Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow crgo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Printer for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odifastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10. hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysost Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deceased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next bundle of testimonies
he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3. 2. to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures
the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompâ—iam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sure Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest reqâ—â—re But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lucifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. câ—nt Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defensâ—res salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius hoc autem unde nunc agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidei or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicâ—laus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a General Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in expounding these terms they go by the ears among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion than a meer agreement in the formalis ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3. 11. Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitly and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib.
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of Faith annexed to H.T. his Manual of Controversies reprinted at Doway 1671 many copies whereof were lately apprehended at Leith and consequently they rend themselves from the greater part of the Christian Church SECT IV. Whether was it necessary for the decision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals ANswer negatively for 1. the particular question betwixt him and me when he turned to that usual to pick and subtertuge of Romanists concerning the precise number of Fundamentals was whether the Scriptures do clearly contain all things necessary to Salvation But this general as I told in my sixth paper pag. 92. may be proved without an induction and precise enumeration of all Fundamentals and this I made out by clear Scriptures which he never once examined But 2. take the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and me in the greatest latitude It was concerning the religion of Protestants and not of the particular sentiments of this or that Protestant Author seeing therefore as I told in my tenth Paper pag. 219. that the Reformed Churches in their harmony of Confessions had not determined that precise Catalogue should I have pitched upon it I had left my work to follow a tergiversing Vagrant 3. As it was not necessary so neither was it expedient that I being a private person should take on me to define the precise Catalogue of Fundamentals and the rather seeing the Romish Church extending the number of Fundamentals too farr hath Schismatically separated her self from the body of the Catholick Church Nor do I know any thing more destructive to the publick peace of the Church then the rash and unadvised determination of Fundamentals for by that means who ever acknowledge not all these are in the judgement of such persons excluded from the Catholick Church and Salvation excellently said Luther as cited by Mr. Baxter Saints rest part 1. pag. 138. Edit 4. nihil pestilentius in ecclesia doceri potest quam si ea que necessaria non sunt necessaria fiant hac enim tirannide conscientiae illaqueantur libertas fidei extinguitur 4. If a man believe all Fundamentals though he cannot precisely distinguish them from integrals he may be saved Can Romanists for all the noise they make about Fundamentals define the precise number of them why then being so often required particularly by learned Chillingworth and Tillotson as I instanced paper 7. pag. 122. have they never done it yea Dr. Holden in Anal fid lib 1. cap. 4. affirms it to be unreasonable to demand it and impossible to perform it But 5. It s an impudent fals hood which this Pamphleter often repeats in his 5. Section that I had affirmed that the number of Fundamentals cannot be determined let him instance the place without varying my words when I did affirm this Nay I was so far from it that I challenged Mr. Dempster of the same untruch paper 7. pag. 122. But Jesuits will not blush though deprehended in such Peccadillo's All his pretext for this is from a testimony of Mr. Chillingworth part 1. cap. Sect. 13. cited by me wherein that Author affirms that more may be necessary to the Salvation of some then of others and therefore to call for a precise Catalogue of points necessary to the Salvation of every one were as if one should call for a diall to serve all meridians or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes Concerning which testimony I desire these things to be noted 1. This Pamphleter as if he had been left to divine concerning the Author of that testimony speakes as one that gave a specimen of his great reading saying Mr Chillingworth is the Man as I conceive and yet I had in my tenth paper pag. 219. not only named Chillingworth but pointed at Cap and Sect where this testimony was to be found 2. This was Mr. Chillingworths assertion not mine The most I said of it was paper 6. pag. 92. What if it should be added that more is requisite to the Salvation of one then another whereupon a great Divine whom I by name expressed paper 10. pag 219. spared not to say c. But I did not positivly own his assertion Yet 3. it may safely be said that more may be required to the Salvation of one then of another and that it s as impossible to determine a Catalogue of truths necessary to the Salvation of every one as to find out a dial to serve all Meridians or a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes and yet not be impossible to determine Fundamentals properly and strictly so called For clearing of this it would be considered that there be two kinds of truths necessary to Salvation some primarly simply and absolutely without the explicite belief whereof no adult person can be saved and these are strictly taken Fundamentals others are onely necessary secundum quid and Secundarily as when a point of truth is discovered to be revealed by God though in it self it be not absolutely necessary yet in these circumstances a man cannot disbelieve it or impugn it and continue therein without throwing himself upon damnation For to oppugn known truth is a sin which without repentance necessarily infers damnation On this account Mr. Chillingworth said that the precise number of necessary truths could not be determined because one may see more of the material objects of Faith to be revealed than another and so more may be necessary to the Salvation of one than of another and consequently its impossible that a certain number for all should be determined and so much also is acknowledged by Dr. Vane Lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 88. Yet this concludes no impossibility of determining the number of the first kind of necessary truths without the explicite belief whereof no adult person may be saved though I neither judge it necessary nor expedient to be done by me a the present perhaps also an Article of religion may be more clearly revealed then the Fundamentaly of it for though it be absolutly necessary to Salvation that Fundamentals be believed yet it s not absolutely necessary that every Fundamental be believed under this reduplication as a Fundamental Among other reasons why it hath pleased the Lord not to reveal the Fundamentality of all Fundamentals as clearly as the Articles themselves this may be one lest people
Caranza relates in Summa Concil for discovery of Wicklevists and Hussits utrum credat quod post consecrationem sacerdotis in Sacramento altaris sub velamento panis vini non sit panis materialis vinum materiale sed idem per omnia Christus qui fuit in carne passus Doth not Aeneas Sylvius or Pope Pius the 2d charge the Hussits as affirming the equality of the Bishop of Rome with other Bishops as disallowing prayers to and invocation of Saints departed as condemning the necessity of atricular confession and excluding confirmation from the number of Sacraments either then the Pamphleter must derogate Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me or any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who maintained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists if their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denies But takes no leasure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lombard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church It we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Marâ—yr which Reverend and worthy Mr. Rait hath reprinted 〈◊〉 his late book what the consonancy betwixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christianog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the confutor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4 viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so as to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sense But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacrifice in the Mass then as S Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayers far less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Nor 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them liberation from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cont Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238. 239. Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Unction as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D.
their Religion as it is set forth by Pius quartus confession of Faith and in the Council of Trent and let all the Jesuits upon the face of the earth find it out in the first three ages of Christianity if they can How far the broken fragments which this Pamphleter filches from his Fellows are from performing this work shall I hope be seen in Cap. 7. The second reflexion is If I appeal to the Faith of the Church of the first three ages then I must acknowledge one infallible visible Judge Answer I deny the sequel was it to any representative of the first three ages which I did appeal Is it not acknowledged that in the first three ages from that Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. there was no general Council which together with a Pope is made by this Pamphleter the infallible Judge Was it not to the Faith of the diffusive Catholike Church to which I did appeal to which neither Papist nor Protestant ascribes a juridical power But the diffusive Church has a promise of perpetuity and Consequently that the essentialls of Faith shall be preserved in her If therefore the Faith of the ancient Catholike Church may be known by it the Faith of the present Church may be tryed Yet I ever made it but a secundary rule the holy Scriptures being the chief test but of this I treated more at large Paper 7. Pag. 231 232. 233. 234. Page 136. he says that I affirm that papists agree with us in all our positive tenets it seems Romish missionaries are so habituated in lying that they can hardly speak truth I never either spoke or thought so Papists are injurious to the truth not only by addition but also by substraction Do they not substract the cup in the Sacrament Do they not substract the substance both of Bread and Wine leaving only a specter of accidents to remain in the Sacramental Symbols Do they not deny the perspicuity of Scriptures and that all sins of their own nature merit eternal damnation c. in all which they hold the negative and we the affirmative The observe which he subjoyns that all cheif Heresies for most part consisted in negatives Is ludibrious all for the most part is all and not all But have not gross Hereticks maintained positive errors as Manichees duo principia Tritheits three Gods the Nestorians two persons in Christ John of Constantinople that himself was universal Bishop c. Is he not so ridiculous in reckoning the negatives of Hereticks that as would seem he could not distinguish betwixt an affirmative and a negative Among negative Hereticks he reckons the Nestorians whose Heresy consisted in a positive ascribing two persons to Christ and the Marcionits for maintaining that Baptism should be reiterated Is not rebaptization a positive Papists maintain seven Sacraments should others maintain twice seven were they not Heretical Papists add Apocrypha Books to the Old Testament If others added the evangells of Thomas and Nicodemus to the New Testament were they not Hereticks Papists say dulia should be given to Saints should others assert the lawfullness of Latria to them were they not Hereticks There may therefore be Heresy in positives But what though all Hereticks maintained negatives which yet is false doth it therefore follow that all who maintain negatives are Hereticks Is a Syllogism in 2da figura ex omnibus affirmantibus good Though it were so the Papists could not clear themselves from Heresy for they also differ from us in negatives This only in passing to shew the ludibrious quibling of Sophisticating Jesuits CHAP. VII The Truth of the Religion of Protestants evicted by the Conformity thereof with the faith of the Primitive Church in the first three Ages and the falshood of the present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the Faith of these Ages THere being but one Faith Ephes 4. 5. or one true Christian Religion which undoubtedly was conserved in as great purity by the Church in the first three Ages as in any other time consequently among the many pretenders to Religion in these days their Religion must only be true which agreeth in essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those Ages and that surely must be a false Religion which is discrepant in Essentials from that primitive Faith Whereupon I subsume but so it is that the Religion of Protestants doth agree in Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those times and the present Romish Religion doth certainly disagree Therefore the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion and the Popish Religion is false and impious The evidence of the first proposition is so clear that the Pamphleter in a peculiar Section from pag. 139. labours to justifie the present Romish Faith by some abusive Pretexts of Antiquity as if the Fathers of those Ages did clearly speak for them and against Protestants in all the chief controverted points It remains therefore that I prove the Assumption In order to which I only premise that a Religion may differ from that ancient Faith in Essentials or in points necessary to Salvation two ways viz. Either by denying some Articles of faith which she held as necessary or by coyning others as necessary which she held not This premised For evicting the conformity of our Religion as to all Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first ages it may be sufficient to renew to all Romanists my appeal mâ—de to Mr. Dempster pag. 4. pag. 54. to instance one Essential of Faith wherein we differ from the Christian Church in those Ages that is to pitch upon one Article held as absolutely necessary by the Catholick Church of those times and denied by the Reformed Churches or one Article which the Reformed Churches hold as absolutely necessary and those ancient Churches held not If we may judge of what other Romanists can say as to this matter by the ten Instances which the Pamphleter from pag. 139. has scraped together from their common Place Books I hope the ensuing examination of them shall discover more the consonancy of our Religion with the ancient Christian Religion and the dissonancy of the Romish Religion Or if we measure the Essentials of the ancient Christian Faith by the ancient Creeds and Confession of Faith these being drawn up as tests to distinguish them of the Church from others which as is supposed by learned Divines would not answer their end if they did not contain the Articles which the Church in those days held as necessary Then surely the Protestant Churches do agree with the ancient Church in all Essentials of Faith For all the Reformed Churches do cordially own all the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Primitive Churches not only in the first three ages but also much lower such as the Apostolick the Antiochian Nicen Constantinopolitan Athanasian as also these of Ephesus and Chalcedon neither have the Protestant Churches made a super-addition of new essential Articles unknown to
