thir things to be very rationallie demanded of you since it is known that there is a great difference to be put betwixt the handling of a controversie in a Pulpit where one railes at randome having none to contradict him and the handling of it in a School way where you must foot your bowle and hold you within the score under the paine to be exploded Now if you will be pleased to observe thir three things which are so rationally demanded I oblige my self to make it good that you will not be able to put ten lines in Paper which shall be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie And for proofe hereof you may be pleased to take all your foure Papers misaplyed as they are squeeze them and see if you expresse out of them thir ten lines taking first away thir three things to wit Digressions about other matters Contumelies and base flyting words and things that cannot favour your cause without favouring in the like degree a false Religion And since it is to be presumed that none can expresse more substance out of your own Papers nor your self it is expected of you that after you have taken the pains to blow away all this chaffe you will show that there remains greater quantity of solid corne upon the floore then can be contained in ten lines of Paper That it may appeare how farr you wander out of the way you must be content to have patience that the maine point be laid alway againe and againe before you which is the Protestant Religion cannot be the True Religion or the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimeâ— at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is obliged to quit it and to betake himselfe to a diligent search for the true Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting only for the present that the Protestant Religion is it not This is both a substantiall point and proponed in so clear terms that none can but understand it And it is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion To this Syllogisme you answered first cavilling the forme of it as componed of two premisses negatives and so concluding nothing But in this you discover grosse ignorance confounding and calling negative propositions affirmative premisses of objective negations Next you come to deny the subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds to prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And you adde that since the subsumption is denyed by you it is my part who is the Opponent to prove it Let it be so But hath it not been sufficiently proven first Because if it have any good grounds they are produceable but they are not produceable or else produce them Next hath it not been often inculcat and is now of new inculcat that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture but such that with as great reason may serve to prove a false Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo it hath no true principles or grounds because a true principle is not of an indifferent nature but is so determinat to truth that it cannot protect nor shelter any error Now that it may appear that all the principles or grounds which you bring to prove the truth of your Religion are indifferent and consequently cannot be true principles we shall runne them over and lay them open to the view of all The first ground you produced is that your Religion hath objective truth and objective ground or evidence and can sufficiently show and prove it self to have this truth upon condition that it encounter with a well disposed intellect But all this may be assumed and is assumed by a false Religion or assigne some reason wherefore you have right to assume it and they not The second is that your Religion is easily known to be a true Religion by applying and confronting the tenets of it with the Word of God as a man is easily known to be an honest man be confronting his actions with the Law as likewise a line is easily known to be straight and not crooked by the conformity it is seen to have with a right rule But what false Religion is there that doth not apply all this to themselves with as great reason as you doe And though the letter of Scripture is of it self capable onely of one genuine sense to wit which was intended by the holy Ghost which is all the shift which you adde now in this last Paper But what makes this for you since you bring no reason whereby may appeare that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is that one genuine sense intended be the holy Ghost or that the sense which you give is that right rule by the which all crookednesse is to be known You think it is enough to say thir things without
any proofe as if a Religion which you your selves gives out for a false Religion did not with as great reasone pretend all this for themselves The third is that Religion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but one after another As a man who hath a hundred pices of Gold and would prove whether they be upright Gold or not this proofe cannot be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone But this likewise may be assumed with as great reasone by a false Religion or assigne wherefore they may not use this shift as well as you when they are required to give some ground for the truth of their Religion The fourth is that the grounds which Tertullian and the holy Fathers brings to prove the truth of Christian Religion against Pagâ—nes proves likewise the truth of your Protestant Religion But this with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion or show wherefore not The fifth that you adde in this Paper now is this that the perspicuity of Scripture in all things necessarie to Salvation is a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion But though this were true what makes it more for the truth of your Religion nor for the truth of a false Religion since they with as great reason as you may and does pretend that the tenets which they hold as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture Likewise you have been often pressed to produce grounds whereby might be showen that your Clergie hath In actu primo some peculiar assistance to give In actu secundo the true sense of texts of Scripture which doeth not prove the like assistance to the Clergie of a false Religion So that in handling of Scripture you are all one with them having no more assistance to handle it rightly then they have As to that which you adde now in this Paper that this sense which is given by a Doctor to a text of Scripture may be the true sense though neither he nor others reflect or know any thing of the habilitie that he hath In actu primo to give this true seuse for Spiritus ubi vult spirat But though this answer wer to the purpose may it not be assumed with as gryt reasone in favour of a false Religion Next you force me to discover the shallownesse of the discourse that you make here because it seems you onely intend to induce a plausable and glittering scroofe upon things to dazle the eyes of simple people not earing what stuffely under For the question is not whether a thing may be truelie such in it self though I doe not know it to be such nor knows any thing of the causes whereof the truth of it depends since things are such and such in themselves whether they be known or not known by us Neither is the question about matters of Science where objective evidence convicts the understanding to assent and that independently of all authority of the Proponer But the question is about matters of Faith where all the motive to induce one to beleeve a thing is reduced to the authority of the Speaker and according to the divers degrees that are found in the authority of these that speakes a thing so are the correspondent degrees of firmnes in the assents whereby the hearer beleeves such things and because the authority of GOD is a supreame authority and above all other authorities therefore the assent that is due to such authority when it speakes or reveals any thing must have a firmnes above the firmnes which other assents have and which we give to matters proponed onely by inferiour authorities Now I ask how can people be induced to exerce one Act of faith or to beleeve with that firmnes which is due onely when GOD speakes or reveals a thing if they be not first assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man and consequently that such a man hath sufficient assistance and direction In actu primo that he cannot deceive nor speake one thing for another Now you are required to produce some speciall ground whereby the people may be assured that their Clergie who should instruct them in matters of faith hath this assistance In actu primo and which is necessar if they would beget superuaturall faith in their hearers that is to say Such a beleefe whereby the hearers doe adhere above all to the things that are proponed to them as revealed by GOD in such texts of Scripture otherwise it will follow that the assistance which you have does not exceed the assistance which the Clergie of a false Religion have and consequently that preach what you will and though you rune over the whole Bible you will never be able by your preaching to produce so much as an sol Act of supernaturall faith in your hearers Out of all this appears at what poor posture you have reduced the truth of your Religion notwithstanding that in the begining you did so bragingly undertake to mantaine the truth thereof before whomsoever against whomsoever and in whatsomever place And likewise to this effect have spent and blotted so much Paper since all ends in this that your Religion is indeed true but so that it cannot be shown wherein it differs from a false Religion as if one had taken in hand the defense of the honestie of a man and after long pleading at the barre and brought the matter to this passe that he were declared to be indeed an honest man but such an honest man that there were no seemable difference betwixt him and a knave Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Jesuits fifth Paper Which was not delivered to Mr. John Menzeis till June 15. 1666. Some Animadversions on the Iesuits fifth Paper HOW forcible are right words but what doth your arguing reprove Job 6.25 You are pleased to censure the Prolixity of my Papers but you might have known that of Seueca Epist 48. Longiore mora opus est ut solvas quaestionem quam ut proponas You take the boldnesse also to asperse these lines with Impertinencie But were not you afrayed whom I had so oft convicted of manifold Impertinencies to have it reponed to you Calvus calve calvitium ne objiciat Is not the true cryme whereof these poore lines are guilty because they have touched you in the quick so as you are not able to answere and therefore they must be endyted of Impertinencie though you could not particularize one impertinent line But I shall be suretie for them that they shall not decline to have their Pertinencie examined by your Romish Inquisitors though your Pope like another Rhadamanthus presided in the Court Onely your Fathers would remember that we PROTESTANTS are not besotted with an Implicit faith as if there charres were made of Irish timber which cannot bear a Spider Wherefore they had need to be more cautious then you have been and not to
deliver there naked affirmations for Oracles In the mean time you are required to verifie this your ignominious accusation with particular instances for Dolus est in generalibus as you would not convict your self to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have drunk in that Machiavillian principle Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit You fret at the plainnesse of my Admonitions but could I have chosen a more proper medicine to purge you of your tautologizing and tergiversing humor Yet for what I can discerne your disease is likero prove so pertinacious and malignant that well it may be reckoned Inter Medicorum opprobria Neverthelesse if you can pitch upon one of my expostulations for which you have not given too much ground you may hold it for a contumelie You fill up the Paper wherein you should have examined my Reply with an excentrick discourse concerning Rules of brevitie But in this as in all the rest you are so unhappy as to be an impudent transgressor of your own Canons For had you waved Impertinencies you had not transmitted any of these lines to me since your first Paralogisme And for contumelies you think me too narrow a marke to shoot at unlesse you reproach the whole Ministric as Railers at random But there was a more compendious Rule for brevity then all these which you have named which I wonder you did not recommend from your own practise viz to passe in silence what ever seems to be of moment in the Paper of the Adversary to hold that for a learned confutation This is all the Laconick concisenes which I have discovered in your discourses which how justifiable it is or satiafying to the judicious Reader when you come to your self you may judge Doth not the shamlesse repetition no lesse then five times and still in Folio of that one insignificant and often confuted Syllogisme without any proofe bewray both a disperat cause and an emptie braine If you produce it the sixth time you may for me goe on till you come to the perfect number of the Beâ—st Six hundred and sixty six Are not your Recocted colworts of hard digestion with your own self which doe regurgitat so often with you If both the premisses of your famous Syllogisme be Affirmatives as herey you alleage to cover the informality thereof how then is the Conclusion a Negative Or what pretext had you hithertoo for shunning the probation of you Assumption but becase it was a Negative Or might you not have shewed as you were required how in our Language you would have expressed these propositions more Negativelie if you had intended to make them Formall Negatives But perhaps this may be one of your Mâ—steries of Jesui isme so to expresse your selves that men shall not understand when you Affirme or when you Dâ—â—y Your frequent repeating and glorying in this ludicrous Syllogisme tempts me to discover more of its vitiosirie then once I intended Though I for brevity did onely deny the Assumption and did require no more from you but the probation thereof yet I might have denyed both Major and Minor yea and the Conclusion also I say first I might have denyed the Major For the True Religion and the true sense of Scripture is the same What is the True Religion but the true Doctrine of Salvation And is not the true sense of Scripture the true Doctrine of Salvation Now must the true sense of Scripture have a ground to prove that it is conforme to it own self So that your Major which I did let passe might