grounds to prove its conformity with the Scriptures but also to stop the mouth of a Caviller I declared to you what was that ground and I tooke it from Georgius Scholarius his Third Oration in the Councill of Florence and did appeale thereunto for the decision of all controversies betwixt us and you But you never once touched this ground How then could you imagine that you had confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with Scripture Doeth the Devil abuse the imaginations of Jesuited Hereticks as somesay that he doeth the fancy 's of Witches making them imagine that they doe the thing of which they only dreamed Fourthly did I not give a Direct Answere to your Objection by a formall distinction If any thing should have been taken notice of ought not this Yet ye wholly overleap it A goodly Dispistant indeed Fifthly I refuted some new Cavils which you started to prove That the truth of Religion ought not to be tryed by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries But you found my Replyes thereto so thornie that you have not dared to meddle with them Only you have an impudent Calumny concerning that matter which I may afterwards touch Sixthly whereas as you had accused Calvine and our Reformers as contemners of Antiquity I shew not only that Calvine had confuted your Religion from Antiquity but also that Antiquity is more contemned by you Romanists then ever it was by the Reformed Churches I brought many Instances hereof from Bellarmine Maldonate Melchior Canus Brisacerius and Cornelius Mussus but all these you smother in silence Thus have I given an overly touch of some few of your Omissions Whoso will be at paines to compare my ninth Paper with your Tenth will find you guilty of many more Only now let me ask are these the Digressions the Parerga's and the Superfluities which you talk of in my Paper Doe not every one of those touch the Cause Have they not a genuine rise from Your Papers Who that regarded either truth or his own reputation would have overleaped all those You have made great haste to transmit your Papers to me but you have still left your worke behinde you I have gotten Ten Papers from you but not One Answere Take a view of your Omissions and you will find all My Papers unanswered Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your after thoughts have need to be set on worke to supplie your Omissions In the next place I shall gleane up some of your Vnfaithfull misrepresentations in doing whereof I shall not need to stand to the precise Method of your Rapsodick Paper And first you have such a shamelesse fore head as to say That I had recanted the confineing of my discourse concerning the conformitie of our Religion with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This is that Calumnie of yours at wich I was hinting in your Fifth Omission How could you hatch such a manifest unteach Let all the Iesuits in Europe play the Criticks on My Papers and see if I have recanted one Syllable that ever I avouched in any of them I told indeed in my Last that you like aâ— Dreamer â—haâ— substituted that Concerning conformitie with the Fathers of the first three Centuries as a Second Answere which I had given in my Eight Paper to your Cavil concerning the sense of Scripture whereas in all that Eight Paper of mine there was no expresse mention at all of the Fathers of the first three Centuries Is my discoverie of your Mistake a recanting of ought that ever I had said concerning the Fathers of the first three Centuries Doe you not behave your self like a Dreamer when you substitute Quid pro quo Any hint I had in my Eight Paper at that Matter was to challenge you that though in your Eight Paper you had been reduced Ad metam silentii in that point all the Cavils mentioned in your Seventh being so fully confuted that you had nothing to Reply in your Eight yet you durst not adventure to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformtie with the faith of the most Ancient Church In my Ninth I did expresly confute some New Cavils which upon further deliberation you had started in your Ninth against the tryall of Religion By the conformitie thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries So farre was I from recanting or refusing to admit that as a discretive Test for trying the truth of Religion Surely the first 300. years were the flower of the Primitive Church Hence is that testimony which Egesippus in Euseb lib. 3. hist Eccles cap. 29. gives to the Church in those dayes Ad ca tempora Virgo pura incorrupta mansit Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church then had continued a pure and a chast Virgin Shall you never have the ingenuity to Recant such impudent Calumnies But I nothing wonder that you cannot be induced to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformitie with the Church in these Centuries For as a Learned Divine hath observed In these ages most of your present Râ—mish tenets were unknown to the Wold Your Papal Indulgences were then unhatched Purgatorie fire was then unkindled to make your kitchin 's smoake The Masse was then uumoulded Transubstantiation unbaked The Treasurie of Merits was then unmiuted The Popes transcendent power was uncreated Ecclesiasticks were unexempted And deposing of Kings was then undreamed of The Lay People were not cozened then of the Cup Communion under one kinde onlie was not then in kind It was not then known that Liturgies and Prayers were publicklie made in an unknown tongue They did not then worship or adore any wooden or breaden God They worshiped that which they knew and that in Spirit and in truth Thus Simon Birkbeck in his Tractat entituled the Protestants Evidence Sect. 3. pag. 18. Edit 3. By which you may perceive That it is no new sect of my own that I am hatching when I appeale to the Religion of the Church in the Three first Centuries as you foolishly whisper in your Ninth Paper But because you use these invidious words of Confyning my discourse to the three first Centuries You may remember that in my Seventh Paper I cleared that the First Restriction of my Argument to the Three first Centuries for proving the truth of our Religion and the falshood of yours was occasioned by the discourse I was then upon concerning the Ancient Apologists in these Centuries And that my argument might have been extended further as in such like exigences it had been further extended by Juell Whitâ—ker Crakâ—nthorp and other learned PROTESTANTS Now only I tell you that if you have the confidence to try the truth or falshood of Religion By the consonancie thereof with or dissonancie to the faith of the Catholick Chruch in the first three Centuries you shall find that I never intended so to astrict my self
be false and absurd And offered to doe the like concerning other controverted Scriptures such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matthew 16.18 Upon this Rocke I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of Truth c. This I did in the Answere to his seventh paper from page 126. to page 130. But all these he waves as tedious Digressions in his eight paper page 148. I resolved also to try his behaviour more particularly in reference to Antiquity and therefore in the Answere to the Iesuits eight paper from page 169. to page 173. I produced seven articles of the present Romish Religion which I briefly shew to be repugnant to the faith of the Ancient Romish Church viz. Their Adoration of Images Their Transubstantiation Their Communion under one kinde The Popes Supremacy Their mantaining the Apocryphal bookes to be Canonical Scriptures the Papes usurped Jurisdiction over Princes and their Indulgences for easing Soules under the paines of Purgatory But this is all the Answere which the tergiversing Jesuit makes to these particulars in his paper 9. page 176. What makes it to our purpose your digressions about Images about Transubstantiation about Communion under one kinde about the Popes supremacy about Apocryphal bookes about Indulgences Purgatory c. I gave likewise some account of their corrupting the Morals and Practicals of Christianity by their impious doctrine of Probables in the answere to his eight paper page 162. 