Church for a more ample instruction how to lead a regular course of Life Austin lib. 18. de civ dei cap. 36. expresly distinguishes the Books of Maccabees from these that are strictly canonical Nor is there mention of the Maccabees in that Canon oâ— Câ—rthage either as it is set down in the Greek Code or in the collection made by Cresconius not to speak of the scruples that are raised concerning the reality of that Canon oâ— Council by which it was made of which I leave the Reader to Dr. Cosins Hiâ—â— Sâ—ct 82. But sixthly admitting Innocents decretalls and Gelasius deâ—ree and the Canon of Carthage to be real yet all fall within the fifth Century for Innocent whom Becan sets in the first place is said to have lived Anno 402. And Gelasius was in the end of that Century about the Year 494. and so falls short of the first three ages I add eventhly and lastly that sure it is that neither by Innocent nor Gelasius nor the Council of Carthage yea nor by the Council of Florence could these Books be declared to be strictly and properly Canonical for most eminent Doctors in the Roman Church who could not be ignorant what these Councils and Popes had defined denyed either all or some of them to be Canonical such as Lyranus Antoninus Abulenfis Cajetan c. When Melchior Canus had objected these Authors to himself lib. 2. cap. 10. he Answers cap. 11. ad tertium illos ignorantiâ Labo âsse Where Melchior Canus brings on himself the suspicion of dis-ingenuity and of desperateness on his cause when he hath no other evasion but to say that the most eminent Doctors in the Church of Rome understand not what was defined to be Canonical Scripture by the Church By all which it may appear that â—ustly Learned Protestants have concluded that the present Romish Canon was so far from being acknowledged by the Ancient Church that it was never defined as an Article of Faith until the late Trent Coâ—venticle Here it miâ—ht make a good Problem why they of the Roman Church who so much undervalue the Scripture are so veâ—ement to have the Apocrypha Books eurolled in the Scripture-Canon But judicious Dr. Don Serm. 73. hath disclosed the Mystery viz. the design of Romanists being to undervalue Scripture that they may overvalue their Traditions and sentences of their visible judge therefore they put the name of Scripture upon Books of a lower value that the unworthiness of these additional Books may cast a diminution upon the Books which truely are Canonical when all are made alike A Stratagem forsooth well becoming the man of sin Instance second the Council of Trent sess 4. decret 2. hath Authorized the vulgar Latin version of the Bible to the authentique rule of Faith passing by the Originalls of the Hebrew and Greek the like cannot be pretended to be done by the Church in the first three Centuries Romanists will have much a do to prove that the vulgar Latin as now set forth by Clement the eighth was extant in these three Centuries Sure I am that the Ancient Fathers even they who flourished after the third Century were so far from teaching that the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek of the New were to be corrected by this Latin version that they held all versions were to be corrected by the Original Take for all Hierom Epist. ad Suniam Fretelam and August lib. 2. de Doctrin Christ cap. 15. Instance third the Council of Trent sess 22. cap. 8. and Can. 9. declares it not to be expedient that the publick worship of God should be performed in a Language known to the multitude and anathematizes them who teach otherwise So taught not the Christian Church of the first three ages as hath oft been demonstrated by our Divines from Orig. lib. 8. Cont. Celsum Justin apol 2. Tertul. Apol. 39. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Chrys Basil Austin At present let that of Origen suffice lib. 8. contra Celsum every Nation saith he Prays to God in their own proper Language Yea the more ingenuous among Romanists confess so much Hence Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones caetera omnia fiebant in Lingua vulgari So also Cassander in Liturg. cap. 28. Yea Bell. himself lib. 2 de verb dei cap. 16. from Justin Martyr Chrysost Cyp. and Hierom acknowledges that in the primitive Church the whole multitude joyned in the puâ—lick services saying Amen which supposes they understood what was said And a little after he saith that in process of time that custom was changed and a Clerk was substituted to say Amen in name of the People Consequently by Bellarmins confession the Roman Church in this particular hath innovated And of that Clerk also Suarez in 3. part tom 3. q. 83. art 4. disp 83. sect 1. Is not ashamed to say nunc non est necesse ut minister linguam intelligat in qua missa dicitur that now it is not necessary that the Minister understand the Language wherein Mass is said Cajetan is better advised who in 1 Cor. 14. confesses it were for more edification that the worship were performed in a known tongue So doth Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. and Cassander in defens offic pii viri Pag. 141. wishes that according to the Apostles command and practice of the Ancient Church Gods worship were performed in a known tongue So far is this worshipping of God without understanding now practised and taught by the Romish Church from that reasonable service which God requires Rom. 12. 1. that Austin exposit 2. in Psal 18. compares it to the chattering of Parrots and Crows and lib. 4 de Doct. Christi cap. 10 quid prodest saith he locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis yea in decret Greg. 9. lib. 1. tit 31. de offic jud orb cap. 14. It s ordained that Cities where are people of different Languages men be provided to celebrate Divine service according to the diversity of Languages and Justini an in Novel 123. Statutes that holy things be celebrated with a loud and distinct voice that the hearts of the hearers may be raised up to the greater devotion which could not be if then the worship had not been performed in an intelligible Language In the Roman Pontifical Readers are commanded lectiones sacras distincte aperte ad intelligentiam aedificationem fidelium proferre It is as easie therefore to reconcile Adultery with the Seventh Commandement as the present way of the Romish Church either with Scripture or Antiquity It s true in many places of the West publick worship was performed in Latin but it s as true that the Latin Tongue was then generally understood by reason of the Roman Colonies Yet Romanists want not some presidents for their barbarous worship such as the Hereticks called Osseni in Epiphanius haeres 19. and the Hieraclionitae in Austin haeres 16. who taught to pray with obscure word
are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2. 9. that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an Imposter Yea Bell. affirms lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. that there can be no infallible certainty whether such a thing be a true Miracle or an illusion of the Devil ante approbationem Ecclesiae before the approbation of the Church Behold then how these Romish impostors run in a circle proving the truth of their Church by Miracles and the truth of Miracles by the testimony of their Church One of the two they must acknowledge either that Scripture hath a self evidencing Light which will ruin their whole interest or that Miracles cary not with them a self evidence and consequently are impertinently brought as the first and most evident note of the true Church I leave it to the deliberation of our adversaries which of the two they will chuse In the second place it would be considered that there were indeed glorious miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles nor do we deny that there were Miracles there after in the primitive Church also yet all these are Impertinently alleadged by Romish Authors as to this present Debate For certainly none of the real Miracles done by Christ or his Apostles or afterwards in the days of Irenaeus Justin Martyr Cyprian Gregory Thaumaturg were wrought to prove that the Roman Church in these last days is the only Catholick Church or that the present System of Romish Faith as defined in the Council of Trent or expressed in Pope Pius the Fourth his Creed is the only true Christian Faith Have I not shewed Popery as now it stands was not known in these days These Miracles prove the Truth of the Christian Religion in those days which I have shewed to differ in Essentials from the Trent Religion but to agree with the reformed Religion How miserably the Pamphleter comes off as to Miracles in ancient times may be apparent to any that takes notice of his citations pag. 187. 188. His first citation from Justin Martyr q. 28. is out of a Book acknowledged to be spurious by their own Authors Bell. Possevin Sixtus Senensis and Azorius yea nor was it written within the first three Centuries as is evicted by learned Criticks And besides the Author of these questions mentions not a Miracle wrought for any Popish Tenet far less for the complex of all Only that at the Sepulchres of Martyres Miracles were done to confirm the truth of the Christian Faith not the worship of Reliques That of Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 58. speaks only of Miracles wrought by living Saints for conversion of Infidels What is that to the Romish interest As for the Miracles of Greg. of Neocaesarea commonly called Thaumaturgus there is no mention of them for a hundred years after his time until Greg. Nyssen If they were all real is it not strange that Eusebius who uses to be very punctual in these things has not a touch of them That Orat. of Nyssen de vita Greg. is called by Scultetus Somnium Somniorum surely there be very fabulous things therein as that the Virgin Mary and John came down from Heaven to teach him his Creed which Dr. Beard retract cap. 12. compares to the Poetical Fiction of Apollo teaching Esculapius the Rules of Physick and to the Rabinick Fable of the Angel Sanballets being Adams School-master and Nyssen himself is charged by his Brother Basil as a simple and credulous man But what Did Greg. Thaumaturg work any Miracle to prove the whole System of the present Romish Religion to be true No such thing can be alleadged only in some of his Miracles he is said to have used the Sign of the Cross What then Do not Protestants particularly Hospinian lib. 2. de templis cap. 20. acknowledge the sign of the Cross as used by Ancients to testifie that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour to have been lawful though now it be superstitiously abused Romanists now give Religious adoration yea that of Latria to Crosses But no ancient Author testifies that ever Greg. Thaumaturg did so What is cited from S. Cyprian Serm. de lapsis as relating Miracles to prove the Corporal presence of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Jesuitical falshood these Miracles did prove the Divine Institution of the Sacrament of the Supper the mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of Christs human Nature represented by the Sacramental Symbols but no more of the figment of Transubstantiation then of Mahomets Alcoran These are all the citations he has for the first three Ages of Christianity if there be one Miracle here to prove the present Trent Religion to the only true Christian Faith let any who are not willing to be deceived judge The like impertinency may be discovered in the next three succeeding Ages for the whole Story of the Invention of the Cross by Helena the Empress and Mother of Constantine and the Miracle reported by Ruffin and Nicephorus to be wrought at that time appears to be fabulous Is it probable that Eusebius who wrote four Books of the life of Constantine would have omitted it Dellaeus is large in confuting it lib. 5. de object Cultus Relig. c. 1. But suppose it were true was that Miracle wrought to confirm any point of Popery far less all No verily the only design of it if real was to show that Jesus who was Crucified on that Tree was the Saviour of the World Helena and the Christians of those days had not learnt to adore the Cross Hence S. Ambrose de Obitum Theodosii says Regem adoravit non lignum she adored Christ but not the Tree That of Epiphanius Heres 30. looks also to be fabulous and
that you think not strange of this Epiphanius credulity is censured by Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 477. and in many places by Barronius as Rivet hath observed in Crit. Sac. lib. 3. cap. 28. But make all real that Epiphanius there reports yet the design of that Miracle was not to confirm any point of Popery far less all but only the Christian Religion It s true Epiphanius reports that Josephus who formerly had been a Jew made use of water in working that Miracle but not any of the four kinds of Popish Holy-Water mentioned by Durand in rationali lib. 4. cap. 4. and though he used the sign of the Cross yet he was far from the adoration of the Cross That from Nazianzen Orat. 11. of a Virgins Invocating the Virgin Mary to defeat Cyprians Enchantments is acknowledged by Barronius himself to be a Fable ad annum 250. Pontius a Deacon under Cyprian who wrote his life knew no such thing Austin indeed relates many Miracles lib. 22. de Civ cap. 8. But not to prove that this present Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or the present System of Romish Faith the true Christian Faith the most is that at the Sepulchre of S. Stephen and other Saints Miracles were wrought but not in Veneration of his or other Reliques The Dialogues attributed to Greg. are concluded upon important Reasons spurious by Cocus yea by Melchior Canus lib. 11. cap. 5. faith is derogated both from the relations in these Dialogues and Beeds Hist Eccles Anglic. and how little faith is to be given to Greg. Turonensis may be learned from Barronius Tom. 2. ad An. 109. where he calls him a simple man relating many things otherwise then they were so that in these other three Centuries I can see nothing save only that Miracles were wrought at the Memories of Martyrs and perhaps divers of these relations also were fabulous but what is this to the Body of Popish Errors and Superstitions No better are the Pamphleters insinuations pag. 192. of the Miracles wrought by our Scottish Saints Saint Mungo and Saint Fiaker adding That a Miracle makes the Arms of one of our Cities I suppose he means Glasgow which hath in her Coat of Armes a Fish with a Ring in its Mouth but of St. Mungoes Miracles hear Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 11. of which ye may judge of the rest Many lying Miracles saith he have been ascribed to him but certainly he was a man of rare Piety and worthy to have been made a Subject of Truth to Posterity not of Fables and Fictions as the Legends of Monks have made him As for that supposed Miracle to which the Arms of Glasgow seem to allude it was not wrought to confirm any point of Religion far less of Popery but to vindicate the Chastity of a Lady who was unjustly jealoused by her Husband as Bishop Spotswood gives an account pag. 112. But if Popish Missionaries muster up Legends to a credulous people they stand not whether they be to purpose or not The real ancient Miracles then are altogether impertinently alledged by the Pamphleter I add thirdly that the Legendary Paltry of Romish Miracles of latter times is generally spurious They might be reduced to these Heads viz. Either 1. Meer Forgeries or 2. Cunning Stratagems of subtil persons or 3. Magical Impostures or 4. They are manifestly ludibrious who please may find this largely proved by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 284. How oft have the Cheats of Romanists as to these things been discovered What should I speak of the Dominicans at Bern who taught an Image to weep smile and walk Anno 1509. See Lavat de spectris Part. 1. cap. 7. and Hospin de Monach. lib. 6. cap. 14. fol. 222. or of the Franciscans at Orleans who counterfeited the apparition of a Spirit revealing such a Matron to be condemned to Hell because the Husband had not been more beneficial to their Order at her Funerals See Sleidan lib. 9. Anno 1534. and Lavat ibid. cap. 8. or of Mary of Lisbon much renowned for Miracles who predicted a Triumphant Victory to to the Spanish Armado Anno 1588. yet that year she was detected to be a Cheat or of that egregious Impostor Joannes à Vincentia a Franciscan likewise who cured all manner of diseases expelled Devils and pretended to raise eighteen from the Dead yet was found also to be an Impostor as Crakanthrop relates out of Vigner but not till he had drawn to the Monastery a vast Revenue Who hath not heard of Magdelena de Cruce a Nun of Corduba to be a Sorceress and one who had conversed familiarly with the Devil Lavat lib. cit cap. 9. reports that a Jesuit at Augusta in Germany Anno 1564. counterfeited himself to be a Devil to affright some that had not a kindness for the Order and that a daring Fellow stobbed that Hobgoblin Jesuit to death Doth not Erasmus tell how a Priest filled a Church-yard in the night time with living Crabs and burning Tapers to make the people apprehend it was departed Souls calling for the suffrages of the Living for their liberation out of Purgatory Who knows not how Pope Boniface 8. got the Papacy by a counterfeit Miracle as if by the voice of an Angel Pope Caelestine his Predecessor had been advised to lay down the Papacy Caelestine cede si salvus esse cupis Such are these instances of latter times cited by the Pamphleter pag. 188 189. as may appear by this ensuing touch of them That bleeding of the Crucifix stabbed by the Jews at Bezitum is proved to be fabulous by Hospin lib. 2. de Templis cap. 10. and Cocus in censur vet pag. 93 94 95. Such another Fable is that of the second Council of Nice of the ejection of Devils and healing of diseases by the Image of Anastasius That second Council of Nice was most impudent in alledging impostorous Legends as Crakanthorp has largely demonstrated Defens Eccles Anglic. cap. 5. Yea he brings in Espencaeus confessing they did shamelesly abuse daemonum spectris muliebribus somniis diabolick specters and dreams of the weaker Sex to support their Image-worship That of Pope Leo the Third as if his tongue and eyes had been pulled out and both miraculously restored appears to be a Forgery For Platina in vita Leon. 3. says only ut oculis lingua captus putaretur Nanclerus as cited by Hottinger Saec. 8. Sect. 5. pag. 560. lays the whole stress of the Report of that Miracle on the affirmation of Anastasius the Popes Bibliothecary a man not worthy of much credit being convicted of many contradictions by Barronius as is observed by Maresius de Joanna Papissa pag. 31 32. and especially ready to prevaricate for Popes Sethus Calvisius Anno 799. saith he only lost one of his eyes Osiander seems to set down the real truth Cent. 8. pag. 129. Vt parum abfuerit quin oculos amitteret he had almost lost his eyes It seems
