then apologize for me One Objection must needs be removed It may be asked how I doe charge the Iesuit as declyning to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity seeing he profers at lest to have one Controversie examined by Scripture Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments But let any rational person though a Romanist if he can but dispossesse his own mind of prejudice cognosce whether my Charge be just How disingenuous the Iesuit was in that seeming profer concerning the number of Sacraments is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered And 1. When did the Iesuit make this profer Only in his tenth or last paper imeÌ„diatly before his getting out of the nation Why did he it not sooner especially seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before and he had been frequently appealed to a discusse of particular Controversies Did he not in former papers positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity By Scripture because as he affirmes paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture By Antiquity also because sayeth the Iesuit paper 5. page 61 This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion Yea doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries in his 9. paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming profer at such a time after so many declinaturs ingenuous Romanists may judge But secondly Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures Transubstantiation Adoration of Images Communion under one kinde Papal indulgences Apocrypha bookes the Popes Supremacie over the whole Catholick Church and his Jurisdiction over Princes Yea had it not been shewed as the breviry of missives would permit that the Church of Rome doth grosly erre in all these Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these Let Romanists therefore againe judge whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity to prove the present Romish Religion erronious in all the foresaid particulars and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments doeth shew a through willingnesse to have the Truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity Thirdly If there he any Controversie tossed betwixt Rom mists and us where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies is not this it which the Iesuit hath pitched upon coÌ„cerning the number of Sacraments Must it not be acknowledged on all hands that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense a man may affirme that ther be more or fewer Sacraments But of this you may see more at length in the Aâ—swere to the Jesuits tenth paper page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural tryal who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies and only betaks himself to this wherein the Adversarie may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies But fourthly Doth the Jesuit really profer to have that on Controversie concerning the number of Sacraments betwixt Papists and us decyded by Scripture Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor fewer which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church Nor at all What then Only that he might seeme to say something he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments or that there be no more then two which is in very deed to require me to prove the Negative while he himself declynes to prove the Affirmative viz. That there is not only more then two but compleatly seven Though the Iesuits demand be irrational I hope I have satisfied it in its own proper place But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us concerning the number of Sacraments were not decyded except it be proven that there be precisely seven neither more nor fewer If there be not a precise septenary one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground Consequently the Iesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural tryal untill he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments which as yet he hath not done nor I believe will adventure to doe He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here But neither I suppose will these serve his turne But Fifthly what are all these ensuing papers but a demonstration of the Iesuits tergiversing humor In his first paper he proposed foure postulata like so many Oracles I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogisme but could never thereafter adventure on a second which was retorted in better forme against the Popish Religion more wayes then one but these Retortions to this houre remaine unexamined I denyed the Assumption of that long studied Syllogisme but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof In that Assumption the Iesuit had said that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture To repell that bold allegeance I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture which either the True Christian Religion hath or that the Popish Religion can pretend to which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants But he could never be moved to produce any Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders or to answere Arguments against their Infallibility At length being outwearied with his tergiversing I produced positive Grounds for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures and the disconformity of theirs viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and Conformitie with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries Hereupon he positively declyned both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries as a test to find out the Truth of Religion Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any viz Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine and the sense which Romanists impose to
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
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