163. c. But to this he answered Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem nothing at all The rest of his rergiversing Preteritions I must leave the Reader to collect by his own observation Did ever I pray an ill cause fall into the hands of a more unhappie Advocat Whether now my charge against the Iesuit as on that declynes to have the truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity be just let him who who ponders these particulars and peruseth all the Papers judge Had I tergiversed as the Iesuit hath done had I been left at such disadvantages as he would they not have made the World ring with it What ever answere shall be returned to me Our Popish Apostats will be ready to entertain it with Plaudire's as if the field were wone But I hope they who are judicious will hereafter lesse regard their clamours having such experience of their triumphing when their Champion had behaved himself in such a piteous fashion Our Romanists are pleased to boast that how soon these papers come abroad they shall have an Answere tripping upon their heels Indeed I have eased them of much labour by publishing all these papers Have they not had a good opportunity these six or seven moneths wherein they knew thir papers were at the Presse to prepare supplies for Mr. Dempsters omissions Have they not many hands and heads to furnish them materials little worke to divert them from scribling Yet they would take heed lest through preposterous hâ—ste they fall into Mr. Dempsters errour to leave the chiefe of their worke behind them My designe ever was rather to contend with them in solidity of reason then in Celerity of dispatch Diu apparandumest bellum ut vincas celerius If Romanists be as speedy in their Reply as they talke will it not discover that they apprehend some danger to their ill Cause from these papers If their speed be not answerable to their boasting will it not be an evidence that they are large as good at boasting as at argueing All the courtesie I crave from the ingenuous Reader is to allow me an equal hearing with the Adversary So as when he is to passe judgement betwixt us he consider an equal number of his papers and mine Here there be ten of either side presented If now Sentence should be past neither of us could complaine that we had not ben heard But if Romanists adde their eleventh paper then ought not any further sentence be suspended untill my Reply be heard The Iesuit having the first word doth not the last de jure appertaine to me Yet if the eleventh paper run in the same trifling and tautologizing strain with the former I plead no Suspension My heart bleeds for our straying Apostats some falling to rank Popish Idolatrie others to the delusions of Quakerism which if learned and judicious persons be not mistaken is but Popery under a disguise However O that my head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears to weep day and night over these deluded Soules under whatsoever Denomination they goe O that their eyes were opened to see the Sin the Scandal and Danger of their way It might be of some use to speak of the Causes of so great a Defection had not these Papers already swelled to such a bignes I shall therefore only transiently hint at a few And First There is alace an innate Principle of Levity and Instability in peoples hâ—arâ—s so that they are ready to be Tossed to and frolike Children with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 If the heart be not established by grace The 〈◊〉 siâ—eration of this should humble all and make us jealous our own hearts and watch unto Prayer lest we fall into temptation Secondly Seducers have usually a wonderfull insinuating faculty Rom 16.18 By good words and faire speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple By smooth words accommodated to the complexion of these with whom they deal they steal away their hearts as is said of Absolon Yet they in a manner fascinat and bewiâ—ch them as is the Apostles expression Gal. 3.1 And now these decenfull workers as they are termed 2 Cor. 11.13 have taken an unusuall boldness upon them to intrude into all companies where they have any hope of prevailing These therfore who would eschew their Contagion would shun their fellowship as they would shun Persons smitten with the Plague for the Words of Seducers doe eat as a Gangren 2. Tim. 2.17 The Apostle Iohn would not breath in the same aire with the Heretick Cerinthus but sprang out of the Bath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayeth Euseb lib. 3. hist Eccles cap. 25. How soon he perceived the Heretick to be there Thirdly As Hereticks are high and specious in their pretences so also bold and peremptory in their Asseverations The Romish Emissaries talk bigly of the Church as if none had an interest in the Catholick Church but these of their way The Quakers take us great a latitude to boast of the Light and Spirit God forbid that we should derogat from the necessity or efficacy of the Spirits working or from the due esteem to the Catholick Church nay I hope our hearers know we speak more to the just advantage of both then either Jesuit or Quaker But besides these vain and specious pretences these men are very confident in their Asseverations Though they cannot solidely prove any of their Erronious Positions yet they will affirme the truth of them boldly and be ready to Anathematize
expound it And so it holds universally and can be affirmed of every one who is a meer man and yet David not be guilty of actuall lying in speaking so Nay this sentence of Davids reaches a deep stroke at the pretended infallibility of your Clergie except ye can prove that they have a speciall gift of infallible assistance which I beleeve you will doe when you prove your assumption Namly Ad Graecas Calendas that is to say Never You are then so farr from having any subsidie from this saying of DAVID that while you goe about to expede your self you doe involve your self the faster But I leave you in this thicket untill I consider your other evasion For Mus miser est uno qui tantum clauditur antro You therefore except this truth Concerning the assistance of the Clergie from being in the condition of other particular truths As if the knowledge of this were to be presupposed before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures But this shift yeelds you no more succour then the former Nay it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction which I thus demonstrat A Religion and the severall points thereof to be true and to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's according to you Therefore no point of Religion can be known to be true untill it be known to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture But that the Clergie should have such assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture is one point of Religion as you affirme Therefore it cannot be known to be true untill its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known And yet upon the other hand you say that before the true sense of any Scripture be known we must first know that the Clergie hath such assistance to give the true sense of it Ergo that the Clergie hath such assistance must be known before the true sense can be known And consequently the assistance of the Clergie In actu primo must be known before the sense of Scripture and not before the sense of Scripture Now what need have you of Ariadnes clue to wind your self out of this labyrinth By this it is easie to consider what we are to think of your last Dilemma Either say you The PROTESTANT Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that the Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not if it hath let them be produced and examined if it hath not then the People have no ground to beleeve their Teachers Who seeth not how easily this may be retorted upon your selves For either the Romish-Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that their Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not If it hath let these grounds be produced and I doubt not but upon examination they shall be found light If it have none then the poor deluded People have no ground to beleeve their Romish Doctos Nay it were easie if I did not fear too great prolixitie to demonstrate that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion then it can doe on us For how I pray you can your Romists know that they have any Clergie at all Seeing the being of their Clergie depends upon a condition whereof they can have no infallible certainty Namely the intention of the Ordainer as is defined both in the Councill of Florence and Trent And if they cannot know who are their Clergie Men farr lesse can they know that they have this assistance so much talked of Againe If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance be such a prerequisit then it ought to be defined to which of the Clergie this assistance is entayled Whether to all or onely to some and who these some are whether the Pope or General Councill But as to this ye are not agreed among your selves Nay as I hinted in my last some of your chief Doctors mantaine both Pope and Councill may e rt Define then if you can who these are that are to give the sense of Scripture with this pretended assistance Therefore to answere directly to your Dilemma If you speake of infallible assistance I absolutly deny that the knowledge of such infallibity In actu primo in the Clergie is a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture may be known And now againe the probation of this will ly upon you Which I beleeve ye shall find as difficult as the probation of your Assumption Can I not give an assent to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case unlesse first I know him infallible Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd unlesse first I be satisfyed as to his infallibility In actu primo I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle and beleeve nothing you say till you prove your infallibility But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake Know that our Peoples faith is not built on our Authority We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith we are but helpers of their joy 2. Cor. 1.24 But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergie In actu primo for giving the true tense of Scripture as a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture can be known which the PROTESTANTS deny I therefore appeal you to prove this to be a necessarie prerequisit if you can Ye are not a little commoved that our Divines should be compared to yours It is long indeed since the pride of the Romish Clergie made an eminent Person say Odi festum istius Ecclesiae but I may say without vainity to the praise of GOD there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches such as Calvin Beza Juel Whitaker Morton Usher c. Who lake onely some years to make them be enrolled among the Fathers Neither indeed doe I desire them to be otherwayes compared with your men then as one would compare Austine Jerom or Athanasius with the Hereticks of their time Yet would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one classe Some we know have been of a more moderate principle then the Grandees of your faction for which cause many of their writtings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius How are you not ashamed to say that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits is copied out of your Authors Do we I pray you reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit Doe we cite your Authors but to confute them Or doe we make further use of them except in common truths wherein we and ye agree as we make use of Heathen Authors and as Virgil made use of Ennius to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii or as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Vipers
any proofe as if a Religion which you your selves gives out for a false Religion did not with as great reasone pretend all this for themselves The third is that Religion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but one after another As a man who hath a hundred pices of Gold and would prove whether they be upright Gold or not this proofe cannot be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone But this likewise may be assumed with as great reasone by a false Religion or assigne wherefore they may not use this shift as well as you when they are required to give some ground for the truth of their Religion The fourth is that the grounds which Tertullian and the holy Fathers brings to prove the truth of Christian Religion against Pagâ—nes proves likewise the truth of your Protestant Religion But this with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion or show wherefore not The fifth that you adde in this Paper now is this that the perspicuity of Scripture in all things necessarie to Salvation is a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion But though this were true what makes it more for the truth of your Religion nor for the truth of a false Religion since they with as great reason as you may and does pretend that the tenets which they hold as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture Likewise you have been often pressed to produce grounds whereby might be showen that your Clergie hath In actu primo some peculiar assistance to give In actu secundo the true sense of texts of Scripture which doeth not prove the like assistance to the Clergie of a false Religion So that in handling of Scripture you are all one with them having no more assistance to handle it rightly then they have As to that which you adde now in this Paper that this sense which is given by a Doctor to a text of Scripture may be the true sense though neither he nor others reflect or know any thing of the habilitie that he hath In actu primo to give this true seuse for Spiritus ubi vult spirat But though this answer wer to the purpose may it not be assumed with as gryt reasone in favour of a false Religion Next you force me to discover the shallownesse of the discourse that you make here because it seems you onely intend to induce a plausable and glittering scroofe upon things to dazle the eyes of simple people not earing what stuffely under For the question is not whether a thing may be truelie such in it self though I doe not know it to be such nor knows any thing of the causes whereof the truth of it depends since things are such and such in themselves whether they be known or not known by us Neither is the question about matters of Science where objective evidence convicts the understanding to assent and that independently of all authority of the Proponer But the question is about matters of Faith where all the motive to induce one to beleeve a thing is reduced to the authority of the Speaker and according to the divers degrees that are found in the authority of these that speakes a thing so are the correspondent degrees of firmnes in the assents whereby the hearer beleeves such things and because the authority of GOD is a supreame authority and above all other authorities therefore the assent that is due to such authority when it speakes or reveals any thing must have a firmnes above the firmnes which other assents have and which we give to matters proponed onely by inferiour authorities Now I ask how can people be induced to exerce one Act of faith or to beleeve with that firmnes which is due onely when GOD speakes or reveals a thing if they be not first assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man and consequently that such a man hath sufficient assistance and direction In actu primo that he cannot deceive nor speake one thing for another Now you are required to produce some speciall ground whereby the people may be assured that their Clergie who should instruct them in matters of faith hath this assistance In actu primo and which is necessar if they would beget superuaturall faith in their hearers that is to say Such a beleefe whereby the hearers doe adhere above all to the things that are proponed to them as revealed by GOD in such texts of Scripture otherwise it will follow that the assistance which you have does not exceed the assistance which the Clergie of a false Religion have and consequently that preach what you will and though you rune over the whole Bible you will never be able by your preaching to produce so much as an sol Act of supernaturall faith in your hearers Out of all this appears at what poor posture you have reduced the truth of your Religion notwithstanding that in the begining you did so bragingly undertake to mantaine the truth thereof before whomsoever against whomsoever and in whatsomever place And likewise to this effect have spent and blotted so much Paper since all ends in this that your Religion is indeed true but so that it cannot be shown wherein it differs from a false Religion as if one had taken in hand the defense of the honestie of a man and after long pleading at the barre and brought the matter to this passe that he were declared to be indeed an honest man but such an honest man that there were no seemable difference betwixt him and a knave Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Jesuits fifth Paper Which was not delivered to Mr. John Menzeis till June 15. 1666. Some Animadversions on the Iesuits fifth Paper HOW forcible are right words but what doth your arguing reprove Job 6.25 You are pleased to censure the Prolixity of my Papers but you might have known that of Seueca Epist 48. Longiore mora opus est ut solvas quaestionem quam ut proponas You take the boldnesse also to asperse these lines with Impertinencie But were not you afrayed whom I had so oft convicted of manifold Impertinencies to have it reponed to you Calvus calve calvitium ne objiciat Is not the true cryme whereof these poore lines are guilty because they have touched you in the quick so as you are not able to answere and therefore they must be endyted of Impertinencie though you could not particularize one impertinent line But I shall be suretie for them that they shall not decline to have their Pertinencie examined by your Romish Inquisitors though your Pope like another Rhadamanthus presided in the Court Onely your Fathers would remember that we PROTESTANTS are not besotted with an Implicit faith as if there charres were made of Irish timber which cannot bear a Spider Wherefore they had need to be more cautious then you have been and not to