blasphemously chant c. whereby they charge the errour of their Idolatrous Religion and false Miracles on an holy God I far better shut up with Austin lib. de unit Eccles cap. 16. Non dicat ideo verum esse quia illa mirabilia fecit Donatur amoâ—eantur ista vel figmenta fallacium hominum vel portenta fallacium Spirituum Were the Pamphleters popular flourishes concerning Miracles reduced to a Syllogistick frame they behoved to run thus That Society in which Miracles are wrought is the true and Catholick Church but in the Romish Church Miracles are wrought Ergo the Romish Church is the true and Catholick Church Whatever be of the minor the major is manifestly false for Miracles may be wrought among Hereticks yea and Infidels If therefore the Syllogism be rectified thus The Society in which Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of their Faith is the true Catholick Church but Miracles are wrought in the Romish Church to confirm the soundness of her Faith Ergo c. Then first the major yet remains false for Miracles may be wrought to confirm the Orthodoxy of the Faith of a particular Church The major cannot hold unless the Miracles be first true secondly wrought to confirm the Faith of the Society and thirdly the Catholicism of it that is that they have no interest in the Church who submit not to the Government of that Church and thus I let the major pass But then the minor is notoriously false viz. that in the present Romish Church true Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of her Faith and her Catholicism or Universal Jurisdiction over all Churches I appeal all the Jesuits in Europe to make good this Assumption which till they do all their discourse about Miracles is but a flourish I confess in the Ancient Roman Church there were miracles wrought to confirm the truth of her Faith but not her Catholicism as if she only had been the Christian Church for she was but a particular Church at best the present Romish Church hath foully Apostatized from the Faith of the Ancient Church search your Records and Legends to find one true Miracle to confirm the Faith and Catholicism of the present Romish Church this you will find impossible for her Faith is unsound and Catholicism in the sense spoken of she never had But from this Head of Miracles I demonstrate the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion which is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had is surely the true Christian Religion But the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had Ergo The Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion The Assumption concerning which only the doubt can be is proved thus The Apostolick Religion is confirmed by the most glorious Miracles that ever the world saw but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion Ergo the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate Miracles that ever the world saw The major none can deny but an Infidel for evidencing the minor let the Religion of Protestants be examined by the Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and if one Article be found in our Religion dissonant there-from we shall instantly disown it The Reader here may observe the difference betwixt the Romish procedure and ours we confirm our Religion by the indubitate Miracles which prove Christianity it self they by some fabulous at best uncertain Legendary stories the truth whereof is questioned by their own Authors and the falshood of many detected to the world If it be said that any Heretick may argue as we do to confirm their Heresie I shall not now stand to retort how Hereticks have argued for their Heresie from pretended Miracles as do Romanists to day Only to shew the disparity betwixt us and Hereticks I undertake against all the Enemies of Truth in the world to prove the real conformity of the Reformed Religion with the Apostolick revealed in Scripture and the disconformity of all Heresies whatsoever It 's a real conformity with Apostolick Doctrine not pretended only which proves it to be confirmed by Apostolick Miracles ARTICLE II. Of the Conversion of Infidels THe second Note whereby this Pamphleter would prove the Catholicism of their Romish Church is that by her all Christian Nations have been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ And to confirm this he following Bell. Breerly and the Drove hints at a multitude of stories which upon examination will be found of no significancy to the point in hand For first it 's a most notorious falshood that all Christian people have been converted by the Romish Church was the Church of Jerusalem converted by her or the Church of Caesarea or of Antioch or the Greek Churches in general As Eve was the Mother of all Living so not the Roman but the Church of Hierusalem may be termed the Mother of all Churches And so she is designed by the second General Council at Constantinople as witnesses Theod. Hist lib. 5. cap. 9. The Bishop of Bitontum in the Council of Trent acknowledged Greece to be the Mother of all that the Latin Church had Doth not Theod. lib. 1. Hist cap. 22. report that the Indians were converted by Lay-men Edesius and Frumentius and that for carrying on the work Frumentius received Ordination from Athanasius then Patriarch of Alexandria and not from the Bishop of Rome The Pamphleter but plays the Cheat when he alledges that our Church of Scotland owes her first Conversion to Pope Victor his Legats and Envoys The Reader may see the falshood of this proved by Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 21. edit 3. These Preachers sent hither by Victor were sent upon the entreaty of King Donald the First which the King would not have sought had he not been Christian before If our Conversion had been wrought by Pope Victor how came it that our Church was not fashioned to the Roman in outward rites especially in the observance of Easter whereof Victor was but preposterously zealous Much more probable looks the conjecture of Bishop Spotswood that some of John's Disciples under the persecution of Domitian have had their refuge hither and were instruments of planting Christianity among us and the rather because this Church was very tenacious of the Oriental Customs alledging for it the Authority of John However Scotland was very anciently enlightned with the Gospel hence is that of Tertul. adversus Judaeos cap. 7. Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita and their conformity in rites with the Greek Church and not with the Latin shew their Original was not from Rome It is a manifest falshood then that the Roman Church is the Mother of all or of our Church of Scotland But secondly this Pamphleter deceitfully confounds and joyns together the endeavours of the Ancient Romish Church for converting of Nations with the practises of the
present Romish Church for Proseliting Countries to the Popish perswasion We acknowledge the Roman Church was instrumental in converting many Nations to Jesus Christ but it was not to the present Romish Faith that not being then hatched but to the Christian Faith The like also was done by other Churches particularly by the Greek Church Hence Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography Edit 3. pag. 21. renders this as one reason of the large Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople the conversion of many Nations to the Christian Faith by his Suffragans Therefore though it were true that Scotland did owe her conversion to Victor and England to Eleutherius both which are false yea the Gospel was planted in Britain some years before it came to Rome it self if Baronius story concerning Joseph of Arimathea ad annum 35. or Gildas testimony that Britain received the Gospel in the end of Tiberius Caesar's Reign deserve credit this makes nothing for the truth of the present Romish Faith or Catholicism of the present Romish Church for the Ancient Romish Church declined from the Faith of the present Popish Church as well as we Thirdly Particular Churches though not altogether sound in the Faith but stained with some errours in the integrals of Religion may be instrumental in converting Nations As a Leprous man may beget Children he is a man though not a found man In this case it 's by vertue of the sound Principles of Christianity retained in these Churches that they beget Children unto God and not of their errors nay their errors do oft-times deface the work for with the truths of the Gospel they transmit their errours Such were these conversions of Nations wherein the Roman Church had a hand in the intermedial Ages as those of Germany by Boniface For sure it is that in Germany the Gospel had been preached long before the time of that Boniface sent thither by Creg 2. in the eigth Century as Baronius ad annum 690. doth acknowledge and Boxbornias in Hist Vniversali pag. 198. doth prove from Irenaeus and Tertullian that the seeds of the Christian Religion were sown in Germany in the second Century and therefore pag. 101. he exhibits Ancient Versions of the Apostolick Creed both in the Aleman and Saxon Languages I shall not say but by Boniface the Gospel hath been propagated in Germany yet surely with many corruptions wherewith at that time the Roman Church was tainted and therefore he was zealously opposed by holy men particularly by Adelbertus Clemens Sampson Sydonius Virgilius as is shewed by the Author of Catal. test verit lib. 8. pag. 755. and Hottinger Saec. 8. pag. 527. The like was the case of Austin his Conversion of England the Gospel was in England long before he came over and more pure than he preached it yet it cannot be denied but he was instrumental to convert many who till that time had retained their Heathenism but with the Gospel he did also introduce many Superstitions which were zealously opposed by British Christians for a long time The converting of Souls to Christ therefore proves not a Church to be sound far less the Catholick Church Did not the Jewish Church beget Sons and Daughters to God when she was defiled with Superstition and Idolatry yea have not private persons been instrumental in converting Souls to God as some Exiled Slaves converted the Moors in Africk See Baron ad annum 456. N. 4. But fourthly It 's more evident than can be denied that Hereticks and Infidels have prevailed with Nations to be of their perswasion Doth not Heresie spread as a Gangrene 2 Tim. 2. 17. Did not Pharisees compass Sea and Land to make Proselites Mat. 23. 15. though they made them the Children of the Devil more than themselves How many Nations have been leavened by Mahumetanism Neither was that done only by force of Arms as Bell. alledges but also by corrupting the judgments of men Mahumetans believing their Alcoran as firmly as Papists do their Tridentine Articles Is it not told that Antichrist should come with strong delusion 2 Thes 2. 10 11. yea and with such success that the World should wonder after the Beast Revel 13. 3. How many Nations were corrupted by Arrianism Do we not find the Leaven of Socinianism Quakerism c. prevailing with many So that the Argument from bringing multitudes to the same perswasion is very fallacious unless the Faith to which persons are brought be sound And if it must be supposed that the Faith be sound before an Argument be forcible from that ground there must be another Evidence for the soundness of the Faith than this Pamphleter hath brought Yea Preculphus in Chronico Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 20. by the confession of Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. affirms the whole Nation of the Goths to have been converted by the Arrians to the Christian Profession from Heathenism in the time of Valens the Emperour Only the Cardinal to enervate this testimony of Freculphus all edges from Socrates lib. 4. cap. 27. Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 37. and Theod. lib. 4. cap. ult that the greater part of the Goths were first converted to the Orthodox Faith and only afterward perverted by the Arrians to their Heresie But on the contrary Socrates declares this to be the ground on which the Goths were willing to accept the Christian Religion because of the aid which Valens had given to Phâ—itigernes against Athalaricus so as he seems to agree with Freculphus The outmost that the other two Theodoret and Sozomen have is that Vlphilas the first Bishop of the Goths while Orthodox had converted some of them to the Orthodox Faith not the greater part as Bellarmine affirms So that at least this seems clear that after Vlphilas turned Arrian he not only drew the Christians to the Arrian perswasion but many Heathens also to the profession of Christ wherein they were so constant that under Athalaricus not a few of them suffered death on that account If therefore Romanists ascribe the Conversion of Germany to Boniface of England to Austin the Monk and of Scotland to Pope Victor because by them the Gospel was propagated in these Countries though not first planted how can they deny but on the like account the Conversion of the Goths ought to be ascribed to the Arrians Were not the Russians or Muscovians converted to the Christian Religion by the Grecians as testifieth Barron ad annum 867. N. 10. when Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople whom Romanists hold for a grievous Schismatick Fifthly It 's a falshood that no Nations have been converted by Protestants How many Nations have imbraced the Truth and forsaken the Idolatry of Popery as Scotland England Ireland the Vnited Provinces in the Netherlands Denmark Norway Swedeland many people in Germany France Poland Hungary Transylvania c. neither ought this to be despised though these Countries did formerly profess Christianity seeing the power of the Gospel is no less resplendant in the Conversion
of Hereticks than of Infidels But besides Gerard de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 9. § 258. testifies that by Protestants many thousands have been converted from Heathenism in Island Greenland Lapland Livonia c. Not to mention the many Indians converted in New-England and other parts of America But though it were granted that Heathen Nations had not been converted by them this would only charge Protestants of a sinful negligence but not prove their Religion to be false Methinks this clamour of Romanists against our Churches for not bestirring themselves more zealously for the Conversion of Infidel Nations should awake Protestant Princes and Churches seriously to consider what may be done for the Conversion of Infidels both for the advantage of the Gospel and to stop the mouths of our cavilling Adversaries Sixthly Any Conversions made by Romanists have been very unlike the Primitive Conversions made by the Apostles these have generally been by force even these made in the intermedial Ages wanted not force that of Boniface among the Thuringians was done terrore armorum as Gerard observes ex Chronico Isenacensi Cent. 8. Eccles Hist cap. 10. Charles the Great brought the Saxons to imbrace the Christian Faith by bloody Wars But as for the late Romish Conversions which only can be attributed to the present Romish Church how bloody have many of them been Who can read what their own Bartholomaeus de la Casa hath written of the proceeding of the Spaniards in the West-Indies without horrour Did not a Great Person when a dying hearing that Catholick Spaniards went to Heaven profess he would never go there if Spaniards went thither judging it could be no good place where such bloody men went Yea Granado as cited by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 4. § 188. confesses Ea crudelitatis immanitate Hispanos erga illos usos ut Sanctissimum Christiani nomen non Pietatis Religionis sed crudelitatis immanitatis nomen habitum sit that is through their Barbarity the holy name of Christians became an Epithete of cruelty As for the East-Indies it's supposed there were some remainders of the Christian Faith among them left by the conversions of these people in ancient times and the truth of Popish relations concerning conversions there are justly to be questioned finding how unfaithful they are in Relations nearer home whereof I gave a hint cap. 3. Sect. 4. And besides their design is to convert them rather to the Pope and Papal Superstition than to Jesus Christ But if any Real Conversion be wrought by them it 's wholly to be attributed to the common Principles of Christianity yet retained among Papists but not to any of their Popish errours Let the Pamphleter notice these particulars and then frame an Argument if he can without Rhetorical declamations to prove their Church to be the true Catholick and Infallible Church But I invert also this his second Note and from it prove the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion by which alone Nations have been converted to the true Christian Faith is the only true Religion but by the Religion which Protestants hold Nations have only been converted Ergo. I prove the Assumption by the Apostolick Religion Nations have only been converted to the true Faith but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion and we own none else Let theirs and ours be compared if they be not the same Ergo by the Religion of Protestants Nations have only been converted If any again say that a Quaker or other Heretick may make the same Argument it hath been answered already Let matters be brought to tryal by Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and it shall be found our Religion and not theirs is the true Apostolick Religion And we have this strong presumption for us against both Papists and Quakers neither of them dare refer the Controversie to the decision of Scripture the one running to an infallible visible Judge the other to an infallible Light within But we remit all to the decision of Scriptures which Christians of all perswasions acknowledge to be of Divine Inspiration yet it 's not by presumptions we would deal but by a particular examination of Controversies let their Cause only prevail who have real conformity with Scriptures ARTICLE III. Of Sanctity of Life THe third Note of the Church brought by this Jesuit is taken from the pretended Sanctity of Romanists Lives But besides that Sanctity of Life is no solid Note of the true visible Church there is nothing to which Romanists have less ground to pretend I say first it 's no solid Note of the visible Church For either they speak of real internal Sanctity and Heart-Renovation or of external and apparent Sanctity If of the first though undoubtedly the Church has always a Remnant of truly Holy Ones yet internal holiness cannot be infallibly discerned by others and so much Bell. himself acknowledges lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 10. yea Romanists deny that a man can be infallibly certain of his own Sanctity If therefore he speak only of external and apparent Sanctity it 's not peculiar to the Church Hypocrites and pernicious Hereticks may have it are we not told that false Teachers may come in Sheeps cloathing Matth. 7. 15. that they speak lyes in hypocrisie 1 Tim. 4. 2. that they have a form of godliness 2 Tim. 3. 5. that the Ministers of Satan transform themselves into Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 12. Did not Pharisees make long prayers Mat. 23. 24. Are they not on this account resembled to painted Sepulchres vers 22. Did not Bell. lib. 5. de lib. arb cap. 10. confess that by the works of Teachers we cannot pass a sure judgment on their Doctrine because their inward works are not seen and the external works are common both to sound and unsound Teachers Did not the Novatians pretend to so much Sanctity that they would appropriate to themselves the Name of Cathari as testifies Austin de Haeres cap. 38. Who pretended more external Sanctity than the Pelagians See Hierâ—m lib. 3. advers Pelag. Were not Donatists such pretenders to Sanctity that they denied a Church to be where there were any wicked See Alphonsus à Castro advers Haeres tit Eccles Doth not Austin testifie lib. 1. de moribus Eccles cap. 1. that the very Manichees deceived many by the seeming Sanctity of their lives Do not Socinians who hardly deserve the Name of Christians pretend to much Sanctity as also our deluded Quakers Will Antichrist himself want his pretensions to Sanctity Hath not the Beast two Horns like the Lamb Revel 12. 11. Hath not the Whore a Golden Cup in her hand that is she guilds over her Abominations with the specious pretences of Piety It were indeed to be wished that all the Lords People were holy yet alas how oft hath the Real Church of God been overgrown with scandals Are not the complaints of the Prophets on this account known Micah 7. 1.
