AN ANSWER To a little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR A New and infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY Printed in the Year 1686. TO THE READER AT this time in which all that comes from Pen or Pulpit against Popery is of so good Coyn with PROTESTANTS that they have Re-printed a late in Scotland to amuse more the Ignorant People a little Book bearing for the Title A New Method c. I have resolved to put an Answer of it to the Press Altho' it pleases the Author to call it New I scarce find any New thing in it it containing hardly any thing which has not been Objected and Answered His turn indeed from the R. Catholick Religion to the Protestant was then New but it and all its Circumstances being of small or no importance to the publick I take no notice of it For the Dogmatical part of his Book since he runs through allmost all our Articles endeavouring so to blemish every one with his Pen that his Book seems more to be a Slanderous Libel then a Confutation of our Religion I have thought it was not amiss to give it such an Answer as might be both a Solution to what is Objected and an Explanation of our Tenets in that manner that it may appear how much they wrong us when the R. Catholick Religion is represented to the Common People as groundless and full of Superstition And for this latter Reason Courteous Reader you will excuse me if I am a little longer then seem'd to require the Answer of so small a matter To make my Work less tedious to those who will do me the Honour to Read it I have divided the whole into several Chapters Sections and Subsections with Titles relating to their different Subjects Fare-well Unto the Right Honourable JAMES EARL OF PERTH c. Lord High Chancellour of SCOTLAND Sir GEORGE LOCKHART Lord President of the Session GEORGE Viscount of Tarbet Lord Clerk-Register Sir James Foulis of Collingtoun Lord Justice-Clerk Sir John Lockhart of Cassle-Hill Sir David Balfour of Forret Sir James Foulis of Reidfoord Sir Roger Hogg of Hearease Sir Andrew Birnie of Saline Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn Sir John Murray of Drumcairn Sir George Nicolson of Kemnay John Wauchop of Edmistoun Sir Thomas Stewart of Balcasky Sir Patrick Lyon of Carse Senators of the Colledge of Justice and Ordinar Lords of Council and Session JOHN Marquess of ATHOL c. Lord Privy Seal WILLIAM Duke of Hamiltoun c. ALEXANDER Earl of Murray c. Secretary of State for the Kingdom of Scotland PATRICK Earl of Strathmore c. Extraordinar Lords of the Council and Session MY LORDS YOu are the Great Reasoners of this Nation our Wise Kings have judiciously set you on your Seats with Power to bring other Men to Reason Wherefore I hope you will not take it ill I beg your Patronage and favourable Look upon a Book which defends it self not so much by Authority as by Reason Passages from the Holy Fathers it backs by Reason to Passages of the Holy Scripture it submits with Reason for Faith is Superior to Reason and Reason it self tells us that to Faith we must submit our Reason Would we think that Man reasonable who would doubt to submit his Reason to God the Principle of Reason God will and ought to be Worshiped our Nature and Reason tells us but how we know not unless he himself reveal it Some thought the Deity they acknowledged was to be Worshiped with the Sacrifice of themselves or the Burning of their Children as some Pagans In the Old Law they thought God was to be Ador'd by the Sacrifice of Beasts But in the New we abhor such Sacrifices Roman Catholicks among Christians offer him daily the Sacrifice of his Son Incarnate Protestants condemn this Sacrifice and content themselves to Honour him with the improper Sacrifice of their Prayers and of sorrow for their Sins From this Variety of Judgement in Men as to the Worship of God Let us Reason My Lords certainly God is not at present content to be Worshiped by any of these waies I please for one disallows the other Judging it abominable If the Spirit of God moves me to one of these in particular the same Spirit cannot move another to abhor my way of Worship and condemn it and if it be the true Spirit that moves him who condemns me 't is not the true Spirit by which I am moved so that its impossible for Man to know by which way he ought to turn himself to God without a Revelation You see then 't is but Natural to expect it from him and that we would be all at a stand without it We find in our selves a violent inclination to Lust Intemperance and other Evils lay aside the Revelation of Original Sin the cause of these Disorders to whom shall we ascribe it Shall we say that God who made our Nature and all that is in it implanted in us these vitious inclinations No. They are Motions contrary to the Motions of his Spirit a Law contrary to the Law of God they formally oppose his Sanctity and contradict him