De Baptis contra Donatistas cap. 3. where he affirms Concilia plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari that former plenatie and generall Councills are amended by the latter and consequently the former undoubtedly erred The figetree â—â—ves wherewith Bellarmin and other of your authors would palliat these things are so fully examined by Chamier and other our controversists that I shal remit you to them But Fifthly if the peoples faith must be built upon the foreknowledge of the propounders assistance then whereupon is the faith of your Infallible Propounders built Must they not be perfect Enthusiasts What difference I pray you is there betwixt them and Quakers You may see if you will a prettie parallel to this purpose written by Clopenburg in Syntagmate selectarum exercitationum disp 2. The title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Sixthlie suppose it were granted that either Pope or Council or both together were infallible yet seeing Christians dispersed through the world cannot receive the sentence of Pope or Council immediatly from themselves but at the second hand from such fallible persons as you How shall they know that you have sensed the Canon or Decretal aright Or what rule of interpretation have you for finding the true sense of these Canons or Decretals Did I not show you in my Fourth Paper how your own Authors altercate without end concerning the sense of your Canons What advantage then shall your people have by that supposed Infallible assistance of Pope or Council How shall they know that such a one as you who pretend not to Infallibility is not deceived in takeing up the sense of Canon or Decretal or that for base ends you will not deceive them But Seventhly did I not in a former Paper show that your Tridentiâ—e and Florentine principle of suspending the efficacie of Sacraments from the intention of the Preist doth destroy all certainty of Clergie men among you so that none of you can tell who is Pope Bishop or Preist And therefore you cannot have certainty of infallible assistance attending any person as a Clergie man and consequently you Romanists can have no certaintie of faith at all the verie foundation of it being overturned And yet you have the impudence to reproach us as having neither certainty of falth nor knowing what the nature of a supernatural assent is Quis tulerit Gracches de seditione querentes Know therefore Eightly that the assent which we give to divine truths Is truely supernatural I shall not blot Paper at the time with the aiery debats of your Schoolmen concerning the nature of a Supernatural being They who would recreat themselves with a diversion may see enough of these needle headed nyceties In Ripalda de Ente supernaturali in Arriag 1. part Disp. 3. And Carleton Tom. 1. Disp. 12. No to mention others Onely the assent we give is Supernatural both Objectively and Effectively That is both in regarde of its Formal object Viz divine revelation or the testimonie of GOD that cannot lye and in regard of the Efficient cause namely infused grace which doth elevat corroborat and quicken out understanding to the production of this assent Now whether there be no more to be said for the Supernaturality of our assent which is founded on the authority of Divine Scriptural testimony then for yours which is onely founded upon the authority of your Propounders that is a Priest or Jesuit for these are your immediat Propounders or at best a Pope or Councill whose Infallibility you can never prove and concerning whose sense you may fluctuat till you die whether I say there be not more to be said for the Supernaturality of our assent then for yours let these who are rational Judge But Ninthly that I may cut off all ground of cavilling whereas you propound the question thus Whether a man can beleeve a thing to be true precisly because it is revealed and spoken by GOD unlesse he be assured that GOD speakes by the month of him that proponed such a thing I Answere to both the branches of your question distinctly And to the First I say that if by Precistie you meane a seclusion of the Means of interpretation for the question at present is of the sense of Scripture or a seclusion of extrinsick motives of credibility you may know that we PROTESTANTS mantaine no such Seclusion But if you meane the seclusion onely of any Vlterior formal object into which the assent of faith is to be resolved then indeed we mantaine that the authority of divine testimony is the Vltimat formal object into which our assent of faith is to be resolved And this seemes clear from the nature of Divine faith which in this is distinguished from the assent of Humane faith or purely Sciential That Humane faith is built upon the authority of an Humane testimony and a Sciential assent on the Principles of reason but Divine faith upon the authority of Divine testimony Should we therefore in the resolution of Faith proceed to an Ulterior formal object It would either cease to be a Divine faith or else we should onely proceed from one Divine testimony to another And so we must either runne In infinitum from one to another or else rest in some last and then why not rather in the first Scriptural testimony which by the acknowledgement of all is Divine Whereas the divine authoritie of all your other testimonies are justly questioned and will never by you be solidlie proven except in so far as they speake consonantlie to the Scripture To the second branch of your question I Answere thus If your meaning be that the assurance of the Clergies assistance In actu primo to propound nothing but truth be a necessarie prerequisire then I simply deny it and often though in vaine have required you to prove it Nay I have demonstrated you to be involved in Contradictions by asserting it And if yet you will mantaine such a thing I shall but demand of you whereon that assurance of the Clergie or propounders assistance is founded Wherein I beleeve you shall never be able to satisfie your self nor any rational person But if you meane no more but that when we give an Assent of faith to an article of Religion propounded by another we must also Simul semel assent that the testimonie which he hath given thereto is true This is indeed granted But from this it doth not follow that the Previous assurance of the propounders infallibilty is the ground of my assent Even as when a Mathematician demonstrats a proposition of Enclide the sciential assent of the Hearer is not founded upon the authoritie of the Mathematician but upon the evidence of the Premisses from which he deduceth his Conclusion Albeit the Mathematicians propounding the premisses was a meane to draw forth the hearers assent and in assenting to the demonstration he assents to the Mathematicians discourse as true The same was the importance of that other example of a
touch of their contrary opinions in your Cardinal De Lugo tract De fide Disp 5 Sect. 1.2.3 But at this time also I have purposly waved the absurdities which our Divines have deduced from your Romish Doctrine concerning these Motives of credibility Because I would keepe you closse to the point And therefore I shall demand no more of you but that you demonstrate the Infallibility of your Propounders from these Motives of credibility which till you doe you remaine shut up within the lines of that objected Contradiction I Now proceed to the other difficulty objected to you in expeding your self from which you are as unhappie For evidenceing whereof there needs no more be said but to propose the Aenigma which you pretended to enervat for you craftily wrap it up in silence The Argument did runne thus If our faith must be built upon the Precognition of the Infallible assistance of your Propounders the either this their pretended Infallibility can be proven or not If not then the whole Romish Faith is built upon a Fancy which cannot be proven If it can then First you were required to produce your Arguments for proving it And Secondly you were persued by this Dilemma If the Infallibility of your Propounders can be proven then either by a Writen or Unwriten Word Not by a Writen Word seeing the sense of it cannot be known according to you untill first the Infallibility of the Propounder and Interpreter be known but now that is supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very point in controversie Not can it be proven by an Unwriten Word Both because you had asserted before That a point of Religion to be True and to be conforme to the writen word are Synomma's And because there is as much need of an Infallible Propounder that we may be assured of the truth and true meaning of an Unwriten word as of that which is writen If therefore we cannot know the sense of the Writen word till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility neither can the truth or the true sense of the Vnwriten word be known till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility and consequently when the thing to be proven is his Infallibility it cannot be proven at all either by a writen or an unwriten word This Argument you dared not to propound and make a formal answere thereunto But all you say to this Suppressed Argument is that when you affirmed That a point of Religion to be true and to be conforme to the writen word of GOD were Synonima's you spake it onely Ad Hominem This is