approbation of your Authorised Licencers to the eternal ignominy of your Church But Thirdly it appeared say you By the Conference betwixt us that we often propounded in Pulpit problematick points in stead of your Dogm's How so I pray you Was there nothing spoken of in that conference but of School-Problems Did I not conclude the impietie of your Romish Religion because it destroyes all certainty of divine faith from your Florentine and Tridentine Canons which suspend the efficacie of Sacraments from the intention of the Administrator For all certainty of divine faith according to you Is grounded upon the infallible assistance of your clergie But if Ordination which is one of your Romish Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Ordainer you can have no certainty of faith who are your Clergie men or who have this pretended Infallible assistance For how can you be certaine of other mens intētions To this you had not the confidence to make any Reply Can you say that this is a meer Problem Are the Canons of Councils problems with you Is it a Probleme among you whether that be an impious Religion which destroyes all certainty of faith But perhaps you will say There was another question tossed whether a man after he hath sinned be bound presently to repent I confesse and the sober Christian may judge how much that man differs from an Atheist who affirmes this to be a Problematick point Yet to put a stop to your lying misrepresentations concerning this particular I must crave leave to doe these two things I shall first give a true account how that Question concerning Repentance came to be moved at the Conference and in Order to this I must give a touch of the occasion of the Conference sit self Secondly I shall examine a little whether that point may justly be reckoned among Problems and how far it may be charged upon your Church of Rome You may readily exclaime on these discourses as Digressions but I am drawne to them by your Calumnies For the First the real occasion of that Conference and of moving that Question at the Conference was this In April last I received two challenges from a Gentle-Man of your profession The First was that I had wronged your Authors by affirming some dayes before in a Sermon concerning Repentance that many of your Doctors did mantaine That when people sinne they are not bound immediatly to repent Yea the Gentle-Man was so confident as to promise by the Messenger whome he sent to me that he would turne PROTESTANT if I would make good that my Assertion To whome I answered that I was sure of a convert if the Gentle-Man would stand to his promise and if he would come to my Studie his eyes should be judge whether my Assertion were true by reading their own Authors Some dayes after the Gentle-Man came to me not to have the truth of his former challeng examined but with a New provocation to me and to my Colegue Master MELDRVM who then was with me to debate at his Lodging with a Catholick scholer as his phrase was concerning the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS We told him we knew how conferences of that nature had been misrepresented by Papists and therefore to obviat such misrepresentations we condescended with him upon some Conditions of the meeting which you know were violated by your Party When we came after we had regrated the violation of promise made to us I told I had received the Two foresaid Challenges and desired you who there appeared as their Champion First to answere whether I had wronged your Authors in the forementioned Assertion concerning Repentance and then we should willingly disput the point of Religion not against you onely but against the whole Conclave of Rome if they had been there present To the First you refused to give an Answere and as to the Second you said You came onely to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS but not at all to answere arguments against your Romish Religion But it was Replyed to you that our Religion was not onely the truth of GOD but also was established by the Law of the Land and therefore we could not suffer it onely to be questioned in such a publick way But would you answere us Six arguments against Your Religion we should answere you other Six arguments against Ours Or would you answere us Two we should answere you other Two But you stifly denyed to answere at all till at length by the importunity of your friends you were moved to condescend to answere Yet as to the Matter of fact Concerning the Doctrine of Repentance you utterly refused to answere at al unlesse I would frame it in an Argument against Your Religion Wherefore to gaine time and to satisfie the Gentle-Man who had been my Accuser I framed an argument in more general termes concerning the Doctrine of Repentance then I had spoken thereof in Pulpit hoping to have had liberty thereafter to propound Other arguments of more general concernment against Your Religion The argument touching Repentance ran thus The religion which teacheth that a man when he hath sinned is not bound presently to repent is impious But the Popish religion teacheth that a man when he hath sinned is not bound presently to repent Ergo the Popish religion is impious You admitted the Minor and denyed the Major That it was an impious religion which so taught Whereupon I tooke all the Auditors to witnesse and in special the Gentle-Man who had been my Accuser that you admitted this to be the doctrine of the Romish Church That a man who hath sinned is not bound presently to repent And consequently that I had spoken truth when I affirmed from Pulpit that many of Your Romish Doctors taught this But now you being ashamed that you should have admitted such a Doctrine which all sober Persons are ready to cry down as impious to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome you have devysed this after-evasion to terme it a Problematick point Whether it ought to be looked upon as a probleme I may speake a little anone Now let the Reader observe This question concerning Repentance was onely moved by me to vindicat my self from the accusation of the Gentle-Man who had provoked me to the Disput hoping to have had occasion for Other Arguments afterwards And therefore when you had admitted the Assumption that is was the doctrine of Your Romish Church I would have left that argument as having obtained all by it which I intended Yea I did propound the argument in larger termes then I had spoken of that matter in the Pulpit onely to extort an Answere from you So that whether it be a Problematick point or not you could conclude nothing from it as to the ordinary straine of our preaching seeing you refused to speake to it in these termes wherein we delivered it in Pulpit Nay more whoever will terme this point a Probleme yet you are not In bonâ fide to doe it