justly have been questioned Next I denyed the Assumption because Religion or the Doctrine of Salvation may be considered under a double notion either as revealed in Scripture or as professed by men Under the former notion it is the very true sense of Scripture and so to prove it to be conforme to the sense of Scripture were to prove it to be conforme to it own self and that Sub eadem formaliratione But under the latter consideration namly as professed by us the truth of Religion may admit of such a probation as when the truth of an Apograph is proven by its conformity to the Autegraph or the truth of a Transumpt by its conformity to the Original Nay lastly I added that I might have denyed the Conclusion because of the informalitie of the whole structure which you have been endeavouring to palliat by your formall and objective negations yet have you not been able to salve May you not by all this discerne that your gloriation hath been De re nibili yea in your own shame You subjoine a piece of notable Pageantrie For though hitherto you have been declying to prove the assumption of your Syllogisme yet now with a brasen fore-head you affirme you have proven it and that oftner then once But how I pray you Because forsooth you have here twise magisterially affirmed that there can be no grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS produced which cannot be verified of a false Religion and these your two affirmations you hold for two learned probations But are not your affirmations Synonyma's upon the matter with the denyed assumption and equally in controversie with it Think you us so simple as to beleeve your assumption because you doe once and againe affirme it to be true Then indeed you might conclud us as well as your self to be Boeotûm in patria crassoque sub aëre natos At least you could not be ignorant that I would desider at a probation of your Affirmations as well as of the denyed Assuption And it hath been often told you that by rules of disputing you could not ty me to produce Grounds of the truth of our Religion you being the Opponent and having affirmed that there is a true Religion which hath peculiar Grounds competible to no false Religion Therefore had you either manifested that candor wich might have been expected or endeavoured the satisfaction of consciences you would have produced the Reciprocall Grounds of the True Religion and have essayed to show that they could not compet to the Religion of PROTESTANTS especially I having often appealed you Sub perîculo cause to produce one ground of the true Religion which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS but Hic haret aquâ— Consider therefore this Dilemma Either you acknowledge that there is a true Religion having peculiar and reciprocall Grounds which can be verified of no false Religion or not If not then it is not onely the Religion of PROTESTANTS which you impugne but all Religion and it is Atheisme which you goe about to establish If therefore you grant that there is a True Religion which hath these peculiar and reciprocall Grounds let them be produced and let it be examined whether they doe agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Romanists Hic Rhodus hic Saltus Had you not distrusted your cause you could not being the Opponent have shifted this so long But to put a more speedie
period to this controversie I had condescended to mention to you Grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS which are not really competible to any false Religion however they may be pretended too It is hard to me to tell whether in your enumeration of them or in your ludicrous way of confutation you manifest more Childish weaknesse and folly And first in the enumeration of the grounds of Religion you number up five more indeed then ever I gave you For the first two namly the Intrinsick objective evidence of Religion and The conformity thereof to the word of GOD were never mentioned by me as two distinct grounds yea your self in your third Paper reckoned these as Synonima's and therefore you but play the child in reckoning them as distinct Neither is the fifth ground which you mention concerning The perspicuity of the Scriptures to be adequatly distinguished from these But your cheife prevarication is in that which you mention as the Third ground of the truth of our Religion namly that Religion being a complex of many divine truth cannot be all proven at once but by compating each of these truths with the word of GOD. I could not have expected that a man who was not in a perfect Delirinm could have bewrayed such stupidity for this was never laid down by me as a Ground of our Religion Nay a Child might have discerned by the very terms that this was onely brought as a reason why in such a short Paper I could not be tyed to give you the grounds of our Religion For it were to tye me as matters are now stated to writ a whole bodie of controversies What an impudent cheat then is this you would put upon your Reader to substitute that as a Ground of the truth of our Religion assigned by me which in very deed was brought by me as a reason why I was not tyed at this time to give you any grounds Henceforth therefore when you goe to impugne any thing in my Papers propose it in my own terms else I must say to you in the words of the Poet. Quem recitas meus est O Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus You discover no lesse weaknesse in your trifling confutation of these grounds of Religion for all ye say to every one of them which five times you doe repeat is that a false Religion may alleage all these grounds But herein you play the silly Sophister Ab ignoratione elenchi for the question is not whether the PROTESTANT or true Religion hath grounds which a false Religion may not alleage or pretend but whether the PROTESTANT Religion hath grounds which cannot be verified of a false Religion I freely grant that a false Religion may lay claime to the grounds of the true Religion as the mad man of Athens laid claime to all the Ships that came into the Harbout as his own though none of them were his But the Grounds of the true Religion can never be verified of a false Religion It was not enough then for you to say that a false Religion may lay claime to those Grounds nay nor was it to the purpose unlesse you could also have shewed that the Ground of the PROTESTANT Religion namely Conformity with the Scripture might be verified of a false Religion This you ought to have showen if you had intended a real confutation of my grounds But this you will find as impossible for you as to remove the Earth from its Axis If you looke againe to my last Paper you will finde that in stead of these Five grounds of your mustering I gave only these Two grounds from which indeed the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS and the falshood of the present Romish Religion may be discovered The first was The perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessarie to Salvation which I did confirme by luculent Authorities which you have not once dared to examine The other was From our Agreement in essentials with the faith of the purest and most Ancient primitive Church in the first three Centuries And with all from this I deduced a demonstration of the falshood of your now Romish Church and Religion from the discrepancy thereof in essentials from the faith of the Catholick Church in the first three Centuries which I confirmed from your Formula Fidei or Popish Creed contrived by Pope Pius the fourth which differs in its essentials from the faith of the Church in the first three Centuries Had you been willing that imparriall search should be made whether the truth stood on your side or on ours Had you not here matter enough to work upon both from Scripture and Antiquity But dissembling all my arguments from these principles you onely give this snifling Answere that they who have a false Religion may also pretend that their Religion is also contained in Scripture and is conforme to the Religion of the primitive Church To which I Reply first that these forementioned grounds doe not cease to be grounds for proving the True Religion because Hereticks pretend an interest in them Nay on the contrary Hereticks laying claime to them is a strong persumption that they are the induitable grounds of the true Religion as a Rogues pretending conformity with the Law is so farr from proving that the Law is no discriminating Test betwixt Honestie and Roguery that it is rather a vehement presumption of the con-ratie Secondly Had you resolved to goe to the borrome of the busines you should have proved that either these grounds assigned by me are not proper grounds for the discerning the True Religion from a false or that these grounds doeth really agree to a false Religion that is That a false Religion is perspicuously contained in Scripture and doth agree in its essentials with the Religion of the primitive Church in the first three Centuries or that these grounds doe not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS But none of these doe you once attempt to performe Nay over againe you are put to prove any of these which if you doe Tu Phillida solus habeto But thirdly I demonstrate on the contratie that these are sure grounds by which the truth of Religion may be discerned Thus if Scripture be not a sufficient ground and Test to distinguish a true Religion from a false then it must be either because it doth not containe All things necessary to Salvation or because it doth not hold out Perspicuously all these things for there is no other impediment imaginable unlesse with the Infidell you should question the Authority of Scriptures But when we say that the Scripture is the indubitable Test for discerning the True Religion from a false it is to be understood among Christians who acknowledge the divine Authoritie of Scriptures Consequently if the Scriptures be Perspicuous in all things necessary to Savlation as our Divines have often demonstrated and I cleared in my last by irrefragable testimonies both of Ancients and of
Paterns of Honesty and withall added that it was an intolerable reproach thrown both upon the Law and the Lawgivers that a Law was given to people to walk by which no man except Titius with his pretended infallibilitie could understand Is it not strange said Sempronius that my Accuser Titius can speake his accusation so intelligibly that a Child can understand the sense thereof and yet that our Lawgivers had not so much wit as to expresse the Laws which they would have to be the Rule of our lives in intelligible language What prudent Senators would suffer themselves and Lawgivers thou to be reflected upon by Titius and would not for his pleading after this manner condemne him as a petulant Rogue The application af this Embleme is left to you and to the judicious Reader I have made so many experiments upon you that if there had been any Mercurie in you in all probabilitie before this time it had been extracted but the longer I deal with you the greater Dounce doe you appear I am both wearied and ashamed to graple further with one who multiplies such Childish impertinencies and notorious falshoods Least therefore I should seeme Cum Cretensi Cretizare I discharge any further exchange of Papers with you except you change your straine Yet because I know the Genius of many of your Party to be such that if you transmitted to me a Rapsody of perfect Non-sense to which no answere were returned you would glory as if you had approven your self as a Doctor Irrefragabilis Therefore to put a check to this insolencie and withall to satisfie the judicious I adde two things And first you are required though an Adversarie to doe me so much Iustice as when you communicate to others any of your Papers that you doe likewise communicate my Answere and then I shall decline no rationall Person either of your or of our profession who is not either Ignorant or Blinded with prejudice tosiâ— as Umpyre or Arbiter betwixt you and me If you doe otherwise after so solemne admonition it will be an evidence that you are conscious that your Papers are naught and not able to abide the Test But next if you find an abler Person then your self that can manage this debate to better purpose then you have done he shall not GOD-willing lake an answere so far as the interest of truth doeth require it In the mean time I say to you as Cyprian did to Demetrian Oblatrantem te are Sacrilego verbis impiis obstrepentâ—â— frequenter Demetriane contempseram melius existimans errantis imperitiam silentio spernere quam loquende dementis insaniam provecare Nec hoc sine â—agisterii divini Numinis authoritate faciebam quum scriptum sit noli respondere imprudenti ad imprudentiam ejus ne similis flas illi Cyp. lib. ad Demet. Aberdene 28. of June 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT This Paper was written on Iune 18. but I being called to the Countrey on Iune 19. and not returning untill June 26 it could not be transcribed untill this 28. of June 1666. The Iesuits sixth Paper Answere to a fifth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS wherein he brings a new Shift and Evasion for a Ground of the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion disowneing all thinges for to be grounds which he hath brought hitherto July 6. 1666. YOV was disired to give a proofe of your abilitie to put onely ten lines in Paper which could be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie observing three things first to â—â—it all exâ—â—sions out of the way that is to say to omit all things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully decyded Secondly to omit all hase undervalucing words as more besetting an flyting Wife then an Scholler Thirdly to omit all things which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion but with this inconvenient that it equally serves to prove an false Religion to be true But in this Paper deboarding mor then ever you give cleir testimony that all your strength consists in thir things So that the confyning of you within thir limits wer to disarme you altogether and to bind up all the fecundity which you have to blot Paper and multiply words for hyding your weakenesse Laying asid then all things of whatsoewer sort that ar out of the line I lay befor you againe the maine point to wit the Protestant Religion cannot be the true religion nor the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whoseever aims at eternal happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is oblidged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search for the truth prescinding for now whair it is to be found insisting for the present in this only that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This cannot be called a nonsense since its both an most substantial point and likewise proponed to you in such cleir terms It is proven by this one Sylogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be the true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion To this Syllogisme yow answered first carping the forme of it as if it wer of tuo premisses negatives and though it was showen yow yowr gross ignorance in this calling affirmative propositions negations becaus they ar of objective negations yet now yow add with alse gryt ignorance that the conclusion is negative Is it possible that an Rabbi in Israel is so ignorant that there most be made to him a lesson of Summules to make him capable to discerne betwixt affirmative and negative propositions Here indeed would come in season a way for sham and such hissing and histrionicall expressions as yow use now and then in yowr Papers Next yow say that though hithertoo yow have onlie denyed the subsumption yet yow have acquired by the benefit of so long a time a new light which discovers a defect also in the Major But this argues that the Sylogisme is not of so obvious a nakednes as yow stylled it since a man of yowr capacity hath need of so long tyme to acquire light for the discoverte of the defects of it But giving and not granting that there wer defects in the Major yet since yow have ingaged yowr self in denying the subsumption long agoe and so incurred an obligation to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion yow must first end this before yow begin the other either confessing that yow have no grounds or else producing them that they may be examined whether they subsist or not And here I cannot
