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
the writing of this a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me correcting somewhat the dresse of it but nothing the matter which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition Reader know That the Corrections in the second Edition of the Iesuits second paper were only of some trespasses of Orthography which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER The Jesuits third paper An Answere to a Reply of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he labours to justifie that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion were not meere shifts and evasions May 5. 1666. YOUR reply is stuffed with words wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you calling them none-sense raw and indigested that you have a faint disputant that the matter is Recocta crambe c. But doe you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum Since every one who hath a tongue and penne may say or writ what he pleases or why may not all thir things be reponed with as good reason to your self calling you a faint disputant and that your discourses are raw and indigested and so a matter of so great importance as to discerne a True Religion from a false shall be resolved in a flyting whereof you have this advantage to have the first word Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way I propone to you againe this point that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimes at eternall happines after this life or intends to save his soule is obliged in conscience to quite it and to search for the True Religion prescinding or abstracting for now where this True Religion is to be found and insisting for the present in this only point that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it and assure your self that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta and alwise set before you till by sufficient heat you disgest and make good substance of it This point we proved by this one Syllogisme which againe is repeated to you That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Therefore the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion Here you deny the Subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and consequently you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a Religion grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and being pressed to produce your grounds to prove the truth of your Religion in stead of solide grounds you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions The first is That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti that is if they doe not alwise prove the defect is not in the Religion or in the grounds considered in themselves but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applyed But it was told you that it was a meer shift and that your obscure termes being resolved in good Scots signifies onely that your Religion hath objective and intrinsecall truth or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD but so that it is destuute of all speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answere can have no other sense but this is proven because all thir foure propositions are Synonima to wit A Religion to be a True Religion A Religion to be conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture A Religion to have objective and intrinsecall truth and evidence A Religion that is able to convince if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity These foure propositions being all Synonims and signifying the same thing and so all equally in controversie you cannot prove one by another but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium otherwise you must grant that your answere is a meer shift and which in good Scots signifyes only this That your Religion is true in it self but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true and so we must beleeve it to be true only because you say that it is And with this I set againe before you this Recocted Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that it is a True Religion that it is a Religion conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsecall truth and evidence that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed or else it hath no speciall ground or principles whereby all thir can be verified of it If it have speciall grounds let them be produced and examined if it have none let an ingenuous confession have place that it is groundless and destitute of all principles whereby it can prove these foure Synonime propositions to agree to it Which is confirmed because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false may affirme with as good reason and pretend that all these foure fore-named Synonime propositions may be verified of their Religion To wit that their Religion is a True Religion that their Religion is conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that their Religion is true Ex parte objecti and hath objective and intrinsecall grounds that their Religion is evident and true if it meet with an intellect well disposed All the answere and disparity you give is that they are fools and ye wise men that they are blind and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you with as good reasons as you doe to them The other shift that in stead of a solide ground you brought was this that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle to prove in generall your Religion to be true because Religion say you is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another But this answere is a meer shift whereby you would decline the onely and maine difficultie by bringing in a whole body of controversies which likewise can no wayes help you Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths to
expound it And so it holds universally and can be affirmed of every one who is a meer man and yet David not be guilty of actuall lying in speaking so Nay this sentence of Davids reaches a deep stroke at the pretended infallibility of your Clergie except ye can prove that they have a speciall gift of infallible assistance which I beleeve you will doe when you prove your assumption Namly Ad Graecas Calendas that is to say Never You are then so farr from having any subsidie from this saying of DAVID that while you goe about to expede your self you doe involve your self the faster But I leave you in this thicket untill I consider your other evasion For Mus miser est uno qui tantum clauditur antro You therefore except this truth Concerning the assistance of the Clergie from being in the condition of other particular truths As if the knowledge of this were to be presupposed before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures But this shift yeelds you no more succour then the former Nay it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction which I thus demonstrat A Religion and the severall points thereof to be true and to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's according to you Therefore no point of Religion can be known to be true untill it be known