speaking to us by Reason Rom. 7.23 They cannot be then from God but from whom else we had not known had we not had a Divine Revelation When we following our Appetites have worked against Reason Reason tells us we have offended the Author or Giver of our Reason but again in what manner we ought to make amends we know not without a Revelation We Christians then unanimously conceive that God has revealed both what he would have us Believe of him and what he would have us do to serve him And hold that all those Divine Truths are shut up in a Book we call the Bible We all run to this Book earnest to know what is our Duty to God which is indeed as the wise Man saies omnis Homo and without which in Truth nihil est omnis Homo But who shall Interpret this Book to us We see our greatest Divines cannot agree among themselves in the sense of it how shall meaner Capacities hope to understand it When we are at variance in our understanding of a Passage and which misunderstood is our Destruction 2 Petr. 3.16 Who shall be our Judge to set him who is wrong right and so compose our difference The Scripture it self by a conference of Passages My LORDS I appeal to your Wisdom and your Knowledge of the Duty of a Judge or a Man in your Station Is it not the part of a Judge so to give Sentence that all present may know who of the two Dissenting Parties is in the right or who is in the wrong according to the Judges Sentence But after the Scripture has said all it can to our learndest Men after they have conferred Passage with Passage in the Vulgar and Original Tongues Prayed used what other means you please excepting their submission to an Infallible Church Neither of them will avow
to say that the Protestant Church is fallible Because if she befallible she may deny a reveal'd Truth and who told you she does not and so in sensu composito of Protestancy i. e. at the same time that she is Protestant she may become Heretick or be both at once Protestant and Heretick If you say she is Infallible and cannot become Heretick I ask how came the Romau Church which was once as true a Church as the Protestant Church is now since St. Paul saies Romans 1. v. 8. their Faith was anounc'd or Preach'd through the whole World to be fallible and Heretick If you say this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick is an Act of Science then it must rely upon an evidence No other but that of Scripture and so it returns to an Act of Faith If you say 't is an Act of Opinion only for one of these three either an Act of Faith of Science or Opinion it must be then the contrary is also probable then its probable that a Protestant is an Heretick and consequently it may be said without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice a Protestant is an Heretick or denyes a reveal'd Truth CHAP. IV. The Infallibility of General Councils defended SECT I. St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior fully answered OUr Adversary conscious to himself that we put the Definitions of approv'd General Councils in the number of reveal'd Truths Grants indeed that Protestants deny General Councils to be Infallible in their Decisions but their Infallibility saies he is no Article of Faith Else Augustin was an Heretick avouching de Bap lib. 2. contra Donatis c. 3. That General Councils gathered out of all the Christian World are often corrected the former by the latter the correction of a Council undoubtedly supposes a precedent Error and a Council to be Errable as every one understands that knows any thing Answer St. Augustin does not say often corrected but mended there is a great difference between these two Words the one supposes an Error the other only whatsomever defect it being deriv'd from menda which as Scaliger in his notes upon varro remarks comes from the Latin adverb minus and properly signifies any defect whatsomever A Master Painter draws a Lady his piece is prais'd as well done having all its just proportions and perfectly all her Features Another Master draws her again with a little more Life he is also said to have drawn her well nay to have mended the other So well suffers a Latitude without the Compass of Error The first did well but as we say in Latine minus Benè Altho' two Scholers compose a Theam both without Error yet one may have made minus Benè then the other i. e. with less Elegance If you ask me in what this amendment of a General Council was or may be made I Answer if you will have this amendment to be the correction of an Error of a General approv'd Council it is to be understood in some matters of Fact or some precepts of maners which depending of the circumstance of Time Place and Persons may have been right and good at one time and in convenient at another and therefore chang'd by reason of the change of circumstances And that this was the meaning of St. Augâ—stin I prove by his