to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
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 acconnt 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 to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance 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 until 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
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 and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. oâ—ntrov 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D. Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomel cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17.8 Mat. 18.17 Mat. 16.19 he should have said Mat. 18.28 20. 1 Tim. 3.13 he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Profelites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly
concerning this 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 ergo 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 Priuciples are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some of these are grosly misâ—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 Priuter 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 Odi fastum 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 Chrysâ—st 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 deâ—eased 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
he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if be did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2. Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scriptutis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesis sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4.4 verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does bewray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catich 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity
present Romish Religion was received by the ancient Church such as half Communions picturing and adoring Images of the Trinity the whole present worship of the Virgin Mary the performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue the necessity of an Infallible visible judge the prohibiting of reading Scriptures in vulgar Tongues Indulgences the necessity of auricular Confession the necessity of the Priests intention to make Sacraments offectual the Popes Supremacy and Soveraignty over Princes c. Who is the Protestant that ever acknowledged these things to have been ever received in the Catholick Church I profess I never read of him nor knew him nor I believe shall he ever be found Whereas Jewel said That Truth was not known untill the Preaching of Luther and Zuinglius that must surely be understood secundum quid as Dr. Francis Whyte observes lib. cit pag. 267. for Jewel gave a most solemn challenge to Papists at Pauls Cross to make out one Article of their Religion out of one Father for 600. years after Christ which challenge he prosecuted against Harding What D. John White saith in defence of his way cap. 37. That Popery was a Leprosie breeding in the Church so Vniversally that there was no visible company appearing in the world free from it makes nothing against what is said Nay in these words he distinguishes betwixt the Church and that Leprosie of Popery and by saying that it was a Leprosie in the Church he affirms the existence of both The meaning of the Doctor only was that in these latter times wherein Popish errors and superstition spread so far in this Western part of the World though God preserved many from imbracing these errours yet they kept external Communion with the rest even as those seven thousand in the days of Elias did with the rest of Israel Thirdly when some Fathers are charged with some errors which is all that these testimonies amount to it doth not follow that all the Fathers were smitten therewith Though Cyprian erred in the Rebaptization though Tertullian did Montanize Pope Liberius Arrianize many Asiaticks espouse the Quarto Deciman opinion Origen maintain positions which were justly anathematiz'd by the fifth general Council yet I hope all the Fathers much less the whole Church was not leavened with these errors Made I it not appear in my 9. paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 194.195 that none are more profuse in censuring Fathers then Romanists Bellarmine spares not to say lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 6. that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Epiphanius c. cannot be defended that Tertullian was an Arch-Heretick and of no credit lib. 1. de S S. Beat. cap. 5. and lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. That Cypran did not only erre but also mortally offend lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. that Prudentius speaks like a Poet and not like a Divine lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. that Jerom was deceived lib. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. that Austin had no skill in the Hebrew lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 10. that himself little regarded Damasus Pontifical lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. that Sozomen was a manifest lyar lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 14. Neither is it only single Fathers they thus undervalue but oft-times will prefer three before 7. two before eight one before five of all which Dr. James gives luculent instances part 4. yea sometimes they condemn whole Armies of Fathers All the Fathers with one voice affirm saith Melchior Canus lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin Chrysost Euseb Ambrose Austin c. and as Dr. James observes some bring 200. others 300. Fathers to confirm this opinion yet what saith that Bishop of the Canaries of all these Cum nullus Sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contrarium probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur i. e. It s but a weak argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers yea the contrary notwithstanding their suffrages may be piously defended Are these the men who challenge us for undervaluing Fathers who put such contempt upon them In very deed they regard no Fathers further then they can serve their interest Both Scriptures and Fathers must stoop to the authority of the present Church of Rome that is the Pope How many bastard Fathers have they legitimated How many true Fathers have they castrated Hence is that observe of Dr. Don in his pseudo-Martyâ— cap. 6. Sect. 30. according to Romanists the Scripture is a Divin Law the writings or interpretations of Fathers a subdivin Law but the decretalls of Popes a superdivin Law whereunto Scripturs Councils and Fathers must bend and bow Yet I must do them right they have one evasion according to which they do wrong to no Father for if the Pope prohibit the writings of such an Author he ceases to be a Father he is but as Gretser the Jesuit phraseth it Vitricus a step Father Nor need Fathers complain of this usage seeing the Pope usurps the like Authority upon the Scripturs of God Neither shall Fathers be Fathers nor Scriptures be Scriptures except it please the Pope Is not this that man of sin that exalts himself above all that is called God I deny not but some Protestants may have been too rash in their censurs of Fathers perhaps not fully penetrating the scope of Fathers or not distinguishing betwixt their genuine and supposititious writings have supposed them to favour errors from which others yea and somtimes the same authors also upon better advisment have vindicated them As I cannot in this wholly justify the Magdeburgion Centurists so I cannot but notice how this Pamphleter hath either through ignorance or malice injured them He brings in the Centurists reprehending Cyprian Origen and Tertul in the third Gentury and Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters primacy and again reprehending Cyprian for owning the sacrifice of the Mass and generally confessing that the Fathers of the third age did witness the invocation of Saints It 's true the Magdeburgians Cent. 3. cap. 4. tit de inclinatione Doctrinae seem to say somthing of Cyprian and Tertull as favouring primacy yet cap. 7. tit de primatu they not only affirm but positively undertake to demonstrate that the head-ship and supremacy of the Bishop or Church of Rome was acknowledged by none in that age and particularly they say that Origen never asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and bring in Cyprian giving luculent testimonies against it in his debates with Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome Yea and they explain those other expressions of Cyprian which seemed to favour primacy as making nothing for that supremacy which Romanists now plead for So likewise Cent. 4. cap. 7. tit de primatu Pag. 314. edit Basil 1624. They deny that Nazianzen ever asserted any primacy of the Bishop of Rome but primatum ordinis Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass
Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex superabundanti 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 Ghurch 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 Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No
Roma Mendax OR THE FALSHOOD OF ROMES HIGH PRETENCES TO INFALLIBILITY and ANTIQUITY EVICTED In confutation of an Anonymous Popish Pamphlet undertaking the defence of Mr. Dempster Jesuit BY JOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinity in Aberdene Greg. Nissen lib. 10. cont Eunom in append ad opera Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the sign of the Sun over against St. Dunstanes Church in Fleet-street 1675. IMPRIMATUR Guliel Wigan Reverendissimo in Christo Pat. D. D Humfr. Episc Lond. a Sacr. Dom. May 27 1674. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy Seal and one of his Majestys most Honourable Privy Council My Lord THough learned â—ens in most countries of Europe have travelled successfully these many years in discovering the impostures of Rome so as it might seem sufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates already extant on that subject Yet the sedulity of the ministers of that Church in proposing Sophisms often and long ago confuted in a new dress as if they were new topicks yea unheard of demonstrations thereby to ensnare unwary Readers doth impose a necessity upon sincere Lovers of Truth for undeceiving the simple to resume old Grounds from Scripture Antiquity and reason formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's This had the stronger influence upon me to write these cursory animadversions upon a Popish Pamphlet otherwise of small significancy because some through a lazy humour will not others being immersed in worldly entanglements hardly can peruse the large volumns of Chamier Whittaker Calvin Zanchius Jewel Usher Junius Chemnitius Gerard and other Champions for the Truth yea some are smitten with such a fancy of Novelty thaâ— nothing doth relish with them unless it come smoaking from the Press I shall not deny but I was likewise moved with a just indignation against the disputing party among Romanists many of whom being byassed with interest seem to violent their own consciences in obtruding impostures on the World Can it be supposed that men of such raised parts and eminent learning who cannot but be sensible from their own failours of the weaknesses attending humane intellects should believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical decisions seeing those who often sit therein are known neither to be men of greatest learning and Piety nor ever did God since the foundation of the World entail infallibility upon an elective succession of persons chiefly when secular interests and intrigues of Policy have the chief stroke in the election Can they believe an universal Monarchy over all Princes