is wanting else the first Apostolick Church which succeeded to none had been no true Church yea there should hardly be a Church to day upon the Face of the Earth there hardly being a Church founded by the Apostles in which alas for pity the Lyn of Succession hath not some time or other been perturbed with the intervention of Heresie the Roman not excepted Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. acknowledges some Doctrines of Faith either thorough negligence errour or wickedness of men may for a time be as buried which afterward thorough the Churches diligence may be revived But as for the Roman Church she hath neither Doctrinal nor Personal Succession not Doctrinal as I have proved cap. 7. yea it will be hard to prove that the Complex of their present Religion is elder than the Council of Trent Nor Personal Is it not evident from History that some have taken the Papal Chair by Force some by Fraud some by Simony some by Magical Arts yea and some of them have been openly Heretical as Romanists themselves reckon Heresie if Arrians Nestorians Montanists Eutychians Monothelites be Hereticks Hereof we gave a touch Cap. 2. Sect. 2. Arg. 3. Sure I am the rest of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem can instruct a personal Succession no less than Rome Excellently did one compare the Pope of Rome pretending to succeed Peter because he sits in the Roman Chair unto Vibius Ruffus of whom Xiphilinus in the Life of Dion reports that because he sat in Julius Caesar's Chair therefore he gloried as if he had been Caesar The chief Cavils moved by Romanists against our Succession relate to the Call and Mission of our Reformers and succeeding Pastors which though this Pamphleter hath not touched yet seeing others lay so much stress upon them and they may appear somewhat specious to less discerning persons I judged it might not be unfit briefly to resolve the more important of them First then they object this The Call and Mission of our first Reformers was neither extraordinary and immediate nor ordinary and mediate and consequently null not extraordinary and immediate else it had been confirmed by Miracles and extraordinary Credentials nor mediate and ordinary there being none by whom they could have a mediate Mission but by the Ministers of the Church of Rome whom the most of Protestants hold to be Antichristian But the Ministers of the true Church of Christ cannot receive their Mission from the Ministers of Antichrist supposing by thi◠Argument the nullity of the Call of our Reformers to be evicted the nullity of succeeding Pastors is also concluded as deriving their Mission from the first Reformers and so a non habentibus potestatem Yea lastly hence the nullity of all Protetestant Churches is inferred because as Jerom contra Lucifer pronounces Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem It can be no Church that hath no Ministry I know no Sophism wherein Romanists do more triumph or the not penetrating the fallacy whereof hath driven weak and less considerate Protestants upon more Precipices This one Cavil is more specious than all our Pamphleter said But I shall not decline to grapple with them where their chief strength doth lye In discovery therefore of the fallacy of this Sophism I shall begin at the last and chief inference of the nullity of the Church from the nullity of the Ministry concerning which I propose these two distinctions First where there is no Ministry there is no Organical Church compleatly furnished with her Officers it 's granted no Entitative Church or no Society professing the Catholick Faith it 's denied else when the Ministers and Officers of a Church are removed by death the Church should perish but Act. 14. 23. it 's said the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it seems to be supposed they were Churches for a time without Pastors that is they were Societies of visible Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ But take this other distinction there is no Catholick Church without a Ministry it 's granted no particular Church is denied It 's true Ephes 4. 11 12 13. there is a promise of perpetuity of a Ministry in the Catholick Church for the edifying of the body but it 's no where promised that particular Churches should never be deprived of their Pastors for a time And so though these Churches Act. 14. for a time wanted Pastors to take particular inspection of them yet even then there were Pastors in the Catholick Church as the Apostles and others and this is all which either Jerom in the place cited or Cyprian Epist 69. in a like testimony intended From which I infer though it were granted which yet is splendidly false that there were no lawful Pastors in the Reformed Churches yet the nullity of these Churches could not be concluded but only a defect of needful Organs and Office-bearers yea though there were neither Pastors in Reformed Churches nor in the Roman yet would it not follow that the Catholick Church had no Pastors for the Catholick Church extends it self far beyond them both But in the next place I examine their first medium and so overthrow all it 's a splendid falshood that the call of our Reformers was null for it had the Essentials requisite to the call of Pastors consequently succeeding Pastors are ordained ab habentibus potestatem as to that Dilemma which hath been so often canvased and confuted I answer the Call of Reformers was mediate and ordinary and so needed not extraordinary Credentials They were not called to any new Function or to preach any new truths whereas some have said their Call was extraordinary It is to be understood only quoad modum non quoad substantiam or in regard of Heroick and in some sort extraordinary endowments wherewith they were fitted for reviving collapsed truths as is largely expounded by Voetius lib. 2. desper caus Pap. Sect. 2. cap. 24. and D. Prideaux de vocat Minist § 7. But it 's urged that then they have had their Mission from Ministers of the Church of Rome whom many Protestants hold as Antichristian It 's readily granted and that without the least advantage to the Romish Interest or detriment to the Reformed Religion For satisfying those that are judicious herein let these few things be considered And first Though all Protestants be not agreed that the latter Popes of Rome are the grand Antichrist yet they who speak most mildly in the thing cannot but acknowledge that Romanists hold many Antichristian Doctrines and that the spirit of Antichrist hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Church of Rome both in regard of their Heretical Doctrines especially that of Papal Infallibility then which not one can better serve the turn of Antichrist and of the exorbitant power usurped by Popes not only over all Bishops but also over Kings and whatsoever is called God See of this D. Fern in
which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our assent to the Divine Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Applicaâ—ion is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae inrespect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 16. say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18. 28. mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or as in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Featly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a
as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of Controversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Demster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keeps the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be moved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their Present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1. 4. In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be
3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 1. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russin Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one another sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholicae therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39 Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Josephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5. 17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancthon Cruciger Alesius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22. 19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their famous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
says not as the Pamphleter alleadges viz. that most of the Fathers did avouch Invocation of Saints But on the contrary affirm pag. 634. that for 350. years after Christ there was no Invocation of Saints in publica praxi Ecclesiae and that the first rise of it was about the year 370. in Nazianzen and Basils Panegyricks by Rhetorical Apostrophes and that also with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far were they from maintaining it to be an article of Faith It were tedious to go through all among all the testimonies cited by the Pamphleter there will not one be found who affirm that Popery was the prevalent Religion for 1400 years before Luther except Sebastian Frank whom Dr. Francis Whyte in the defence of Dr. John Whyte against T. W. pag. 324. declares to be an Anabaptist an unlearned malapert not spur Chemnitius as the same Author testifies calls him hominem petulantem indoctum Did ever Protestants acknowledge that the body of the present Romish Religion was received by the ancient Church such as half Communions picturing and adoring Images of the Trinity the whole present worship of the Virgin Mary the performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue the necessity of an Infallible visible judge the prohibiting of reading Scriptures in vulgar Tongues Indulgences the necessity of auricular Confession the necessity of the Priests intention to make Sacraments effectual the Popes Supremacy and Soveraignty over Princes c. Who is the Protestant that ever acknowledged these things to have been ever received in the Catholick Church I profess I never read of him nor knew him nor I believe shall he ever be found Whereas Jewel said That Truth was not known untill the Preaching of Luther and Zuinglius that must surely be understood secundum quid as Dr. Francis Whyte observes lib. cit pag. 267. for Jewel gave a most solemn challenge to Papists at Pauls Cross to make out one Article of their Religion out of one Father for 600. years after Christ which challenge he prosecuted against Harding What Dr. John White saith in defence of his way cap. 37. That Popery was a Leprosie breeding in the Church so Vniversally that there was no visible company appearing in the world free from it makes nothing against what is said Nay in these words he distinguishes betwixt the Church and that Leprosie of Popery and by saying that it was a Leprosie in the Church he affirms the existence of both The meaning of the Doctor only was that in these latter times wherein Popish errors and superstition spread so far in this Western part of the World though God with the rest even as those seven thousand in the days of Elias did with the rest of Israel Thirdly when some Fathers are charged with some errors which is all that these testimonies amount to it doth not follow that all the Fathers were smitten therewith Though Cyprian erred in the Rebaptization though Tertullian did Montanize Pope Liberius Arrianize many Asiaticks espouse the Quarto Deciman opinion Origen maintain positions which were justly anathematiz'd by the fifth general Council yet I hope all the Fathers much less the whole Church was not leavened with these errors Made I it not appear in my 9. paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 194. 195. that none are more profuse in censuring Fathers then Romanists Bellarmine spares not to say lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 6. that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Epiphanius c. cannot be defended that Tertullian was an Arch-Heretick and of no credit lib. 1. de S S. Beat. cap. 5. and lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. That Cypran did not only erre but also mortally offend lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. that Prudentius speaks like a Poet and not like a Divine lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. that Jerom was deceived lib. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. that Austin had no skill in the Hebrew lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 10. that himself little regarded Damasus Pontifical lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. that Sozomen was a manifest lyar lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 14. Neither is it only single Fathers they thus undervalue but oft-times will prefer three before 7. two before eight one before five of all which Dr. James gives luculent instances part 4. yea sometimes they condemn whoâ—e Armies of Fathers All the Fathers with one voice affirm saith Melchior Canus lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin Chrysost Euseb Ambrose Austin c. and as Dr. James observes some bring 200. others 300. Fathers to confirm this opinion yet what saith that Bishop of the Canaries of all these Cum nullus Sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contrarium probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur i. e. It s but a weak argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers yea the contrary notwithstanding their suffrages may be piously defended Are these the men who challenge us for undervaluing Fathers who put such contempt upon them In very deed they regard no Fathers further then they can serve their interest Both Scriptures and Fathers must stoop to the authority of the present Church of Rome that is the Pope How many bastard Fathers have they legitimated How many true Fathers have they castrated Hence is that observe of Dr. Don in his pseudo-Martyr cap. 6. Sect. 30. according to Romanists the Scripture is a Divin Law the writings or interpretations of Fathers a subdivin Law but the decretalls of Popes a superdivin Law whereunto Scripturs Councils and Fathers must bend and bow Yet I must do them right they have one evasion according to which they do wrong to no Father for if the Pope prohibit the writings of such an Author he ceases to be a Father he is but as Gretser the Jesuit phraseth it Vitricus a step Father Nor need Fathers complain of this usage seeing the Pope usurps the like Authority upon the Scripturs of God Neither shall Fathers be Fathers nor Scriptures be Scriptures except it please the Pope Is not this that man of sin that exalts himself above all that is called God I deny not but some Protestants may have been too rash in their censurs of Fathers perhaps not fully penetrating the scope of Fathers or not distinguishing betwixt their genuine and supposititious writings have supposed them to favour errors from which others yea and somtimes the same authors also upon better advisment have vindicated them As I cannot in this wholly justify the Magdeburgion Centurists so I cannot but notice how this Pamphleter hath either through ignorance or malice injured them He brings in the Centurists reprehending Cyprian Origen and Tertul in the third Century and Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters primacy and again reprehending Cyprian for owning the sacrifice of the Mass and generally confessing that the Fathers of the third age did witness the invocation of Saints