Ancient Church And to instance if you can One difference in essentialls betwixt the faith of the Ancient Church and our Religion else it must be held for confessed that our Religion which you so much reproach is The truely Ancient Christian Religion and yours but the tares which the envyous one did latly sow in the Lords field and that your pretence to Antiquity is no better then the Gibeonits mouldie bread Ies 9.5.12 Towards the Conelusion you are so discreet as to upbraid me as Altogether ignorant of the nature of supernatural faith Because foresooth I would not acknowledge That the assent of faith which is given to articles of Religion must be founded upon the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounders thereof I suppose you meane the Clergie of whome you spake in your former Papers But First were you not concemed if you had looked to your reputation before you had taken the boldnesse to reproach me for Ignorance in this matter first to have cleared your self from these Contradictions wherein I have demonstrated you to be involved from your former assertions concerning This infallible assistance of the Clergie Secondly were you so shallow as not to discerne that you intangle your self in a New contradiction by this your present discourse For if everie supernatura assent of faith to a divine truth must be founded upon The foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder thereof then the first assent to The necessity of the foreknowledge of this assistance in the Propounder must presuppose it as being according to you An Act of supernatural faith And yet it cannot presuppose it because it is the first assent which the person hath concerning that assistance And consequently if it did presuppose a former knowledge of that assistance it should be first and not first Is not this a goodly Religion which you have that you cannot move one step in mantainance thereof without intangling your self still in contradictions But Thirdly either This necessity of the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder of divine truths which you make the foundation of all supernatural faith can be proven or not If not then all your faith is founded upon a fancie which cannot be proven If it can be proven why shunne you to doe it I haveing so often required it of you But now I will lay this Dilemma about you If it can be proven either it must be from Scripture or from some Unwriten Word to use your Romanists phrase Not from Scripture for according to you no sense of Scripture can be known unles first the Infallible assistance of the propounder thereof be known and therefore when one doubts of the infallible assistance of the proponer it is impossible according to your principles that this can be proven from Scripture Nor can you prove it by any Unwriten Word For you have asserted in your former Papers that a point of Religion To be true and to be conforme to the Writen Word of GOD are Synenima's and that the one of these cannot be proven before the other Therefore you cannot prove the truth of this point conceming the Clergies assistance meerly by an unwriten Word else it should be known to be true before its conformity to the writen Word were known which is the Contradictorie of your former assertion But besides to know the sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition or what ever else you will runne to as distinct from the Scriptures of GOD there is as great necessitie of The foreknowledge of the assistance of the propounder thereof as for the knowing of the true sense of Scripture And therefore before I assent to the true sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition by a supernatural Act of faith I must first know that the propounder is guided by an infallible assistance and consequently when one doubts of this infallible assistance of the propounder neither can it be proven by anie Vnwriten word Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition Expede your self from this Dilemma if you can without destroying your own principles by which you are locked up in Contradictions Nay more I here freely offer will you or any prove to me either From Scripture or Vniversal Tradition That the foreknowledge of such infallible assistance of your Clergie is a necessarie prerequisite before I can give a supernatural assent of faith to an article of Religion and I will turne Romanist Can I make a fairer proffer to you Will you not have so much compassion upon me as to make me your Proselyte But I may divine here and not be a Propher you will as scone remove the Earth out of its place according to Archimedes bold undertakeing as to prove your Hypothesis from either of these forementioned grounds Fourthly when you talke so liberally of this Assistance of the Propounder of articles of faith ought you not to determine whome you meane by This Propounder I hope you extend it not to all the people nay nor to all who have received Orders It was 〈◊〉 pretended that everie one of these was infallible whether therefore is it the Pope or General Council or both that you meane If you cannot agree among your selves who this Infallible Propounder is doe you not reel as to the Foundation of your faith I therefore require you againe to determine to me if you can An Infallible Propounder of articles of faith agreed upon by you Romanists and to produce the evidences for this infallibity from Scripture or Vniversal Tradition or Canon of general Council You would make the world beleeve that you had an infallible Propounder of divine truths and yet you cannot agree who he is Nor have any of the parties into which you are broken in this matter Evidence from your Romish principles for the infallibility of him or them whom they would place in Appâ—llo's chaire Pitch therefore on whome you will as your Iufallible Interpreter and let us see if his Infallibilitie can abyd the Test. Who knowes not how impiouslie your Popes have erred and that both In cathedra and extra cathedram How Pope Liberius subscrived to to the Arrian confession of the Council of Sirmium and to the condemnation of Athanasius How Pope Honorius being consulted by Sergius of Constantinople gave out sentence for the Monethelite Heresie How Pope Iohn the twentysecond denyed the immortalitie of the Soul Yea not to insist further in takeing this Dung-hill your own Platina in the life of Stephanâ—s the sixth records that it is almost the constant custome of the succeeding Popes to infringe Or wholly abrogate the decrees of their Predecessors Are these the infallible propounders of divine truths upon which our faith must be built It were easie also to give an account of the errours and lapses of Councils though I should be loath to derogat in the least from their due esteeme I shall therefore at present but mind you of that luculent testimonie of Austin lib. 2.
mans assenting to the sense of a Municipal Law given by a civil Iudge though he had no previous assurance of his Infallibility which example you strive to elude saying That assent was not supreame But I desire to know what you meane by a Supreame assent If you meane a Supernatural assent I acknowlege it is not Supernatural neither did I compare the assent which we give to the sense of a Municipal Law and the assent of Divine faith in that regard But if you meane that it is not a Firme and Certaine assent but fluctuating and doubting then you speake falslie and are confuted by mens daylie experience And herein onely made I the parallel betwixt these two assents That as we may give a firme and certaine assent Ordinis naturalis to the sense of a Municipal Law propounded by a Civil Iudge without a Previous assurance ordinis naturalis of the judges Infallibility so why may we not assent by a Supernatural Act of faith to divine truths propounded by a Minister though we have not an Antecedent supernatural assurance of his infallibility in actu primo And it is a grosse mistake in you to say That the assent which we give to the sense given by a civil Iudge is founded on his abilities and therefore that the degrees of our certainly is correspondent to the Stronger or Weaker persuasions that we have of his ability I say this is a grosse mistake for sometime an able Iudge may give a wrong sense of the Law and a weaker Iudge the right sense and the hearer considering the evidence which the wecker brings for his sense may give a firme assent to the sense propounded by the weaker Iudge Even so a weaker Divine like a Paphnutius may give at a time the true sense of Scripture when abler Doctors may give a wrong sense and the hearer may upon good ground subscrive to the sense given by the weaker And consequently it is the evidence which the Propounder brings for the sense which he give◠that is the ground of the assent of the hearer not the persuasion of the Propounders Ability Hence was that of Austin Epist 19. Fateor Charitati tuae solis eis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre ut nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam Alies autem ita lego ut quantâlibet sanctitate doctrinâque prapolleant non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt sed quia mihi vel per illos authores canonicos vel probabili ratione quod à vere non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt From which is evident that Austin did not beleeve the sense given by any Doctor because of the Previous persuasion he had of his abilities or assistance but because of the evidence he brought for his sense Thus have I examined your whole Paper not misrepresenting your Assertions as you doe mine not setting up a man of straw and then fighting against him as your custome is nor dissembling any thing of seeming weight as you are not ashamed almost constantly to doe Therefore if you have a minde to insist in the debate let me once prevail with you to leave your Tergiversations and misrepresentations Propose first my words faithfully and then you shall have liberty to impugne them as hardly as you can and I promise to you the like measure If otherwise I must againe discharge with you for to exchange Papers with you in your scurvie straine will be but as if when an Asse kicks at a Man he should kick at the Asse againe As for that boundle of Revilings against not onely me but our Religion also wherewith you close your Paper I will not defyle my penne in resuming them I can as easily and with as little hurt throw them off as Paul did the Viper When I read them I smyled and remembred that of the Poet Claudicat ingenium delirat linguaque mensque Yet if you suppose that you have any advantage to your cause by this debate you shall have free liberty for me to transmit both your Papers and my Answers to Rome providing you doe it faithfully and let your masters there judge whether they owe you thanks for your service But I fear if all these Papers should come to an unpartial Consor he should remit them backe to you with this superscription Desperata causa Papatus and send you to the Hospital of the Desperati Thinke not strange that this Answere hath been delayed a while for I not onely have many returnes of duty upon my hand but also it was a doubt with me whether to make any further returne to you upon the ground mentioned in my last Yet at length I was moved to writ this Answere upon the consideration of that of Solomen Proverbs 26.5 Answere a fool in his folly lest he seeme wise in his own conceit Aberdene August 9. 1666. John Menzeis POSTSCRIPT Take in patience the blots and blutres of the Amanuensis I am truly sorry that it is not more nitidly writen The READER may perceive how faithful a transcript of these Papers is here presented to him when not so much as a word of Apology in a Postscript for a blot of the Amanuensis is omitted The Jesuits seventh Paper Answere to a sixth Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he laboures to propt the truth of the Protestant Religion with two Shifts and Evasions 15. August 1666. I Received your sixth Paper of the ninth of August containing a masse and heap of digressions copied out of controversy bookes of misapplyed phrases of grosse mistakeings and of injurious and railing words where you are pleased to honour me with thir Titles Vir nequam a sycophant an effronted calumniator a man of a prostitute reputation a fool c. You have been often defired and are now desired againe to give a proofe of your valour and to show that you are able to put ten onely lines in Paper to the purpose observing three things which every one will judge to be rationally demanded of you First That you lay aside all Digressions that is to say that you omit all these things without nameing of the which the present controversie may be fully decided Secondly That you omit all base and histrionical expressions and contumelious words Thirdly That you omit all these things which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion but with this inconvenient that it is equallie applyable to prove a false Religion to be true But since this reasonable favour cannot be obtained of you you wil give me leave as I have often protested and protests of new that I wil take no notice but close misken all that is out of the way and out of this our first line The Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion nor the Religion to the which GOD hath annexed the promises of supernatural happinesse and conscquentlie whosoever aimes at eternal happinesse after this life or intends