and Churches to be setled by a divine donation on the Bishop of Rome seeing Scripture hath no vestige of that fifth Monarchy unless it be in the Apocalyptick predictions and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not spared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions Can they believe the lawfulness of Image-worship whatever Metaphysical distinctions they have coyned to put a fair gloss on the matter it being so expresly prohibited in the decalogue and no practice thereof occurring in the Chatholick Church for three Ages and upwards after Christ whereof those great Antiquaries cannot be ignorant Can these great masters of reason believe the prodigius figment of transubstantiation which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius Ovid or Aesop and is so luculently repugnant to the common sense and reason of all mankind that a great man among themselves going to Mass is reported to have been so ingenuous as to say Eamus ad communem errorem Can they justifie the Lawfulness of half Communions without fighting with their own consciences these being confessedly opposite to the primitive institution and to the known practice not onely of the Catholick Church but also of the Roman for many Ages who would not be moved with indignation that men should upon designe abuse their parts and wit to cheat the World I know not how to reconcile these men to themselves unless it be supposed that because they received not the Truth in love they are given up to strong delusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant Bellarmine Barronius Perron and others of that Cabal have said much for an ill cause They have indeed shewed themselves to be men of great parts but of very evil consciences They who devote their endowments to the patrociny of heresie would remember that errors in religion are such creasy and burdensome superstructures that the strongest shoulders must needs shrink under them My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the sequacious multitude in the Roman Communion who in the Simplicity of their hearts surrender themselves to the conduct of such teachers How grateful is it to these who love easie methods of Religion among whom are not only those of the meaner sort of people but also many of greater quality to be fred from serious inquiries after divine truths by an implicite submission to infallible guides and having once intrusted their faith to those teachers how secure do they judg themselves being taught by no meaner Casuist then Cardinal Tolet that it s not onely safe but also meritorius to believe the doctrines taught by their teachers though false on the matter untill they know that the Roman Church teaches otherwise Thus the leaders of these deluded people cause them to err Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers be sufficient apology for them at the great day This rather will be their condemnation that upon such a pellucide and improbable pretence they should have made small account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scripture which God hath charged those to search who would find eternal Life Joh. 5.34 From this search nothing doth more deterr people then the thorny and litigious debates raised by School-men and Controversists as if men behoved turn Scepticks in religion if they did not implicitly intrust the conduct of their Faith to a Romish infallible guide But blessed be our God it s not a matter of such insuperable difficulty to find out the truth of Religion in the holy Scripture as they who design the inslaving peoples consciences do pretend If prejudices once being laid aside men would apply themselves sincerely to the use of appointed means For the wisdome of God hath with a perspicuity accommodated to the weakest capacities revealed these things which are necessary to Salvation according to that of Hilary In absoluto facili est Aeternitas Non per difficiles questiones nos ad vitam Aeternam vocat Deus and a greater then Hilary the Apostle of the Gentiles 2 Cor. 4.3 If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and a greater then hoth our Saviour Christ Joh. 7.17 If any do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God One thing I am sure it s much more easie to find out the true religion in Scripture then by any means whatsoever to attain a rational evidence of Papal or
by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question 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 bic 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 be 〈◊〉 we 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 His 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 Bishop of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the lesser 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 spâ—re 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 Judgeâ— 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
vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8.20 Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more iudibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23.28 What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of
vindicated Deut. 17.8 in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17 in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19 in his cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28.20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15 in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peccat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8.7 to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17.8 c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17.8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33.4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.11 or what meant these general complaints Isai 56.10 Jer. 6.13 Jer. 14.14 Hos 9.8 Ezek. 22.25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v.