all your Reply and suppose it were true let any who hath sense judge whether you have evacuated the Argument For you touch but one part of the confirmation of one branch of the Dilemma which is abundantly proveÌ„ by another reason which might suffice suppose that which you touch were wholly laid aside You are far from the gallant resolution of Alexander who said Nola furari Victoriam Nay you are so base that when you cannot solve an Argument you wrape it up from the knowledge of the Reader and having given a touch of that without which the Argument abydes in its entire force you have the confidence to give out that you have confuted the whole Argument This is not the first experience I have of your Iesuitical ingenuitie But I must adde that even that which you have said cannot be admitted as if the Equipollencie of the two forementioned Propositions had onely been asserted by you Ad Hominem And the rather because what you say in this is agreeable to the grounds which you lay downe in your First Paper which there Interminis you affirme should be agreeed unto by all Now the chief scope of the First Paper and Syllogisme is to hold out that the True Religion hath grounds to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And therfore both in my answere to your First Paper and in my Answere to your Third wherein you had asserted the Equipollencie of these Propositions â— drew an Argument against your Romish unwriten Traditions to which then you durst make no Reply albeit now as if what you had then writen had been forgoten you would flinsh from what you had formerly said upon this pretext as if it had been spoken Ad Hominem If you had said that you had spoken that onely Pro tempore from your Iesuitical principle of equivecation when you meaned nothing so I could indeed have beleeved you Though you have bewrayed as much basenes as I beleeve ever man did in so much writing yet you have the boldnesse to traduce some of our Divines not telling whome as citeing the Objections of your Authors for their Assertions But Turpe est Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipsum Hath not the strength of your Romish Writers lyen in misrepresenting both the lives and writings of Reformed Divines Yea. your baseness in this hath stretched it self beyond them How grosly have you corrupted and falsifyed the writings both of Ancient and Moderne Authors as hath been demonstrated by Doctor Iames In his Treatise of the corruptions of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Pastors Prelats and Pillars of the Church of Româ— and by Cocus in his Censura veterum Scriptorum Beside many others You close all with a Tale of an Old wife And I confesse all you have said may well be reckoned Inter Aniles fabulas Yet you have the boldnesse againe to accuse me of Ignorance because I cannot homologat your absurd assertion That before we beleeve a Divine truth there must preceed a knowledge that God speakes by the Propounders Had you so often charged another with Ignorance you might perhaps have heard from him or now Sus Minervam I doubt truely if ever your dsperat Romish cause met with a more Blocksh Advecat then your self If I know that GOD speakes by such â— man must I not Simul semel beleeve it to be truth which he speakes How then were you so stupide as to affirme that the knowledge that GOD speakes by a man must preceed the beâ—â—â—f of the truth spoken Were you not more cautions before â—hen you onely required the previous knowledge of the Propounders assistance In actu primo But now your words would seeme to require the previous knowledge of GODS assistance In actu secundo For in propriety of speach GOD speakes not by a man but when he assists him In actu secundo Is this the nature of mans intellect to assent to a proposition which hath no evidence in it self without any reason Why then demand you an assent from me to your proposition concerning this Infallible assistance which I am sure is not Per se nota when neither can a reason be extorted from you to prove it not can you solve the objections brought against it Is there no ground upon which a Hearer may be convinced that this
is now guiltie of the impertinent Digression you or I the Reader may judge All the colour you could put upon this shameless and cowardly tergiversing is That it seemes say you These large discourses of mine are copied out of controversie Writers But why would not you copie an Answere thereto out of your controversie Writers Why at least doe you not name The Authors with whom I had made so bold Especially I having in my last given a particular instance of the Plagiary trade of Jesuits and appealed you if you could to convict me of the like cryme If you put me to it I will rip up yet more of their sores of this nature Could the confutation of all your Papers in Two Words be copied from any Author But I had so brow-beaten this cavil before that like a self condemned Malefactor who to use Tertullians phrase is Acorde suo fugitivus you dare not now positively affirme it only say you It seems But I wil deale more squarely with you You not onely seeme but really are an effronted calumniator If you take ill with this freedome learne henceforth to affirme no more then you are able to prove Had it not been to cleare a little of the matter of Fact against these your lying representations of the first occasion of this debate I had not denzied a returne to this your impertinet Paper wherein you have not answered one word that was replyed to you But I am the rather moved to examine these your calumnies because it is long since I heard that Scurvie Lybels to this purpose were disseminated by persons of your professioÌ„ and now I find that by this your Paper you doe homologate the same reproaches Yet no to notice these diffamatorie Pasquils which no man durst owne I shall at the time only discover the falshood of some few of your allegeances in this your Eight Paper And First you say That this debate was occasioned by our continual railing against your pretended Catholick Religion As if it were our custome to charge your Religion falsly with these things which you doe not mantaine A great crime I acknowedge if it were a truth But why did you not for the satisfaction of the Reader and our conviction instance some of these falshoods Doe you not hereby manisest the calumniating genius by which you have been acted all along Know therefore that we PROTESTANTS hold it not lawful to lie for GOD. Job 13.7 The truth of GOD needs not mens lies to support it Did I see that the PROTESTANT cause could not be mantained without calumnies and falshoods I should instantly disowne it as not being of GOD. I reckone it my mercie that I have been helped in some measure to give a faithful testimony against the Abominations of Poperie and wil account it my duety so to doe while I live I have inded said it from Pulpit and I hope I have also made it good that your Romish Doctors have corrupted much both of the Dogmaticals and Practicals of Christianity And what I have said herein I shall be readie through the grace of GOD to mantaine not onely against such an Ignoramus as you but the whole unhallowed crew of Jesuits This hath been often charged upon you and demonstrated against you by our Divines But because I see you are not for large Volumes I shall remit you at present onely to a little but learned tractare to this purpose writen by Doctor Jeremy Taylor Entituled A Dissuasive from Poperie But what Doeth a Jesuit accuse us of Railing Doth not the World know that persidious lying and equivocation are the Piae fraudes the holy I should have said Hellish Chears whereby their cause is mantained Have they ever been able to wipe off those staines which Watson their own Romish secular Priest fixed upon their societie in so much that he is not afraid to say that Lucian Machiavel yea and Don Lucifer might goe to school and learne Satanical practises from your Jesuits And as for you is it not too too apparent by all these your Papers that you serve for nothing unlesse it be to rail and lie like a Shimet At arguing have you not proven according to the Proverb Quaesi asinus ad lyram Remember therefore that smart admonition Matth 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast the beame out of there own eye then shall thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye You are pleased Secondly to say That in stead of impugning your Catholick dogmes as you terme them We propound to the people and that in a radiculous manner so gravely forsoth doe you occuse us Problematick points out of your Casuists and Schoolmen If you Iesuits were not Persons Effrontis imprâ—bitatis linguae effrauis habituated in confident asserting of lies would you not have examined the truth of this report before you had given it under your hand Whether we behave our selves ridiculously in Pulpit grave Auditors can witnesse Indeed if the Supremacie of your Pope and the infallibility of your Church if your Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the