to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture But that the Clergie should have such assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture is one point of Religion as you affirme Therefore it cannot be known to be true untill its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known And yet upon the other hand you say that before the true sense of any Scripture be known we must first know that the Clergie hath such assistance to give the true sense of it Ergo that the Clergie hath such assistance must be known before the true sense can be known And consequently the assistance of the Clergie In actu primo must be known before the sense of Scripture and not before the sense of Scripture Now what need have you of Ariadnes clue to wind your self out of this labyrinth By this it is easie to consider what we are to think of your last Dilemma Either say you The PROTESTANT Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that the Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not if it hath let them be produced and examined if it hath not then the People have no ground to beleeve their Teachers Who seeth not how easily this may be retorted upon your selves For either the Romish-Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that their Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not If it hath let these grounds be produced and I doubt not but upon examination they shall be found light If it have none then the poor deluded People have no ground to beleeve their Romish Doctos Nay it were easie if I did not fear too great prolixitie to demonstrate that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion then it can doe on us For how I pray you can your Romists know that they have any Clergie at all Seeing the being of their Clergie depends upon a condition whereof they can have no infallible certainty Namely the intention of the Ordainer as is defined both in the Councill of Florence and Trent And if they cannot know who are their Clergie Men farr lesse can they know that they have this assistance so much talked of Againe If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance be such a prerequisit then it ought to be defined to which of the Clergie this assistance is entayled Whether to all or onely to some and who these some are whether the Pope or General Councill But as to this ye are not agreed among your selves Nay as I hinted in my last some of your chief Doctors mantaine both Pope and Councill may e rt Define then if you can who these are that are to give the sense of Scripture with this pretended assistance Therefore to answere directly to your Dilemma If you speake of infallible assistance I absolutly deny that the knowledge of such infallibity In actu primo in the Clergie is a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture may be known And now againe the probation of this will ly upon you Which I beleeve ye shall find as difficult as the probation of your Assumption Can I not give an assent to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case unlesse first I know him infallible Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd unlesse first I be satisfyed as to his infallibility In actu primo I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle and beleeve nothing you say till you prove your infallibility But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake Know that our Peoples faith is not built on our Authority We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith we are but helpers of their joy 2. Cor. 1.24 But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergie In actu primo for giving the true tense of Scripture as a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture can be known which the PROTESTANTS deny I therefore appeal you to prove this to be a necessarie prerequisit if you can Ye are not a little commoved that our Divines should be compared to yours It is long indeed since the pride of the Romish Clergie made an eminent Person say Odi festum istius Ecclesiae but I may say without vainity to the praise of GOD there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches such as Calvin Beza Juel Whitaker Morton Usher c. Who lake onely some years to make them be enrolled among the Fathers Neither indeed doe I desire them to be otherwayes compared with your men then as one would compare Austine Jerom or Athanasius with the Hereticks of their time Yet would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one classe Some we know have been of a more moderate principle then the Grandees of your faction for which cause many of their writtings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius How are you not ashamed to say that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits is copied out of your Authors Do we I pray you reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit Doe we cite your Authors but to confute them Or doe we make further use of them except in common truths wherein we and ye agree as we make use of Heathen Authors and as Virgil made use of Ennius to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii or as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Vipers
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
texts of Scripture and let thir grounds be produced and shown that they cannot be assumed with as great reason to prove that the Clergie of a false Religion hath this ability In actu primo or else you are destitute of speciall grounds and then it is impossible that your Clergie can give the true sense of Scripture because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secundo without a speciall ability In actu primo to doe it So that all the ability that your Clergie is furnished with In actu primo is onely to guesse at the true sense of Scripture and wherefore should people pay you Stipend for guessing since they are endued with sufficient ability themselves and without you to guesse at the true sense of Scripture In this your last Paper you adde a third shift to wit that all the grounds whereby Tertullian and other Fathers proved the truth of Christian Religion against Paganes proves likewise the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion But who will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian Religion but your PROTESTANT Religion And what Christian Religion is so false which may not with as great reasone assume this shift of yours As to that whereby you remitt me to the grounds which Morney Grotins and others of your own Authors brings I pray you since they are your own take all the help you can of them and either be distilling or squeezing all their writs Expresse me one solid ground to prove the truth of your Religion which may not with as great reason be applied to prove a false Religion to be a true Religion Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits fourth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan TO apologize for your long silence you alleage that my third Paper dated May ninth came not to your hands untill May twentyseventh and that it was unsubscrived and hade been first dictated to my Scholers To which it