Claim to this Promise by enjoyning many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocaring Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3.15 Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doth stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est eagn secre esse primum ens c. Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behâ—ve thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Naziauzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19. to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo-Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. eolumna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmata quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13.3 it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe
Martyrs of all Sexes and Ages under most exquisite torments whose resoluteness could not proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit affectation of vain-glory want of sense of their sufferings or Philosophical fortitude but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles wrought not in corners or only among Favourites but in the open view of the world in the face of sagacious and desperate Enemies who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scripture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven among whom were Theâ—pâ—mpus and Theodectes one of whom as Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus was smitten with Madness and the other with Blindness for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Consciences beyond all natural force both for terrour and comfort yea and for sanctification also And besides are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures such as the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts the unfathomable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries which though Reason could never find out yet being once discovered Reason it self cannot but acknowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile the wonderful methods for satisfying Divine Justice reconciling sinners to God and pacifying afflicted Consciences And lastly not to mention more the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable insomuch that it 's beyond controversie amongst Christians though otherwise of various perswasions that the Scripture is the Word of God Hence Bell is forced to say lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius nihil est notius and a little after Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque est that is the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing Nay more he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures his words are Vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget Secondly If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things necessary to Salvation they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them which is Joh. 20.31 That we may believe and believing have eternal life If it be answered that they accomplish their end in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church or by the definitions of the infallible Judge this is easily repelled because either the Church and the infallible Judge gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly propound from Scripture or not if from Scripture then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly else could they not have been gathered from Scripture if the Church and the supposed infallible Judge have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture then the Scriptures does not cannot effectuate the end for which it was made viz. to work Faith in us and to guide us to Eternal Life but that end is brought about by the Church and by other means Romanists to use the phrase of a late Writer represent God speaking in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles that the Pope and his Parasites may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers lib. 10. de Trinit is no less excellent than famous Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam nocat quaestiones In absoluto nobis facili est aeternitas How impious is it to say that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived to satisfie different interests Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof Though Papists and other Hereticks do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible yet doth not their own practice at other times confute them Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions How impertinent were this kind of arguing if Scripture were not intelligible Neither can it be said that they argue thus only ad hominem against us for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us unless they supposed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true Yea does not this Pamphleter pag. 106 107 108 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express against the Doctrine of Protestants These Scriptures shall be considered in their own place Now only doth not his alledging them suppose them intelligible especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them 'T is true there be obscure places in Scripture yet as Austin lib. de util credendi cap. 6. excellently observes the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè piè ut vera Religio pâ—scit accedat i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer And again Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis exercemur obscuris ibi fames pellitur hic sastidium i. e. clear Scriptures feed us obscure places exercise us by the one our hunger is satisfied by the other our loathing is prevented And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum before his Commentaries on Job the Scripture is a River Planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet both shallow and deep wherein a Lamb may walk and an Elephant swim Thirdly Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 How could they accomplish this end if they did not contain all that is necessary to salvation If Romanists run to their old Evasion that what is wanting in the Scripture is supplied by the Church they are readily contuted for then the Scripture were not able to make us wise to salvation but the Church by other means should do it If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture either they are more sublime than these in Scripture or not Not more sublime Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity Incarnation Resurrection all which are undoubtedly in Scripture If then they be but inferiour Truths seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to writing how kept he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
