delyvered without the holy scriptures But secondly I might argue thus ad Hominem against you were it not that I feared too great Prolixity if there be any more then these two it would be some or al of your five pretended Sacraments Confirmation Pēnance Marriage Extrem Vnction or Ordination But none of these farre lesse all of them therefore there are no proper Sacraments at all besides these two which we acknowledge The sequel is clear for there are none else besides these which you can allege Yea if I prove that any one of these is not a proper Sacrament the Infallibility of your Church and consequently the whole structure of your Religion is gone To insist upon the probation of this last Assumption at large would engage me upon too voluminous a discourse You may see it largely done by Chamier tom 4. lib. 4. à cap. 7. ad 32. treating severally of each of these pretended Sacraments and more succinctly by Maresius tom 2. contra Tirinum controv 20.23.25.26 and 27. no to remit you to many Authors Now only to give you a short hint I say that none of these your five pretended Sacraments have all the forementioned conditions of a Sacrament and consequently none of them are properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament First then to beginne with Confirmation The Matter thereof which we call the Visible signe or Element sayes your Pope Eugenius the fourth and your Council of Florence in Decrete ad instructionem Armenorum and your Roman Catechisme part 2. cap. 3. quaest 6. Is oyle mixed with balsome consecrated by a Bishop The Forme of it or words to be pronunced at the celebration thereof As the same Eugenius Catechism ibid quaest 10. do declare is Sigte signo crucis confirmo te chrismate salutis in nomine Patris Filis spiritus sancti But there is no divine institution either of that matter or forme recorded in all the New Testament as your own Authors are constrained to acknowledge particularly Suarez in 3. part tom 3. quaest 72. disp 33. sect 1. 5. If the signe you use in Confirmation be not of divine institution then it cannot seale to the Soul the promises of Salvation nor is it of necessity perpetually to endure in the Church If you say that you have a Divine institution for it though not in the Scriptures yet attested by unwriten tradition You must first prove the Canon of the Scriptures to be imperfect and then demonstrate by universal tradition in all ages that there was a divine institution of Chrisme mixed with balsome as the matter of a distinct and peculiar ordinance together with these words which you now use in the Romish Church which you may finde a difficult task Nay your famous Jesuit Escobar confesses that these words which you call the forme of this Sacrament were not instituted by CHRIST Hear himself lib. 12. Theol. Moral Sect. 2. cap. 14. probl 15. num 116. Christus sayeth he verba illius formae non determinavit sed Ecclesiae determinanda reliquit That is Christ determined not the words of this forme but left them to be determined by the Church As much is confessed by Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure As Suarez testifies tom 3. in 3. part quaest 72. disp 32. sect 2. concerning your visible matter of this Sacrament viz Oyle Olive mixed with balsom that neither were these instuted by Christ So that now it is tossed among your selves as a Probleme whether Oyle mixed with Balsom be the necessarie matter of this Sacrament And many Authors of great fame among you mantaine the negative as you may find in Escobar lib. 12. Theel. Moral Sect. 2. cap. 12. probl 3. num 78. And in Suarez tom cit disp 33. sect 1. If therefore you say that imposition of hands is the visible signe in Confirmation as Bellarmine seemes to doe lib. de confirm cap. 2. § Jam vero medium albeit afterwards he likewise capp 8. and 9. pleads for the necessity of the Unction also you may see this copiously confuted by Chamier tom 4. lib. 4. de sacram novi Testamenti cap. 10. Take now but these passing hints And first imposition of hands may be a Rite but who can say that it is a substantial signe or such a signe as may congruously be termed an Element Secondly how can that be the Visible signe of this pretended Sacrament which neither belonges to the matter nor forme thereof if Pope Eugenius and your Roman Catechisme have rightly designed them Thirdly how can that be the peculiar signe of Confirmation which is commone to other Sacraments according to your Romish compuration particularly to Ordination and Extreame Unction Well did Austine speake concerning this Rite of imposition of hands lib. 3. de Baptismo contra Donatistas cap. 16. Quid est aliud manus impositio nisi oratio super hominē Fourthly either by this imposition of hands is meaned the Unction with Chrisme or some distinct Imposition If the first no institution thereof is mentioned in Scripture If the second though imposition of hands some times was practised by the Apostles for conferring the gifts of the holy Ghost yet there is no command for the perpetuity of it Hence Suarez loco citato sect 4. determines that no Imposition of hands distinct from the Unction is of the Essence of this pretended Sacrament of Confirmation But your Cassander in Consultatione art 13. brings in Hoscot a learned Doctor in the Roman Church as questioning whether Confirmation be a proper Sacrament What respect judicious Calvine had for Confirmation in a sound sense himself declares lib. 4. institut cap. 19. § 4. But how much and justely he dislykes your Romish pretended Sacrament of Confirmation and the superstitious Rites thereof may be seene ibid. from § 5. to the 13. But though you Romanists pretend a kind of zeal for Confirmation as a proper Sacrament yet have not many of your late Casuists Jesuits disputed it almost into contempt Is it not a Probleme among you whether there be any command of God or of the Church to receive Confirmation Or whether it be so much as a venial sinne to omit it when a person hath convenient opportunity for it Hath not your Jesuit Escobar diverse problemes to this purpose lib cit cap. 16. problem 31.32.33 c Yea doth not Escobar positively mantaine that there is no command either divine or ecclesiastick for it Hear himself problem 31. num 181. Existime sayeth he nullum dari nec divinum nec ecclesiasticum praeceptum confirmationts recipiendae That is I judge that there is no command either of GOD or of the Church to receive confirmation A noble Sacarment forsooth which persons are not bound to receive even when they have convenient opportunity for it yet lest he should seeme to be alone of this judgement he cites for the same in his next probleme num 183. Henriquez Coninck Lessius Tolet Reginaldus Ledesma Vivaldus Sayrus Valentia Bonacina
collectivly taken or the Catholick Church cannot erre in Essentials if the faith of the Catholick Church in these ages can be found out in the undoubted writings of the Fathers in these times then Conformity with their Religion will irrefragably prove Our Religion to be the True Religion as to all Essentials Yea if from the writings of the Aâ—â—ients in these ages we can find what was the faith of any one true Particular Church we may solidly argue thence as to the Truth of Religion in essentials For though a true particular Church may erre yet so long as it is a True Church it retaines the essentials of faith else it were not a true Church This Distinction which I have proposed is not mine onely but of our PROTESTANT Writers in this question concerning The Churches infallibility As you may see in Whitaker De Ecclesia quaest 3. cap. 1. Doctor Field His way to the Church lib. 4. cap 2. And others So that it is no evasion I propound to you but the received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and hence the rest of this your cavil on which you foolishly dilate may be cut off If we grant say you Any infallibility to the Church in these three Centuries how did that gift expyre in the fourth and after following ages It is easily Answered This infall blility which we grant to the Collective body of the Church as to the Essentials and Fundamentals of faith agrees to her in every age else the Church in some ages should be utterly lost But though we grant that the whole Catholick Church cannot erre in Fundamentals be not so foolish as to apply this to your Romish Church You might as well say that Italians are the collective body of mankind as that you Romanists are the collective body of the Catholick Church Remember Jeroms smart admonitioÌ„ In Aepistola ad Evagrium Orbis major est urbe Only this I adde that though the Catholick Church be exempted from error in Fundamentals in every age yet the Church in all ages is not blest with Equal purity and splendor For in some ages the Integrals may be much more vitiated then in others Yea some particular Churches may erre in Fundamentals and so cease to be True Churches and many of these who were eminent Lights in the Church may be smitten with these Fundamental errors and the sincere Professors of the truth may be reduced to a great Paucitie and through persecution be scattered into corners as in the dayes of Athanasius Quando totus orbis miratus est se factum Arianum Lest therefore you cavil further at the restricting of my argument to these First three Centuries you may remember the first occasion of it which was this as you will find in my Fourth Paper I was speaking of the Ancient Apologists in the first Three Centuries who pleaded the truth of the Christian Religion against Heathens And I appealed both to Their grounds and their Religion in these dayes that it might be tryed whether our Religion were not agreeable to theirs in all Essentials and whether the solid grounds which they brought for the truth of the Christian Religion did not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS This I say was the occasion of limiting the argument to these ages though it might have been extended further Yea and as then we told was extended further by Bishop Juel and Crakanthorp even to the Sixth Centurie so also is it by learned Whitaker Contra rarionem quintam Campiani Nay others have extended it to all ages Nor need you carp at the limiting of the argument to the first Three Centuries For the faith of the Catholick Church in these Three ages was the faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages For there is but one Faith and therefore if it be proven that our Religion was the Religion of these ages it doth consequently follow that it was the faith of the Catholick Church in all ages So that this is the most compendious way to try whether a Religion be the faith of the Church in all ages by ascending to the fountain I mean to these first three centuries concerning which there is least doubt made by any Party and which was lesse viriated by superstition or errors in integrals then was the Church in some after times I come now to your second Evasion wherein you pretend That conformity with the Ancient Church is at least no distinct ground from conformity with the Scriptures seeing the truth of the faith of the Ancient Church can onely be proven by its conformity with the Scripturs But the vanity of this subterfuge doth easily appeare For First whether it be a Distinct ground or not yet if it be a Real ground why decline you to be tryed thereby You must surely have an ill conscience and know your wares to be sophisticat that they cannot abide the light Secondly If these grounds be not distinct how doth your Melehior Canus In his booke of commone places distinguish them giveing the first place to the Seripturs of which he treats Lib. 2. only the Sixth to Ancient fathers of whome he discourseth Lib. 7 Or how doth Bellarmin and other your Controversists ordinarly distinguish their argumeÌ„â—s founded on Scripture from the arguments founded upon Antiquity But Thirdly wholly to remove this cavil I grant that the truth of Religion in any former age may be proven from its conformity with the Scriptures and therefore that conformity with the holy Scriptures is the onely Primarie ground of discerning a True Religion from a false whereupon I did put it in the first place Yet we may abstract Pro hîc nune from this way of procedour and argue from the faith of the Church in some ages without proceeding at the time to examine the truth of every point by the Scripture And the rather seeing in Scripture there are general promises of the perpetuity of the Church and consequently of preserving in her all fundamental truths If therefore we can have evidence that this was the faith of the Catholick Church I meane of the whole collective in any age then I may conclude this is the true faith and the True Religion and consequently what is agreeable thereto must also be the True Religion for nothing can be consonant to truth but truth From this it appeares that sisting in the Religion of the Catholick Church in the Second and Third Centurie as a Principle upon the general promise of the Churches perpetuity without a further progresse for the time to examine the truth of every particular it may become in some manner a Distinct ground of argueing from that according to which every point is severally reduced to Scripture-tryal Even as in Subalternas sciences the Conclusions of the Subalternant science are made use of as Principles without making a further progresse The Astronomer takes the Geometricians Conclusion as a Priuciple not seeking a Demonstration thereof So may the Divine in some cases take the faith of the