intriâ—secal quality or extriusecal assistance did expyre and was extinguished in the end of The third Centurie inclusive so that it did not passe to the Fourth Centurie nor to none afterwards Wherein I expect likewise some Blasphemy out of your mouth to wit that Christ dispenses the protection promised to his Church that manner of way that natural Agents doth dispense their activity within a certaine Sphere Uniformiter Difformiter produceing more in parts near and lesse in the parts more remote But since Christ hath promised to be with His Church to the end of the world and that the portes of hell shall not prevail against her then the dogmes and doctrine of the Church in the fifteenth Centurie when Luther and Calvin leap out were as pure and as free from all error as they were in the first three Centuries and the one may be called as-much in question as the other since both are equally founded upon Christs promise haveing no shorter Sphere and terme then the end of the world I cannot omit by the way to marr and disturb a little the complesance and contentment that you seeme to take in dealing with your own shadow fancying Contradictions upon my part which are all founded upon your misapprehendings mistakeing one thing for another For you suppone that the knowledge of the ability and assistance in him who propones matters to be beleeved because it is prerequired to all Acts of divine faith that therefore it is in it self an Object of divine faith and so you confound the Evident assent and judgement of credibilitie with the Obscure Act of faith and the motive of the one with the motive of the other For though the Act or assent of divine faith cannot be had except this other preceed yet faith existent hath its own proper formal motive distinct from the motive of that other Act and judgement prerequired to it As likewise out of the fear of hel a Sinner may be induced to make an act of Contrition for his sinnes though his act of Contrition existent have no wayes for the motive of it the paines of hel Another contradiction you fancie to your self founded upon another ignorant mistakeing as if I had said that a point of Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture were two Synonims Since this was only said Ad Hominem and to oppugne you out of your own principles who holds that nothing can be a point of faith but that which is contained in Scripture or in the writen word of God and so in this you doe as other of your Champions hath done citeing for the assertions of scholasticks and fathers objections that they make against themselves Out of this appears how true it is that was told you that you show your self Altogether ignorant of the nature of divine and supernatural faith since that out of this that faith hath for the formal motive of it onely GODS word and revelation you infer that it may be obtained and exist though there not preceed a knowledge that GOD speaks by the mouth of the Propounder Yea in this you show your self also altogether ignorant of the nature of our intellect and understanding who as it cannot but assent when the object propounded is in it self evident so it cannot assent by faith whether divine or humane except it know the authority of him that speakes or propones and according as the hearer knowes him that speakes to be of lesse or more authority he adheres with more or lesse firmnes to the thing that is spoken because otherwise our intellect might assent to a thing though there were nothing to induce him since here there interveins nothing to induce one to beleeve but onely the authority of the speaker And what makes it to the purpose the instance which you bring against this to wit That sometimes a more skilful Iudge and Doctor may give a wrong sense of a Law and a weaker may give the true sense Since it may be likewise that an Old Wife give the true sense of a text of Scripture and you though both a Minister and a Teacher of Divinity give a false sense And yet it doth not follow but the understanding of the hearer will be inclined more to adhere and assent to your sense though false then to hers though true supponing that there interveene no other thing to move save onely your authority and hers Because that which induces immediatly the understanding to assent is not the objective truths of things in themselves but onely as they appeare according to that saying of Aristotle that oftentimes false things are more likely then true You can never end one of your Papers without some bragging and you end this persuading your self that your Papers containes such pregnant and convincing reasons against Popery that if they were revised by impartial Iudges they would turne backe to you againe with this superscription Desperata causa papatus But this must be beleeved because you say it and you your self must be of a sweet temper who can solace your self with such dreams Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits seventh Paper An Answere to Master Dempster the Jesuit his seventh Paper wherein he declines to have the truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity IT appears to be a true character which an old acquaintance of yours as I hear giveth of you that if you be put from your Common place you signify nothing And therefore you consume a great part of all your Papers in repeating In terminis your first Paralogisme together with some cunned scurvie preambles thereunto You seeme displeased that I should have termed you an Effronted calumniator c. If these names be so unpleasing to you why tooke you such pleasure to practise the crimes expressed thereby Why did you put a necessity upon me either to brand you with such a black character or to take with your false accusations which no man but he whose fore-head cannot blush would have uttered Did I not instance the particular Calumnies Falshoods and Prevarications whereof you are guilty If you were innocent why did you not vindicat your self But who can lesse endure the name of a Whoore then the veryest strumpet What integrity is in that person who hates Non Crimen sed criminis nomen not the crime but the name of the crime You have the boldnesse againe to demand from me Ten lines to the purpose Must all these my Papers be condemned as impertinent and histrionick digressions so civil are you in your complements because your dull and lethargick head hath not been able to examine The tenth line of them yea not one to purpose Did I not tel you from the beginning that I needed not Ten words let be Ten lines to answere all that you have said but onely these Two words Nego Minorem Now I give other two which likewise might suffice Nego Conclusionent I deny the conclusion in regard of the informalitie of the
touch of their contrary opinions in your Cardinal De Lugo tract De fide Disp 5 Sect. 1.2.3 But at this time also I have purposly waved the absurdities which our Divines have deduced from your Romish Doctrine concerning these Motives of credibility Because I would keepe you closse to the point And therefore I shall demand no more of you but that you demonstrate the Infallibility of your Propounders from these Motives of credibility which till you doe you remaine shut up within the lines of that objected Contradiction I Now proceed to the other difficulty objected to you in expeding your self from which you are as unhappie For evidenceing whereof there needs no more be said but to propose the Aenigma which you pretended to enervat for you craftily wrap it up in silence The Argument did runne thus If our faith must be built upon the Precognition of the Infallible assistance of your Propounders the either this their pretended Infallibility can be proven or not If not then the whole Romish Faith is built upon a Fancy which cannot be proven If it can then First you were required to produce your Arguments for proving it And Secondly you were persued by this Dilemma If the Infallibility of your Propounders can be proven then either by a Writen or Unwriten Word Not by a Writen Word seeing the sense of it cannot be known according to you untill first the Infallibility of the Propounder and Interpreter be known but now that is supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very point in controversie Not can it be proven by an Unwriten Word Both because you had asserted before That a point of Religion to be True and to be conforme to the writen word are Synomma's And because there is as much need of an Infallible Propounder that we may be assured of the truth and true meaning of an Unwriten word as of that which is writen If therefore we cannot know the sense of the Writen word till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility neither can the truth or the true sense of the Vnwriten word be known till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility and consequently when the thing to be proven is his Infallibility it cannot be proven at all either by a writen or an unwriten word This Argument you dared not to propound and make a formal answere thereunto But all you say to this Suppressed Argument is that when you affirmed That a point of Religion to be true and to be conforme to the writen word of GOD were Synonima's you spake it onely Ad Hominem This is all your Reply and suppose it were true let any who hath sense judge whether you have evacuated the Argument For you touch but one part of the confirmation of one branch of the Dilemma which is abundantly proveÌ„ by another reason which might suffice suppose that which you touch were wholly laid aside You are far from the gallant resolution of Alexander who said Nola furari Victoriam Nay you are so base that when you cannot solve an Argument you wrape it up from the knowledge of the Reader and having given a touch of that without which the Argument abydes in its entire force you have the confidence to give out that you have confuted the whole Argument This is not the first experience I have of your Iesuitical ingenuitie But I must adde that even that which you have said cannot be admitted as if the Equipollencie of the two forementioned Propositions had onely been asserted by you Ad Hominem And the rather because what you say in this is agreeable to the grounds which you lay downe in your First Paper which there Interminis you affirme should be agreeed unto by all Now the chief scope of the First Paper and Syllogisme is to hold out that the True Religion hath grounds to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And therfore both in my answere to your First Paper and in my Answere to your Third wherein you had asserted the Equipollencie of these Propositions â— drew an Argument against your Romish unwriten Traditions to which then you durst make no Reply albeit now as if what you had then writen had been forgoten you would flinsh from what you had formerly said upon this pretext as if it had been spoken Ad Hominem If you had said that you had spoken that onely Pro tempore from your Iesuitical principle of equivecation when you meaned nothing so I could indeed have beleeved you Though you have bewrayed as much basenes as I beleeve ever man did in so much writing yet you have the boldnesse to traduce some of our Divines not telling whome as citeing the Objections of your Authors for their Assertions But Turpe est Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipsum Hath not the strength of your Romish Writers lyen in misrepresenting both the lives and writings of Reformed Divines Yea. your baseness in this hath stretched it self beyond them How grosly have you corrupted and falsifyed the writings both of Ancient and Moderne Authors as hath been demonstrated by Doctor Iames In his Treatise of the corruptions of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Pastors Prelats and Pillars of the Church of Româ— and by Cocus in his Censura veterum Scriptorum Beside many others You close all with a Tale of an Old wife And I confesse all you have said may well be reckoned Inter Aniles fabulas Yet you have the boldnesse againe to accuse me of Ignorance because I cannot homologat your absurd assertion That before we beleeve a Divine truth there must preceed a knowledge that God speakes by the Propounders Had you so often charged another with Ignorance you might perhaps have heard from him or now Sus Minervam I doubt truely if ever your dsperat Romish cause met with a more Blocksh Advecat then your self If I know that GOD speakes by such â— man must I not Simul semel beleeve it to be truth which he speakes How then were you so stupide as to affirme that the knowledge that GOD speakes by a man must preceed the beâ—â—â—f of the truth spoken Were you not more cautions before â—hen you onely required the previous knowledge of the Propounders assistance In actu primo But now your words would seeme to require the previous knowledge of GODS assistance In actu secundo For in propriety of speach GOD speakes not by a man but when he assists him In actu secundo Is this the nature of mans intellect to assent to a proposition which hath no evidence in it self without any reason Why then demand you an assent from me to your proposition concerning this Infallible assistance which I am sure is not Per se nota when neither can a reason be extorted from you to prove it not can you solve the objections brought against it Is there no ground upon which a Hearer may be convinced that this