reciprocal properties of Water but after that the Word was made Flesh the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word as being immutable and the Flesh or his Humane Nature remained Flesh And therefore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him that he had flesh and bonet Luke 24.39 Were it proper here for me to digress to a confutation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious and inconsequential without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge which the Pamphleter and all the Romish Party will not be able to do concerning the Protestant Religion Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy or cauterized Conscience who is bold to say that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnation of Christ Nay he shall find in its proper place that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted not only by other luculent Scriptures but also by these words of Christ This is my Body which they apprehend do most favour their Cause and which the Pamphleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists and by the Apostle S. Paul but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book than with the four Evangelists for one of them namely S. John has not those words where also my argument against M. Demster to this purpose shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types Symbols and Figures of his Body and Blood as they are termed by Fathers then surely he had a real Body and real Blood But does it from this follow that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence Nay on the contrary in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood And here by the way I must advise him not to expose his ignorance to such publick view as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost Hom. 6. as if Chrysost had written Homilies but upon one place of Scripture such Lax Citation will make people suspect that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers as they would make the world believe From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying Sect. 4. and he joyns with him Osiander against Melancton It might be enough to tell him that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology it was as fitly entituled A liberty of Prophecying as the Pamphleters Book Scolding without Scholarship As the one discovered more scolding than either sobriety or Scholarship so the other took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow Quisque suos patimur manes It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks that in the mentioned Treatise he disputed the more sceptically to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions and consequently more tender to himself and others of his perswasion Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean Casuists may determine A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony I leave to be got from D. Shirman for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was objected by F. Johnson cap. 4. num 23. only I add that D. Taylor notwithstanding all his sceptical discourse in that Treatise demonstrates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed and he brings Sect. 6 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament by conferring of Scriptures confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives I am little concerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton for it 's but too well known that Andreas Osiander of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks did unhappily ingage himself in some Paradoxal Dâ—bates with his own Brethren Neither can his own Son Lucas Osiander in Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves how then can he rationally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper against M. Demster pag. 218 219. that it's the Reformed Religion agreed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their conressions which I defend and hope to make good not only against such a Scribler as this Pamphleter but also against the whole Conclave of Rome His digression concerning a private spirit from pag. 69. to 72. being wholly impertinent I judge unworthy of an Answer How oft have Protestants declared to the world they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms or secret objective Revelations This they leave to Quakers and to the Romish infallible visible Judge who having no external infallible Rule to walk by must proceed upon these But the Rule of our Faith is the publick external testimony of the Spirit in the Scriptures If under a pretence of excluding a private spirit he excludes a discretive judgment he excludes the use of Reason which Faith always presupposes or if he exclude the necessity of the Spirits assistance by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture he turns Pelagian and contradicts his own Authors who are constrained to acknowledge it As for any further use of a private spirit I had almost said of a Familiar when he hath cleared his Popes and infallible Judges of it we shall be near a settlement as to that thing An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit what it is and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of
Polit. lib. 4. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture is only termed Judge because its the Law of the Supreme Judge having an Authoritative Power binding upon the Conscience and it 's honoured with the Title of a Judge both in Scripture and in the writings of Fathers Joh. 8.48 The word that I have spoken shall judge him Joh. 7.59 Doth our Law judge any man said Nicodemus before it hear him Hence S. Basil Epist 80. ad Eustach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Austin de gr lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos Judex Apostolus Joannes But all this is only so to be understood that it 's the Law and sentence of the Supreme Judge I answer secondly by retorfion As many Hereticks put divers senses upon Scripture neither will they acknowledge themselves to be condemned thereby so are there divers and contrary senses put by Romanists upon the definitions of their pretended infallible Judge neither will any of them acknowledg that their sentiments are condemned by the Pope or Council I could make a Volum of instances of this nature I only pitch on two And first the Council of Trent has defined Sess 4. cap. 2. that the Vulgar Latin Version of the Bible be held as Authentick and that none presume to reject it upon whatsoever pretext Habeatur pro Authentica quâ—d eam nemo rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat Is this definition of the Council clear either to learned or unlearned Knows he not the interminable debates of Romanâ—sts concerning the sense of this definition Doth not Azorius the Jesuit Tom. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 3. testifie that Andreas Vega Andradius Sixtus Senensis Melchior Canus and Lindanus maintain that the Council of Trent intended not to vindicate the Vulgar Version from all errours either of Transcribers or of the Interpreter himself but only from gross errours relating to Faith and Manners To these Calovius crit sac de Vulgatae Versionis Authoritate minime Authentica Sect. 143. adds Driedo Mariana Isidore Clarius Brugensis Jodocus Ravenstein but others as Azorius himself loc cit Lud de Tena in Isagog ad script lâ—b 1. Difficul 6. cap. 1. 