following Words pleanary Countils may be amended the former by the latter when saies he by some experiment of things that is Opened which was shut up and that known which lay hid I ask can we know by any experiment of things how many persons are in the Divine Nature How many in CHRIST how many Sacraments No but the Truth of a Fact which lay hid with time may come to Light and so alter the mind of the Judge You 'l say the matter in Question here with St. Augustin and the Donatists was a matter of Faith Ans The matter which gave the occasion to Augustin to speak of General Councils I grant the matter at which he hinted in these last Words plenaria Saepe priora posterioribus emendari I deny and with ground Because when he speaks of the Letters of Bishops and of Provincial or National Councils he uses these Words Licere reprehendi Siquid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est which import a capacity of down right Error as I said afore And speaking of General Councils he cautiously uses the Word Emendari which imports only some defect whatsomever All this is strongly confirm'd by his saying in the same Chap that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his Opinion had the point in his time been defin'd by a General Council And again by what he sayes Lib. primo de Bap. contra donat Tom. 7. that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General Council how can this be true if in his Opinion a General Council may Err I ask again had there been more then the first four General Councils the fourth being that of Chalcedon held under Leo the first the year of our Lord four hundred and fifty which four General Councils St. Gregory respected as the four Evangils when St. Augustin said this and yet he sayes Saepe Emendari had he seen any mended in matter of Faith Lastly I give to take from you all Scruple that a General Council may be mended as to the want of a more clear Explication by a posterior when experience shows us that some new arising Errors demand a more ample Declaration of some point of Doctrine already defin'd But that New Declaration gives you no more a new point of Doctrine then I give you a new Rose when I blow out a bud which is in your hand you have no more of a Rose than you had before but only a fuller sight of it No more have you of the truth in such an Explanation then you had before but onely a clearer sight of it In fine if a posterior Council might correct a former in matter of Faith 't would serve for nothing for why am I more sure of this than they of the former This were only to breed confusion and foment division while the adherents of one party clash with the other since neither has Infallibility as you suppose A Subject Another objecton solv'd OUr Adversary brings another passage out of St. Augustin against Maximian an Arian Bishop lib. 3 cap. 4. But first St. Augustin has not wrote any thing against any Arian Bishop called Maximian as you may see in the Index of his Works He has indeed written three Books against Maximinus an Arian Bishop but in the fourth chap of the third Book he quot's there is no such thing as this passage which he sets down thus Neque ego teneor concilio Niceno neque tu Arimenenci Neque standum tibi est Authoritati hujus nec mihi illius Ponenda materia cum materia causa cum causa ratio cum ratione examinanda res Authoritate
Nice nor you the Council of Arimini as to prejudge one another to wit because Austin was cast by the Council of Arimini as Maximinus was cast or condemned by the Council of Nice Nec ego hujus Authoritate nec tu illius detineris that is neither am I taken convinced by the Authority of this of Arimini or you by the Authority of that of the Council of Nice viz. because as I reject the Authority of the Council of Arimini so you reject the Authority of the Council of Nice Scripturarum Authoritatibus non quorumcumque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet Let mater contend with matter cause with cause and reason with reason by the Aurthorities of Scriptures which are not proper to each of us as the Nicene Council is to me and that of Arimini to you but common witnesses to both 2. Now see how he has falsified this passage to make appear that St. Augustin did not stand to the Authority of an approved General Council Where he saies neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini St. Austin saies Neither ought I to alledge the Council of Nice nor you the Council of Arimini Is this the same in Words or Sense He goes on Neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this i. e. of the Council of Arimini nor I to the Authority of that i. e. of the Council of Nice St. Austin has the quite contrary saying neither am I taken convinc'd by the Authority of the Council of Arimini nor you by the Authority of Nice Now be pleased to look back to pag. 35. and there