Masse it your Adoring of Images and invocating of Saincts and Angels if your Purgatorie and Praying for the Dead c. If these I say and such as these be the Problematick points you speake of Them I confesse we doe publickly propound and solidly confute If these be onely Problemes which a man may innoceÌ„tly affirme or deny why for opposing these doe you Romanists anathematize PROTESTANTS Why have you brunt so many of them alive and cruelly imbrewed your hands in the blood of so many thousands of them Sometimes I deny not occasions may occurre of speaking concerning the particular tenets of some of your Doctors But then judcious Hearers can beare us witnesse for we teach nothing in a corner that we no otherwayes represent these then as the judgement of such Doctors This appeared when I was confuting from Pulpit that impious tenet which I suppose is the Probleme you hint at of many of your Doctors That a sinner is not bound by the law of GOD immediatly after he hath sinued to repent For in Pulpit I did onely charge it upon many of your Doctors But though we be so ingenuous in representing the tenets of your Doctors I shall desire you to confider what a staine and reflexion these impious tenets of particular Doctors among you leave upon your Romish Church Are they not published with the approbation of your Authorised Licencers of books as containing nothing Contrary to the Catholick Faith Are either Authors or Licencers of the books censured by your Church Have not your Expurgatoris indices deleted much better stuffe in the writings boon of Ancient and Moderne Authors whereof you may find many examples in Doctor Iames his excellent booke of The corruption of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Prelats Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome part 4 But the impious tenets or your Casuists and Schoolmen stend uncensured with the
come to the examination of particular Articles I engage to disclaime the Religion of PROTESTANTS if it be not found to be so and shall onely demand but the like ingenuity readynesse and engagement from you that you will renounce your Romish superstition if is neither be In terminis in Scripture nor solidly deduceable from these things which are there plainlie revealed If there be not enough said to put an end to your general whifling Cavils let these who are not fascinated by prejudice judge Is it not time after the exchange of nine Papers to come once to the matter for you are not as yet come to it The rest of your Paper you pretend to spend in examining the Answeres given by me to this your forementioned Cavil Concerning the sense of holy Scripture But it would seeme you had been either dreaming or drunke when you wrote this for you bring me in only making Two answeres whereas indeed I have made Seven of the two which you mention only one of them is to be found in my Last Paper But however I will try how you behave your self in examining these That which you say is my First Answere is indeed my Fifth as you will find when you awake from your sleep and looke on my Paper But before I take in your Reply I will first propose my former Answere not in your words for I seldome find them faithfull but in my own as I proposed them in my Last My words then were these This Assertion of yours that before we can prove the truth of our Religion from the Scripture we must first prove this we have the true sense of the Scripture bad need of a verse favourable and benigns interpretation else it is perfect Nonsense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove that we have the True Religion before we prove that we have the True Religion These were my words and if the inference be not solid upon the Supposition laid downe therein these who have common sense may judge Yet to this you have made Three Replyes but each of them more ludibrious then another Your First Reply is a pedantick whifle about formall Praecisions you say That I shew my self to be altogether ignorant of the nature of formall praecisions which have vertue where they interverne to make a sufficent distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme For all your pretended skil of these Pracisions there are schoole Boyes with us who could adventure to the lists with you concerning them Yet I confesse in some sense you may commence Doctor in the matter of Praecisions For you have a notable faculty of praescinding from the purpose But if you had said any thing to the point you should have shewed that there interveens a Formall Praecisions sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and Probleme betwixt these two V.Z. That our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost And this That our Religion is the true Religion Can you either conceive or conclude that our Religion is contained in the Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost and not conceive Ipso Facto and Formaliter that it is the True Religion Especially seeing from the beginning of your Papers you have acknowledged That a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforms to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's You may try in the next how you can prove this for you still leave the greatest part of your worke behind you But in the Second place from this pedantick notion you proceed to a more absurd position as if heere There were an objective distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme still out of your Modestie Vphraiding me with Ignorance For say you The True Religion and truths contained under the letter of Scripture are separable one from another because all the truths of Scripture may be yet not compâ—uÌ„â— any ReligioÌ„ at all to wit if there had been no obligation imposed upon us to beleeve them And hereupon You conclude me ignorant of the nature of True Religion A greater cry me I confes then the ignorance of the nature of formal Praecisions Onely you had need to guard well that this your insolent accusation doe not recoyl upon your own head For First were you not sophisticâ—ting Ab Ignoratiore Elenchi you should have concluded that our Religion may be contained in the Scripture as the true sense hereof and yet make up no Religion at all But who sees not this to be a manifest contradiction And yet these were the two which you ought to prove to be separable for that was the Supposition whereon my Inference was builded But Secondly what ignorance and absurdity doe you bewray when you say That all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be and yet make up no Religion at all I will instance to you a few Scripture truths which it is impossible they should be and not make up a Religion Matth. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve John 20.31 These thinges are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and beleeving ye might have life through his name 1. John 3.23 This is his commandement that ye should beleeve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ These Scripture truths cannot be unlesse they concurre to make up a Religion and the reason is evident which also destroyes your fond Supposition and pretended reason to the contratie because they include in them a Form all obligation of worshiping GOD and beleeving in order to the obtaining or Salvation Do not you the refore bewray brutish ignorance of Scripture and of Religion when you say That all truths contained in the Scripture may be without an obligation to beleeve them and so compound no Religion at all For it is one Scripture Truth that we are commanded and obliged in Scripture to beleeve these truths in order to the obtaining of Salvation Your Third Reply is nothing lesse ludibrious then the former Two in which you say That what was said in that answere of mire to you may be said by persons of another Religion alswell as by us And who doubts but Hereticks may justly repell your Noneseâ—se May not Hereticks be otherwise solidly confuted albeit they laugh at your ridiculous Cavils I hope these transient to ches may suffice to discover with how little successe you have dealt with that Fifth Answere of mine which you call the first For I judge it unbeseeming for me in handling so weighty a controversie as this Whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Papists be the true
nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion it remaines alwise in that state as hath been often told you that a man is in who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaime Calvine as the author of your Religion and claimes to Iohn Hus and the Albigenses at last to be upon your side though the world knowes that theyâ— were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrocinie that you make to defend your patriarch Luther that he did not leap out of the Catholick Church but only out of the Romish Church though if you had done compleatly this defence you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhâ—â—e and with which he did keep externall communion when he left the Roman Church Good Sir leaving all your Paterga's remember that the occasion of this debate was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholick Dectrines and being desired to give some good solid ground for the truth of your own religion whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to imbrace it You did very stoutly undertake the bussines did bragingly protest that ye would mantaine the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever before whomesoever or in whatsoever place or time but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion Your first refuge was that you as the Defendant was not obliged to produce any ground but all the burthen incumbed on me as the Opponent to prove that you had no grounds And in this you behaved your self just as if one should come as sent from the Council to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Councill of Aberdene a charge to apprehend a persone as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince and the L. Provest desiring to see his Commission he should reply that he was not obliged to show his Commission but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion and being demanded that you show your grounds whereby the truth of it may be mantained you reply that you are not obliged to produce grounds but that another should prove that you have no grounds not considering that religion is a positive thing and a complex of positive dogm's and so cannot be mantained to be true but by producing of positive grounds and the shifting to produce them will make all to give sentence that it is destitute of solid grounds Your next refuge was that your Religion was proven to be true because it was conforme to Scripture that is to say to the true sense of the letter of Seripture Now this pretended conformity was proven to be meerly imaginary and groundlesse because as it is impossible that a thing can be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense exceept it be proven that there is a true sense Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style and by a judicious and school way to produce some soild ground whereby mens understanding might be convinced that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost of the letter of Scripture To this you answered first that it makes a Non-sense to say that a Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be proven that there is a true sense Now I ask you where lyes here a nonserse or point me out any thing here that is not most cleare Indeed you in place of this my proposition did substitute one of your own and with your own words and I willingly grant to you that yours makes a Non-sense Next you seeme to chasse because I taxt your discourse to be founded upon grosse ignorance both about the nature of Formall Precisions and about the nature of True Religion and to this you reply first that to speake to you of Formall Precisions is a Pedantick thing But is it possible that you who professeth your self to be a Divine should so slight Precisions since they are the very quintessence of all superiour sciences and Aristotle might teach you that there is no science of particulars but in so far as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision and that every science hath his own particular abstraction whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences Next you remit me to your School-Boyes who will teach me the nature of Formall Precisions I am glade that Scholers are so learned but if it be so they out-shut their Master and knowes more nor their Master at least showes to know as appeares in this same answere that you make here For I telling you That the objective grounds of precisions is separability and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture and True Religion and that on both parts because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture Since there was true religion in the World before there was any Scripture writen And on the other part All the truths revealed in Scripture might be though they componed no Religion to wit If GOD had so revealed them that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to beleeve them as he might have done or wherefore might he not have done it Now to impugne this you bring texts of Scripture to prove that De Facto this obligation to beleeve is not seperat I speake of Separability and what GOD might have done and you argue against Actuall separation as if I had said that De Facto there is no obligation to beleeve things revealed in Scripture Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking Or were not well applyed to you those civill termes that your self use in this Paper to wit that you behoved to be drunke or dreaming when thir things escaped your penne Likewise how grosse mistaking is it to say That I granted that a Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture are Synonima's whereas I said only this Ad Hominem and to argue you out of your own principles who admits no rule of divine truth but the writen word And in this you imitat many other of your Champions who as I told you else where did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves Your second answere is that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is proven to be a true sense because it coincids
might have been revealed and no obligation laid upon us to believe them And in this you blame me That I only proved by the Scripture-instances which I brought that there is no actuall separation betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion but did not prove them insenarable But if you looke againe to my Paper you will find that your inadvertencie is onely to be blamed For I did prove the absolute inseparabilitie betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion Which againe I thus demonstrate according to the grounds laid downe in my Last If all the truths in Scripture cannot be without an obligation to believe them in order to the obtaining of Salvation then All the truths of Scripture cannot be except they compound a Religion But the first is true therefore also the last The Sequel of the Major is clear because this is the only pretence upon which you suppose that all Scripture Truths may be and yet compound no Religion because they may be and yet no obligation be laid upon us to believe them If therefore they cannot be except an obligation be laid on us to believe them then surely they cannot be except they compound a Religion It remaines therefore only that we prove the Assumption that they all cannot be revealed without an obligation to believe them and this is cleare from the Scriptures cited in my Last Paper because this is one of the Truths in those Scriptures that we are obliged to believe these Truths And I cited purposlie these Scripturs to prove this And therfore it is impossible that all Scripture truths can be and we not be obliged to believe them For this is one Scripture truth that we are obliged to believe the Truths revealed in Holy Scripture What now I have demonstrated more prolixlie I set downe clearly enough though more succinctly in my Last Albeit it seemes you have been so taken up with your Precifive airie Notions that you have not understood the Paper which was sent to you But to prevent your further mistake in this I thinke it fit to let you know that I distinguish betwixt these two I doe indeed confesse that a Religion may be though nothing be coÌ„mitted to Writing And this was the case of the Ancient Church before Moses But this concernes not our present debate But the thing I deny is That all the truths contained in Scripture way be and yet make no Religion at all And this I hope now I have demonstrated against you both in this and in the former Paper Though your Notional precisions have made either your sight or your judgement Preseind from the Paper which you should have examined and consequently from the purpose By these hints you may consider whether you have added any strength to your insignificant Objection Concerning the sense of Scripture But because you are still harping upon this Cavil About the sense of the Scriptures It would appear that you Looke upon Scripture as so obscure as not able to be a ground for decision of controversies in Religion unless there be some infallible visible-judge I shall desire you to consider how different you are in your apprehersions as to this matter from the Ancient Church in which the decision of Controversies in Religion was committed sometime to Secular persons yea sometime to Heathens which your self will confesse not to be Infallible Have you not read that writing which passeth under the name of Vigilius Bishop of Trent in which there is a dispute betwixt Sabellius Photinus and Arius upon the one side and Athanasius on the other concerning the Trinitie and Deitie of the Lord Jesus Christ and Probus a Heathen is constituted judge to determine betwixt them not according to his own fancy but according to the proofes which they