And the Apostles having to do with hypocrits who placed Righteousness in outward ceremonies utter diverse speaches in disgrace of legal rites not depressing the same in themselves but shewing they were unprofitable to such as abused them So Luther being opposed by adversaries who preferred the Fathers before the Scriptures correcting that abuse useth some broad speeches such as our adversary nameth against the errors of some Fathers not generally of all but otherwise when Fathers are lawfully used as witnesses and interpreters of truth he esteemeth them according to their worth and yeelds as much to them as themselves require and to verify this he cites two testimonies of Luther which to stop the mouths of rayling adversaries I here thought fit to insert The first is periculosum horrendum est audire vel credere quod adversatur unanimi testimonio fidei Doctrinae Sanctae Catholicae ecclesiae quam indejusque ab initio unanimiter servavit So Luther ad March Brandeburg tom 2. germ pag. 243. again patres evangelium fidem in Christum absque ulla hypocrist pure simpliciter tradiderunt ecelesiam ab junumeris erroribus expur garunt So the same Luther Comment in cap. 5. ad Gal. by this it may appear that Luther had a great honour for ancient Fathers and believed that the ancient Church was a true Church of Christ Consider fourthly the granting of Protestant Authors that the Church was overspread with error doth not conclude that they held the Church to have utterly perished Every error in Religion destroys not the being of the Church a maimed man is a man though not a whole man a leprous or paralitick man is a man though not a sound man so one erring Church if the error be not in the essentials and fundamentals of Religion is truly a Church of Christ though not usque quaque pura throughly pure and sound yea in as much as the Church is said to be erroneous her existence is supposed doth not the inexistence of an accident in a subject suppose the existence of the Subject After that the worship of God was grosly corrupted by Idolatry in Israel and Judah they remained visible Churches and begat Sons and Daughters unto God Ezeck 16. 20. So Learned Protestants acknowledg that after the Roman Church was polluted with Idolatry and other absurd errors yet she remained a visible Church though a very impure one So Calvin epist 103. 104. and lib. 4. instit cap. 2. Sect. 11. 12. Zanch. in Epist ad Comitem Barch and lib. de relig Christ cap. 24. Sect. 19. Iun. lib. sing de eccles cap. 17. Mornaeus de eccles cap. 2. Sect. ecclesia Latina cap. 9. Sect. Secundo quemadmodum Dr. Feild in append ad lib. 5. part 3. cap. 2. where also he shews the same to be the judgment of Luther Bucer Melanctiton and Beza Neither is this for the advantage of the Popish interest for most of these Authors acknowledg the Romish Church in these latter and corrupt times only so to be a visible Church as the Apostle predicts the visible Church to be the seat of the Antichrist When he says 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God Yea all of them look upon Apostat Rome as a Church so impure that the reformed Churches did but their duty and were not schismatical in making secession from her for she was the Author of the Schism not only by adhering so pertinaciously to her corruptions but also by imposing on others the owning of them as grounds of communion with her and by driving Protestants from her by Bulls and Excommunications because they could not own these corruptions in so much that as King James in â—esp ad Epist. Card Perronij saith Non fugimus sed fugamur How ever by this it may appear that the prevailing of errors over the face of the visible Church doth not totally destroy the being of the visible Church Yea Jesuit Valentia in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6 confesseth quasdam veritates fidei quandoque ob hominum negligentiam vel proterviam ingenij perversitatem demersas latuisse forsan adhuc latere that some Doctrins of Faith and not only probable opinions once delivered by the Apostles thorow the ignorance or perversness of men were for a time drouned and lay as it were buried until afterwards by the diligence and faithfulness of the Church they were revived And perhaps saith he some truths may be in that case at this very day Hence to the clamorous cavil where was our Religion before Luther may solidly be replyed It was as to essentialls at least where ever God had a visible Church and consequently not only in the Greek Syrian Aegyptian and Aethiopian Churches which remain visible Churches and more pure then the Roman but also our Religion was preserved in the Roman Church she likewise being a visible Church though a most impure one I say our Religion was preserved in her as the true Religion was preserved in the Jewish Church when she was defaced with gross Idolatry Neither should this seem strange especially seeing many thousands in the Roman Church then groaned for reformation as appeared by the conjunction of so many with Luther upon his first appearance I further add that we are not obliged to grant the same of the Roman Church at this time which we grant of her before the reformation For surely since the reformation the Church of Rome is greatly changed to the worse as Dr. Feild in the place last cited and Voetius in desper causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 3. cap. 3. have evicted by many Instances and particularly many things being now defined by her as Articles of Faith which formerly were only debated as School-opinions And yet perhaps notwithstanding all these alterations to the worse she may be in a large sense allowed the name of a Church vere ecclesia though not vera ecclesia as Learned men distinguish Consider fifthly though the phrases of some Protestants concerning the prevailing of error in the Church in these last times especially may seem broad yet Scripture Fathers yea and Romanists themselves speak as broadly in reference to times of Apostacy And. 1. for Scripture what expression would seem broader concerning the time of Antichrist then that Revel 13. 4. That all the world wondred after the beast and worshipped the beast and the dragon what would seem wider then the World Revel 18. 3. all Nations have drunk of the Wine of the wrath of her fornication and the Kings of the Earth committed fornication with her Did ever Protestants speake broader Language concerning the apostacy under the Romish Antichrist then is there spoken by the Spirit of God 2. as for Fathers how lamentably do they bewaile the general overspreading of the Arrian heresy ingemuit orbis miratus se factum Arrianum said Jerom. dial advers Lucif Remarkable is the discourse in Theod. lib. 2. Hist cap. 16. betwixt Constantius the Arrian
substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specie nec natura neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. I. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfaâ— per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividimu we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Souls of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hell from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to
words relate also if not principally to questions of fact for he subjoyns aequum justum est ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen admissum est It s just that every mans cause be heard in that place where the crime was committed so that the perfidy of which Cyprian speaks may be expounded of unfaithfulness in judging of crimes and in examining of such questions of Fact I suppose Romanists will grant Popes may erre yea Cyprian a little after pleads the Authority of the African Bishops to be no less then of the Italian Bishops for judging in such cases Thirdly does not Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeium accuse Pope Stephanus not only of error but as mantaining causam haereticorum the cause of Hereticks against the Church Unless therefore St. Cyprian be made to contradict himself he cannot here assert the infallibility of the Romish Church Fourthly and lastly these words non potest habere accessum cannot have access must not be strained as excluding a possibility of erring Non potest being frequently taken for that which could not readily or easily be as matters then stood Examples might be brought from Sacred and prophane Writings yea and from Cyprian himself Luk. 11. 7. when the man said I cannot rise he meant not impossibility of rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impadent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder in necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatiean Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are
to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible assiistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to untill the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex super abundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. 20. Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3. 15. I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3. 15. but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176 by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2. 2. 3. Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 19. Ephes 4. 11. But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2. 2. 3. Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16. 19. Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18. 19. I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4. 11. which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Church to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with
Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No surely nor will the imagination of infallibility found a truly Divine and infallible Faith But the infallible rule of Scripture can be a ground of infallible Faith and thereon the Faith of Protestants doth rest Pag. 180. 181. he shuts up these his sophistical arguments for his second proposition with a scenical discourse by which he labours to hold out that Protestants according to their principles could never convince an Heathen of the truth of Christian Religion He brings in the Protestant producing his Bible written 1700. years ago in which there be many contradictions but no infallible witness at present to testify that this Bible was written by such men or confirmed by such miracles Only the Protestant alleadges that if the Infidel would turn Protestant he would see a self evidencing Light in Scripture but if prejudice and interest had not blinded this Pamphleters eyes he would have found that a Protestant could deal with a Heathen upon more solid ground then a Papist for a Papist cannot produce a Bible for his Religion so many Articles thereof having no vestige there such as the adoration of Images invocation of Saints worshipping of Crosses and Reliques and the monstruous figment of Transubstantiation their unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Doctrine of merits the Popes universal Supremacy c. When the Infidel therefore demands a reason upon which these things should believed the Papist would reply they had an infallible judge and when the Infidel inquired whom he meant by that infallible judge and what evidences he had for his infallibility he neither can resolve who he is it not being determined whether Pope or Council nor give evidence for his infallibility but that he must be believed as being infallible because he saith it which if it do not expose Christianity to ludibry unprejudiced persons may judge But Protestants have the same grounds that ever the Christian Church had in confirmation of the Articles of the Christian Religion and of the holy Scriptures which doth fully contain them viz innumerable miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles which have been attested both by Christians and Infidels as also that these Books have been written by Prophets and Apostles hath been acknowledged by Famous persons within and without the Church in all ages and sealed by the deaths of so many Martyrs That these are the same Books appears by comparing our Books with Ancient Copies by Citations in the Writings of Ancient Fathers what contrarieties do seem to be in Scripture are but apparent Let all Religions be compared together there is none whose precepts are so Holy no Religion which can satisfie a troubled conscience so as the Christian Religion Though therein be sublime mysteries Yet all are admirably fitted for bringing about the Salvation of sinners by these and such like Arguments a Protestant could so deal with the conscience of any Infidel that he could have nothing rationally to reply and all this without having a recourse to the infallibility of Pope or Councils In a word the Divine Original of the Scriptures being once evicted against an Infidel from the motives of Credibility he may then be convinced of the material objects of Faith from the Scriptures SUBSECT III. The Pamphleters third Proposition viz that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church Considered IT remains now that we consider what he has to say for this third Proposition viz that the Roman Church that is the Church acknowledging the headship and supremacy of the Pope of Rome is the only true Catholick Church To verify this he resumes from Pag. 186. three of Bellermines notes of the Church viz. First Miracles Secondly Conversion of Infidels and Thirdly Sanctity of Life Though all the improvement which Romanists can make of these hath been often examined by Protestants yet the importunity of this Caviller constrains me to make a short review of them ARTICLE I. Of Miracles FIrst then as Bell. lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. so also this Pamphleter from Pag. 187. presents us with a muster of Miracles in every age much to the like purpose is to be found in Breerly Apol. tract 2. cap. 3. Sect. 7. Lessius consult de vera relig consid 4. H. T 's Manual art 6. c. Yet shall he not from them all or from all the Romish Legendaries be able to pitch upon one true Miracle to prove that the present Romish Church is the true Catholick Church or that the present Popish Religion is the only true Christian Religion It were of more advantage for their cause to pitch upon one true Miracle to this purpose if they could then to heap up such a rapsody of Miracles which are either fabulous and fallacious impostures or if real wholly impertinent to the point in controversy But because such a noise is made about Miracles I will subjoyn some considerations for the satisfaction of the Reader as to this thing It may therefore in the first place be taken notice of that great Authors of the Romish perswasion affirm That real and proper Miracles may be wrought by Hereticks to confirm Heresies so Maldonat in cap. 7. Math. Who cites for the same opinion of the Fathers St. Chrysost St. Hierom Enthym and Theophilat and therefore he concludes the argument from Miracles to be but topical To the like purpose many more Authors of the Romish Communion are cited by Dr. Barron Apodex Cathol tract 4. Punct 7. as Gerson Durand Stapleton and Ferus to whom Card. de Lugo tract de fid disp 2. Sect. 1. Num. 15. and 19. addes Hurtado Bannez and Medina to whom also Valentia and Oviedo
their Authors forge so many Miracles that he was ashamed of them The same is regrated by Vives and Polydore Virgil by the Germans in their centam gravamina art 7. Gerson de secta flagellantium as is noted by Gerard saith that Miracles are now to be suspested the World in its decrepit Age being abused by the fancics of lying Miracles as old doting men are with Dreams It would fifthly be considered that Heathens can pretend to as specious Miracles as the Popish Church Doth not Tacitus Hist lib. 4. report how Vespasian the Emperour cured one Blind another Lame Doth not Austin lib. 10. de civit Dei cap. 16. relate a multitude of Heathenish Miracles as that a Vestal Virgin did draw water with a Sieve to prove her Chastity that Claudia tying a Ship to her Girdle drew it after her which neither men nor Oxen could remove by all their strength Is it not reported by Aelian de animalibus lib. 9. cap. 33. that Aesculapius restored a woman to life after her Head was cut off Doth not Austin Epist 5. talk much of the miracles of Apollonius Thyaneus and Apuleius Hath not Philostratus wrote Eight Books of the miracles of Apollonius insomuch that Hierocles dared blasphemously to prefer them to the glorious Miracles of our Blessed Saviour Did not the Donatists so much glory in their miracles that Austin called them tract 13. in Joh. mirabiliorios If it be answered with Bell. they were but lying wonders that the Devil sat upon the Eye of one and the Leg of another whom Vespasian is said to have cured that when he ceased to annoy he might seem miraculously to cure It would be remembred the same may be replyed concerning the Romish Legendary Miracles An exact parallel may be seen betwixt Popish and Heathenish Miracles in Crakanthorp defens Eccles Anglic. contra Spalat cap. 66. Pagans may as soon prove the truth of their miracles as Romanists of their late Legendary Romances Who can set limits to the Almighty that he shall not work miracles for the good of mankind without his Church Miracles therefore cannot be a reciprocal note of the Church Ought not Romanists at least to remember Bellarmin's Reply concerning the Miracle wrought by a Novatian Bishop lib. de notis Eccles cap. 14. Factum esse non in confirmationem fidei Novatianae sed Catholici Baptismi Why may not Protestants likewise answer if any Real Miracles have been wrought by Romanists such as Xavier in the Indies these were not wrought to confirm Popish Errours but the common Principles of Christianity But sixthly Hath ever God promised that the Church in all Ages should enjoy such a gift of Miracles that no Society should be acknowledged for a true Church which is not confirmed by present Miracles I find no Scripture saying so but on the contrary cautioning us that we be not seduced by the lying signs and wonders of Seducers Matth. 24. 24 25. especially of Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 9. Revel 13. 