you will find my Explication of the passage and how it does not hurt us at all or imply any apprehension in St. Augustin of Fallibility in a General approved Council 2. That Romanists are subject to be tortured with doubts of their Baptism 3. That we have an inticement to Sin by relying on Purgatory 4. That one distinguish Venial from Mortal Sin opens a Door to loosness 5. That we don't allow every one to read the Scripture 6. The Novelty of Transubstantiation the occasion of Idolatry and Hypocrisie in it 7. Our relying on the Mediations of Saints and our own Merits 8 Our mixing Superstition and Idolatry in our Divine Worship 9. Our not Adoring God in Spirit and Truth but under corporal shapes and having our recourse to the help of Saints 10. The diâ—â—ormity of our Ecclesiastical Discipline from primative times 11 Câ—r not serving God with freedom of Spirit but indangering our Souls by Vows Answer First our Faith does not believe the Decrees of Errable but of general approved and consequently infallible Councils as I have shown Chap. 4. in 3. Sections After all this I avow our Faith is an obscure knowledge and as St. Paul speak Hebâ— â—â— v â— a perswasion of things not appearing Buâ— 't is not so weak as that of Protestants that it needs the evidence of sense to support it 2. We have no reason to be tortured with doubts of our Baptism as may be seen in what I said Chap. â— in the 2. and 3 sect But Protestants have when they read in the Gospel Io. 3. v. 3. unless one be born over again by Water he can not see the Kingdom of Heaven Because they know their Church doth not look upon it as a thing necessary to Salvation and that many are wilfully at least among the Presbiterians permitted to Dye without it 3. We have no incitment to Sin by our belief of Purgatory because we believe the Pains of that place are greater than any Torment we can suffer in this World And who would willingly purchase to himself the pleasure he may enjoy by his Venial Adhesion to a Creature by the pains of the Stone Colick Gout Of Fire Rack Wheele and all that ever was suffered in this Life by a Malefactor But the less Godly of Protestants may have some encouragement to slight Sin believing that an Act of Faith at their Death will do the turn and if they be of the Elect they are sure to have it 4. We admit the destinction between Mortal and Venial Sin strongly grounded on Scripture a just Man falls seven times or often and rises up again Prov. 24.16 who remains just in his fall does not incur Damnation by it And Luke 1. v. 6. If Zachary and Elizabeth did not keep the Commandements of God perfectly in the Protestants sense At least their breaches of the Law were not Damnable bereaving them of their Justice and of the Friendship of God From Matth. 5. v. 23. You see there are some Sins Guilty of Hell others not Guilty of Heil Fire and such Sins we call Venial call them as you please so you distinguish them from failings depriving Men of the Friendship of GOD. But this does not open the Door to loosness for the reason I brought in my third Answer but the denying of this distinction opens the Door to a perpetual disturbance of mind dread and fear in a Protestant of Dying suddenly as many Dye after he has spoken an idle Word for this idle Word according to our Adversary is a Damnable breach of the Law of GOD and deserves his Eternal Wrath as being of an illimated Malice as he speaks and can't be forgiven in the other World but must be repented here under pain of Damnation Luke 13. v. 5. I suppose he won't say that Protestants have a Priviledge to repent afore hand for Sins to come 5. The Church does not indeed allow every Ignorant Person to read indifferently the whole Bible least by their misunderstanding some hard passages they find Death where others find Life As the Manicheans from that passage of Io. 8. v. 12. I am the Light of the World held that Christ was the Sun as St. Austin relates Trac 34. in Io. And the Seleutians misunderstanding that passage Math. 3. v. 11. he will Baptize you in the Holy Ghost and Fire made use of Fire instead of Water in Baptism witness the same St. Aug. Heresi 59. But she orders the Pastors to give out of it as St. Paul did not all to all but Milk to some and stronger Food to others See out of the following passage of St. Augustin that 't is not necessary that every one read the Holy Scripture Homo saies he fide spe charitate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos Itaque multi per haec tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt Aug. L. 1. de Doctr. Christi c. 19. A Man born up by Faith Hope and Charity and immoveably retaining them has no need of the Scripture unless it were to teach others So many by these three live in the Desert without the Scriptures 6. The Term Transubstantiation is new as the Term Omousios of the same substance against the