3. Pine ad praefat in Ecclesiast cap. 13. Sect. 2. Greiser defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 11. and many others hold that the Vulgar Version is not tainted with the least errour and this Debate was prosecuted with such animosity that as Calovius reports Sect. 143. out of Mariana they impeached one another before Judicatories with mutual Criminations and a Congregation of Cardinals was delegated to explain the sense of the Council yet neither to this day is that Debate finished Take another instance from the Bull of Pope Innocent the Tenth against the five Propositions of Jansenius which the Jesuits apprehend to be wholly in their favours and yet what various senses are imposed thereon by the Jansenists may appear from the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus subjoyned to the Notes of Wendrokius upon the Provincial Letters at Helmâ—stad Anno 1664. Hence it follows that if various senses imposed upon the sentence of a Judge conclude that the giver of those sentences is not the Judge of Controversies then both Pope and Council are alike to be degraded from being Judges I answer therefore thirdly That it s enough that the Supreme Judge give out Law so clear that all Subjects might understand his sentences if the disability be not from themselves And such are the Scriptures of God though the prejudices of Infidel Jews will not let them understand that Jesus is the Messiah doth it therefore follow that the Scriptures have not clearly declared him to be the Messiah or if Ebionites and Arrians will not acknowledge Christ to be God doth it follow he is not there revealed to be the true God or if Socinians will not acknowledge him to have satisfied Divine Justice is it not therefore clearly enough revealed in Scripture The Pamphleter spends Paper in vain to prove the consistency of the Law with a Judge for that is not denied by Protestants we acknowledge that Councils have a Judiciary Power and that the general sentences of Scripture may be applyed by them for determining particular Controversies But that which is in question is whether Pope or Council have an infallible assistance whereof we must antecedently be ascertained before we believe any Divine Truth This the Pamphleter should have proved but that here he doth not once touch Page 77. The Pamphleter raises no little dust with some Citations of D. Field especially in his lib. 4. cap. 14 18 19. as if he asserted the consenting judgment of them that went before us to be the Rule of Faith and not the conferring of places nor looking to the Originals and that never any Protestant taught otherwise for which the Pamphleter would excommunicate me from the Protestant Churches But who authorized him to declare who be Protestants and who not Ne sutor ultra crepidam Is there a syllable in all my Papers derogating from the due esteem of Fathers Did I not still offer to debate the truth of our Religion from Antiquity as well as Scripture Did I not conclude their Religion spurious because it differs in its Essentials from the Ancient Church I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to let me have an account of Universal Tradition for Adoration of Images half Communions Apocryphal Scriptures the Popes Supremacy the necessity of an infallible visible Judge c. How scurvily is D. Field dealt with by these men Does not the Doctor complain Append. ad lib. 5. Part. 2. Sect. 5. that for what he had written concerning the Rule of Faith he was censured by Romanists as framing a new Religion for Sir Thomas Mores Vtopia yet this Pamphleter on the other hand makes these Assertions of D. Field to be the Standard of the Protestant Religion It is a falshood that D. Field makes consent with those who went before us to be the only Rule of Faith or the sine quo non for interpreting of Scripture for lib. 4. cap. 14. he reckons forth seven Rules of Faith and that comes but in towards the Rear Again in cap. 19. he enumerates seven means for finding out the sense of Scripture among which the knowledge of Original Tongues and conferring Texts are not omitted Yea cap. 17. he positively asserts with Cajetan Andradius Jansenius Maldonat that in interpretation of Scripture we may go contrary to the torrent of Antiquity and he concludes them highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader wherewith the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let
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 ciserimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vel 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 obnexious to many â—â—ours 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 Vission 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 Alsxandria 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 Beatifique 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 confute 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 differing 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 the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication
pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russiu Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one auother sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholica therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39. Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stilling fleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Jesephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5.17 that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornlius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancihon Cruciger Alefius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22.19 it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their samous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary which he inferâ— 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
Faith annexed to H. T. his Manual of Controversies reprinted at Doway 1671 many copies whereof were lately apprehended at Leith and consequently they rend themselves from the greater part of the Christian Church SECT IV. Whether was it necessary for the decision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals ANswer negatively for 1. the particular question betwixt him and me when he turned to that usual to pick and subterfuge of Romanists concerning the precise number of Fundamentals was whether the Scriptures do clearly contain all things necessary to Salvation But this general as I told in my sixth paper pag. 92. may be proved without an induction and precise enumeration of all Fundamentals and this I made out by clear Scriptures which he never once examined But 2. take the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and me in the greatest latitude It was concerning the religion of Protestants and not of the particular sentiments of this or that Protestant Author seeing therefore as I told in my tenth Paper pag. 219. that the Reformed Churches in their harmony of Confessions had not determined that precise