is the genuine sense of Scripture but onely the authority of the speaker Surely then nothing spoken by you or your fellow Jesuits and Friers can be received as a Divine truth for you pretend no Infallibility Nay your fallacies are become so notorious to the World that it hath past into a proverb A Fryar a liar But perhaps you meane your Popes or Councils by your Propounders Yet besides that your people doe not hear them immediatly and their sentences may be vitiated in the conveyances by the hands of fallible persons besides this I say must not your Popes and Councils have a reason that moved them to own rather this sense of Scripture then the opposite Or else they must be perfect Enthusiasts If they have a reasone why may not the same reasone that moved them move the people also when it is sufficiently proposed to them Let the indifferent Reader now observe to what fluctuating uncertaintes you expose your hearers wheÌ„ you say that their faith must be resolved upon the authority of the Speaker whether you meane Pope or Council or both for I suppose you cannot determinatly tell which of the three Now how many things are here to be cleared before the faith of the poor people can be at a stand As First that these whome you call Popes are true Popes and successours to Peter and your Councils true and legitimat General Councils Secondly that these Popes and Councils have an Infallible authority Thirdly That this which you give out is the true and genuine sense of the Popes or Councils All which while the World stands you will never be able solidly to prove And I doe appeale you if you can to doe it But I must here reveal another prodigious Mysterie of your Romanists Namely that what ever is proposed not onely by your Popes and Councils but also by your inferiour Clergie-Men though by your own Confession Fallible yet the poor People who cannot examine by themselves the truth or falshood of what is proposed ought not onely to beleeve upon the authority of the said Fallible Clergie-Men but also Doe merit by beleeving though the thing beleeved be Erronious and Heretical Hear this from your Great Casuist Cardinal Talet Lib. 4. De Instruct. Saterd cap. 3. Si rusticus sayeth he circa articulos credat suo Episcopo proponenti aliquod dogma haereticum meretur in credendo lieet sit error quia tenetur credere donce si constet esse contra Ecclesiam I will english it If a country man sayeth he beleeve his Bishop propounding some heretical doctrine about the articles he meriteth by beleeving though it be an error because he is bound to beleeve until it manifestly appeare that it is against the Church What a damnable Religion must this be according to which men merit Heaven by beleeving lies If this doctrine of Cardinal Tolet be true that people are bound to beleeve your Fallible Clergie-Men even speaking lies and may Merit thereby How dare you conclude that our Faith to unquestionable Divine truths is no Supernatural faith because our Preachers doe not arrogat an Infallibility to themselves Is it better for a Romanist to beleeve a lie then for a PROTESTANT to beleeve a Divine truth Think you still to abuse the World with such prodigious impostures As for your ludicrous Example of an Old Wife We bless God there are old Wiwes young Boyes and Girles amongst us who could instruct all old deceiver like you in the true grounds of ReligioÌ„ Did not Priscilla a poor Wife instruct Apolles in the mysteries of Christianity of whose Infallibility Apollos had no previous assurance Yet from the Scripture she convinced him Act. 18.26 So that from this your Example though brought in by you only as a foolish jeer all that you have said may be redargued If there may be a ground to assent to divine truths proposed by a Poor Wife such as Priscilla of whose Infallibility there is no previous assurance then it is a falshood which you affirme that the Faith of divine truths must only be founded upoÌ„ the Authority of the Speaker But the first appears to be true from the Case of Priscilla and Apolles A poor Priscilla may hold forth convincing and luculent grounds of what she asserts from the Scripture when a Priest A Iesuit a Cardinal a Pope an Annas or Cajaphas may obtrude on the consciences of others erronioâ—s and groundles fancyes To this purpose I might produce many testimonies from your own most famous Writers as of Gerson Panermitan c. But I shall at the time content my self with one from Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus De Ordine credendi Theor 16. Which though I have at the second hand the author not being by me yet have I it from so many good Writers that I doubt not of the truth of it Quin imo sayeth he simplici potius rustice infanti anicula quam Pontifiti Maxime mille Episcopis credenduÌ„ si contra Evangetium isti illi pro Erangelio verba facereut I Have been more copious in this Reply then your Scurvy Paper did deserve yet if in this I have superogated it is without the least tincture of Poperie You but play the fool in upbraiding me with boasting or gloriation upon the account of the frequent losses which you are left at For I reckon it no point of honour either to deale with or to vanquish such an insignificant persons as hitherto you have discovered your self by your Papers I have rather so far endeavoured to deny my self as to be at the paines to give a check to an arrogant but an emptie Caviller against the truth But because Cepious Answers doe oppresse your dry and steril braine therefore I have subjoined a Succinct answere confuting all your Seven Papers in two words And if you find not your self comperent to answere this Long Paper in all the particulars thereof without your usual Tergiversations you may deale with this Succinct One. In the meane time let this suffice Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT A Short Answere in two words to all Master Dempster the Iesuit alias Rind or Logan his seven Papers Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis The Reason why the returne of this Paper hath been so long delayed it because how soone I read your Seventh Paper I found that it ranne upon the old trifling straine and therefore I threw it by me for sundry weeks For it was likesome to me to be still examining your Titivilitia and scurvie Tautologies Now therefore either come to the point and answere Categeries without your tergiversations or else get you gone for ever The Jesuits eight Paper Reply to a seventh Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein is showen that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginary and groundles conformitie 6. November 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS untill November 9. 1666. YOUR Seventh Paper
did come to my hands the fourth of November and I doe not wonder of your long silence of near three moneths for it is patched up of so various and copious Digressions copied out as it seems of Controversie bookes that you will scarce find one of twenty that will take the paines to read only over And to make it grow you have adjoined a long and tedious discourse about Real presence which appearingly is the substance of all you taught your Scholars this last Year But all this your painful labour for so many moneths is lost since as alwayes I have protested to you that I take no notice of things out of the way Neither will begiune any other thing before we have fully ended the maine point This debate was occasioned of a continual Railing made by you in the Pulpit againes Catholick Religion but with such ingenuity out of that your Chaire of Verity that in place of Catholick Dogmes to be impugned you did often substitute and propone in a ridiculous manner to the people Problematick opinions holden by some Scholastickes and Casuists as manifestly appeared out of the conference we had by mouth Whether this did proceed out of gross Ignorance or Malice or out of both I remit to your self Seeing that you did show so great fervour in skaring your Auditors from Catholick Religion you were desired to confirme them in their own Religion by produceing some solid but special ground and principle whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion And though in the beginning under the pretext that you had onely the Defenders part you stood stiffe not to be obliged to this Yet because you saw that it could not consist with the reputation of a man in your place to play altogether the Dumme in a matter of Religion of so great concernment as is the putting in question whether the PROTESTANT Religion be a True Religion or not lest this declineing should be imputed either to your ignorance or to the want of positive grounds after that with defuse digressions of all sorts you did runne your self as it were out of breath At long lang length you were forced to have your recouse to the Old jock trot that your PROTESTANT Authors teaches you to wit that your Religion is proven to be true by this Medium or principle because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture As containing perspicuously all things necessarie for mans Salvation This then being by your own confession the chief and most plausible ground for the truth of your Religion you are desired to lay asid all other things hold you at this precisly until you make it good and proportion at to confirme your own PROTESTANTS in their Religion You say â—â—en that your Religion is proven to be a True Religion because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture But it cannot be showen that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture excep first it be showen that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make this good you must first produce some special ground or principle whereby a judicious man may be reasonably induced to think that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture that is to say the sense intended by the holy Ghost For as it is impossible that a thing be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there be a true sense so it is impossible to show or prove a thing to be conforme to the true sense except it be first shown and proven that there is a true sense Al then that is required of you is that you produce some special ground or principle to make it appeare that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture since all the rest depends upon this onely one thing and that the ground which you produce to prove this be such as cannot equally serve to prove a false Religion acknowledged by your self for a false Religion to have the true sense of the letter of Scripture And this incumbes upon you if you will vindicat your Religion from this foul note that there can be shown no difference betwixt it and a false Religion And consequently that it is impossible that your Religion can be shown or proven to be a True Religion And it is expected that you will performe this with a clear Substantious Laconick and School-way laying altogether aside your diffuse reviling Pulpit way It is fatal to you to close your Paper with braging and praising your self and extolling your own answeres and withall to undervailne all that is brought against you but this as other things doe not reach to the maine point Mr. IOHN MENZIES Answere to the Iesuits eight Paper Some Animadversions upon Master Dempster alias Rind or Logan the Iesuit his eight Paper wherein he so shamlesly tergiverseth that he answeres not to one word of that which was replyed to him HOW now you Thersites Have you so shamlesly deserted the Scene Is your Syllogisme which Seven times you had repeated in Folio now relinquished without proving either Major Minor or justifying the Forme thereof Had you nothing at all to say for your Cavils about Acatalogue of necessaries the Rules of interpretation of Scripture the Infallibility of your Propounders or your Motives of credibility nor yet the ingenuity to acknowledge your self to be overcome by reason Are all your whisperings why the truth of Religion may not be examined By its conformity with the faith of the most Ancient Church silenced and yet dare you not comit your cause to the tryal Is it a sufficient confutation of what was replyed to you to say that the Prolixitie of the Reply would outwearie the patience of the Reader Would such a complement have been taken from Whitaker and Chamier as a sufficient confutation of Bellarmin's Vast volumes What a lazie Drone are you who could hardly digest the paines of reading two poor sheets of Paper Had I not so far condescended to your dulnes as to give you a confutation of all your Seven Papers in two words Could I be more Laconick Did I not put it in your option either to deale with the Large Paper or with these Two Words Could you neither read nor confute Two Words Are not you fitter to be a Neat-Herd then a Disputant Doe you not deserve that very character which Melâ—hior Canus puts upon the author of your Golden Legend Lib. 11. Loc. Com. cap. 6. Where he cals him Hominem ferrei eris plumbei cerdis a man of a brasen face and a leaden heart that is both shamless and witless Doe you not nobly act the part of a Champion for your Romish Cause who in stead of a consutation of a Polemick discourse stricking at the foundation of your Papal Superstition doe substitute a calumnious reflexion upon the first occasion of the debate Who
