propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Oecumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15. until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Lateran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Oecumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Oecumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jansenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a Prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostoloâ— aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be noted saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith
Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow crgo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Printer for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odifastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10. hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysost Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deceased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next bundle of testimonies
question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquiuas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2. 13. which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articels of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alicujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8. 3. that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12. 39. they could not believe Matth. 7. 8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles 7.20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodâ— impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7. 22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3. 2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veraeity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay inthis they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varaeity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He faith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasms ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1. 7. O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood frees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscenee remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7. 24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7. 25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Faith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2. 24. It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3. 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as
And the Apostles having to do with hypocrits who placed Righteousness in outward ceremonies utter diverse speaches in disgrace of legal rites not depressing the same in themselves but shewing they were unprofitable to such as abused them So Luther being opposed by adversaries who preferred the Fathers before the Scriptures correcting that abuse useth some broad speeches such as our adversary nameth against the errors of some Fathers not generally of all but otherwise when Fathers are lawfully used as witnesses and interpreters of truth he esteemeth them according to their worth and yeelds as much to them as themselves require and to verify this he cites two testimonies of Luther which to stop the mouths of rayling adversaries I here thought fit to insert The first is periculosum horrendum est audire vel credere quod adversatur unanimi testimonio fidei Doctrinae Sanctae Catholicae ecclesiae quam indejusque ab initio unanimiter servavit So Luther ad March Brandeburg tom 2. germ pag. 243. again patres evangelium fidem in Christum absque ulla hypocrist pure simpliciter tradiderunt ecelesiam ab junumeris erroribus expur garunt So the same Luther Comment in cap. 5. ad Gal. by this it may appear that Luther had a great honour for ancient Fathers and believed that the ancient Church was a true Church of Christ Consider fourthly the granting of Protestant Authors that the Church was overspread with error doth not conclude that they held the Church to have utterly perished Every error in Religion destroys not the being of the Church a maimed man is a man though not a whole man a leprous or paralitick man is a man though not a sound man so one erring Church if the error be not in the essentials and fundamentals of Religion is truly a Church of Christ though not usque quaque pura throughly pure and sound yea in as much as the Church is said to be erroneous her existence is supposed doth not the inexistence of an accident in a subject suppose the existence of the Subject After that the worship of God was grosly corrupted by Idolatry in Israel and Judah they remained visible Churches and begat Sons and Daughters unto God Ezeck 16. 20. So Learned Protestants acknowledg that after the Roman Church was polluted with Idolatry and other absurd errors yet she remained a visible Church though a very impure one So Calvin epist 103. 104. and lib. 4. instit cap. 2. Sect. 11. 12. Zanch. in Epist ad Comitem Barch and lib. de relig Christ cap. 24. Sect. 19. Iun. lib. sing de eccles cap. 17. Mornaeus de eccles cap. 2. Sect. ecclesia Latina cap. 9. Sect. Secundo quemadmodum Dr. Feild in append ad lib. 5. part 3. cap. 2. where also he shews the same to be the judgment of Luther Bucer Melanctiton and Beza Neither is this for the advantage of the Popish interest for most of these Authors acknowledg the Romish Church in these latter and corrupt times only so to be a visible Church as the Apostle predicts the visible Church to be the seat of the Antichrist When he says 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God Yea all of them look upon Apostat Rome as a Church so impure that the reformed Churches did but their duty and were not schismatical in making secession from her for she was the Author of the Schism not only by adhering so pertinaciously to her corruptions but also by imposing on others the owning of them as grounds of communion with her and by driving Protestants from her by Bulls and Excommunications because they could not own these corruptions in so much that as King James in â—esp ad Epist. Card Perronij saith Non fugimus sed fugamur How ever by this it may appear that the prevailing of errors over the face of the visible Church doth not totally destroy the being of the visible Church Yea Jesuit Valentia in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6 confesseth quasdam veritates fidei quandoque ob hominum negligentiam vel proterviam ingenij perversitatem demersas latuisse forsan adhuc latere that some Doctrins of Faith and not only probable opinions once delivered by the Apostles thorow the ignorance or perversness of men were for a time drouned and lay as it were buried until afterwards by the diligence and faithfulness of the Church they were revived And perhaps saith he some truths may be in that case at this very day Hence to the clamorous cavil where was our Religion before Luther may solidly be replyed It was as to essentialls at least where ever God had a visible Church and consequently not only in the Greek Syrian Aegyptian and Aethiopian Churches which remain visible Churches and more pure then the Roman but also our Religion was preserved in the Roman Church she likewise being a visible Church though a most impure one I say our Religion was preserved in her as the true Religion was preserved in the Jewish Church when she was defaced with gross Idolatry Neither should this seem strange especially seeing many thousands in the Roman Church then groaned for reformation as appeared by the conjunction of so many with Luther upon his first appearance I further add that we are not obliged to grant the same of the Roman Church at this time which we grant of her before the reformation For surely since the reformation the Church of Rome is greatly changed to the worse as Dr. Feild in the place last cited and Voetius in desper causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 3. cap. 3. have evicted by many Instances and particularly many things being now defined by her as Articles of Faith which formerly were only debated as School-opinions And yet perhaps notwithstanding all these alterations to the worse she may be in a large sense allowed the name of a Church vere ecclesia though not vera ecclesia as Learned men distinguish Consider fifthly though the phrases of some Protestants concerning the prevailing of error in the Church in these last times especially may seem broad yet Scripture Fathers yea and Romanists themselves speak as broadly in reference to times of Apostacy And. 1. for Scripture what expression would seem broader concerning the time of Antichrist then that Revel 13. 4. That all the world wondred after the beast and worshipped the beast and the dragon what would seem wider then the World Revel 18. 3. all Nations have drunk of the Wine of the wrath of her fornication and the Kings of the Earth committed fornication with her Did ever Protestants speake broader Language concerning the apostacy under the Romish Antichrist then is there spoken by the Spirit of God 2. as for Fathers how lamentably do they bewaile the general overspreading of the Arrian heresy ingemuit orbis miratus se factum Arrianum said Jerom. dial advers Lucif Remarkable is the discourse in Theod. lib. 2. Hist cap. 16. betwixt Constantius the Arrian