though I was onely the Defendant yet being out-wearied by your Cowardlynesse Have I not demonstrated that in sundrie chief points of controversie such as the Perspicuity and perfection of Scripture the fallibility of Popes and Councils and in the matter of transubstantiation that the PROTESTANTS had the right and true sense of Scripture and that you Romanssts were in the trespasse But you as a Catholick Doctor have one Catholicon by which you coufute all that your Adversarie objects namely by calling it a Digression for with that Reply you have satisfied your self throughout all your Papers Onely as to the last Specimen which I gave you concerning Transubstantiation you think you come off with honour by saying That it savours of what I taught my Scholars this last year Are not you a brave Champion indeed who are as afraid of an Argument that hath beene handled in the Schools as you would be of a Crocodile What sport would your men have made had our Whitaker Iunius Chamier and Danaaus declined to examine Bellarmins arguments because he had handled them before in that Colledge where he was Professor But whereas you say That the Argument which I brought against your transubstantiation seems to have beene the summe of all that I taught in the School this last year you shall know that I have not been accustomed to such laziness as to drone whole years like you upon one Syllogisme As in these forementioned particulars I have demonstrated that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and not you the same might be showen in all the rest of the points of controversie betwixt you and us and hath beene abundantly done by our Divines But to propose more Arguments to you is but Margaritas porco projicere For it would seeme you dare graple with none of them Fourthly I must advertise you of a Radical error which leades you into many more For you seeme still to suppose that who ever are a true Church must have one general ground from which the truth of all the points of Religion which such a society doe owne may be demonstrated without an examination of particulars And this if I mistake not is your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leades you into all the rest of your errors And therefore you still wave the examination of particulars and call for such a general ground But in this you show extreame basenesse that you neither prove the necessity of such a Principle nor yet produce that Principle by which your and our Religion is to be examined Only you insist still upon one general false Hypothesis as if it were an undenyable Axiom and a Datum Whereas in very truth a true Church may mantaine the fundamentals of Christianity and yet alas have the Tares of some errors mingled with the Wheat as is largely demonstrated by our Divines in that Question Num Ecclesia possit errare And therfore there is not one General Ground to be expected proving that all the points of Religion mantained by such a society are truth without examining particulars And this may be strongly confirmed Ad Hominem against you For if there were any such Commone Ground it would be the Infallibility of your Propounders but not this as I have proven in my former Papers Nay I have so soundly cudgelled this your Romish principle in my Last that you durst not once mention it in this your Eight Paper How ever if there be any ground which you suppose to prove the truth of Religion as a Test which none can justly decline I appeale you to produce it and I undertake by the helpe of GOD to show that either it is a false ground or else that it agrees to the PROTESTANT Religion Fifthly this Assertion of yours That before we câ—in prove the truth of our Religion from Scripture we ought first to prove that we have the true sense of Scripture had need of a very favourable and benigne interpretation else it is perfect non-sense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our ReligioÌ„ is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove we have the true ReligioÌ„ before we prove that we have the true Religion A noble stick of Romish non-sense Sixthly how easie were it to demonstrate against you Romanists that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture seeing in most of all the Positives of our Religion you doe agree with us as that there is a GOD that he is to be adored and that there are three Persons c. Consequently The PROTESTANTS sense of Scripture must be the true sense else your Religion cannot be true You must either acknowledge that vve have the true sense of Scripture or condemne your ovvn Religion The chief controversie that remaines betvvixt you and us is concerning your Supernumerarie Additions as vvhether not onely GOD is to be adored but also Images and Crosses and not onely GOD is to be invocated but also Saincts and Angels c. That is vvhether there be so many more Supernumerarie senses of Scripture besides those vvhich PROTESTANTS mantaine and you Papists dare not deny Whether I say besides these there be other senâ—es of Scripture mantained by you Romanists and denyed by us Ought not you then to prove these your Supernumerarie senses And are not vve sufficiently vvarranted to adhere to the Negative except there be solid grounds for these Superadded sexses vvhich I beleeve neither you nor the vvhole sâ—lb of Jesuits shall be able to shovv though you get a superaddition of all Lucifers Acumen But Seventhly and Lastly Seeing nothing will satisfie you unlesse I though onely the Defendant doe also prove against you the Negative that is that not onely Our sense of Scripture is true but also that these Your superadded and supernumerarie senses are not true therefore to draw you if it be possible our of your lurking holes I will try you by this Argument The sense of Scripture given by your present Romish Church in many things contradicts the sense given by the Ancient Romish Church Ergo the sense put upon Scripture by your Present Romish Church in many things cannot be true The Sequel is cleare because two contradictories cannot be true If therefore you confesse that the Ancient Romish Church had the true sense of Scripture which ye must doe or else destroy the great foundation of your Religion namely the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome in all ages then wherein you contradict the Ancient Romish Church therein surely you deviat from the true sense of Scripture It remaines therefore onelie that I confirme the Antecedent which I doe by a few cleare Instances Instance first Your present Romish Church mantains that Images are to be adored Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by the
the rest returnes upon your own Pate But Thirdly had PROTESTANTS devysed new Means of interpretation which had not been made use of by the Church in all times you might have had some pretext for this demand But we doe cordially subscrive to that of the Apostle 2. Peter 1.20 No prophesie of Soripture is of any privat interpretation I shall therefor remit you to Whitaker controver de Scriptur Qu. 5. cap. 9.10.11 12. Chamier Tom. 1. Panstratiâ— Lib. 16. A. cap. 4. ad finem Zauchius Tom. 8. tract de script â—u 2. Gerard the Lutheran In Uberiori exegesi loci de scriptura cap. 25. Where you will find the means of interpretation acknowledged by PROTESTANTS and the way how they are to be used luculently set down and vinditated from the cavilâ— of Stapletâ—n and others Or if your prejudice will not permit you to take them from our Authors you may take them from Austin in his Foure bookes de Doct. Christ Where it is verie remarkeable that though he be verie copious in assigning rules for the right understanding of the Scriptures yet he never once makes mention of that Infallible assistance of the Bishop of Roâ—e which is an undoubted evidence that Austin was not of your now Romish faith By this we understand what an impudent calumny that is of Bellarmin lib. 3. De verbo Dei cap. 1. who when he is stateing this question of the perspicuity of the Scriptures charges reformed Divines as mantaining Scripturam esse tam apertam in se ut sine explicatione sufficiat ad controversias sidei terminandas As if we mantained that there were no need of interpretation of Scripture which none of our Divines doe affirme And therefore to cut off that cavill I purpofly added that caution of Using the means of interpretation albeit on the other hand you would abuse this concession to derogat from the Scriptures perspicuty but with equal ingenuity with your Cardinal Fourthly Whereas you ask Whether the people without preaching can duely use the means of interpretation and come to the knowledge of things necessary to Salvation A ludibrious question as proponed by you implying as would seeme a clear Contradiction in it self For preaching is one of these means of interpretation and therefore it is all one as if you had asked whether people may at once use all the means and yet not use some of them Is it not a manifest Contradiction to use them all and not to use them all at once But to take of all mistakes we say that attendance on publick preaching is one meane to which people are tyed Necessitate praecepti when they may have it which is clearly confirmed by these Scriptures 1. Thess 5.20 Despise not Prophesieing Luke 10.16 He that despyseth you despyseth me Rom. 10.17 Faith cometh by hearing Yet doe we not affirme that the Publick preaching of the Word is a meane so indispenlably necessary that the true meaning of the word can in no case be had by the use of Other means such as reading Private instruction c. When the publict preaching is providentially denyed To this purpose you may see Ruffin lib. 1. Hist Eccles cap. 9. 10. But Fifthly there yet temaines one of your judicious queries namely Whether a false Religion may duely use the means of interpretation I think you would have asked whether people professing a false Religion may use duely the means for it is a verie incongruous speach to say That Religion useth means But passing that incongruicy I answere breifly that people professing a false Religion are bound De jure to use the means duely though De facto they doe not use them duely so long as they adheare to A false Religion For as I said from the beginning of this debate there is such an Objective evidence in Scripture truths that if they be not perceived when sufficiently proposed it is still through some defect on the part of the subject As doth luculentlie appeare from 2. Cor. 3.4 If our Gospel be hid it is to them in whome the God of this world hath blinded their minds And Joh. 7.17 If any man doe the will of GOD he shall know the Doctrine whether it be of GOD. This far have I condescended to satisfie your Extravagant Queriet and I hope have sufficiently vindicated from all your cavills this First ground of the true Religion taken from The Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures But doe not expect hereaftere to meet with the like indulgence as if I would take notice of your ' Digressive questions when you neither observe rules of disputing nor keep close to the maine hing of the controversie I cannot here but put you in minde againe of another ground which I proposed in my last two Papers from which the truth of our Religion may be demonstrated namely The conformity thereof in all its essentials with the faith of the most Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This you still dissemble as if you were deafe on that eare Onely in the close of one of your observations concerning the perspicuitie of the Scripture to confuse these two grounds together that so you might escape in the darke and that your tergiversation and not speaking to this ground distinctly might be the lesse observable you doe impertinently throw in this word That the claims to antiquity is common to other sexts I beleeve you would have said Sects But besides what hath been said in my former Papers to redargue such a trifling Reply now I adde that the falshood of the claime of the other Sects may be evicted by holding out the discrepancy betwixt the faith of the ancient Church and false Religions As I proved the falshood of your Romish Religion from the dissonancy betwixt your now Romish faith or Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth and the faith of the ancient Church in these ages which as yet you have not once endeavoured to answere though now it be the third time put to you If you had intended to say any thing to purpose against us PROTESTANTS to this particular you should have instanced Some essentials of the Christian ReligioÌ„ wherin the ancient Church did differ from us But I find that the chief facultio of your Romish Champions lyes in braging and false accusing How often have they accused PROTESTANTS as Innovatours And who are such pretenders to antiquity as they But it is a true character which Scaliger gave long agoe of our and your writers Non sumus nos novatores sed vos estis veteratores And therefore to vindicate the truth which we mantaine from all their reproaches I have offered to dispute the cause of Religion betwixt us and you both from Scripture and Antiquity But you doe shift the tryall from both these grounds as much as a Theif would shift to be examined by a Iurie You are therefore againe required to answere my argument From the diserepancy betwixt your now Romish Creed and the faith of the