13 14. Did not Romanists pretend to Miracles The See of Rome should want one of the signs of the Great Antichrist Ancient Fathers believed not a perpetual necessity of Miracles saith not S. Austin expresly lib. 22. de Civ Dei cap. 22. Possem dicere necessaria fuisse prius quam mundus crederet ad hoc ut crederet mundus quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat requirit magnum est ipse prodigium qui mundo credente non credit Will ye not at least regard Greg. Hom. 29. in Evang. We use saith he to water young Plants when they be new set which watering then ceaseth after that they have taken root so were Miracles necessary for the first Seed-plot of the Church to the sound rooting of multitudes in the Faith To the like purpose speaks Chrysost Hom. 23. in Joh. Is it not acknowledged by many Romish Doctors that now there is no necessity of Miracles except it were for the conversion of Infidels For this Espencaeus Delrio Roffensis and Josephus à Costa are cited by D. Morton Appeal lib. 3. cap. 17. Sect. 4. to whom Gerard Sest 275. adds among the rest Cornel. Mussus saying Haec signa facta sunt ut Religio plantaretur nunc autem eâ plantatâ non sunt necessaria As also their great Preacher Didacus Stella not sparing to affirm that Miracles now damnum potius afferrent quam commodum would rather be hurtful than profitable I cannot but in the seventh place remember Romanists that they take for granted which Learned Protestants will not yield that there have been no Miracles wrought in the Protestant Churches If Melancthon saith Whittaker controv 2. q. 5. de notis Eccles cap. 12. may be credited who was a faithful and modest man Luther was honoured of God to work Miracles D. Willet in Synop. Papismi controv 2. q. 3. of the fifth note of the Church records many Miracles wrought by Protestants and that for the conversion of Papists Nor can it but seem strange to hear Romanists talking so much of their Miracles and yet can work none among us Protestants whom they hold for Hereticks and Infidels if they can work Miracles why have they not so much compassion to our Souls as to work them before intelligent Protestants One Miracle wrought before our eyes would have more impression than a thousand Fabulous Legends of Wonders pretended to be wrought in the Indies among the Antipodes or in Vtopia But this is a strange prejudice against their pretended Miracles they can work none of them before rational Protestants I cannot but record a story of a Nun in Spain which was cryed up for Miracles insomuch that when Charles the First King of Great Britain then Prince of Wales was there by the entreaty of the Infanta he was perswaded to go and see her It was reported to the Prince she would be sometimes lifted up into the Air and be as fresh as a Rose although she was surrowed with Age but she could not do any one Feat before the Prince although she could never have shewed her Miracles in a better time but the Prince was of too strong Faith for that Spirit she was acted by and therefore she could shew none but crede quod habes habes This Relation I have from Edward Chisenhale in his Catholick History against D. Vane cap. 7. pag. 180. Therefore to shut up this discourse of Miracles whatsoever prodigies are wrought to confirm Doctrines repugnant to clear Scriptures are lying signs and wonders but Invocation of Saints Religious Adoration of Images Crosses Relicks the transubstantiated Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Purgatory c. are all Doctrines repugnant to clear Scripture as Learned Protestants have proved and I in this Tractate have made good as I had occasion therefore surely Romish prodigies to confirm these are lying signs and wonders Away therefore with that oft repeated Song from Hugo de Sancto Victore which Bell. Breerly Lessius D. Vane and this Pamphleter with the rest do
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
his considerations of the Church of England Reformed cap. 4. Secondly according to the principles of both these not only of them who hold the Pope to be a Petit Antichrist and a Fore-runner of the Great One but also of them who affirm him to be the Grand Antichrist our Lord under the Papal Tyranny preserved a Church in these Western parts and consequently many great truths such as the Trinity and Incarnation and the substantials of many Ordinances particularly of Baptism and of Ordination albeit both of them were clogged with additional corruptions yet in evidence that the Reformed Churches held their Baptism and Ordination valid they did not rebaptize or reordain those who had been baptized or ordained by the Church of Rome Neither need any think strange at this who remember that it 's predicted of the Great Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God From which it follows that though Popes be the Great Antichrist yet Orders being one of these remains which God had preserved under Antichrists Usurpation Ordination conferred by Antichristian Ministers not in so far as Antichristian but as retaining some of Christs goods might be valid Thirdly I add that in this the Wisdom and Goodness of God doth greatly appear that under the prevalency of the Tyranny of the Papal Faction he would preserve a Church and thereby transmit to Posterity the Holy Scriptures which did luculently discover the corruptions of that Apostatized Church and convey down orders to Ministers who by vertue of their Ordination were authorized and obliged to endeavour the Reformation of the Church Fourthly that our Reformers did not set up a new Church but did reform the old Apostatized Church so that there needed no new Ordination or immediate Call but only faithfully to improve the power given them in their Ordination to shake off and witness against the corruptions of that lapsed Church And fifthly and lastly this must be added though Ordination was clogged with corruptions at the time when our Reformers received Ordination in the Church of Rome yet was not Ordination in the Romish Church by far so corrupt as now it is for then Pope Pius the Fourth his impious Oath which he imposed upon all persons to be Ordained was not contrived By all this I hope it may appear that our Reformers Ordination was valid though received by Romish Ministers and yet the Romish Party not vindicated from Antichristianism It 's further objected that Protestants look upon Romanists as Hereticks and consequently ought to look upon Ordination from them as null Answ That sequel is null Do not Romanists maintain that Orders imprint an indeleble character on the Soul which neither Schism nor Heresie can extinguish and that Sacraments conferred by Hereticks are valid and particularly of this Sacrament of Orders Jesuit Connick Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 20. dub 9. Num. 84. concludes Certum omnino est Episcopum Excommunicatum Haereticum degradatum validè conferre ordines i. e. It is altogether certain that Orders conferred by a Bishop Excommunicated Heretical and degraded are valid And though Protestants acknowledge no such Sacramental character impressed on the Soul yet they affirm that by Ordination a power is conferred which is not utterly made void by every Schism or Heresie so that though Schismaticks or Hereticks act irregularly in ordaining yet Orders conferred by them are not null and void Neither are they whom Schismaticks or Hereticks ordain bound in conscience to propagate the Schism or Heresies of those who ordained them yea by relinquishing the Schism and Heresies of their Ordainers what irregularity was in their Ordination is supplied and they come into a capacity of conferring Orders regularly which their Ordainers abiding in Schism or Heresie could not do Hence it apparently follows that though Romanists be both Schismatical and Heretical and act irregularly in conferring Orders yet the Orders conferred by them to our Reformers were not only valid but also the Reformers by relinquishing the Heretical Doctrines and Schismatical principles and practices of the Church of Rome and by owning the Catholick Truths oppugned by Romanists had the defects and irregularity of their Ordination supplied Thus Romanists themselves answer concerning the Bishops whom they own who had been ordained by Cranmer in the time of Schism as they call it saying they attained the regular use of their Orders by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Mary's time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome they ought not then offend at us for making use of the same Reply to them I shut up this Answer to this Objection with that saying of S. Austin Epist 165. Et si quisquam traditor subrepsisset albeit some Traytor had crept into the Church he means the Roman in which too too many Judasses have been seen since that time nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae aut Innocentibus Christianis it should nothing prejudice the Church or Innocent Christians From pag. 203. to 207. he breaks forth into a Flood of Thrasonick Clamours as void of truth as of sobriety as if Protestants acknowledged the Popish Church to be the most Ancient Church and ever to have possessed the greatest part of the Christian World converting Nations working Miracles and that the Church before Luther should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture and thereupon vainly misapplys to the Romish Church that word of Tertull. Olim possideo prior possideo The falshood of all these hath been already as copiously demonstrated as the nature of this Tractate would permit And particularly it hath been shewed that one of our great Exceptions against the Popish Church is her Novelty under a Mask of falsly pretended Antiquity That the Complex of their Trent Religion is latter than Luther and that the truly Catholick Church continued in all Ages having both the Letter and sense of holy Scripture and Substantials of Faith maintaining the same Religion which the Reformed Churches do to this day consequently the Reformed Churches are truly a part of that Catholick Church from which Romanists do Schismatically separate themselves Though Romanists had more Antiquity than they have yet that of Tertull. lib. de Veland Virg. Cap. 1. might stop their mouths Nec veritati praescribere potest Spatium temporum vel patrocinia personarum vel privilegia Regionum Neither length of time nor Patrociny of persons nor priviledges of Countries can prescribe against Truth SECT V. A Brief Reparty to his Conclusory Knacks THe vain Knacks where with he shuts up his Treatise pag. 207 208. are solidly confuted to my hand by Learned and Judicious Mr. Rait in his Vindication of the Protestant Religion pag. 268. for with the same froathy talk his Adversary also had concluded his Scriblings It shall be enough therefore to me to make this Retorsion on Romanists They have Faith without Verity Unity of Interest without Unity of Judgment a Catholick Church without Catholicism excluding the greatest part of
Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiquity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13. 10. we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice not only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinions against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inauditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient ears Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3. 2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with
Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentenee As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuity or ignorance For pag 33 34 35 36 3â— more likâ— a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumnious invective against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Catholick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Denister against the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question
propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocating Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3. 15. Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doâ—h stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est cogn scere esse primum ens c Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Nazianzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19 to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. columna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmatae quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13. 3. it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe concerning this
confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4. 42. Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoncret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the praeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Scrm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14. 18. 21. which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence these two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28. 16. Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praefat. ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie shake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should
bold to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Ludov. de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152. and Jesuit Azorius Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostolica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustochium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11. 52. Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare angere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an insallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are
to be reduced to and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Consc praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15. 19. the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in corp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Be an Theâ—l Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virl tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Cbristianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2 Enchirid cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset commonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whyt Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may
to the Scriptures are hated by the Traditionary Jews more than Christians At least how could it have escaped the observation of Christians Were there not Hebrew Bibles in the custody of Christian Churches How could Jews corrupt all these Is not this Cavil of the general corruption of the Original Scriptures so impious that many Learned Romanists have appeared against it such as Joannes Isaacus Professor of the Hebrew Language at Colen in his Book entituled Defensio veritatis Hebraicae Sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum Ludovious Vives in lib. 15. August de civ Dei Arrias Montanus in Praefat. ad Bibl. interlin Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth Sanct. Haeres 2. where he expresly says Dici non potest divinas scripturas veteris Testamenti aut Judaeorum aut Christianorum malignitate falsificatas yea he reckons the contrary Opinion as a pestilent Errour and Heresie Not to mention Pagnin Vatablus Marcus Marinus besides many others cited and followed by Lud. de Tena Isagog Sac. Script lib. 1. diff 3. Sect. 2 3. Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. charged Jacobus Chrysopolitanus and Melchior Canus for maintaining as this Pamphleter does that the Jews had corrupted many things in the Original Bible as men not having knowledge proportioned to their zeal However Bell. affirm that some few places in the Hebrew be corrupted wherein also Learned Protestants have laboured to shew his mistake yet he concludes Cae erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent Scripturae Sacrae integritas desideretur They who would see the purity of Original Scriptures asserted at length against Romanists I remit them to Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 12. Rivet in Isagog ad sac script cap. 8. Gerard in uberiori explicatione loc de scâ—iptura cap. 14. Calov Crit. sac de puritate fontium Sect. 93. where the last Author masters up seventeen Arguments for the purity of them to which only I add D Owens Judicious Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture But against this it is first alledged by the Pamphleter that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written Answer Some question indeed hath been made concerning the Language wherein the Gospels of Mat. and Mark and the Epistle to the Heb. were written but of none else I confess Ancients generally have supposed that Matth. Gospel was first written in Hebrew not only Jerom Praefat. Evang. ad Damas Epist 123. but also Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphan Chrys August c. yet this their Opinion seems to have been founded upon the Tradition of Papias a man of more Antiquity than Judgment says Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. ult And there are Eminently Learned men of Opinion that it was first written in Greek with whom Cardinal Cajetan does joyn neither are the Arguments contemptible by which they are thereunto induced But however even those who maintain that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew do yet acknowledge that it was translated into Greek by a person infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost some by John the Apostle some by James and generally others by an Apostle or Apostolick person and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was always used in the Christian Primitive Church as Authentick Barradius the Jesuit as is testified by Lud de Tena in Isagog lib. 3. dâ—ff 2. Sect. 1. thinks that Matthew himself wrote this Gospel both in Hebrew and Greek I know Baronius prefers the Authority of Matthew in Hebrew to the Greek Dico saith he quâ—d Graecus textus cujus fidei sit nisi collatus cum Hebraeo originali affirmare minime possumus but learnedly is that impious errour of the Cardinal contuted by Casanbon in apparat exercit 16. cap. 115. pag. 678. The like I say as to the Epistle to the Hebrews that many have judged that it also was written in the Hebrew Tongue yet there be not only Learned Protestants but also Romanists in the contrary Opinion The Apostles Argument cap. 9. from the nature of a Testament is a strong presumption that it was written in the Greek the Argument concluding forcibly from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so from the Hebrew Berith yet it 's also agreed that at least it was transcribed into the Greek Tongue by an Apostolick person whether Luke or Clement I am not to dispute As for Mark it 's true Baronius and Bellarmine affirm it was first written in Latin if so how then was the Latin Church so unfaithful as to lose that Original Latin written by Mark that being the only Book in Scripture that can be alledged to have been written in Latin For the present Latin Version of the Gospel of Mark is surely translated from the Greek as Cornel. à Lapide in his Preface to his Comment on that Gospel does not only confess but demonstrate by several passages of Mark 's Gospel That fancy of Baronius as if Mark 's Gospel had been first written in Latin is expresly contradicted by Jerom Praefat. Evang. Austin lib. 1. concordiae Evangelist and Isidore Hispal Praefat. lib. Test Novi who affirm that all the Evangels except that of Matthew were first written in Greek yea the Cardinal is solidly confuted by a Popish Bishop Lud. de Tena Isagog lib. 3. diff 6. Sect. 2. who says its certum apud omnes that Marks Gospel was written in Greek What need I more as to this seeing Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. confesses Quod Graeca editio Novi Testamenti universa Apostolos Evangelistas Authores habeat since therefore we have the Greek Edition of all the Books of the New Testament we have the Scriptures in those Languages wherein holy men infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost did write them The second allegation of the Pamphleter is that Calvin and Luther do sometimes call in question the purity of the Originals What then Are Calvin or Luther with us infallible Judges of Articles of Faith as Jesuits make the Pope May not this allegation be compensed in regard Eminent Popish Authors asserted the purity of the Originals I have looked that place of Calvin lib. 1. Instit cap. 13. cited by this Pamphleter and can assert that Calvin has nothing to that purpose throughout all that Cap. for in it he only disputes concerning the Trinity Nay I find the very contrary in that Book cap. 8. Sect. 10. yea and Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. censures Calvin as preferring too great purity to the Hebrew Text and calling it Purissimum Fontem Luther likewise and his Followers as Chemnitius Gerard Calovius c. are most zealous Assertors of the purity of the Originals If any thing any where have dropt from those men derogating from the purity of Originals it would but argue a piece of humane frailty in them and of as gross inconsistencies I can convict both Cardinals
Enumeration ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture cap. 4 5 6. Is not Jerom so explicite for us in this matter in Prol. Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebrae's non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Canon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicea else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autorisati Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praeâ—at in Proverb and Ruffin in expos Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non omnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to layclaim to Scriptures To this common Cavil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all Hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scriptur arum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scriptur arum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Breerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits
resting on the knowledg of Fundamentals should be less solicitous in searching after other divine truths which though not of absolute necessity yet are very precious It will be time to answer his squibs and raillery from the changes of the Moon when he has vindicated not only their own Missionaries who are known for most part to be a company of Apostate Runnagado's but also the body of their religion and missal from multifarious changes which some have not unfitly resembled to a beggars coat patched up at sundry times of clouts of many colours But how shall it be known saith the Pamphleter pag 85. that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sorâ—s would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images
oppugne him 4. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the wisdome of God saying that God obliges us to things impossible whereas 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not heavy We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible Any impossibility that is we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents and so God is not to be blamed for it This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8. 3. that which the Law could not doe in that it was weak through the flesh ver 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12. 39. they could not believe Matth. 7. 8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles 7.20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5. 3. his commands are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodâ— impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7. 22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3. 2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veraeity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay inthis they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varaeity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He faith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasms ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1. 7. O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood frees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscenee remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7. 24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7. 25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Faith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2. 24. It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3. 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as
Neither do we envy them the example of Turks who Read their service in the Arabick of which the people understand nothing or of the modern Jews who Read Hebrew in their Synagogues which also the multitude do but rarely understand Instance fourth the Romish Church in the publick and Ordinary administration of the Eucharist do with draw the Cup from the people so the Council of Trent sess 22. can 1. 2. and the Council of Constance sess 13. in Caranza's epitome praecip mus sub paena Excommunicationis quod nullus Presbiter communicet populum sub utraque specie panâ—â— vini that is we command under pain of Excommunication that no presbiter give the Communion to the people under both kinds This is certainly repugnant to the practice of the Ancient Church for the Sanctified Bread and Wine was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every one who was present saith Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Cyp. Epist 63. expresly makes mention of the Sanctifying of the Cup and giving it to the people plebi ministrando Châ—ysost homil 18. in 2. Epist ad Cor. Saith there is no difference betwixt pastor and people as to communicating seeing the same body and the same cup is given to both Yea Pope Gelasius in Gratian de consecrat dist 2. cap. comperimus made that decree ut integra recipiant aut ab integris arceantur Who please may find an army of Testimonies to this purpose in Chamier tom 4. lib. 8. cap. 9. What need I more the thing being acknowledged by adversaries themselves As Alphonsus a Castro de haeres tit Eucharistia haeres 12. Cassander in Consult art 22. Barnes in Cathol Rom. Pacifico Sect. 7. Picherel de Missa cap. 4. Yea Cassander saith this was not only the way of the Catholick Church to give it under both kinds but also the Roman above the space of a 1000 Years This is another of the Romish Novelties I had objected to Mr. Dempster Pap. 8. Pag. 170. and yet remains unanswered Only this Pamphleter Pag. 147. when he had been speaking of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament sneakingly insinuates some insignificant whispers to fetch some colour from antiquity for their mutilation of the Sacrament because anciently it s said to be given to Infants and to the Sick and to have been carried to private Houses yea over Sea and for this last he cites Euseb lib. 5. Hist without designation of any Chapter But all these Instances which he hath taken out of H. T 's Manual art 12. are either falsâ— or impartinent For first some of these things are dissallowed by the present Romish Church viz. the giving of the Eâ—charist to Infants by the Council of Trent sess 21. can 3. and the sending it to absents is prohibited by the Council of Caesar August can 3. about the Year 381 and by the first Council of Toledo can 14. Anno 400. as is acknowledged by Durantus de rit Eccles lib. 1. cap. 16. Secondly the Question betwixt Romanist and us is about the publick and ordinary celebration of the Sacrament to adult persons wherein the present Romish Church commands it to be given under on species viz of bread but all the Instances yea and all that ever I could read brought by any Romanist are of some extraordinary cases of Sickness Absence Persecution c. But none of the publick ordinary celebration of the Sacrament How far in extraordinary cases Protestants have yeelded Dr. Will. Forbes lib. 2. de commun sub utraque specie cap. 1. hath given an account from Bucer Dr. Andrews Casaubon and Spalat Thirdly the present Romish Church proceed further and prohibit the giving of the cup to the people under pain of Excommunication as I shew from Caranza but no Romanist ever undertook to shew a president for such a prohibition from Antiquity Fourthly its falsely affirmed by the Pamphleter that Denys Cyprian Tertul. and Euseb say that when the Eucharist was given to Infants Sick or absent persons restriction was made to one kind only far less to the species of Bread alone That it was given to Infants under both kinds Chamier tom 4. lib. 9. cap. 3. proves from Austin Epist 107. Cyprian and Genadius Yea Bell. does not alledge that the bread only was given to Infants but the Cup. The truth is they should have had neither but surely they got both As for the Sick and absent Justin Martyr apol 2. testifies that both the Bread and Wine were carried to them and Hierom Epist 4. says of Exuperius that he carried not only Corpus Christi in canistro vimineo but also sanguinem in vitro that is Christs blood in a Glass Greg. Nazianz. orat 11. reports that his Sister Gorgonia preserved the Symbols both of Christs body and blood and therefore it was too great presumption in the Pamphleter to say that this could not be done but under one kind I know not what he means by his citation from Euseb lib. 5. unless he point at the case of Serapion but then he should have said lib. 6. nor does it make any thing for him for the Bread was dipt into the Wine and so put into Serapions mouth Dr. Francis White in his reply to Jesuit Fisher point 7. Pag. 503. brings in the Council of Tours Burchardus and Ivo giving this Reason of that kind of practice ut veraciter presbiter dicere possit corpus sanguis domini Jesu Christi tibi prosit ad vitam aeternam If any ask what then the communion of Laicks is whereof Ancients as Cyprian the Councils of Sardica and Fliberis c. make mention Answ It was no communion under one kind as Bell. falsly and without any ground would have it and so much Lorinus the Jesuit in Act. 2. and Durantus de ritib. Eccles lib. 2. cap. 55. are constrained to acknowledge for certain it is that the people got the Sacrament in those days under both kinds and besides It s clear that Ministers because of Mal-behaviour were then restricted to the communion of Laicks But in the Roman Church priests themselves when they do not consecrate how unblameably so ever they walk receive but under one kind The truth therefore is as our Learned Chamier tom 4. lib. 9. cap. 3. doth solidly prove from Cyprian Balsamon c. that phrase was taken from the degrees of Church Censurs upon office bearers in the Church for sometime they were both deposed from their office and Excommunicated from the Church and consequently might not partake of the Eucharist at other time they were only deposed ab officio and so not reckoned among the Clergy yet not Excommunicated and so were admitted ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to communicate with the people of God With this distinction from those of the Clergy saith Durantus loc cit that they received the Sacrament extra cancellos non in sacratioâ—i loco Instance fifth the present Roman Church allows of private communions wherein the priest alone partakes of the consecrated
elements and none else and anathematizes them who judge that practice unlawful so the Council of Trent sess 22. can 8. but this is certainly repugnant to the institution of Christ and to the practice of the Ancient Church as is demonstrated largly by Chamier tom 4. lib. 7. cap. 17. 18. 19. from the Ancient Liturgies Canons and Councils and suffrages of Fathers yea this matter is so clear that their own Authors cannot but acknowledge it as Cassander in Consult art 24. where also he cites Odo Cameracensis Walafridus Strabo Micrologus Hoffmeisterus c. testifying the same Sure either these solitary Masses were not in use at the compounding of the Roman Missal or their Missal is in many things ridiculous as when the priest saith dominus vobiscum sursum corda gratias agamus domino Deo nostro habete vinculum pacis quod sumpsimus Domine all which expressions and many more import that there were more present to partake of the Sacrament then the Priest Must not Romanists be destitute of Patrociny from Antiquity when Bell. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 9. Sect. 3. Probatur confesses nusquam expresse legimus à veteribus oblatum sacrificâ—um sine communione alicujus vel aliquorum praeter Sacerdotâ—m Joannes Hoffmeâ—â—terus apud Cassand loc cit wonders how the custome of these solitary Masses came up If any do object the reservation of the Sacrament in primitive times Answ They make nothing for these solitary communions of the priest alone The Minister had ever others present who did partake with him as appears by all the Ancient Liturgies yea by the Roman Missal neither were those reservations for such ends as now they are used in the Roman Church viz for a Pompous circumgestation and adoration but to be received by Sick and absent persons who were reputed as a part of that congregation which did partake with the Minister at the first consecration Though the carying home of the Sacrament to be eaten apart be a far different case from that now under debate yet Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 5. ad tertiam cannot deny but that also was long ago abrogated by the Council of Caesar Augusia and the first of Toledo Instance sixth the present Roman Church holds the absolute necessity of confessing to a Priest all the mortal sins that we can remember and that Juro Divino by a Divine ordinance So the Council of Trent sess 14. cap. 5. and cap. 6. 7. Thus did not the primitive Church as is acknowledged by Barnes the Benedictin in Cathol Rom. Pacif. Sect. 8. and for it cites the Greek Church Gratian and the Glossator the Abbot of Parnormo Scotus Durand Medina Beatus Rhenanus Cajetan Erasmus and in further confirmation brings of Ancients Tertullian Cypâ—ian Cyril of Alexandria and many Testimonies of Châ—ysost Yet Protestants do not altogether condemne the confession of secret sins to a judicious person far less to a faithful Minister as may be seen in Calvin lib. 3. instit cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13. and Chemnit examin Concil Trid. Part 2 cap. 5. de paenit and is confessed by Bell. lib. de paenit cap. 1. But that we condemn in the Romish Church is that contrary to the Ancient Catholick Church she has imposed the absolute necessity to Salvation of confessing all mortal sins so far as we can remember and that by a jus divinum a president for this will not be found in the first three Centuries nor much lower in so much that Gratian part 2. caus 33. q. 3. cap. 34. says ore tacente veniam consequi possumus Though at first publick confession was only injoyned to be of publick offences yet others perceiving what benefits redounded to penitents thereby and finding their own consciences burdened with the like sins which being carryed in secrecy were not Subject to the censures of the Church to the end they might obtain the like consolation and quiet of mind did voluntarily submit themselves to the Churches discipline and undergo the burden of publick confession and Canonical censures Hereoff the Learned Vsser gives an large account in his answer to the Jesuits challenge cap. 4. and proves it from Origen homil 2. in ps 37. Tertul. lib. de paenit cap. 9. Cyprian serm de lapsis Ambros lib. 1. de paenit cap. 16. A further account is given of the same in another Learned but anonymous tractat of Confession Entituled Sin dismantled cap. 7. Sect. 2. and before them both in Chemnitius examin Concil Trid. part 4. de indulg cap. 4. Pag. 724. edit Genev. 