true Ergo c. The Sequel of the Major you dare not but admit unlesse you mine Insidell and deny that the true Christian Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the Scripture And for the probation of the Assumption you cannot but allow me that measure against you which you allow your self against me and therefore I appeale you to produce any solid ground which the True Christian Religion hath which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth Yea or any solid ground which you Râ—â—anists can pretend to for confirmation of your Religion which we want You have never adventured to name any but the pretended Infallibility of your Propounders But this we have so battered to you that now you have stolen fom it not daring to mention it againe in any of these your Two last Papers Nay Fourthly I must remember you of a Dilemma ad Hominem against you Romanists which you might have gathered from my last If we deviat from the sense of holy Scripture then it must be either in our Affirmatives or in our Negatives Not in our Affirmatives you and we agreeing in most of these Therefore either in these we have the true sense else you have it not Nor in our Negatives else your contradictorie Affirmatives should be true But I proved in my Last that in many of these you doe manifestly erre as contradicting the Ancient Romish Church particularly in your Adoration of Twages Transubstansiation Communion under one kind The Poper suprexmatie the Canonicall authority of Apocry ha bookes The jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Printes your papall Indulginces at extended to Purgarotse And I am readie to prove the falshood of the rest of your Super-induced articles when ever you have the confidence to come to a particular tryall But I am utterly discouraged from multiplying more instances against a tergiversing fellow who is neither moved by credit nor conscience to examine what is replyed to him Fifthly seeing you shun to tell a ground by which the truth of Religion is to be tryed lest the Balfardie of your Religion should be proven I will give you a solid ground from a person of great fame in your Romish Gourcâ—â— though a Grecian by extract This is Goorgius Scholarius who pleaded for the interest of the Latine Church in the matter of the ProcessioÌ„ of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son at the Councell of Florence Now this Scholarius tom 4. Conciliorum in Orat. 3. ad Concil Florent proposes these rules for determining controversies in Religion Et primo quidem sayeth he non decet velle omnia disertis verbis è scriptura desumere cum multos haereticos scimus pratextu hoc usos Sed si quid verbis it a prolatis sit consequens adaeque erit honorandum similiter quod veris confessis fuerit repugnans contrarium nullo modo est admittendum deinde eorum quae obscurius dicta sunt sumendae sunt è scriptura ipsa veluti magistra explicationes per ea quae uspians clarius illa disserit Where this learned Author holds these foure choise Positions for discerning betwixt truth and error in Religion to all which we PROTESTANTS doe cordially agree The First is That all divine truth are not revealed in so many words in Scripture Secondly that some divine truths are plainly set downe Diserris verbis and what by firme consequence is deduced from these ought to be beleeved and received with the same respect as these which are delivered In terminis Thirdly whatsoever is repugnant to these truths which are plainly Diserris verbis set downe or confessed upon all hands ought to be rejected as erroneous Fourthly that these things which are more obscurely treated of in Scripture are to receive their explications from other cleare Scripture as the Mistres of our faith These grounds so laid downe he afterwards accon modaâ—s to his present Hypothesis for decyding the controversie betwixt the Latine and Greek Church concerning the procession of the holy Ghost and may by the same measure be applyed to the controversies betwixt us PROTESTANTS and You Romanists If therefore you will dire to adventure upon the tryal of particular controversies betwixt you and us according to this standard I trust you shall see if prejudice doe not blind you that all the points of the Religion of PROTESTANTS are either revealed in Scripture plainly and In terminis or the by solid consequence are deduceable from these which are revealed In terminis And on the contrary that your Supe irauce Romish article wherein we differ from you are neither In terminis in Scripture nor yet by solid consequence deduceable from these things which are clearly revealed in Scripture but on the contrarie are repugnant thereunto I hope therefore the intelligen Reader wil observe that if you descend not to a particular tryal it is not because a ground was not assigned to you from discerning truth in Religion from error but from diffidence of your desperat cause Onely that you doe not returne to your usual trifling Cavill that Hereticks and those of a false Religion may pretend the same grounds for justifying their Heresies let me tell you that Hereticks may indeed pretend a patrocinie from these grounds which upon examination will overturne their cause And therefore what I say to you I say the same of all other Hereticks Socinians Pelagians Nestorians Aâ—â—baptists Antinomians c. That if they will come to a particular discusse according to these premised rules what ever their pretences be it shall appeare that their Heresies are neither In terminis contained in Scripture nor yet are deduceable by solid reason from these things which are clearly revealed but are repugnant thereunto Sixthly I answere Directly to this your Cavill by this Distinction If you meane that PROTESTANTS or whatsoever society acclaiming the True Religion before they prove the truth of their Religion or the conformity thereof to the true sense of Scripture must first produce one ground proving all the senses which they give in Scripture In cumulo to be true without a particular examination of the several senses and points of Religion mantained by them that I say is a grosse falshood and mistake For a Society may professe the true Religion and mantaine all the essentialls the cof and yet as I told n my last have some errors mingled in with these 〈◊〉 as our Dâ—vines have demonstrated in the Question Nom Ecclesiâ— possit errare Therefore if this be your mâ—â—ning it concernes you to have proven it for I doe and in my Last I imply did deny it But if you onely meane that PROTESTANTS or others acclaiming the truth of Religion must either have the essentials and all truths in their Religion plainly and In terminis revealed in Scripture or else solidly deduceable upon a particular discusse from these things that are so plainly revealed I grant it freely that it ought and must be so And therefore it you will
come to the examination of particular Articles I engage to disclaime the Religion of PROTESTANTS if it be not found to be so and shall onely demand but the like ingenuity readynesse and engagement from you that you will renounce your Romish superstition if is neither be In terminis in Scripture nor solidly deduceable from these things which are there plainlie revealed If there be not enough said to put an end to your general whifling Cavils let these who are not fascinated by prejudice judge Is it not time after the exchange of nine Papers to come once to the matter for you are not as yet come to it The rest of your Paper you pretend to spend in examining the Answeres given by me to this your forementioned Cavil Concerning the sense of holy Scripture But it would seeme you had been either dreaming or drunke when you wrote this for you bring me in only making Two answeres whereas indeed I have made Seven of the two which you mention only one of them is to be found in my Last Paper But however I will try how you behave your self in examining these That which you say is my First Answere is indeed my Fifth as you will find when you awake from your sleep and looke on my Paper But before I take in your Reply I will first propose my former Answere not in your words for I seldome find them faithfull but in my own as I proposed them in my Last My words then were these This Assertion of yours that before we can prove the truth of our Religion from the Scripture we must first prove this we have the true sense of the Scripture bad need of a verse favourable and benigns interpretation else it is perfect Nonsense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove that we have the True Religion before we prove that we have the True Religion These were my words and if the inference be not solid upon the Supposition laid downe therein these who have common sense may judge Yet to this you have made Three Replyes but each of them more ludibrious then another Your First Reply is a pedantick whifle about formall Praecisions you say That I shew my self to be altogether ignorant of the nature of formall praecisions which have vertue where they interverne to make a sufficent distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme For all your pretended skil of these Pracisions there are schoole Boyes with us who could adventure to the lists with you concerning them Yet I confesse in some sense you may commence Doctor in the matter of Praecisions For you have a notable faculty of praescinding from the purpose But if you had said any thing to the point you should have shewed that there interveens a Formall Praecisions sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and Probleme betwixt these two V.Z. That our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost And this That our Religion is the true Religion Can you either conceive or conclude that our Religion is contained in the Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost and not conceive Ipso Facto and Formaliter that it is the True Religion Especially seeing from the beginning of your Papers you have acknowledged That a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforms to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's You may try in the next how you can prove this for you still leave the greatest part of your worke behind you But in the Second place from this pedantick notion you proceed to a more absurd position as if heere There were an objective distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme still out of your Modestie Vphraiding me with Ignorance For say you The True Religion and truths contained under the letter of Scripture are separable one from another because all the truths of Scripture may be yet not compâ—uÌ„â— any ReligioÌ„ at all to wit if there had been no obligation imposed upon us to beleeve them And hereupon You conclude me ignorant of the nature of True Religion A greater cry me I confes then the ignorance of the nature of formal Praecisions Onely you had need to guard well that this your insolent accusation doe not recoyl upon your own head For First were you not sophisticâ—ting Ab Ignoratiore Elenchi you should have concluded that our Religion may be contained in the Scripture as the true sense hereof and yet make up no Religion at all But who sees not this to be a manifest contradiction And yet these were the two which you ought to prove to be separable for that was the Supposition whereon my Inference was builded But Secondly what ignorance and absurdity doe you bewray when you say That all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be and yet make up no Religion at all I will instance to you a few Scripture truths which it is impossible they should be and not make up a Religion Matth. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve John 20.31 These thinges are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and beleeving ye might have life through his name 1. John 3.23 This is his commandement that ye should beleeve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ These Scripture truths cannot be unlesse they concurre to make up a Religion and the reason is evident which also destroyes your fond Supposition and pretended reason to the contratie because they include in them a Form all obligation of worshiping GOD and beleeving in order to the obtaining or Salvation Do not you the refore bewray brutish ignorance of Scripture and of Religion when you say That all truths contained in the Scripture may be without an obligation to beleeve them and so compound no Religion at all For it is one Scripture Truth that we are commanded and obliged in Scripture to beleeve these truths in order to the obtaining of Salvation Your Third Reply is nothing lesse ludibrious then the former Two in which you say That what was said in that answere of mire to you may be said by persons of another Religion alswell as by us And who doubts but Hereticks may justly repell your Noneseâ—se May not Hereticks be otherwise solidly confuted albeit they laugh at your ridiculous Cavils I hope these transient to ches may suffice to discover with how little successe you have dealt with that Fifth Answere of mine which you call the first For I judge it unbeseeming for me in handling so weighty a controversie as this Whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Papists be the true
evidence for this exposition that your own Barronius Sixtus Senensis Ribera and others have acknowledged Rome to be Babylon Nor can this denomination be limited to Heathnish Rome for not only is Rome called Babylon by Tertullian who lived under the Heathnish Emperours but also by Hierome Esebius Austine and many others cited by your own Ribera who lived under Christian Emperours But I shall not now enter on that controversie Only let me remember you of Lactantius boldnesse Lib. 7. Instit cap. 15. Romanum nomen horret animus dicere sed dicam quia futurum est tolletur de Terra Is it not the refore the concernment of you Romanists to hearken to that advyce which Hierome long agoe tendered concerning this matter Lib. 2. Adversus Iovinianum speaking of Rome Maledictionem quam urbi Salvator in Apocalypsi comminatus est potes effugere per paenitentiam habens Ninivitarum exempluÌ„ But seeing you are so good at descanting upon Poetick Rythmes I will give you another which I assure you is no more mine then the other but what truth it containes the World may judge O Roma à Roma quantum mutata vetustâ es Nunc caput es scelerum quae caput orbis eras Fifthly and Lastly if ever Luther uttered such a speach as you alledge wherein we are not concerned yet can I not be induced to beleeve that he did it in such a ludibrious manner as you have expressed it For you would insinuat that he had foretold That within two yeares there should be no more Pope or Masse or any other relict of your Papal superstition Yet you have foolishly heaped up so many Negatives that what you intend for a Negative becomes an Affirmative and so you destroy your own Scope Indeed your Bellarmine in setting downe this calumnie of Cochlaus had more wit then to heap such a multitude of Negatives as you have done But as for you as you begane ludibriously so you end Dignum talli patella operculum If Hierome thought he had coÌ„descended farre in bestowing one lucubration against such a Trifler as Vigilantius have not I supererogated above measurein allowing nine Papers upon you who deserve more the Title of Dormitantius then that Adversarie of Hieromes Now therefore I doe finally discharge with you except you come to the purpose Yet to reduce you to that from which you have digressed in your Last eight Papers I subjoyne againe the confutation of all the nine in two words Aberdene May 10. 1667. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT A succinct confutation of Master Dempster the Iesuit his nine Papers in two words Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene May 10. 