praesenti that the object thereof doe exist in that article of time wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced But according to you Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced for according to you Christs Body is not in the Sacrament till all the Words be ended Therefore the proposition according to your Glosse cannot be true And yet it must be true as being the word of him who is truth it self And consequently it must be Ture and Not True Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigma's but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth in so much that what one of them affirmes the other confutes As these hints prove the falshood of your Romish glosse so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS is manifest from the Series of the context For if by the pronowne Hoc or This Christ meaned the bread then the sense of the proposition must be figurative But by the pronowne This he surely understood the bread Ergo c. The Major is clear because disparats cannot be predicated of one another but Figuratively The Minor is easily proven Because what he tooke blessed and did breake of that he said This is my Body as is clear from the Series of the context But undoubtedly he tooke blessed and brake the bread therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronowne This. And consequently the sense must be Figurative Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS Said not Austin Contra Adimantum cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui That is when he gave the signe and figura of his Body And long before him Tertullian Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem cap. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Corpus suum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo ad est figura Corporis mei Could Calvin or Beza have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christs proposition to be Figurative I know your two Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron have scrued up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation But Spalatensis Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles cap. 6. à num 22. Ad numerum 164. not to mention other Authors hath copiously examined and fully vindicated all these testimonies and clearly demonstrated that the Church in the first Eight Centuries was in the same judgement as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Reformed Churches By this touch the judicious Reader may discerne whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds The like might be shewed if our expositions and yours were compared of other much tossed Scripturs such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18 Upon this rock I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of truth Iob. 21.16 Feed my sheep c. And this were the most compendions way to try whether your expositioÌ„ or ours were the more genuine This also was the advice of Augustine of old Lib. 3. Contra Maximin Arianum cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Arâ—minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illus detineris Seripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque proprys sed utrisque communâ—bus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratic cum ratione concertes It is true throogh prejudice interest or blindnes men may oppose the most luculent truth after all these meanes But then the whole defect is as we have often advertised you Ex parts subjecti on the part of the subject And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scripturs perspicuity in al things necessarie to Salvation In your next section as you declined a tryal by Scripture so likewise you shun to have your Religion tryed by Antiquity and you pretend two noble shifts The first is that according to us al these in the first three Centuries were fallible and therefore though our Religion were conforme to theirs it will not follow that it is the True Religion I doubt if ever any had to doe with such a shamelesse tergiversing fellow For First suppose it were true that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion and I admit their Religion as to all essentials to be a Test whether ours be true or not with what face can you decline it Know you not that Maxim of Law Testem quem quis inducit pre se tenetur recipere contrase Secondly how could you say That we affirme that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible seeing in these centuries were the Apostles whome we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine But Thirdly by saying That we mantains that all in these ages even excepting the Apostles and pen-men of holy writ were fallible and subject to errors you discover your self to be either grosly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS or to be a base scurvie sophister which will appeare by distinguishing two words in your assertion For First the particle All may be taken either Collectively or Distributively And Secondly Errors of Religion are of two sorts Some in points fundamental and essential some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity This being premised I propose this Distinction If you meane that we mantaine that All in these ages Collectively taken that is the whole Catholick Church may erre in Fundamentals and Essentials it is a most absurd falshood for PROTESTANTS mantaine no such thing We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church Isa 59. ver 21. Matth. 28 ver 20. c. But if the whole Catholick Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age then the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth It is True sundrie of your Writers either through Ignorance or through their calumniating Genius have charged this on PROTESTANTS that they mantaine that the Church may utterly fail But this is so impudent a slander that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants cap. 13. Notandum sayeth he Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere nam Calvinus cateri Heretici id concedunt If therefore this be your meaning you charge PROTESTANTS falsly But if you onely meane that All in these ages taken Distributively remember that now we speake not of Apostles or of pen-meÌ„ of holy writ or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetick spirit might erre in things not Fundamental this is granted Yet this hinders not but that the truth of our Religion may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church For though every one Distributively taken may erre in Integrals yet seeing Al
Catholick Church in the Second or Third Centurie and argue thence as from a Principle especially when he hath to doe with an Adversarie who may admit the faith of the Ancient Church as a Test and will decline the Scriptures under pretext of obscarity or ambiguity Yea as I have said before A Divine may in such a case argue from the faith of one true Particular Church Suppose that an Original writ were either lost or blotted and blurred from which there hath been several Transumpts taken and that there were two persons pretending to have Transumpts but each of them questioning the fidelity of the others Transumpt This Question could not be decided by the Original it being supposed either to be lost or blotted utterly and blurred and neither of the two Parties willing yeeld to one another But there being found another Transump which both the Parties acknowledge to have been the First Copie that was taken from the Original Could there be any way so good for decyding the Question next to the compareing of both the Transumpts with the Original if it could be had or were clear as to compare the two controverted Copies with this uncontroverted Transumpt In this case would not he who shunned to bring his Copie to the tryall leave a strong presumption that his Paper were but a forged draught Now though all the authority which the unquestioned Transumpt hath was derived from its conformity with the Original yet in these circumstances it may have the place of a Test to distinguish betwixt true and adulterat Copies The application is obvious The Papists like old Hereticks accuse Scriptures as being blotted and blurred yea as in a manner lost The Originals if you may be beleeved being corrupted albeit indeed Scripture is clear and by the good hand of GOD preserved to this day Yet seeing you sometimes seeme to magnify Antiquity as if you did acknowledge the faith of the Ancient Church to be a faithful Transumpt from that authentick Original of the Scriptures what more condescension can we PROTESTANTS in this case show to you Then seeing you will not be judged by the Scriptures which are out Heavenly Fathers authentick Testament then I say to acquiesce that the cause betwixt us be tryed by that Transumpt which you seeme to acknowledge And when you decline this tryal also doth it not speake you out to be real Prevaricators and Cavillers But because some may wonder whence it is that you doe not onely decline a tryall by Scripture but also by Antiquity I will here open the Mysterie that lurkes under it Though you Romanists seeme somtimes to magnify Fathers Councils and Antiquity yet there are none who set them more at nought then you as if you put me to it I will make good by particular instances And therefore laying them aside it is onely your present Romish Church that is your sure Author-hold And by your present Church your Jesuited Partie meanes only the Pope I doe not stander you Hear your great Champion Gretser who comes in to succour Bellarmin at a dead lift Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bellarmin De ver be Dei colum 1450. Quando Ecclesiam dicimus esse omnium controversiarum fidei juaicem intelligimus Pontisicem Romanum qui pre teâ—pore praesens naviculam militantis Ecclesiae moderatur When we affirme sayeth 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 So that there is no security for your unhappie Religion unlesse ye be made Chancelours in your own Assyze If it be asked how shall any know that the Romish Church is the True Church The answere must be because she that is her head the Pope sayes she is the True Church If it be againe asked how shall it be known that the Pope is the Head of the Church The answere must be because he sayes he is it But how shall it be known that he is Infallible in so saying The answere must be because he sayes this is his prerogative And how shall it be known that the Romish Religion is the onely True Religion The onely plaine answere is because the Pope whose grandour is mantained thereby sayes it is the True Religion And how shall it be known that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is a Wrong Religion Because forsooth the Pope whose triple Crown is shaken by the Religion of Protestants sayes that it is an heretical Religion Alace abcel that poore simple people should be so miserably cheaâ—ed and seduced GOD I trust