should produce from the Scriptures and after hearing of both he gives sentence for the Truth This dispute you will find set forth among Cassanders works from Page 460. and the sentence of Probus the Judge page 506. c. I doe not say that this Conference was real for the Collocutors were not contemporarie Yet the Learned and Ancient Author of this Dialogue who by some is supposed to be Pope Galosius doth clearly insinuate that the most sublime Mysteries of Christianity are so luculently revealed in Scripture that a meer Pagane may finde out the true sense of Scripture concerning them Have you nor tâ—ad in Epiphanius haeres 66. how that Archelaus an Orthodox Bishop had a dispute against the pernicious Heretick Manet in Caschara a City of Mesopotamia and how by commone consent they â—â—bâ—â—icâ—ed unto Foure Heathen Judges to Marcipus a Phil sâ—ph to Claudius a Physitian to Aegialous a Gramariare and to Clerbâ—lus a Sophister who after hearing adjudged the Victorie to Archelaus And this was no fiction but a reall deed What should I tell you how Laurentius a secular person was Arbiter in a dispute betwixt Augustine and Pascortius an Arian as appeares by Austineâ— Aepist 178 Or how Marcellinus a Tribune did preside by the appointment of Honorius the Emperour at a conference betwixt the Orthodox and the Donatists as Augustine holds forth Tom. 7. in Brevic. Collat Doe not all these make it evident that the Ancient Church did not apprehend such impossibility of finding out the true sense of Scripture without the previous decision of an Infallible visible judge How did Christ command us to Search the Scriptures John 5.39 if their sense be unsearchable Is not this on controversie in Religion whether there be a necessity of an Infallible visible judge and Propounder and who he is And who I pray you shall determine this if not the Scriptures If you have an Infallible Propounder without whose decision the sense of Scripture cannot be attained how injurious is he to the Christian World who will not put forth a clear Comment upon the Whole Scriptures for the finall decision of all Controversies Why doth he not at least give a Decision concerning these inrestine debates among your selves as betwixt your Dominicans and Jesuits c. Are you so farre deluded as not to know that this Fable of Infallibility is the cunning imposture whereby men of your imployment have laboured of a long time to cheat the World But now these of the Traditionarie way among you beginne to perceive that the World is too wise to be still cheared by that one Trick therefore they are betaking themselves to another Method but as fallacious as the former You have a Querie which you expect that I should notice You desire to know When Luther leapt out of the Church of Rome as you phrase is if there was any Church on earth with whome he had visible Communion May ye not be ashamed to move such a Question to me I having convicted you of so many Falshoods and Foolries concerning your last discourse of Luthers separation from Rome and of a Lying Prophesie which you following Bellarmine and Cachlaeus imposed
meer shifts and evasions June 13. 1666. THIS your fourth Paper carying the date of the ninth of June came to my hands the twelth of June and in it you make a more ample muster of your ordinar digressions contumelies and misapplyed Eruditions though you know that the better sort esteems this weak-mens weapons and clear testimonies of a deserted cause but it seems all one to you if by this means you can uphold your reputation with the Vulgar sort who seeing you blot so much Paper remains in conceit that you retaine still your post If I had the qualities to render me worthie of your friendship I would in a homelie and friendly manner suggest to you a compendious way to spare Paper observing onely thir three omissions First that you omit all exeursions out of the way that is to say that you omit all these things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully deeyded Secondly that you omit all contumelies and undervalueing words as more besetting a scolding Wife then a Scholer Thirdly that you omit all these things which cannot favour your Religion but with this inconvenient that in the same degree in the which it favours you it must favour and shelter a false Religion and which is holden by your selves for a false Religion And I hope that you will grant thir things to be very rationallie demanded of you since it is known that there is a great difference to be put betwixt the handling of a controversie in a Pulpit where one railes at randome having none to contradict him and the handling of it in a School way where you must foot your bowle and hold you within the score under the paine to be exploded Now if you will be pleased to observe thir three things which are so rationally demanded I oblige my self to make it good that you will not be able to put ten lines in Paper which shall be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie And for proofe hereof you may be pleased to take all your foure Papers misaplyed as they are squeeze them and see if you expresse out of them thir ten lines taking first away thir three things to wit Digressions about other matters Contumelies and base flyting words and things that cannot favour your cause without favouring in the like degree a false Religion And since it is to be presumed that none can expresse more substance out of your own Papers nor your self it is expected of you that after you have taken the pains to blow away all this chaffe you will show that there remains greater quantity of solid corne upon the floore then can be contained in ten lines of Paper That it may appeare how farr you wander out of the way you must be content to have patience that the maine point be laid alway againe and againe before you which is the Protestant Religion cannot be the True Religion or the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimeâ— at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is obliged to quit it and to betake himselfe to a diligent search for the true Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting only for the present that the Protestant Religion is it not This is both a substantiall point and proponed in so clear terms that none can but understand it And it is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion To this Syllogisme you answered first cavilling the forme of it as componed of two premisses negatives and so concluding nothing But in this you discover grosse ignorance confounding and calling negative propositions affirmative premisses of objective negations Next you come to deny the subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds to prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And you adde that since the subsumption is denyed by you it is my part who is the Opponent to prove it Let it be so But hath it not been sufficiently proven first Because if it have any good grounds they are produceable but they are not produceable or else produce them Next hath it not been often inculcat and is now of new inculcat that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture but such that with as great reason may serve to prove a false Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo it hath no true principles or grounds because a true principle is not of an indifferent nature but is so determinat to truth that it cannot protect nor shelter any error Now that it may appear that all the principles or grounds which you bring to prove the truth of your Religion are indifferent and consequently cannot be true principles we shall runne them over and lay them open to the view of all The first ground you produced is that your Religion hath objective truth and objective ground or evidence and can sufficiently show and prove it self to have this truth upon condition that it encounter with a well disposed intellect But all this may be assumed and is assumed by a false Religion or assigne some reason wherefore you have right to assume it and they not The second is that your Religion is easily known to be a true Religion by applying and confronting the tenets of it with the Word of God as a man is easily known to be an honest man be confronting his actions with the Law as likewise a line is easily known to be straight and not crooked by the conformity it is seen to have with a right rule But what false Religion is there that doth not apply all this to themselves with as great reason as you doe And though the letter of Scripture is of it self capable onely of one genuine sense to wit which was intended by the holy Ghost which is all the shift which you adde now in this last Paper But what makes this for you since you bring no reason whereby may appeare that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is that one genuine sense intended be the holy Ghost or that the sense which you give is that right rule by the which all crookednesse is to be known You think it is enough to say thir things without