Catalogue should I have pitched upon it I had left my work to follow a tergiversing Vagrant 3. As it was not necessary so neither was it expedient that I being a private person should take on me to define the precise Catalogue of Fundamentals and the rather seeing the Romish Church extending the number of Fundamentals too farr hath Schismatically separated her self from the body of the Catholick Church Nor do I know any thing more destructive to the publick peace of the Church then the rash and unadvised determination of Fundamentals for by that means who ever acknowledge not all these are in the judgement of such persons excluded from the Catholick Church and Salvation excellently said Luther as cited by Mr. Baxter Saints rest part 1. pag. 138. Edit 4. nihil pestilentius in ecclesia doceri potest quam siea que necessaria non sunt necessaria fiant hac enim tirannide conscientiae illaqueantnr libertas fidei extinguitur 4. If a man believe all Fundamentals though he cannot precisely distinguish them from integrals he may be saved Can Romanists for all the noise they make about Fundamentals define the precise number of them why then being so often required particularly by learned Chillingworth and Tillotson as I instanced paper 7. pag. 122. have they never done it yea Dr. Holden in Anal fid lib. 1. cap. 4. affirms it to be unreasonable to demand it and impossible to perform it But 5. It s an impudent fals-hood which this Pamphleter often repeats in his 5. Section that I had affirmed that the number of Fundamentals cannot be determined let him instance the place without varying my words when I did affirm this Nay I was so far from it that I challenged Mr. Dempster of the same untruth paper 7. pag. 122. But Jesuits will not blush though deprehended in such Peccadillo's All his pretext for this is from a testimony of Mr. Chillingworth part 1. cap. 3. Sect. 13. cited by me wherein that Author affirms that more may be necessary to the Salvation of some then of others and therefore to call for a precise Catalogue of points necessary to the Salvation of every one were as if one should call for a diall to serve all meridians or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes Concerning which testimony I desire these things to be noted 1. This Pamphleter as if he had been left to divine concerning the Author of that testimony speakes as one that gave a specimen of his great reading saying Mr Chillingworth is the Man as I conceive and yet I had in my tenth paper pag. 219. not only named Chillingworth but pointed at Cap and Sect where this testimony was to be found 2. This was Mr. Chillingworths assertion not mine The most I said of it was paper 6. pag. 92. What if it should be added that more is requisite to the Salvation of one then another whereupon a great Divine whom I by name expressed paper 10. pag. 219. spared not to say c. But I did not positivly own his assertion Yet 3. it may safely be said that more may be required to the Salvation of one then of another and that it s as impossible to determine a Catalogue of truths necessary to the Salvation of every one as to find out a dial to serve all Meridians or a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes and yet not be impossible to determine Fundamentals properly and strictly so called For clearing of this it would be considered that there be two kinds of truths necessary to Salvation some primarly simply and absolutely without the explicite belief whereof no adult person can be saved and these are strictly taken Fundamentals others are onely necessary secundum quid and Secundarily as when a point of truth is discovered to be revealed by God though in it self it be not absolutely necessary yet in these circumstances a man cannot disbelieve it or impugn it and continue therein without throwing himself upon damnation For to oppugn known truth is a sin which without repentance necessarily infers damnation On this account Mr. Chillingworth said that the precise number of necessary truths could not be determined because one may see more of the material objects of Faith to be revealed than another and so more may be necessary to the Salvation of one than of another and consequently its impossible that a certain number for all should be determined and so much also is acknowledged by Dr. Vane Lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 88. Yet this concludes no impossibility of determining the number of the first kind of necessary truths without the explicite belief whereof no adult person may be saved though I neither judge it necessary nor expedient to be done by me a the present perhaps also an Article of religion may be more clearly revealed then the Fundamentaly of it for though it be absolutly necessary to Salvation that Fundamentals be believed yet it s not absolutely necessary that every Fundamental be believed under this reduplication as a Fundamental Among other reasons why it hath pleased the Lord not to reveal the Fundamentality of all Fundamentals as clearly as the Articles themselves this may be one lest people resting on the knowledg of Fundamentals should be less solicitous in searching after other divine truths which though not of absolute necessity yet are very precious It will be time to answer his squibs and raillery from the changes of the Moon when he has vindicated not only their own Missionaries who are known for most part to be a company of Apostate Runnagado's but also the body of their religion and missal from multifarious changes which some have not unfitly resembled to a beggars coat patched up at sundry times of clouts of many colours But how shall it be known saith the Pamphleter pag
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impudent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder is necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatican Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are 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 Euolids 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
furely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180.181 he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold our that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Gouncils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Gatholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Famphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm that real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2.9 that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an
est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentence As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuiâ—y or ignorance For pag. 33 34 35 36 37. more like a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumorous iâ—vectâ—ve against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Cathalick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Demster against the necessiâ—y of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication 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