will erre long open their eyes to see these damnable impostures You had asserted in your last That every supernatural act of faith must be founded on the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the Popounders of divine truths To which in my last I had Replyed many thing most of which according to your custome you never once touch I must therefore reminde you of the heads of them As First you were demanded who these Infallible Propounders are Whether you Romanists can agree upon them Whether you can produce grounds for their infallibility from Scripture or Universal Tradition I hope you will not pretend every one of your Shavelings to be infallible Yea I brought luculent evidence that both Popes and General Councils may erre and have erred Secondly I asked whereupon the Faith of these pretended Infallible Propounders was builded and wherein they differed from Enthusiasts Thirdly supposing Pope or Council or both had this Infalliblity yet seeing the people receive their sentence from the mouth of such fallible and fallacious persons as you how can they be assured that either you have not taken up the sense of their Decrees wrong or that for base ends you doe not falsifie them And Fourthly how it can be known who are your Clergie men that are gifted with this assistance seeing the efficacie of Sacraments of which Ordination with you is one dependeth on the secret intention of the Priest But none of these doe you once touch Are not you fitter to be a Trencher Chaplaine to a Biggotted and implicit Proselit then a Disputant I Might here also comit you with the late Patrons of your Traditionarie Way particularly with Master Cressy who in his Exomologesis Cap. 51. Sect. 4. Acknowledges That the pastors of the Church proceed not now as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the holy Spirit but with prudential collection not alwayes necessarie and that to the Apostles such an infallible certainty of means was necessarie but not so now to the Church And in his chap. 40. Sect. 3. He acknowledges the unfortunatness of that word infallibility And said that he could find no such word in any Council and that there appeared no necessity to him that any PROTESTANT should ever have heard that word named let be pressed with so much earnestness and that Master Chillingworth hath combated that word
with too too much successe I Know Master Cressy finding that this his assertion had given offence to sundrie Zelots of you Romish Church published afterwards an explicatioÌ„ of these words But what an unhandsome dis-ingenuous retreat he made is judiciously discovered by Master Tillotson In his booke Entituled The Rule of faith part 2. Sect. 4. Where also he showes that the same principle of infallibility hath been contradicted by Whyte Holden Rushworth the late pleaders for your Traditionarie way You may see more of the Contradictions of your Iesuit-Party who contend for the infallible assistance of your Propounders and the late Patrons of your Traditionarie way held forth by Master Stillingsleet in his Appendix to Tillotsons Rule of faith § 10. And you may try how you can reconcile these your intestine discords about the ground of your faith before you expect others to close with either of you But you not dareing to reply to any of these foure forementioned particulars studie onely though in vaine to extricat your self from Two contradictions wherein I left you enwrapped The First was this If all supernatural faith be founded on the previous assurance of the Propounders infallibility then the first assent to this infallibility most presuppose the previous assurance of this infallibility as being an act of faith and not presuppose it as being the first assent to this infallibility To this you answere not without your usual reproaches of ignorance as if forsooth you were an illuminat and profound Doctor you answere I say That the prerequired knowledge of the Propounders assistance you meane infallible Is not an act of faith but an evident assent founded on the motives of credibility But this miserable subterfuge affords you no help For First either you meane that all the assent which is given to the Infallibility of your Propounders is Evident founded upon the Motives of credibility or beside that pretended Evident assent you hold also that this Infallibility is beleeved by an Assent of divine faith If you meane that it is onely known by that pretended Evident Assent then the Infallibility of your Propounders should not at all be De fide or an article of faith Consequently it should be no Heresie to deny or impâ—gne the Infallibility of your Popes or Councils so the very foundatioÌ„ of your Romish faith should be overturned If therefore you say that beside this Evident assent the Infallibility of your Propounders is also beleeved by an assent of divine faith then either that Assent of faith is resolved into the previous pretended Evident assent or not If it be resolved into it then your Assent of faith should be Divine faith Ex hypothesi for such you suppose it to be and yet not Divine faith as being ultimatly resolved into that pretended Evident Assent and having for its Formal Object these Motives of Credibility which according to you are Evident and so not a proper Formal Object for an assent of Faith but in very deed as shill after appeare they are but fallacious grounds of this pretended Infallibility If therefore againe to evite this Contradiction you say that this assent of Divine faith is not resolved into that Previous evident assent then that previous Evident assent contributs nothing to cleare the maine difficulty wherewith I urged you which was to hold forth the Formal object which moves you to give the first Assent of divine Faith to the Infallibility of your Propounders which I call upon you to doe if you can But I beleeve you will find that no ground of such an Assent of divine faith can be assigned without contradicting either your self or Scripture or evident reasone Let but the Credentials of your Propounders be impartially examined and it will appeare that the Faith that you give to their infallibility deserves not the name of a prudential Humane faith let be of a Divine faith Any judicious man who is versed in your Controversie Writers may see all the starting holes to which you can rune But I wil wait til I see to which of them you doe betake your self lest you should say that I fight with an Adversarie of my own devising Now onely I shall desire you to consider this Demonstration à posteriori Your Propounders have certainly erred De facte and Dogmatically both in Cathedra Extre Cathedram as I shew in my Sixth Paper therefore it is impossible to assigne a solid ground why their Infallibility should be beleeved by a Divine faith unlesse your divine faith be of such a nature that by it you may assent unto falshoods But Secondly I adde this that the whole foundation of your subterfuge is a grosse falshood namely that there are Motives of credibility which doe evidently conclude the infallibility of your Propounders Produce if you can these Motives and frame your arguments from them and I undertake through the grace of GOD Sub periculo causae to discover the falshood and fallacie of them In the meane time lest you runne from the point let me remember you that the Question betwixt us is whether there be such Motives of credibility which doe Evidently prove your Propounders to be Infallible And therefore take heede you digresse not to speake of the Motives which perswade the Credibility of the Christian Religion For the Christian Religion may be Credible though we have no previous assurance that your Propounders are Infallible Could I find an evident demonstration of the Infallibility of any Propounder I should instantly captivat my understanding to such a Persone Demonstrat therefore from your Motives of credibility that your Propounders are Infallible and produce a solid Formal Object of the first Assent of faith thereto and I shall ingenuously acknowledge that you have made your escape from the Contradiction objected to you But if you doe not demonstrat their Infallibility as I am sure you cannot be you as ingenuous on the other hand to acknowledge that you are shut up in a Contradiction as in yron chaines and that thither you are led by the Principles of your Religion From these things the impertinency of your example taken from Attrition and Contrition may appeare First because it is clear from Scripture that Attrition doth usualy goe before Contrition But that an assurance of the Infallibility of your Propounders must goe before every act of Divine Faith can no way be proven either by Scripture Reasone or your Motives of credibility as shall be made evident Solutione argument or 〈◊〉 Next because Attrition and Contrition have distinct and assignable Formal objects as is both confessed by your self and might be luculently also cleared from Scripture But the Formal object of this first pretended Assent of divine faith to the Infallibility of your Propounders is not assignable as hath been shewed already It might here be a divertisement to the Reader to give an account of the Vertigo of your Authors concerning these Motives of credibility They who are curious may find a
for you did simply and without limitation at the Conference admit the Assumption which did assert this to be the Doctrine of your Church This I hope may suffice concerning the occasion of the Conference and the moving of that question at it I come now to consider a little of the Point it self whether it ought to be reckoned as a Probleme and whether it be espoused by many of your Doctors and how far it may be charged upon Your Church In order to which I shall say but Two things The First is that this is surely the received Doctrine of many of your Chief Doctors in the Present Romish Church That a man when he hath sinned is not tyed by the command of GOD presently to repent For clearing this I shall not 〈◊〉 your puny and obscure Writers but as many of your Grandees as I hope shall suffice to justifie what I have said from Pulpit I beginne with your voluminous Suarez in 3 part Tom. 4. disp 15. sect 5 I adde to him his contemporary Iesuit of no lesse renowne Vasquiz in 3. part Tom. 4. quaest 86. Dub. 5. With whome you may joine another of your Champions Gregorie de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 7. quest 8. punct 4. and Aegidius Coninck disp 3 de tanit 〈◊〉 3. as also your famous Bishop of the Canaries Mclâ—hior Canns Relect de Paenit part 4. Yea and from all these you may second to your eminent Cardiuaâ— de Lugo tract de pauit disp 7. sect 11 § 1. num 196. And if you would goe yet higher your Casuist Navar In Enchirid. cap. 1. num 27. Is not onely for it himself but also cites for the same your Rope Adrian the sixth What should I blot Paper with the names of Bican Meratins Bonaciuae Layman c Take that one general testimony of De Lugo in the place cited Sententia har sayeth he Communis est jam omnibus thâ—ologis uno vel altero recentiore excepte This doctrine is now commone to all Divines except it be one or two late Writers Yea divers of the forecited Authors and others of the like stampe have gone a greater length in this unhappie doctrine then I charged upon you For they not onely teach That a sinner is not bound to repent immediatly after his trespasse but also in many Remarkable eireumstances when GOD seemes to be signally calling for Repentance As First That a man is not bound to repent when he seriously cals his sinne to remembrance Nor Secondly When a grievous calamitie is upon him or the Countrey he lives in Nor Thirdly on holy and festival dayes all these and much more you will find in Vasquez Quest 86. dub 6. For after the enumeration of these and other weighty cases at length he peremptorly concludes That the precept of Repentance never obliges Per se that is but by Accident Except in the article of death Yea there are of your Doctors who goe yet a further length and Doe deny that a sinner by divine precept is bound to repent at all even in the article of Death of which a little hereafter What Christian ears can heare of these things and not tingle May not this suffice to justifie the truth of my Assertion in Pulpit viz That many of your chief Doctors mantaine that a man is not bound immediatly after he hath sinned to repent But I adde in the next place that your great Doctors seeme to lay more weight upon this point then upon a meere Probleme yea and that Your Church cannot cleare her innocencie as to this matter For your Cardinal de Lugo speaking of this Doctrine