1667. John Menzeis The Jesuits tenth Paper Answere to a ninth Paper of Master IOHN MENZEIS wherein is confirmed that the pretended conformity of PROTESTANT Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginar and groundless conformity 14. May 1667. This Paper was delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS on May 15. I Received the twelfth of May your ninth Paper and it seemes that you have made an obstinat resolution that since you cannot bear out your cause with solid reasones that in supple of this and to blâ—nd simple People you will cary it out by a Bastard sort of eloquence that is by a multitude of words that either wants a sufficient signification corresponding to them or else are about objects altogether disparat and out of line You carp at that which I said that the cause wherefore I did not answere to all things contained in your Papers was not the prolixity of them but barrennesse and superfluity of them This you say is a contradiction for if they be barren how are they superfluous But I tell you over againe that there is no contradiction in affirming your Papers to be both barren of stuffe that makes to the purpose or to our present controversie and stuffed with superfluous digressions out of purpose And with this occasion I call to your minde other sort of Contradictions upon your part For when you was urged to give some ground whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion Your answere was that Religion is not an indivisible truth but a complex of many and so that ye were not obliged to prove in generall the truths of your Religion but that you would descend to all the particulars and to this effect you brought an example of a purse holding an hundred pieces of gold in it which must be all applyed to the touch stone one be one But afterwards when you assigning for the ground of the truth of your Religion the perspicuity of Scripture in all particular points that you hold as necessary to salvation you were desired to give a list of all these particular points that so they might be tryed whether the perspicuity of Scripture did shyne brightly over them all here you disclaimed your former example of the purse alleaging that you was not obliged to descend to particulars Is not this to breath out of the same mouth both heat and cold Likewise you are alwayes pretending that you are a meer Defendant and not Opugnant and yet your Papers containes almost nothing else but Impugnations of Catholick doctrines which make nothing to our present controversie Neither will it avail to say that the Defendant may Retort arguments because the retortion of arguments in our present controversie doth only serve to condemne your own Religion of falshood and error For giving and not granting that you had all the grounds for the truth of your Religion which Catholicks have for the truth of theirs though it be most false and that this is all that you pretend by your retortions yet it cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion because you violently putting out the Catholick Religion under pretext that it was false and erronious were obliged to bring in another which was better consequently that had better grounds And if you did proceed reasonablie this only were sufficient to close your mouth and to make you lay aside all such superfluous digressions and to insist only in bringing such solid reasons that could not be applyed to any Religion that you esteeme to â—e erronious I purposly omit as I have professed alwayes to doe all your digressions that maks nothing to our present purpose As that misapplyed discourse of Sainct Chrysostome with the Pagans since just as it lyes and as it is cited by you it may be assumed by any new Upstart Sectarie if they were cited before your assembly asked in what Scripture he did found his error And though you call it a trisling cavill to object so often to you that all you bring to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be with as great reasone assumed to prove a false Religion to be true yet you must know that is no trisling matter but a maine point and an argument both of the weakenes of your Religion and of your insufficiency to mantaine it for since you can bring
nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion it remaines alwise in that state as hath been often told you that a man is in who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaime Calvine as the author of your Religion and claimes to Iohn Hus and the Albigenses at last to be upon your side though the world knowes that theyâ— were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrocinie that you make to defend your patriarch Luther that he did not leap out of the Catholick Church but only out of the Romish Church though if you had done compleatly this defence you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhâ—â—e and with which he did keep externall communion when he left the Roman Church Good Sir leaving all your Paterga's remember that the occasion of this debate was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholick Dectrines and being desired to give some good solid ground for the truth of your own religion whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to imbrace it You did very stoutly undertake the bussines did bragingly protest that ye would mantaine the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever before whomesoever or in whatsoever place or time but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion Your first refuge was that you as the Defendant was not obliged to produce any ground but all the burthen incumbed on me as the Opponent to prove that you had no grounds And in this you behaved your self just as if one should come as sent from the Council to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Councill of Aberdene a charge to apprehend a persone as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince and the L. Provest desiring to see his Commission he should reply that he was not obliged to show his Commission but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion and being demanded that you show your grounds whereby the truth of it may be mantained you reply that you are not obliged to produce grounds but that another should prove that you have no grounds not considering that religion is a positive thing and a complex of positive dogm's and so cannot be mantained to be true but by producing of positive grounds and the shifting to produce them will make all to give sentence that it is destitute of solid grounds Your next refuge was that your Religion was proven to be true because it was conforme to Scripture that is to say to the true sense of the letter of Seripture Now this pretended conformity was proven to be meerly imaginary and groundlesse because as it is impossible that a thing can be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense exceept it be proven that there is a true sense Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style and by a judicious and school way to produce some soild ground whereby mens understanding might be convinced that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost of the letter of Scripture To this you answered first that it makes a Non-sense to say that a Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be proven that there is a true sense Now I ask you where lyes here a nonserse or point me out any thing here that is not most cleare Indeed you in place of this my proposition did substitute one of your own and with your own words and I willingly grant to you that yours makes a Non-sense Next you seeme to chasse because I taxt your discourse to be founded upon grosse ignorance both about the nature of Formall Precisions and about the nature of True Religion and to this you reply first that to speake to you of Formall Precisions is a Pedantick thing But is it possible that you who professeth your self to be a Divine should so slight Precisions since they are the very quintessence of all superiour sciences and Aristotle might teach you that there is no science of particulars but in so far as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision and that every science hath his own particular abstraction whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences Next you remit me to your School-Boyes who will teach me the nature of Formall Precisions I am glade that Scholers are so learned but if it be so they out-shut their Master and knowes more nor their Master at least showes to know as appeares in this same answere that you make here For I telling you That the objective grounds of precisions is separability and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture and True Religion and that on both parts because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture Since there was true religion in the World before there was any Scripture writen And on the other part All the truths revealed in Scripture might be though they componed no Religion to wit If GOD had so revealed them that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to beleeve them as he might have done or wherefore might he not have done it Now to impugne this you bring texts of Scripture to prove that De Facto this obligation to beleeve is not seperat I speake of Separability and what GOD might have done and you argue against Actuall separation as if I had said that De Facto there is no obligation to beleeve things revealed in Scripture Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking Or were not well applyed to you those civill termes that your self use in this Paper to wit that you behoved to be drunke or dreaming when thir things escaped your penne Likewise how grosse mistaking is it to say That I granted that a Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture are Synonima's whereas I said only this Ad Hominem and to argue you out of your own principles who admits no rule of divine truth but the writen word And in this you imitat many other of your Champions who as I told you else where did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves Your second answere is that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is proven to be a true sense because it coincids
shall never declyne the discusse thereof with you or any of your Romish Synagogue But let us take a view of the other pretended Contradiction which you object Namely That I affirme that I doe sustaine in this debate the part of the Defendant and that yet the greatest part of my Papers containe impugnations of your Romish Doctrines And is not your shame so much the greater that I have impugned so many of your Doctrines and you durst never adventure to vindicat one of them If most of my Papers containe impugnations of your Religion how did you before alledge that I declyned to come to particulars Should not alyat have a good memorie But is there any apparent Contradiction in that which you object It might perhaps be disputed whether it be proper for a Respōdent to use Contra-argumentations but who ever said that it was a Contradiction May not I as a Respondent hold you to your worke to prove the Negatum and yet Exsuperabundanti reach forth a blow against you by Retortion Nay your self perceived that this would be reponed to you therefore say you That retortion doth not serve the turne in the present case betwixt us because it is not enough that PROTESTANTS have all the grounds for their Religion which Romanists have for theirs seeing PROTESTANTS have rejected the Romish Religion and the grounds thereof But this is like the rest of your cobwebs for though a valid Retortion doth not alwayes suffice to establish positively the Hypothesis of the Respondent yet it conduces to stop the mouth of the cavilling Opponent And besides you Romanists doe often pretend to Grounds which doe not compet to you as to a Conformity with Scripture and with primitive antiquity Shall conformity with Scripture and Antiquity cease to be grounds by which the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be demonstrated because you Romanists doe falslie pretend thereunto How often hath this been hammered upon you that conformitie with the Law may prove luculently one to be an Honest-Man though a Knave pretend thereunto Excellently said Austine Lib. 3. de Baptism◠contra Donatistas cap. 19. Haeretici Scripturas tenent ad speciem non ad veritatem and againe Ad imagines phantasmatum suorum convertunt omnia Sacramenta verba librorum sanctorum Nec tamen quia illae imagines falsae sunt doctrinae Daemoniorum propterea illa Sacramenta divind eloquia sic exhonoranda sunt ut illorum esse putentur The summe of this choise testimonie of Austine is that Scriptures must not be laid aside as no being grounds of the True Religion because Hereticks boldly though fasly pretended thereunto By this time you may see that notwithstanding all your Jesuit breeding you may goe to School againe and searne what a Contradiction is I come now to take some notice how you behave your self in vindicating your poor cavill Concerning the sense of Scripture Suffer me therefore to lay before you some Instances of your weakeness herein As First You now acknowledge that in the sense wherein I proposed your objection in my nynth Paper it is perfect Non-sense But in my Ninth Paper I gave no other sense of it then I had given before in my Eight Paper Nay in my Ninth Paper I did repeat In terminis what I had said in my Eight to make you sensible of your ludibrious whifle cōcerning Formal precisions But notwithstanding the sense which I had given of your objectiō in my eight paper you mantained it to be Good sense that ther interveened a sufficient distinctiō betwixt the Medium the Problem But now without any variatiō since it is become perfect Nonsense according to your own acknowledgment If this be your skill of Formal precisions wherein you glory to turne Sense to Non-sense neither I nor others will much-envy your Acumen Secondly therefore to make some sense of this your cavil you exhibit it thus to us A Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be first proven that there is a true sense And you cry out Where lyes there any non-sense here And you call on us to point you out any thing which is not cleare But I doe yet desiderat both clearness and truth in this your Assertion as it is now proposed by you I say First I desiderat Clearness for hereby you would seeme to question Whether scripture had a true sense As if the GOD of Truth could not speake Sense or had delyvered Non-sense in the holy Scriptures Yet I have more charitie to you then to thinke that you are come to that height of prophane Scepticisme This only I have said to show that the Sense of your words appeares not so cleare and that they might suffer such a Blasphemous construction But I am apt to conceive that the thing which you would have said was That before we PROTESTANTS prove our Religion to be conforme to the scriptures it must be proven that the sense which we give of scripture is true But besides all which hath been said in my two former Papers to this most of which to this houre remaines unanswered I now say that I desiderat the Truth of this Assertion even as thus expressed For a Proposition may be so suculent that the words being understood the understanding if it be sound cannot but presently take up the sense thereof without any antecedent proofe Else in proving the true sense of any Proposition we should runne In infinitum And therefore that a Religion may be proven to be conforme to the sense of the letter of the Scripture it is only requisite that the sense of the letter of Scripture be either in it self luculent obvious and clear the words being once understood or if it be not so obvious and clear that in that case it be proven This I freely grant and shall never decline in the handling of any controverted point with you But Thirdly in stead of proving that there doth interveen a Formal precision sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme in your Proposition as it was glossed upon by me in my Eight Paper which was the thing incumbent to you you only fall out upon a commendation of Formal Precisions together with some scoffing jeeres against me and my Scholars which discover more of your follie then injure either of us I meddle not with such excentrick foolries Neither doe I deny but Divines may make use of Precisions as occasion serves But to turne so grave a Theologick debate into a Logical scuffle about Formal precisions savoures at best but of a Pedantick spirit Especially when it appeares that it is brought in only to cloacke that which now you confesse to be a Non-sense Fourthly after this whifle about Formal Precisions you bewray grosse inadvertencie about your Objective precisions and separability betwixt all the truths contained in scripture and true Religion Because say you all the truths in Scripture