grounds to prove its conformity with the Scriptures but also to stop the mouth of a Caviller I declared to you what was that ground and I tooke it from Georgius Scholarius his Third Oration in the Councill of Florence and did appeale thereunto for the decision of all controversies betwixt us and you But you never once touched this ground How then could you imagine that you had confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with Scripture Doeth the Devil abuse the imaginations of Jesuited Hereticks as somesay that he doeth the fancy 's of Witches making them imagine that they doe the thing of which they only dreamed Fourthly did I not give a Direct Answere to your Objection by a formall distinction If any thing should have been taken notice of ought not this Yet ye wholly overleap it A goodly Dispistant indeed Fifthly I refuted some new Cavils which you started to prove That the truth of Religion ought not to be tryed by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries But you found my Replyes thereto so thornie that you have not dared to meddle with them Only you have an impudent Calumny concerning that matter which I may afterwards touch Sixthly whereas as you had accused Calvine and our Reformers as contemners of Antiquity I shew not only that Calvine had confuted your Religion from Antiquity but also that Antiquity is more contemned by you Romanists then ever it was by the Reformed Churches I brought many Instances hereof from Bellarmine Maldonate Melchior Canus Brisacerius and Cornelius Mussus but all these you smother in silence Thus have I given an overly touch of some few of your Omissions Whoso will be at paines to compare my ninth Paper with your Tenth will find you guilty of many more Only now let me ask are these the Digressions the Parerga's and the Superfluities which you talk of in my Paper Doe not every one of those touch the Cause Have they not a genuine rise from Your Papers Who that regarded either truth or his own reputation would have overleaped all those You have made great haste to transmit your Papers to me but you have still left your worke behinde you I have gotten Ten Papers from you but not One Answere Take a view of your Omissions and you will find all My Papers unanswered Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your after thoughts have need to be set on worke to supplie your Omissions In the next place I shall gleane up some of your Vnfaithfull misrepresentations in doing whereof I shall not need to stand to the precise Method of your Rapsodick Paper And first you have such a shamelesse fore head as to say That I had recanted the confineing of my discourse concerning the conformitie of our Religion with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This is that Calumnie of yours at wich I was hinting in your Fifth Omission How could you hatch such a manifest unteach Let all the Iesuits in Europe play the Criticks on My Papers and see if I have recanted one Syllable that ever I avouched in any of them I told indeed in my Last that you like aâ— Dreamer â—haâ— substituted that Concerning conformitie with the Fathers of the first three Centuries as a Second Answere which I had given in my Eight Paper to your Cavil concerning the sense of Scripture whereas in all that Eight Paper of mine there was no expresse mention at all of the Fathers of the first three Centuries Is my discoverie of your Mistake a recanting of ought that ever I had said concerning the Fathers of the first three Centuries Doe you not behave your self like a Dreamer when you substitute Quid pro quo Any hint I had in my Eight Paper at that Matter was to challenge you that though in your Eight Paper you had been reduced Ad metam silentii in that point all the Cavils mentioned in your Seventh being so fully confuted that you had nothing to Reply in your Eight yet you durst not adventure to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformtie with the faith of the most Ancient Church In my Ninth I did expresly confute some New Cavils which upon further deliberation you had started in your Ninth against the tryall of Religion By the conformitie thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries So farre was I from recanting or refusing to admit that as a discretive Test for trying the truth of Religion Surely the first 300. years were the flower of the Primitive Church Hence is that testimony which Egesippus in Euseb lib. 3. hist Eccles cap. 29. gives to the Church in those dayes Ad ca tempora Virgo pura incorrupta mansit Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church then had continued a pure and a chast Virgin Shall you never have the ingenuity to Recant such impudent Calumnies But I nothing wonder that you cannot be induced to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformitie with the Church in these Centuries For as a Learned Divine hath observed In these ages most of your present Râ—mish tenets were unknown to the Wold Your Papal Indulgences were then unhatched Purgatorie fire was then unkindled to make your kitchin 's smoake The Masse was then uumoulded Transubstantiation unbaked The Treasurie of Merits was then unmiuted The Popes transcendent power was uncreated Ecclesiasticks were unexempted And deposing of Kings was then undreamed of The Lay People were not cozened then of the Cup Communion under one kinde onlie was not then in kind It was not then known that Liturgies and Prayers were publicklie made in an unknown tongue They did not then worship or adore any wooden or breaden God They worshiped that which they knew and that in Spirit and in truth Thus Simon Birkbeck in his Tractat entituled the Protestants Evidence Sect. 3. pag. 18. Edit 3. By which you may perceive That it is no new sect of my own that I am hatching when I appeale to the Religion of the Church in the Three first Centuries as you foolishly whisper in your Ninth Paper But because you use these invidious words of Confyning my discourse to the three first Centuries You may remember that in my Seventh Paper I cleared that the First Restriction of my Argument to the Three first Centuries for proving the truth of our Religion and the falshood of yours was occasioned by the discourse I was then upon concerning the Ancient Apologists in these Centuries And that my argument might have been extended further as in such like exigences it had been further extended by Juell Whitâ—ker Crakâ—nthorp and other learned PROTESTANTS Now only I tell you that if you have the confidence to try the truth or falshood of Religion By the consonancie thereof with or dissonancie to the faith of the Catholick Chruch in the first three Centuries you shall find that I never intended so to astrict my self
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
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
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
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
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