in the place forecited calls it Communem sensum omnium fidelium The commone sense of all Beleevers Doe your Authors speake so of meer Problems Nay the chief argument whereby the forecited Authors confirme this there tenet is from the Universal practise of your Romish Church Because sayeth Lugo no penitent De dilatione penitentiae se unquam accusat nec ullus Confessarius de hoc paenitentem interrogat And he addes this reason quia siz nemo in praxi existimat esse novam culpam actualem ex dilatione paenitentiae Hereupon the same Cardinal concludes the contrary doctrine to be Injurious to your whole Romish Church both Pastors and People Because it charges them with no smal guiltynesse seeing neither Delinquents in their Confessions nor Confessors in their examinations take any notice of the Delay of repentance I shall give you the words of your Cardinal Minus digne sentiunt de Ecclesiae corpore cum velint ab universis Ecclesiae non selum subditis sed Prelatis ex ignorantia omitti debitum And this was one ground whereupon in the conference I did charge Your Romish Church with this doctrine when you would not speake to it under these restrictions with which I had spoken of it in the Pulpit And if herein I have trespassed in charging it upon Your Church you may see that not so much I as your great Cardinal is to blame for it and other your Authors whose chief argument to confirme this doctrine is taken A praxi Ecclesia If this be the judgement of Your Church why give you it out for A Probleme If it be not the judgement of Your Church then how comes it that there is no notice taken of the delay of Repentance in your Penitential court of Conscience either by Priest or People as your great Authors doe testifye But that you may see that I deale not with you meerly upon the testimonies of your Schoolmen and Casuists Doth not your Council of Trent sess 14. cap. 4. Manifestly declare that Attrition with Sacerdotal absolution without Contrition is sufficient yea the words of the Council are so clear sayeth Aegidius Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 3. dub 1. num 5. Us sine aperta violentia non possint aliter explicari Therefore according to your Romish Tridentine faith a man may be saved eternally without Contrition Now let the world judge whether Our Religion or Yours have the greatest tendency to Holinesse We say that an adult Sinner cannot be saved without Contrition you say he may be saved with Attrition and sacerdotal absolution We say that a man how soone he sinnes Is bound to repent Most of the doctors of your Present Romish Church say That a man is not so much as bound presently to Attrition far lesse to Contrition Yea your own greatest Clerks testify that in your Confessions there is no notice taken of the Delay of repentance either by Priest or Penitent Would not the serious consideration of this one particular make any sober persone whose minde is not prepossessed with prejudice abhorre Your Papal Religion But it may be Objected in your behalf That some of your old Doctors such as Guliel Parisiensis Johannes Major c. Did mantaine that a sinner was presently bound to repent I grant it was so but this makes nothing against that which I have said Who knowes not
Christian Religion to dilate upon Pedantick notions more proper for School-Boyes then Divines But suppose you had discussed it utterly there remaine other Six answeres which you have never once touched I proceed now to that which you call my Second Answere wherein you bring me in answering That it appears that we have the true sense of Scripture because our sense is conforme to the sense of the Fathers of the first three Centuries I know not whether to call this a Delirium or a Dreame For in that Eight and Last Paper of mine to which only you now answere there is no mention of the Fathers in the First three Centuries I had indeed upon another occasion in some former Papers offered to examine the truth of Religion by conformity to the faith of the Church in these three Centuries and had so confuted all your objections against that Test that in your Last you had made no Reply thereto Wherefore in My last I onely insinuated some challenges for your â—ergiversing speaking nothing to that particular but brought not in this Directly as an Answere to this Cavill of yours But though you in your Reply stagger like a Drunken-man going back and fore leaping from one Paper to another yet because in a Former Paper I was willing to have tryed whether our Religion or yours be the true Catholick Religion By examining the conformity thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first threee hundred years I doe stand to it and shall examine what you Reply hereto First then you say That I resile from Calvine our foundator who disclaimed the Fathers in many things and taxed them of erros and so did other Reformers harp upon this string that the doctrines of the Fathers should be examined be the Scriptures But First how call you Calvine our foundator Were not ZUINGLIUS LVTHER OECOLAMPAIUS MELANCHTON c. Prior to CALVINE Were not HIIROM of Prague and IOHN HUS whome your Council of Constance did treacherously murther before these And WICKLEF before them And the Waldenses prior to him Of whome your Friar Reyner cited by Morney in Myster Iniq. edit 2. pag. 731. gave this testimony That the Waldenses continued from the days of Pope Sylvester yea some say sayeth Reyner from the Apostles dayes How absord then are you to call Calvine our foundator Nay come to the Tryall and if our Religion be found of latter standing then since the dayes of the Apostles I will disclaime it For I assent to Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 5. Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis But Secondly why charge you Calvine as taxing the Fathers with some errors Who have been more liberall in the Censures of the Fathers then you Romanists Take a few instances Bell. lib. 1. De Beatitud Sanct. cap. 6. after he had objected to himself the testimonies of Iustine Martyr Irenaus Epiphanius c. answeres Eorum sententiam non video quo pacto possimus ab errore defendere Maldonat the Iesuit expounding these words Matt. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her sayes quorum verborum sensus non mihi videtur esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse me memini Authores putant And on these words Matth. 11.11 He that is least in the kingdome of Heaven is greater then Iohn the Baptist After he had brought many expositions of Ancients at length concludes Libere fatebor in nulla prorsus earum meum qualecunque ingenium acquiescere Melchior Canus in lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. num 3. affirmes that though all the Fathers with one mouth conclude the Virgine Mary to be guiltie of Original sinne yet that is an argument of little weight and that the contrarie is piously defended in the Church Heare his own words Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere uno ore asseverarunt Beatam Virginem in peccato Originali conceptam cum nullus sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contraria sententia probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur You may see multitudes of more instances of your Romanists contemning and condemning of Fathers in Dallaus de usu Patrum lib. 2. cap. 6. and in Doctor Iames his Treatise of the corruption of Scripture Councill and Fathers by the Prelats Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome Part. 4. I shall onely now adde two more out of learned Dallaeus The One is of your Iesuit Brisacerius who in a Disput against Collaghanus a Iansenist When the Iansenist had objected many of the authorities of Ancients the Iesuit called the authorities of Councils and Fathers Regulas mortuas quaunllum alium vigorems habent quam quem iis dat viventis ac praesentis Ecclesiae approbatie vel interpretatio That is Dead rules which have no further significancy or worth then they receive from the approbation of the present living Church that is the Pope as they know who are acquaint with your Iesuit-Dialect Yea the same Iesuit yet more ignominiously calls the Authorities of Fathers Vitulinos franos that is bridles wherewith onely brutes such as Bullocks and young Hiefers suffer themselves to be musled up The other Testimony shall be that of Cornelius Mussus Bishop of Bitonto one of the famous Prelats of your Council of Trent in epist ad Rom. cap. 14. Ego sayeth he ut ingenue fatear plus uni Summe Pontifici credorem in his quae fidei mysteria tangunt quam mille Augustinis Hieronimis Gregoriis nedicam Richardis Scotis Gulielmis Crede enim scie quod Summus Pontifex in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest quoniam authoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontifice residet Did ever Protestants speak so disdainfully or contemptuously of Ancient Fathers by which it may appear that you Romanists use the Fathers as Merchants doe their casting Counters which sometime stand for pounds somtime for shillings somtimes for pennies and sometime for nothing as they serve their interest But Thirdly wherein have I resiled from Calvine and other Reformers Did Calvine looke upon Fathers as persons obnoxious to error So doe I. And so did Fathers judge of themselves as Austine witnesses Epist 19. ad Hieron Hence is that of your Melchier Canus lib. 7. cap. 3. num 4. Hanc falicitatem Deus in solis divinis voluminibus inesse voluit ut in iis non esset quicquam erroris cateroquin nemo quant umvis eruditus sanctus non interdum hallucinatur non alicubi cacutit non quandoque labitur Doth Calvine or other Reformers say that the doctrine of Ancients is to be examined by the Scriptures Never said I any thing to the contrary nay I cordially subscribe to that apostolick Anathema If an Angel let be a Father shall teach any other Gospel to us let him be accursed Yet notwithstanding all this
our Reformed Divines have often offered to disput against you Romanists the controversies of Religion out of the Fathers Did I not show you this before from Juel Whitaker and Crakanthorp And how often doth learned Calvine in his Institutions confute you Romanists from Antiquity as your transubstantiation Lib. 4. cap. 17. § 14. Your Communion under one kinde Ibid. § 47. 48. 49. 50. The necessity of Auricular confession Lib. 3. cap. 4. § 7. Your Papal Indulgences Lib. 3. cap. 5. § 3. 4. The Popes supreamacie over the whole Catholick Church Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 3. 4. 5. c. Yea and not to insist in reckoning out particulars when he is treating of Councils and their authoritie Lib. 4. cap. 9. § 1. Veneror Councilia sayeth he ex animo suoque in honore apud omnes esse cupio and a little after Sicuti ad plenam doctrinae nostrae approbationem totius Papismi eversionem abunde verbo DEI instructi sumus ut nihil praeterea requirere magnopere opus sit ita si res flagitet magna ex parte quod satis sit ad utrumque vetera Concilia nobis subministrant where Judicious Calvine affirmes that out of Ancient Councils both the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be confirmed the Papal superstition confuted From all this may it not appeare how ludibriously you say that I seeme to be hatching a New Religion of my own Am I not offering to defend the received Religion of PROTESTANTS and to have the truth thereof tryed By its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Primitive Church Is the Ancient Religion a New Religion Is the Religion both of Ancients and PROTESTANTS a Religion peculiar to me Will you not blush that such foolish Non-sense should have droped from you But you have another trifling Shift Before say you That conformity with the faith of the Ancient hurch in the first three Centuries be admitted as a Test by which the truth of Religion may be discerned it ought to be proven that all the necessaries of the Christian Religion are contained in their writings which are now extant But First may it not with better reason be resorted on you that before you had rejected it from being a Test you ought first to have proven that there were some necessaries and essentials of the Christian Religion no where to be found in any of the writings of these three ages If any be wanting produce them and your evidence of their absolute necessity If you can produce no necessarie article that is wanting why decline you the tryal But the truth is you Romanists mantaine such a desperat cause that if either Scripture or Antiquity be Umpyre you must surely be condemned There is no way to get a favourable Interloquitur for you but by setting up your Infallible Propounders that is your own selves to be Supreame judges to the whole World If such a Religion be not to be suspected let the World judge But Secondly doe not you Romanists boast bigly sometimes of Universal traditions And here by the way I tel you I shall never declyne to have all the Essentials of Religion tryed by the famous rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis in Commonitorio primo contra Haereses cap. 3. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus est creditum But if any of the necessaries or essentials of Christianity are not to be found in the writings of the Three first Centuries how shall we have a Perpetual and universal tradition for these seeing the current is supposed to be broken off at the fountain for three hundred yeares thereafter Must we take the voice of your Present Church as an Oracle to tell us what was beleeved by the Church so many ages agoe though there be no record left that such a thing was ever beleeved We must examine her Credentials before we become so implicite to her in matters of Fact But Thirdly If any of the Necessaries of Christian Religion be altogether wanting in the writings of Ancients of these ages how did your Gualterius the Jesuit undertake to prove the truth of your Religion by the testimonies of the Church in all ages It is true he was most unhappie in his undertaking in so much that Chillingworth in his Defence of Doctor Potter part 1. cap. 2. § 119. affirmes that he heard an able man of your Religion say That Gualterius had not produced one pertinet testimony in the first three Centuries The like may be said of Ioannes Andreas Coppenstenius a Predicant in his Historical supplement to Bellarmine who undertakes the like but with as little successe Yet doe not such undertakings suppose that all necessary and essential truths of Religion may be found in the writings of these times Sed laterem lavo I doe but lose my travell what wonder to see a Thief declyne the Court and jurie He knowes upon tryal he must be condemned I have pressed you to come to be examined either by Scripture or Antiquity or both or to produce any other solid way of discerning a true Religion from a false but you declyne all Have I not just cause therefore to discharge finally with such a babling Lucifuga After I had signed my last Paper that known Distich dropped from my pen in a Postscript Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta Corruct mundi desinet esse caput At this you behoved to have a fling though you scarce said any thing to the controversall points of the Paper Bot sie say you yat yis your Prophesie be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris Prophesie who when he lept out of the Churche did brage yat with tue yeiris Preaching he wold abolische and eliminat all Poprie out of the world sa yat ester yir tua yeiris yair wold be no mor in the world nather Pop nor Cardinalis nor Monkis nor Nunnes nor Mase nor Belis c. I have set down your own words with your own spelling that the Reader may discerne what a Famous Clerke you are But here I must Querie you in a few particulars and First how call you this my Prophesie Are they not the lines of a Germane Prince Were they not sent to Pope Gregorie the ninth by Frederick the second the Emperour who felt the heavie hand of your usurping Popes as other Princes have done Secondly how cal you Luther our Patriarch We indeed honor Luther and Calvine as precious servants of GOD. But we make neither of them Pope or Patriarch or Master of Sentences Non sumus jurati in verba Magistri Our faith is pinned to no mans slieve Though you be implicit Slaves to the Pope yet we to no man Thirdly what Church I pray you doe you mean when you say that Luther did leape out of the Church Is it the Catholick or universal Church But when I pray you did the Roman Church become the Catholick a part become the whole Are not the Grecian Russian abyssine c Churches parts of the Catholick
Yea have not you of the Papal faction rent your selves from the Catholick Church Have not you revived the Schisme of the Donatists As they limited the Catholick Church to Africk doe not you limit it to the See of Rome Is not subjection to the Pope as universal Bishop an Essential of your Religion Was ever that an Essential of Religion in the Ancient Church Yea or in the Roman till of late especially in your Iesuit-sense as if the Pope had supreame jurisdiction on Earth even above Generall Councils Surely your Councils of Constance and Basile were of another opinion who not onely determined the Council to have jurisdiction over the Pope but also the Council of Basile Sess 45. in decreto 5. conclusionum is bold thus to affirm Nec unquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit Summum Pontificem in his quae fidem concernunt judicio ConcilioruÌ„ universalium esse subjectum And yet contrary to the judgement Peritorum omnium of all understanding Christians for the space of a thousand and foure hundred yeares after CHRIST if your Fathers of Basile be to be trusted your late Laterane Conventicle under Pope Leo the tenth Sess 11. hath defyned on the contrary the Pope to have jurisdiction above Generall Councils Doe you not by this your Schisme cut off your selves from the Body of the Catholick Church both of the Present and Former ages Doe you not oblige other Christian Churches to refuse Communion with you lest they should be involved in your Schisme and rent themselves with you from the Communion of all Christian Churches who acknowledge not the usurped supreamacie of your Pope If therefore you say that by the Church you meane onely the Particular Roman Church then why call you the Roman Church the Church as if there were no Church in the World but she Why doe you say that Luther did leap out of her Was he not driven out by Excommunication as learned Doctor Morton in his grand Imposture of the church of Rome cap. 15. Sect. 13. 14. 15. 16. hath copiously demonstrated in so much that your own Thuan as cited by the same Doctor Morton spares not to say Non defuerunt qui jam tum culpam in Leonem Papam rejicerent That there wanted not among your selves who laid the blame on Pope Leo the tenth But may not a man be a member of the Catholick Church though not of your Roman How often have PROTESTANTS declared that they onely refuse communion with you in so far as you reject the truth Imbrace the truth and lay by your supercilious Schisme and we are readie to joyne in communion with you But Fourthly why doe you not cite some Author for this Apocryphal prophesie which you impose on Luther That he would root out Poperie out of the World in two yeares Is it not observable that in all these your Nine Papers these two citations of Luther and Calvine are the first citations of any Authors that we have met with from you and you cite them at large without mentioning Booke Chapter or Page And I verily looke upon this which you alleage of Luther as an egregious calumny For I have some of Luthers workes by me and many grave Authors writing of him But that I neither find in his own Workes nor yet that is affirmed of him by any Credible Historian It is true your Bellarmine from whome it seemes you have borrowed this fiction In lib. 4. De Ecclesia Militante cap. 15. affirmes that your Lying Cochlaeus reported such a false prophesie of Luther But who knowes not that Bell â—rmine and other your Controversists are ready to scratch up the dirt which lying calumniating adversaries have thrown upon our Reformed Divines and that Cochlaeus in particular hath laboured to traduce Luther most calumniously even as that Runnagad Bolsecus hath most impudently reproached Master Calvine Who but an Ignorant or one possessed with Malice will give credit to Cochlaeus in this marter who is knowne to have been a most viruleut Adversarie of Luthers Am I the first who have given such a character of your Cochlaeus Hear what learned and modest Whitaker said of him when he is pondering the same allegeance of Bellarmine out of Cochlaeus Controvers de Ecclesia quaest 5. cap. 13. Respondeo sayeth he nullam fidem adhibendam esse Cochlaeo homini mendacissimo nec ullam habendam esse illius rationem fuit enim homo nullius fidei That is in English I answere that no faith is to be given to Cochlaeus a person exceedingly addicted to lying neither is any account to be made of his testimony for he was a man of no faith But I shall now onely remit you to a Lutheran Gerard in loc com loc de Eccles cap. 11. sect 12. § 290. where you will find both this Objection of Bellarmine and that Cochlaeanum mendacium as Gerard termes it that Lie of Cochlaeus concerning Luther copiously confuted But though it pleaseth GOD in the depth of his Judgements to permit your Papal usurpation to continue for a time as he hath permitted the Delusions and Usorpations of the Mahumetane faction Yet your Bellarmine acknowledges that Luther gave a blow to the Papacie which it never recovered Lib 3. De Romano Pontif. cap. 21. Ab eo tempore sayeth he quo per vos Papa Antichristus esse caepit non modo non crevit sed semper decrevit ejus imperium Hence this Distich was writen of him And againe Vir sine vi ferri vi verbi inermibus armis Vir sine re sine spe contudit orbis opes Lutherus decimum confecit strage Leonem De clava noli quaerere penna fuit And yet further Roma Orbem domuit Romam sibi Papa subegit Viribus illa suis fraudibus iste suis Quantum isto major Lutherus major illa Orbem urbemque uno qui domuit calamo As for predictions of Rom's overthrow I may remit you to more Canonick Prophesies thereof then that of Frederick You may if you will take one from Revel 14.8 Babylon is fallen is fallen that great citie because she made all Nations drinke of the wine of the wrath of her fornication You may take another from Revel 17.16 The ten hornes which thou saw upon the beast shall hate the whore and make her desolat and naked and eat her flâ—sh and burne her with fire You may adde a third from Revel 18.2 And the Angel cryed mighty lie with a strong voice Babylon the great is fallen is fallen and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit and the cage of every uncleane and hatefull bird Goe not to say that these are but our Lutheran comments to expound Babylon by Rome Did not Hierome so expound it Epist. ad Algasiam quaest 11. epist ad Asellam And Austine lib. 18. de civit DEI cap. 22. and Tertull. lib. contra Indaeos cap. 9. and Eusebius lib. 2. hist eccles cap. 14 Yea there is such
grounds to prove its conformity with the Scriptures but also to stop the mouth of a Caviller I declared to you what was that ground and I tooke it from Georgius Scholarius his Third Oration in the Councill of Florence and did appeale thereunto for the decision of all controversies betwixt us and you But you never once touched this ground How then could you imagine that you had confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with Scripture Doeth the Devil abuse the imaginations of Jesuited Hereticks as somesay that he doeth the fancy 's of Witches making them imagine that they doe the thing of which they only dreamed Fourthly did I not give a Direct Answere to your Objection by a formall distinction If any thing should have been taken notice of ought not this Yet ye wholly overleap it A goodly Dispistant indeed Fifthly I refuted some new Cavils which you started to prove That the truth of Religion ought not to be tryed by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries But you found my Replyes thereto so thornie that you have not dared to meddle with them Only you have an impudent Calumny concerning that matter which I may afterwards touch Sixthly whereas as you had accused Calvine and our Reformers as contemners of Antiquity I shew not only that Calvine had confuted your Religion from Antiquity but also that Antiquity is more contemned by you Romanists then ever it was by the Reformed Churches I brought many Instances hereof from Bellarmine Maldonate Melchior Canus Brisacerius and Cornelius Mussus but all these you smother in silence Thus have I given an overly touch of some few of your Omissions Whoso will be at paines to compare my ninth Paper with your Tenth will find you guilty of many more Only now let me ask are these the Digressions the Parerga's and the Superfluities which you talk of in my Paper Doe not every one of those touch the Cause Have they not a genuine rise from Your Papers Who that regarded either truth or his own reputation would have overleaped all those You have made great haste to transmit your Papers to me but you have