might have been revealed and no obligation laid upon us to believe them And in this you blame me That I only proved by the Scripture-instances which I brought that there is no actuall separation betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion but did not prove them insenarable But if you looke againe to my Paper you will find that your inadvertencie is onely to be blamed For I did prove the absolute inseparabilitie betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion Which againe I thus demonstrate according to the grounds laid downe in my Last If all the truths in Scripture cannot be without an obligation to believe them in order to the obtaining of Salvation then All the truths of Scripture cannot be except they compound a Religion But the first is true therefore also the last The Sequel of the Major is clear because this is the only pretence upon which you suppose that all Scripture Truths may be and yet compound no Religion because they may be and yet no obligation be laid upon us to believe them If therefore they cannot be except an obligation be laid on us to believe them then surely they cannot be except they compound a Religion It remaines therefore only that we prove the Assumption that they all cannot be revealed without an obligation to believe them and this is cleare from the Scriptures cited in my Last Paper because this is one of the Truths in those Scriptures that we are obliged to believe these Truths And I cited purposlie these Scripturs to prove this And therfore it is impossible that all Scripture truths can be and we not be obliged to believe them For this is one Scripture truth that we are obliged to believe the Truths revealed in Holy Scripture What now I have demonstrated more prolixlie I set downe clearly enough though more succinctly in my Last Albeit it seemes you have been so taken up with your Precifive airie Notions that you have not understood the Paper which was sent to you But to prevent your further mistake in this I thinke it fit to let you know that I distinguish betwixt these two I doe indeed confesse that a Religion may be though nothing be coÌ„mitted to Writing And this was the case of the Ancient Church before Moses But this concernes not our present debate But the thing I deny is That all the truths contained in Scripture way be and yet make no Religion at all And this I hope now I have demonstrated against you both in this and in the former Paper Though your Notional precisions have made either your sight or your judgement Preseind from the Paper which you should have examined and consequently from the purpose By these hints you may consider whether you have added any strength to your insignificant Objection Concerning the sense of Scripture But because you are still harping upon this Cavil About the sense of the Scriptures It would appear that you Looke upon Scripture as so obscure as not able to be a ground for decision of controversies in Religion unless there be some infallible visible-judge I shall desire you to consider how different you are in your apprehersions as to this matter from the Ancient Church in which the decision of Controversies in Religion was committed sometime to Secular persons yea sometime to Heathens which your self will confesse not to be Infallible Have you not read that writing which passeth under the name of Vigilius Bishop of Trent in which there is a dispute betwixt Sabellius Photinus and Arius upon the one side and Athanasius on the other concerning the Trinitie and Deitie of the Lord Jesus Christ and Probus a Heathen is constituted judge to determine betwixt them not according to his own fancy but according to the proofes which they should produce from the Scriptures and after hearing of both he gives sentence for the Truth This dispute you will find set forth among Cassanders works from Page 460. and the sentence of Probus the Judge page 506. c. I doe not say that this Conference was real for the Collocutors were not contemporarie Yet the Learned and Ancient Author of this Dialogue who by some is supposed to be Pope Galosius doth clearly insinuate that the most sublime Mysteries of Christianity are so luculently revealed in Scripture that a meer Pagane may finde out the true sense of Scripture concerning them Have you nor tâ—ad in Epiphanius haeres 66. how that Archelaus an Orthodox Bishop had a dispute against the pernicious Heretick Manet in Caschara a City of Mesopotamia and how by commone consent they â—â—bâ—â—icâ—ed unto Foure Heathen Judges to Marcipus a Phil sâ—ph to Claudius a Physitian to Aegialous a Gramariare and to Clerbâ—lus a Sophister who after hearing adjudged the Victorie to Archelaus And this was no fiction but a reall deed What should I tell you how Laurentius a secular person was Arbiter in a dispute betwixt Augustine and Pascortius an Arian as appeares by Austineâ— Aepist 178 Or how Marcellinus a Tribune did preside by the appointment of Honorius the Emperour at a conference betwixt the Orthodox and the Donatists as Augustine holds forth Tom. 7. in Brevic. Collat Doe not all these make it evident that the Ancient Church did not apprehend such impossibility of finding out the true sense of Scripture without the previous decision of an Infallible visible judge How did Christ command us to Search the Scriptures John 5.39 if their sense be unsearchable Is not this on controversie in Religion whether there be a necessity of an Infallible visible judge and Propounder and who he is And who I pray you shall determine this if not the Scriptures If you have an Infallible Propounder without whose decision the sense of Scripture cannot be attained how injurious is he to the Christian World who will not put forth a clear Comment upon the Whole Scriptures for the finall decision of all Controversies Why doth he not at least give a Decision concerning these inrestine debates among your selves as betwixt your Dominicans and Jesuits c. Are you so farre deluded as not to know that this Fable of Infallibility is the cunning imposture whereby men of your imployment have laboured of a long time to cheat the World But now these of the Traditionarie way among you beginne to perceive that the World is too wise to be still cheared by that one Trick therefore they are betaking themselves to another Method but as fallacious as the former You have a Querie which you expect that I should notice You desire to know When Luther leapt out of the Church of Rome as you phrase is if there was any Church on earth with whome he had visible Communion May ye not be ashamed to move such a Question to me I having convicted you of so many Falshoods and Foolries concerning your last discourse of Luthers separation from Rome and of a Lying Prophesie which you following Bellarmine and Cachlaeus imposed
be conforme to the true sense of such a text of Scripture you must first by some speciall ground or principle prove that your Clergie Men hath In Actu Primo such assistance and habilitie as is prerequired in men who should give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture since everie false Religion may pretend that they give the true sense though contrarie to the sense that you give To this you reply that it is a contradiction to say that before other particular proofs be proved to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God it must first be proven that their Clergie hath such abilitie and assistance in actu primo as is requisite to give the true sense of Scripture Because say you this same that the Clergie should have in actu primo such assistance is one particular truth and so if it should be proved before every particular truth it should be proved before it self And it seems you have great compleasance and are fallen in love with this answere as with a prime and unswearable subtilitie backing it both with prose and meeter and likewise advertiseing me to consider it But I likewise advertise you to consider how that in this you fight only with your own shadow For first may not a proposition be in it self one and particular and yet have an object universall in the which though it be contained yet the thing affirmed of that object doe not agree to it otherwise ye would by this prove that David contradicted himself when he pronounced this proposition All men are liars for if all men be liars and David be a man then he was a liar in saying all men are liars Next what makes it to the purpose whether the necessitie of particular assistance in actu primo in Clergy men to give the true sense in other particular truths what imports I say that this is so of an generall object that it is in it self one particular truth distinct from the rest it being sufficient that it be such a particular truh of whom other truths depends and of the which the people must first be convinced before they can be perswaded that other particular points proponed to them are revealed in such texts of Scripture Wherefore take this Recocted dilemma againe either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds or principles whereby mens understanding can be convinced that their Clergie is qualified In actu primo with such assistance and habilitie as is requisite to perswade the people that they give the true serse of the letter of Scripture or they have no such grounds or principles If they have then let them be produced and examined If they have no such grounds and principles they cannot exact of people to beleeve their glosse as the word of GOD since without this particular and interior assistance they can onely guesse at the true sense of the text of Scripture As to that you desire againe that I signe my answere with my name and that you require this because you would know with whome you deal and because it hath been observed to be one of the Romanists practises when they have the worst in debates to alleadge it was no Scholer that sustained such debate but some obscure person But good Sir in what Register did you find such a practique or whether they may not with greater reason be turned over upon your selves and who will not smile to hear you compare your self and your Divines with Catholick Authors Since it is known that the most part of the doctrine that you vent either in Pulpits or Schools is copied out of them The thing then desired of you is that you answere to the reasons proponed not careing by whom they be proponed Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits third Paper An Answere to a third Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan IS it not Ominous that this your third Paper beginneth with a notorious falshood in its very Inscription as if I in my second Paper had undertaken to prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Whereas it is manifest that in both my former papers I only sustained the part of a Defendant And this I did of purpose that it might be seen how you would discharge the Office of an Opponent under which you now appear clearly succumbing by your nauseating repetitions If the acrimonie of my Style in my last offend you ye may blame partly your own tedious repetitions and trifling in a matter of such importance and partly some scurrilous expressions which yoused and opprobrious accusations of tergiversation and diffidence where with ye loaded me in your second paper Because forsooth I would not gratifie you so farr as to take the Opponents worke off your hand So that what of this kind hath been owes its rise to you I admire nothing in you but your confidence That ye are not ashamed to offer to me a Paper bearing the inscription of a Reply when ye seeme as affrayed to touch the chief points in my Paper as you would be to handle a Serpent Did I not charge you with grievous Omissions in my last Why doe you not clear your self of that Fallacie in the third proposition of your first Paper Why doe you not answere to the Retorsions of your argument against your self Why doe you not either prove your Assumption or else refell the arguments by which I shew that ye were tyed to prove it Did I not demonstrate the pertinencie of all these particulars and withall conjured you to speake to them as you would not incurre the heaviest characters of Ignominie What construction after all this can your deep silence bear but that you are not able to acquit your self in these points Hath there been one article of controversie in any of your Papers which I have not examined whether therefore you or I be guilty of tergiversation or diffidence the unbyassed Reader may judge I am so wearied with your Tautologies that I should not have deignied this paper with an answere but that I know the clamorous impudence of many of your Party to be such that if no answere had been returned how insignificant soever your paper be they would have insulted and sung Victoria But let me ask you seriously doth the frequent repetition of this poor naked Syllogisme either help the forme or strengthen the matter thereof of both of which have been justly questioned Are battologies so savourie and delicious to your Popish palat will the ingemination of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extort an assent from these who have the use of their reason How oft will ye constraine me to tell you that I deny your Assumption and consequently the second branch of your ragged Dilemma which is wholy coincident therewith and that I have long desiderated the probation of both But seeing ye have some fancie for Dilemma's I will repone this one to you Either you