to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible assiistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to untill the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex super abundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. 20. Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3. 15. I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3. 15. but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176 by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2. 2. 3. Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 19. Ephes 4. 11. But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2. 2. 3. Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16. 19. Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18. 19. I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4. 11. which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Church to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
Severians Manichees Arrians Carpocratians Montanists Donatists Anabaptists c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apâ—stolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid â—pulsamus caelum quum habemus in Evangelio testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum si quando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocunque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis â—nvenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as these To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanists have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clear in terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against Mâ— Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1. 8. Next he objects That Hereticks for their Heresie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10. 8. All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8. 12. I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lapide in Matth. 4. 6. shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91. 11. leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui
be necessary to believe any thing explicitely Does not Azor Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. qu. 1. bring in Directo and Rossel maintaining that its enough to believe what the Church believes though explicitely nothing in particular be believed Yet herein also they are contradicted by Sylvius Navarr and Azorius himself Can the Pamphleter give an inventory of all that their Church hath so imposed under pain of Anathema's as to make Fundamentals to her Disciples How then have these men a face to challenge others of their divisions about the number of Fundamentals Had the Pamphleter considered the distinction betwixt credenda facienda petenda he would have seen these forementioned seeming difficulties among Protestants were not so hard to be reconciled If one said the Creed contains summum credendorum the Decalogue faciendorum and the Lords Prayer petendorum If some have reduced the Sacraments to an Article of the Creed inter credenda others to a Precept of the Decalogue inter facienda the contrariety is not so great as the Pamphleter would insinuate Neither do all Persons take the word Fundamental in the same restristive sense Hence Paraeus in Irenico cap. 29. after he had branched forth the Fundamentals into four heads the Decalogue the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments subjoyns in his ipsis tamen Capiâ—ibus discrimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vcl minus ad salutem sunt necessaria To reduce the Pamphleters disorderly discourse of Fundamentals into some method I shall briefly enquire into these eight things 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals or Non Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion 2. Whether all Fundamentals be clearly contained in Scripture 3. Whether every thing which the Church imposes to be believed as an Article of Faith become on that very account a Fundamental 4. Whether there was a necessity of determining the precise number of Fundamentals for decision of the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author 5. Whether the Popish Religion be injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity 6. Whether the Waldensez Wicklevists and Hussites were of the same Religion as to Fundamentals with Protestants 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals 8. Whether the Religion of Protestants be openly against Gods Word and contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity as the Pamphleter does alledge SECT I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is saith he either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and beliefe thereof none can be saved Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fundamental If by Fundamental be understood that for which other Articles are to be believed then sure we must suppose there be other particulars which are believed for that As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith so there are distinct material Objects of Faith If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith which is the reason for which the rest are believed be one and the same then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity there be as many Non-Fundamentals If you take a Fundamental for that without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved I am sure likewise there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion Else the Romish implicite Colliar and all who walk in his Footsteps as do the plurality of their Communion must be damned eternally If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation and Fundamentals what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation and Gold Silver and Precious Stones built thereupon There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation which yet are not the Foundation Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith toward God when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths If all Articles of Faith be Fundamental and the explicite belief thereof absolutely necessary to Salvation than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont Epist Fundam cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit and so may be obnoxious to many errours in Religion But what speak I of the Multitude What did become of all the Fathers who were leavened with the Millenary error of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot 233. and lib. 6. annot 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vision before the day of Judgement of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian Cyprian Firmilian Deny's of Alexandria who maintained rebaptization What became of Austine Innocent the 1. and others who as Maldonat witnesses in John 6. 53. affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants Were all these Fathers damned eternally Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamental or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternally Do we not know but in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. Who can understand his Errors Psal 19. 12. If every Error did plunge men into Damnation who then could be saved I know the ordinary reply That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium the exclusion of Saints from the Beatisique Vision Rebaptization the necessity of the Eucharist be Heresies now in regard of of the declaration of the Church yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers This supposes another absurd Error which I hope Sect. 3. to consute viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Fundamental and consequently the basis falling the Superstructure cannot stand At present I onely argue thus if these points be Fundamental now which were not in the dayes of the Fathers than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was nor make we up one Catholick Church with them Their Religion and ours differâ—ng in Essentials If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization It should therefore follow that St. Cyprian and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamentally Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints for Firmilian is Sainted in
which he infers from his Syllogism viz. that therefore all Articles of Faith are equally ponderous and Fundamental that is unless he intend to equivocate that there is an equal necessity of the explicit belief of every one of them to the eternal salvation of souls This consequent I deny because though all revealed Articles be revealed by an infinite Verity and with an infinite certainty yet not with equal perspicuity and so are not with equal facility penetrable by our weak understandings nor is the explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nuâ—la pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Screne Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far â—â—ss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly contrâ—v â— de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvaoion 2 Tim 3. 15. Were they not written for this end Joh. 20. 3. that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1. 8. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Hermogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanosius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut loquamini quae scripta non sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Sermâ— de Psâ—udo
corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euclids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some account was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given