still left your worke behinde you I have gotten Ten Papers from you but not One Answere Take a view of your Omissions and you will find all My Papers unanswered Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your after thoughts have need to be set on worke to supplie your Omissions In the next place I shall gleane up some of your Vnfaithfull misrepresentations in doing whereof I shall not need to stand to the precise Method of your Rapsodick Paper And first you have such a shamelesse fore head as to say That I had recanted the confineing of my discourse concerning the conformitie of our Religion with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This is that Calumnie of yours at wich I was hinting in your Fifth Omission How could you hatch such a manifest unteach Let all the Iesuits in Europe play the Criticks on My Papers and see if I have recanted one Syllable that ever I avouched in any of them I told indeed in my Last that you like aâ— Dreamer â—haâ— substituted that Concerning conformitie with the Fathers of the first three Centuries as a Second Answere which I had given in my Eight Paper to your Cavil concerning the sense of Scripture whereas in all that Eight Paper of mine there was no expresse mention at all of the Fathers of the first three Centuries Is my discoverie of your Mistake a recanting of ought that ever I had said concerning the Fathers of the first three Centuries Doe you not behave your self like a Dreamer when you substitute Quid pro quo Any hint I had in my Eight Paper at that Matter was to challenge you that though in your Eight Paper you had been reduced Ad metam silentii in that point all the Cavils mentioned in your Seventh being so fully confuted that you had nothing to Reply in your Eight yet you durst not adventure to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformtie with the faith of the most Ancient Church In my Ninth I did expresly confute some New Cavils which upon further deliberation you had started in your Ninth against the tryall of Religion By the conformitie thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries So farre was I from recanting or refusing to admit that as a discretive Test for trying the truth of Religion Surely the first 300. years were the flower of the Primitive Church Hence is that testimony which Egesippus in Euseb lib. 3. hist Eccles cap. 29. gives to the Church in those dayes Ad ca tempora Virgo pura incorrupta mansit Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church then had continued a pure and a chast Virgin Shall you never have the ingenuity to Recant such impudent Calumnies But I nothing wonder that you cannot be induced to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformitie with the Church in these Centuries For as a Learned Divine hath observed In these ages most of your present Râ—mish tenets were unknown to the Wold Your Papal Indulgences were then unhatched Purgatorie fire was then unkindled to make your kitchin 's smoake The Masse was then uumoulded Transubstantiation unbaked The Treasurie of Merits was then unmiuted The Popes transcendent power was uncreated Ecclesiasticks were unexempted And deposing of Kings was then undreamed of The Lay People were not cozened then of the Cup Communion under one kinde onlie was not then in kind It was not then known that Liturgies and Prayers were publicklie made in an unknown tongue They did not then worship or adore any wooden or breaden God They worshiped that which they knew and that in Spirit and in truth Thus Simon Birkbeck in his Tractat entituled the Protestants Evidence Sect. 3. pag. 18. Edit 3. By which you may perceive That it is no new sect of my own that I am hatching when I appeale to the Religion of the Church in the Three first Centuries as you foolishly whisper in your Ninth Paper But because you use these invidious words of Confyning my discourse to the three first Centuries You may remember that in my Seventh Paper I cleared that the First Restriction of my Argument to the Three first Centuries for proving the truth of our Religion and the falshood of yours was occasioned by the discourse I was then upon concerning the Ancient Apologists in these Centuries And that my argument might have been extended further as in such like exigences it had been further extended by Juell Whitâ—ker Crakâ—nthorp and other learned PROTESTANTS Now only I tell you that if you have the confidence to try the truth or falshood of Religion By the consonancie thereof with or dissonancie to the faith of the Catholick Chruch in the first three Centuries you shall find that I never intended so to astrict my self
to these ages as not to goe further After we have gotten the verdict of the First three Centuries I shall not then declyne to trace you successively through all succeeding ages to this day And I am confident upon a through discusse it will appeare that Your present Romish Faith as to all its Essentials was never the faith of the Catholick Church in anie age let be in All. And upon the conttarie neither you nor any of your Adherents shall be able to prove that our Religion differs in Its Essentials from the faith of the Catholick Church in anie age Now in such an enquiry can we fall upon a more convenient Method then to beginne at the fountain I meane at the most pure Ancient and according to Egesippus Elogie Virgin Church in the First three Centuries If our ReligioÌ„ be found conforme thereto in all Its Essentials as I am coÌ„fident it shall then sure it is conforme to the True Catholick Religion in all ages If yours be found dissonant thereto as I doubt not but it will then sure it is dissonant to the Christian Religion in all ages For there is but one faith Eph. 4.5 and one True Religion But Secondly you have the boldnesse to upbraid me with Two contradictions Only before I propose them I must minde you that neither of these pretended Contradictions are in my Ninth Paper to which you now answere So glad it seemes you have been of any thing to fill up the roome wherein you should have answered that Ninth Paper If my Former Papers were guilty of these ContrÌ„adictions were you not very obtuse who did not discover them more timely Yet let the unpartiall Reader judge of these Contradictions The first alledged contradiction is That upon the one hand I should have affirmed Religion to be a complex of many truths which are to be severally tryed as the severall pieces of gold in a purse and that I would descend to the severall particulars yea and that all points necessary to salvation were contained perspicuously in Scripture Yet when you called me to give a list of all these particular points then I disclaimed my former example of a purse and alledged that I was not obliged to descend to particulars I see now I was in no mistake when I said that you walked by that Machiavillian principle Calumniare audacter c. Resume all my Papers and see if ever I refused to descend to a tryall of any particular Controversie betwixt you and us Yea have I not all this time been pressing you to this and you dared not to peep out of your lurking holes Have I not passed through many of the Controversies in particular to which you have not adventured to make any Reply Produce the page or leafe in any of my Papers where ever I disclaimed that forementioned example Of trying the severall peices of gold by the touch stone yea or one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that once I gave you under my hand But I shall ingenuoussy tell the truth of that which you so deceitfully misrepresent and when I have done contradict me if you can I said indeed That Religion is a complen of many truths and to prove them all as matters are now stated bemint us and you Remanists were to write a body of controversies But yet that I should never decline to examine any of those with you And I have further said that all the necessarie points af Christian Religion were contained perspicuously in the Scriptures But when you in stead of comeing to a discusse of parâ—â—cular points only started that old threed bare Cavill Concerning a precise catalogue of necessarie points I shew That it was but a meer tergiversing shift in you and demonstrated by many reasons which you was never able to answere That there was no necessitie lying upon me in order to the decision of the maine controversie at present betwixt us to determine a precise Catalogue of necessarie truths You may call in for your assistance the rest of your Society and try if you can find a reall Contradiction in all this Indeed if I had promised to give you a Catalogue of points necessarie to Salvation and hereafter had refused to give it oâ— if since I declared a readiness to debate with you any point in Controversie betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome I had declined to performe my promise you might have accused me of Inconsistencie with my self Or if haveing â—ffiâ—med that all things necessarie to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture I had denyed any article of faith necessarie to Salvation to be contained clearly in Scripture you might have charged me with a Contradiction But you and your Associats may canvase what I have said againe and againe and try if you can find either a Contradiction or that I have declyned any thing that is necessarie for the decision of the present Controve sie Cannot all the points in Controversie betwixt the Reformed Churches and Pomanists be particularly examined without Desyning a precise catalogue of truths simplie necessarie to Salvation Have I ever said that everie one of your Romish errors is Fundamentall Or that no points of truth are clearly revealed in Scripture but only Fundamentals or such the explicite belief whereof is absolutly necessarie to Salvation Nay I tell you that on maine reason why I did and doe forebear for the time to pitch upon such a Catalogue was because I stand now to justify the Religion of PROTESTANTS against your Cavills But the Reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions have not so farre as I have observed determined that Precise Catalogue of necessaries So that in pirching upon such a Catalogue at the time I should leave my worke to follow a tergiversing vagrant Yea some of our Divines particularly acuâ—e Chillingworth in his booke entituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation part 1. cap 3 § 13. Affirmes that more may be necessarie to the Salration of some then of others And therefore to call for a precise catalogue of points necessarie to the Salvation of every one were as if one should call for a Dyall to serve all Meridians or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her Changes You may likewise remember that I shew in my Sixth and Seventh Papers that Romanists are no lesse concerned to give a Catalogue of necessaries nor exposed to fewer difficulties in doing it then we and that in this matter your Authors have been often Non-plussed by PROTESTANT Divines For you have made points Necessarie which the Ancient and Catholick Church never held as Necessarie And so have separated your selves from the Catholick Church of IESUS CHRIST But to let you see that I am still ready to performe what ever I undertooke pitch you upon any point controverted betwixt the Reformed churches and You whether belonging to the Essentials or Integrals of Religion that is whether simply necessarie to Salvation or not and you shall find that I