1641. And that the publication of these secret faults might be done to the more edification Some prudent Minister was first acquainted therewith by whose direction the delinquent might understand what sins were fit to be brought to the publick notice of the Church and in what manner the confession was to be performed Hence Origen homil 2. in Psal 37. is so earnest in advising to make choyce of a skilful Physician to whom to disclose griefs of this kind But about the time of the Decian presecution it was ordained that in every Church on discreet Minister should be appointed to receive the confessions of those who relapsed into sin after Baptism and then the penitent had no more the choyce of his confessor This is that addition which Socrates Notes to have been made to the penitential canon lib. 5. Hist. cap. 19. this was observed until the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople who because of a notorious trespass of a deacon to wipe of the Infamy from the Clergy and to prevent the like Scandals abrogated these private confessions If Nectarius Chrysost and the Greek Church had looked upon this confession as appointed by a Divine ordinance or absolutely necessary to salvation would they have abrogated it Or had the Roman Church then been of the now Trent Faith would they not have expostulated with the Greek Church on this account How much are Romanists netled with this argument when Bell. lib. 3. de paenit cap. 14. to evite the dint of it accuses Sozomen and Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historians as Lyars though he have no ground to convict them in that matter yea they are assoyled by his fellow Jesuit Suarez in partem 3. tom 4. disp 17. Sect 2. Num. 31. and therefore being affraid that this shift would not prove sufficient he further alleadges that Nectarius abrogated only publick confession a most ludibrious fiction When an Infamy was brought on the Clergy by a trespass committed under the covert of secret confessions had this been a way to wipe of the blot or to prevent more evils of that kind to ordain that thence forth there should be no confessions but in secret Certainly this would have increased the Infamy on the Clergy and given further opportunities to these impure dalliances But what need I more when Chrysost immediate successor to Nectarius in persuance of the statute of Nectarius is so full and frequent in preaching against the necessity
man who is bound in conscience to supply the necessities of the poor Baunius as cited in the Jesuits Morals pag. 341. affirms that a man is not bound to restore what is taken by many petty thefts whatever the total sum thereof may amount to The Author of Pyrotechnica Loyolana pag. 44. shews from the mystery of Jesuitism that they hold a Son may steal from the Father that Servants may rob their Masters to make their wages proportionable to their service that a Religious man may quit his habit to go and steal as well as go incognito to the Stews that Cheating is lawful under the notion of their contract Mâ—hatra yea Baunius as cited in the Jesuits Morals pag. 343. saith that a Wife or Children being called into Judgment to see themselves ordained to confess what they have put aside taken or usurped of the moveables inheritance or goods of the deceased are not in Conscience to confess it and because they may be brought upon their Oaths and obliged to swear before a Judge he gives them this expedient Nevertheless that they may not lye and so doing forswear themselves the prudent Confessor shall teach them that they are to frame a conception in their minds according to which they may form the Answer and Oath which they may make by the Command of the Judge to justifie and make him believe their Innocence Is not this to add perjury to theft Of the theftuous practises of Jesuits according to these their principles a large account is given in a Tractate entituled The Moral practise of Jesuits Nay they teach how to make Simoniacal transactions without sin by ordering of the intentions as is shewed in Pyrotechnica Loyolana pag. 44. I only add tenthly that Jesuits teach gross violations of the ninth Command not only by their equivocations and mental reservations at which I hinted before but also by saying that it is allowable to defame an Adversary by charging him with crimes whereof he is not guilty as is shewed by Montalt Epist 15. These Principles of Lying being instilled by Jesuits into the Emperesses Ladies the whole Court was put into a combustion by false reports until Quivoga the Capucin convinced the Empress of these pernicious lying Principles of Jesuits Time would fail me in reckoning forth the impious Doctrines of Jesuits these few hints I hope may suffice to demonstrate that the Doctrines of Popery and more especially as maintained by Jesuits have a Native tendency to impiety Well did the Apostle 2 Thes 2. term it a Mystery of Iniquity The Pharisaical Cob-webs of pretended Piety wherewith this Pamphleter from pag. 199. would commend their Religion are easily swept away As 1. He talks of the glorious Temples and Hospitals c. which they have built Have not Heathens and Mahumetans done the like How glorious was the Temple of Diana at Ephesus How stately are the Mosche's of Mahumetans at Constantinople Did not Herod build the Temple of Jerusalem with such magnificence that some think it did exceed the glory of Solomon's Temple Did not Pharisees build the Monuments of the Prophets Is it not said of Apostate Israel Hos 8. 14. he hath forgotten his Maker and buildeth Temples Doth he not remember that the same Objection was made of old both by Heathens against Christians and by Arrians against the Orthodox In a word therefore we do allow comely Edifices for the Worship of God and endowments for pious uses It 's the observation of that Learned and Ingenuous Person Doctor Don Serm. on Matth. 5. 16. that there have been more endowments for pious uses in this last Century since the Reformation in England than was in any one Century when Popery prevailed only this I must add it 's not curious Fabricks but pure Doctrine and spiritual worship which do demonstrate a true Church but Popish Temples are full of Idols Superstition and Idolatry He objects secondly they have thousands of Monks who have renounced the world and live chastly and contemn riches and pleasures and so have Mahumetans their Votaries and Recluses I believe it will trouble Romanists to give a Scripture Warrant or President from the first times of the Gospel Church for those who could be useful to the Church to shut themselves up in Cells from all converse with men Who knows not how unlike the Monastick life at this present in the Romish Church is from that which at length crept into the Church in ancient times yet we should not so much blame them who betake themselves to Monastick retirements if they gave themselves to the serious study of Mortification and to the true exercise of Religious Duties prescribed in the holy Scriptures But the devotion of Romish Monks is for most part meer Superstition consisting in the observation of some Rules invented by superstitious persons as Francis Dominick c. What impiety is acted under a pretence of Monastick austerity I hinted before Now let any consider what great Mortification it is under a pretence of Poverty to go into stately Palaces endued with rich Revenues under a pretence of Fasting to feed on such chear as a Sensual Epicure would prefer before sumptuous Feasts under a pretence of Chastity to Vow against Marriage which is Gods Ordinance but not against other fleshly impurities Hence Bell. gives this reason why it 's less sin for a Priest to Fornicate than Marry because by Marrying he violates the Vow of Continency implying they vow not against Concubines Lastly many who retire to Monasteries do it either on a tedium of worldly business or discontent or superstitiously to expiate some atrocious crime desperatio facit Monachum But thirdly says he they have Saints as Gregori 's and Leo 's and Caelestin ' s. c. But who gave their Pope power of Canonizing Saints Is not this an Innovation unknown to Antiquity How can the Pope infallibly know the Sanctity of others when he cannot be sure of his own Nay have not many of them lived like incarnate Devils Have they not Canonized some for Money others to promote superstitious ends yea some who never were Do not their own Authors such as Cardinal Cajetan question the Popes Infallibility in Canonizing c. I suppose he will not say all their Pope Leo's and Gregori's were Saints I believe not Greg. the Second who pronounced Hezekiah an Heretick for breaking of the Brazen Serpent nor Greg. 9. who tyrannized over Frederick the Second Who may not pass for a Saint among them seeing Greg. 7. that Brand of Hell has a place in their Calendar why have they not added Leo the Tenth who looked on the Gospel as a Fable to bear him company As for Caelestin's was that Sanctity or Simplicity in Caelestine the Fifth to be cheated by Boniface the Eighth out of the Popedom to an Hermitage But Boniface fearing he might revoke that Sanctity shut him up in Prison where he died for displeasure that he had been fooled out of the Papacy But fourthly He pitches on
perhaps both of us did bewray somewhat of humane infirmity but if therefore either of us should be concluded contentious hardly could Hierom Austin Ruffin Chrysostom Epiphanius yea Paul and Barnabas escape the like character I ever had an high respect for that Reverend and Worthy Person and do honour his memory as for other eminent Gifts and Graces so in special for his faithfulness and zeal against Romish Idolaty and I hope e're long to live in Eternal Concord and Bliss with him I judge it indeed duty to contend cum vitiis against errour and ungodliness against Popery Quakerism Prophaness and Atheism Yet I have such affection to persons smitten with these diseases that even for this Railing Jesuit I can pray that his spite against the Truth and against me for the Truths sake may not be laid to his charge I would trespass too much on the Readers patience should I insist to resume the rest of his ludibrious Raillery Perhaps to compense the softness of his Arguments he hath designed to stone me with reproaches but he would remember that Gratian Gaus 5. q. 1. from the Council of Eliberis Can. 52. thunders out an Anathema upon Pasquillers And a greater than these the Royal Prophet Psal 31. 18. Let lying lips be put to silence which speak grievous things proudly and presumptuously against the righteous To conclude the Reader may know that the reason why this Reply was so slow in coming abroad was not that it was not soo er ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters rapsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish sigment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1.
The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work◠some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist as if he had been the ancient S. Ambrose B. of Millan whereas by looking on the Errata where S. is appointed to be expunged the Reader may understand that the Epithet Saint was not in the Authors Copy By the same means diverse other mistaks of the impression may be cleared especially seeing it is hoped that these which are not set down may easily be observed by the judicious Reader It is likewise granted that many trespasses are committed in the punctation but there was necessity to leave these to the Correction of the intelligent Reader Where the Printer found in the Coppy this figure § he ordinarily hath printed Sect. and so hath sometimes put twice Sect. in one place Some of those escapes are noted amongst the Errata that by them the Reader might easily pass judgment on the rest And if he would be at pains to correct the errours with his pen he would oblige the Author and ease those of trouble who afterwards should make use of his book If either Jesuit or other Reader impute any of these or such like escapes unto the Author he will discover more prejudice against the cause or person of the Author than either judgment or discretion However the Errata is subjoyned for the use of ingenuous lovers of truth It is to be noted that whereas cap. 3. Sect. 3. page 94. Lyranus Paulus Burgensis Valla Cajetan are joyned with Erasmus Pagnin Arias Montanus c. the meaning is not that the first four Authors had translated entire books of Scripture as the latter had done but that those also in their Expositions of Scripture did frequently recede from the Vulgar Latin and corrected it Likwise where as it is said cap. 3. Sect. 3. pag 95. that Romanists can only object against our translations of Scripture some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no authority that is to be understood of Castalio Broughton Carolus Molinaeus and others of that quality cited by the Pamphleter But there a touch should have been given how the Pampheter had abused an expression of King James in the conference at Hampton Court viz. that the Geneva translation is the worst of all English translations This expression of the King the Pamphleter abuses to impugne the Scriptures being the rule of Faith which his Majesty never intended nor was his meaning that the Geneva translation composed Anno. 1560. By the English Exiles who fled thither in the Reign of Queen Mary or that the other English translations the faillours whereof were likewise briefly hinted at by the King did not contain all things necessary to Salvation Yea the particular trespases noted by his Majesty in the Geneva bible were in the Marginal annotations not in the translation it self Thereal design of the King was to hold forth that no English translation then extant had arrived at the perfection which were not only to be wished but also by more industry might be attained whereupon his Majesty gave special order to compose the English translation which we now by the mercy of God do enjoy It were good that Romanists had as much ingenuity to acknowledge the errors of their vulgar latin as lastly corrected by Clement the eight a specimen whereof hath been exhihited by Francisus Lucas Brugensis If any be not satisfied with the touch given of the Keri and Chetib pag. 102. 103. they are remitted to Sixtinus Amama his dissertation de Keri Chetib in coronide ad Grammaticam Martinio Buxtorfianam where though that learned Author seem to make large concessions concerning the Keri and Chetib and the various lections yet neither do they overthrow the doctrine of the reformed Church concerning Scriptures being the rule of faith as Amama himself in the Answer of some objections endeavours to clear It is also to be noted that whereas in page 472. Clements Epist 1. is pronounced spurious The Authors designe was not to censure Clements first Epistle to the Corinthians lately published by Mr. Patrick Young which Rivet Crit. sac lib. 1. cap. 8. Commends as savouring of primitive simplicity and Hottinger in Elencho librorum supposititiorum saith de ea Nostri nihil durius pronunciarunt for that is not the Epistle cited by the Pamphleter but another passing under the name of Clements first Epistle to S. James which is justly concluded spurious And albeit the Epistle were genuine yet the testimony adduced from it is impertinent seeing it speaks not of the Popes supremacy but partly of that which was common to S. Peter with the rest of the Apostles namely that he was called Fundamentum Ecclesiae which is also attributed to the rest Eph 2. 20. Rev. 21. 14. and partly of his personal prerogatives and indowments in regard whereof he is said to be potentior omnium which might well consist with equality of jurisdiction DEdic pag. 3. li. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 35. r. lib. 13. p. i2 l-39 r. Rom. 8.3.8 p 14. l. 19. r. twelve years p 23. l. 21 r. diffusive p 24. l. 14. r. diffusive l 28. r. Donatists might have p. 51. l 31 r. those Fathers do only compar p. 52. l. 20. ◠against F. Johnson p. 53. l. 22. r. 18 Mat 28.20 p. 57. l. 7. r. Exod. 32. p 62. l. 10. r. Evangelium p. 65. l. 30. r. lib. 2. de Concilits ◠67. l. 35. r. contra Epist Fundamenti p. 72. l. 34. in place of Isidor Clarius r. Lucas Brugenesis l. 38 ◠diffic 4 Sect 2. p. 73 l. 21. r. a spara◠senses