your councill of Trent and your Pope Pius the fourth in his formula fidei have declared to be necessary to Salvation If she did then you may be pleased to produce evidences hereof wherein you may perhaps finde more difficulty then you are awarre of If she did not then is your present Romish Church a new upstart and Schismatical Church of a distinct faith from the Catholick Church in all ages You may notice how Doctor Field in the Appendix to his fifth booke part 2. cap. 2. goes about to prove that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was before Luthers appearance Things being now defined as Articles of faith necessarie to Salvation which were not so before I sincerely professe the Noveltie of your Romish Faith and the Schismaticall constitution of your Church are not the least grounds of my disatisfaction with your Religion You may desire your Masters to calculate to you the Antiquity of the Romish Canons establshing the points following as Articles of faith viz First The equality of unwriten traditions with the holy scriptures of GOD. 2. That concupiscence in the regenerat is not properly sinne 3. The desinit number of seven properly so called Sacraments neither more nor fewer 4. The Popes supreamacie above general Councils 5. Your Indulgences and Purgatorie 6. The abstraction of the Cup from the people 7. Your Transubstantiation 8. The infallibility of the Church of Rome 9. The adoration of Images 10. The Popes jurisdiction over secular Princes Not to mention more at the time I believe you will find some of these latter then Luthers appearance Others but a little before and all of them not only short of Primitive and Aprstolick antiquity but notone of them within the Verge of the Three first Centuries You may if you will take a briefe hint of the novel dates of most of these Romish Canons from Drelincourt in his PROTESTANTS Triumph Discourse 2. from page 39. to page 52. As also of sundry of your ritualls such as the Procession of the Sacrament the feast of the Sacrament your Jubilees the Canonizing of Saints nay of your present Romish Missal and how lately it was received both in the Gallican and Spanish Churches c. Is it safe to venture the eternall Salvation of Soules upon a Religion so Novel both in its Articles of Faith and Rituals You have one Trifle more which I cannot let slip Because I have required you to prove the Assumptiō of that goodly Syllogism which ye proposed in your first Paper wherein you said That the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the sense of Scripture and to this day you have been able to bring nothing in Confirmation of it Now therefore when Arguments fail you you would try if you could bring your self off or creat Odium to your Adversary with a popular but reallie impertinent Example You say That I have behaved my self as if one should come as sent from the Council to require the Provest of Aberdene to apprehend a person suspect of Disloyaltie but when the Provest did demand his commission he should answere that he was not bound to show his Commission but his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no Commission Is this the Scholastick method which you call for in stead of Arguments to substitute popular declamatorie Scenick examples which by a person of any Acuteness may be transformed into a thousand various shapes But seeing you will have the matter managed by Examples I must Examplisie time-about Suppose therefore First that a man were reallie Commissionated by the Secret Council to require the Magistrats of such a City to apprehend a disloyal person and for this effect did produce his Commission but the Magistrates did cavil at the sense of the Commission how luculent soever in it self alleaging that they could doe nothing upon that Commission untill the sense of it were cleared and that the sense of it could not be cleared without an infallible Expounder Would not the Secret Council have just cause to be moved with indignation against these Magistrates who had so ludified their Order And is not this the very case betwixt us and you Doe not PROTESTANTS still produce the Tables wherein the Ground of our Faith is contained Viz the Holy Scriptures Doe not we tell you if all our Religion be not found luculently there we shall disclaime it Is not this your verie Cavil that the Sense of Scripture is so obscure that without an Infallible Bropounder it cannot be understood Have you not cause then to feare the indignation of the Almighty who doe thus reproach the Scriptures of GOD and goe about to subvert the faith of his people suspending it till they get Propounders of whose Infallibility they must have an Antecedent and previous assurance whereas there are none such now on Earth The Fallibity of your Popes and Councils we did before demonstrat and you like a mute Advocat had not a word to mutter for them But Secondly in the case which you propose of a man pretending a Commission and having none and requiring the Magistrats to prove that he had none therefore the Rogue is justly blameable because he refuseth to prove the Affirmative which was incumbent to him and requires the Magistrats to prove the Negative But betwixt you and us the case is quite contrary For though you framed the Assumption of your first Syllogisme in Negative Termes yet upon the matter you refused to prove the Affirmative and required us to prove the Negative For what is it for us to prove the Truth of our Religion in points controverted betwixt you and us but to prove that there i◠no Purgatorie no Transubstantiation no Proper sacrifice in the Masse that your Pope hath no supreamacie over the Catholick Church that there Are not seven Sacraments that Saincts are not to be invocated nor Images adored c. All which are meet Negatives and so are the most of the points controverted betwixt us and you Now suppose that there were no Revelation from Heaven for Purgatorie Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Masse the Popes supreamacie c. Will not you confess in that Case that it were not duety to believe any of them and that then it were a sufficient Argument against them there is no Divine revelation produceable for these things therefore they are not to be believed and if any would obtrude the belief of them upon others that he were bound to produce a Divine revelation for them Now we PROTESTANTS mantaine De facto this to be the Case I would therefore demand of any rational man if there be a possibility to confute us but by produceing a Ground or Divine revelation for these things Are not you then guilty of the same Absurditie with the Knave in your own Example who refuse to prove the Affirmative and require us to prove the Negative But yet further
divinis literis commendetur If any thing else be recommended in the Scriptures But First he calls our two Sacraments in the former place the two twin Sacraments without any such addition Secondly the addition he makes in the latter place is only Hypotheticall therefore no positive inference can be deduced from it as if Austin had believed that there were more proper Sacraments then two Thirdly I have already shewed that Austine in a Large sense called many things by the name of Sacrament which are not proper Sacraments such as the signe of the Crosse Exorcisms Polygamie Yea sometimes he reckoned improper sacraments with the proper as the signe of the Crosse with Baptisme in his Enâ—rrat on Psal 141. Why then in this additional hypothesis may he not be supposed to point at Sacraments improperly so called Especially seeing Fourthly if here he meaned that here were more properly so called Sacraments he should manifestly contradict himself who had immediatly before said that they were numero paâ—cissima the fewest in number and else where Gemina two twin sacraments And lib. 3. de doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 9. Fewer in number then the Jewish sacraments pauca pro multis cademque factu facillima instancing also particularly in Baptisme and the LORDS-Supper only But it may suffice against you Romanists that Austine doth no where affirme Sacraments to be precisely seven Let all the Romish antiquaries try where they can find ground in Austine or in any one Ancient Father for their precise septenarie Had there been more then two would Justine Martyr in his second Apologie where he gives an account of the Worship Ordinances and Sacraments which Christians went about to apologize for the Christian Religion would he I say only have made mention of Baptisme and the Lords Supper How destitute you are of Antiquitie in this matter may appear by this that Bellarmine lib. 2. de sacram in genere cap. 25. could produce none for the definit number of your seven Sacraments ancienter then Lombard who lived in the twelfth Centurie nor any Council before the Florentine a late Council about the middle of the fifteenth Conturie and neither free nor general As beside others learned Stilling fleet hath demonstrated in his rationall account of the PROTESTANT Religion part 1. cap. 1. § 13. out of Sylvester Sguropulus who was present at the most secret transactions of that Florentine Assembly and your Cassander in consult art 13. hath noted that Lombard was the first Author who introduced the definite number of seven Sacraments and yet neither He nor the Florentine Council declare these your seven Sacraments to be Sacraments properly so called or that there be seven precisely neither more nor lesse Yea Spal de Repab Eccles lib. 5. cap. 4. num 21. spares not to affirme that the Article concerning seven Sacraments was never either â—hsâ—â—ssed or defyâ—ed concâ—liâ—râ—â—er in publick face of Council at Florence So that your present Romish Article of a precise septenarie can iâ— seems 〈◊〉 no higher câ—â—ciliarie Authority then from the desinition of â—o â—â— late Trent Conventicle Is it probable that the Author of the Catechisms commonly attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem or of the six bookes de Sacramentâ—s which goe under the name of Ambrose would have passed your seven Sacraments in silence and satisfied themselves with mentioning our Two Baptism and the LORDS-Supper if the Church in their time had believed that there were seven proper Sacraments Were it not a great absurditie if a man should undertake to write a Tractat of the Planets or of the Pleiades both which are in number seven and yet never mention but two of them To what straites is your Bellarmine reduced Lib. 2. de sacram cap. 27. when he hath no better Evasion then to say as I hinted before That the designe of Ambrose and Cyrill in these bookes was only to instruct Catechumens and therefore it was not needfull that they should make mention of all the Sacraments Is not this both False on the matter so farre as it concernes these six bookes of Ambrose for they were not only designed for the instruction of Catechumens as Chamier Featly and other our Divines have largely demonstrated and also Frivolous For suppose it were granted that these Bookes had been writen only for Catechumens yet what is more usual in Catechisms then to set down all the Sacraments Looke to Catechisms both Popish and PROTESTANT if it be not so Hath not your Roman Catechism set forth by the command of Pope Pius the fifth all your seven pretended SACRAMENTS Though Catechumens be not presently admitted to all Sacraments yet ought they not to learne what they all are that they may be the better prepared to receive them in due time Or why should the other five be rather kept up from the notice of Catechumens then Baptisme and the LORDS-SUPPER Are there not more Mysteries in the Eucharist especially according to your fancies of Transubstantiation then in any other Sacrament If any then of the Sacraments should have been concealed from the Catechumens should it not have been that of the Eucharist I deny not that Cyrill Ambrose and other Auâ—sents doe make mention of Chrisme and indeed Chrisme was anciently used Yet suppose that by Chrisme they had meaned a peculiar and Distinct Sacrament this would come farre short of the Popish five spurious Sacraments Bot learned PROTESTANTS have shewed that the Chrisme mentioned by Cyrill Ambrose and others was no pecuculiar and distinct Sacrament but an Appendix of Baptisme and a Mutable Ceremonie at the Churches pleasure lyke a. Kneeling betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide the Love feasts c. Hence the same Ambrose lib. 1. de sacramentis cap. 2. Venimus sayeth he ad fontem Ingressus es unctus es quasi Althleta That is We came to the water thou went in thou was anointed as a Wrestler And Tertullian de Baptismo cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedictâ unctione That is being come out of the laver we are anointed with the blessed unction Yea the Author of the Tractat De Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium which goes under the name of Basil cap. 27. acknowledges that there was no Scriptural warrant for that Unction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is What writen word hath taught this anointing with oyle Surely then this Anointing was but a Ceremony which the Church brought in by her own power and therefore might be laid aside by the same power And consequently was no Proper Sacrament which by the confession of Romanists and according to the Tridentine definition most all be instituted by IESUS CHRIST Himself In a word our Divines have frequently produced Fathers asserting our Two Sacraments directly yea and calling them Gemina which seems clearly Exclusive of others But Romanists to this day could never produce one Father that makes mention of their seven Sacraments either in so many words or yet that said so much on the matter from which a precise