is answered that on the ninth of May I sent an authentick copie of that paper to the Gentle-man of your profession by whome the rest both of yours and mine were addressed If he hath neglected to deliver it to you untill the twentyseventh of May you may call him to an accompt and put him to Pennance at your next shriveing for being so negligent of the concernments of his Ghostly father Whereas you say it was unsubscrived I can hardly beleeve you yet if it be so it hath been a lapse of memorie But you are not In bona fide to object that omission to me who never had the confidence to signe any of your papers However Quod scripsi scripsis what I have written I have written And to give evidence that I am ready to mantaine what ever is in that Paper against all the fry of Jesuits transmit to me with a confident hand the copie which I sent and it shall be returned with my subscription manuall As to the alleagance that it was dyâ—ed to some Students before I sent it to be conveyed to you it is a grosse untruth For it was not communicated to them or to any else untill the week thereafter which I was the more easily inclined to doe hearing how busie your Romish proselyts were to disseminat your Papers and that with the addition of impudent calumnies But beleeve me I should not have accused you for your delay if at length you had supplied the omissions of your former Papers and done the work of an Opponent neatly and throughly as ye were required Sat cuò si sat benè But you must give me leave to give you a free Character of this Paper I finde it to be nothing but a Rapsodie of Railings Repetitions Tergiversations yea and shamefull flinching from your own principles So that if I mistake not it had been more for your credit utterly to have kept silence For Stultus est labor Ineptiarum By this time it appears that it is lost labour to presse you any further to make a Reply to the principall points of my former Papers For now you protest you will not doe it and you cloak your shamefull tergiversation with this pellucid excuse that these things in my Papers were out of the way That is if you may be beleeved impertinent But who beside you will say that it was impertinent for me to discover a fallacious Sophistication in the ground of all your discourse What ingenuous person would not have judged himself concerned to clear himself of such an imputation Yet though this hath been now foure times charged on you ye think it not pertinent to vindicat your self Who besides you but will acknowledge that it was pertinent for me to demonstrate that by your own discourse you had ensnared your self in Contradictions and had cut the sinews of your Romish and Tridentine faith What a poor Advocat then are you for the Romish cause and an unworthy Stipendiarie to your Master the Pope who have no more to say but that it is not pertinent for you now to speake to these things But what need I wonder at this Seeing you judge it impertinent to prove the Assumption of your own syllogisme which I had not onely requited you to doe but also condescended to demonstrate by many Mediums that you were tyed to doe it And yet it seems not pertinent to you either to prove it or to refell these my arguments Shall onely impertinencie be pertinent with you I doubt if that cowardly boast shall raise up your falling reputation that if I should answere according to the method which you prescribe that is if I would liberat you of the burthen of proving your Assumption then you would answere not only to all these my Digressions as for the salving of your credit you are pleased to terme them but also dispute at leasure with me about Logicall Rules and I know not what notionall whimsies concerning Formall and objective negations Quid dignum tante feret hic promissor hiatu When I compare your bigg but conditionall braging with your lean performances at present I remember of him in Plutarch who was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Semper dicebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunquam dabat He was liberall in promises but nothing at all in performances If you be so able to expede your self in these particulars what mean you by all these shifts and dilatours Quinon est hodie cras minus aptus erit If you were once become so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you cannot prove your Assumption I would so farr commiserat you as to grant you an exemption But till then how can you expect courtesie at my hands Might not a man of your years have learned so much discretion as not to prescribe methods of answereing to his Adversarie Vaine debates for victorie and not for truth doe not become grave persons Yet I purpose never to decline to exchange a
Yet to these things and many more which here were tedious to me to repeat you make no more particular Reply then if they had never been objected to you It your silence the strongest confutation of your Adversary All I find you saying is What contradiction can it be to say that the actual operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primuÌ„ But Quid hoe ad Rhombum Was this the question betwixt you me whether the Actus secundus did presuppose Actum primum From which no more can be concluded but that they who give the true sense of scripture when they give it have assistance In actu primo to give it which no Protestant or rationall man ever denyed Yet if you understand your Iesuits principles the Actus secundus or actuall operation doth not necessarlie presuppose such an infallible assistance In actu primo as here you seeme to plead for For according to them Omnia quae tenent se ex parte actus primi in free agents may consist Cum actu vel actu contrario vel actus negatione But to leave this the question betwixt you and me was as appears by your former Papers Whether the knowledge of the Clergies assistance in actu primo be a necessarie prerequisite before we can know the sense of Scripture given by them to be true Which is vastlie different from what you now assert Who seeth not the difference betwixt this proposition He that gives the true sense of Scripture when he gives it hath assistance in actu primo to give it And that other Before I can know the sense given by such an one to be true I must antecedently know that he hath assistance in actu primo to give it It is true one cannot exercise the operations of Seeing and Hearing which are your own examples unlesse he have a sufficient abilitie In actu primo to exercise these operations But he may exercise them although he doth not know and actually reflect upon the facultie which he hath In actu primo A beast both Sees and Hears so doeth an Infant who yet cannot reflect upon the Actus primus of these operations I can hardly say whether in this prevarication you have discovered more craftie falshood you must excuse this plainnesse follie or impudencie Onely henceforth I commend to you that rule of Ruffin Lib. 1. historiae Ecclesiasticae cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere Afterwards you bring your old Dilemma upon the Stage againe but in a more ludibrious dresse then before Either say you we can produce some speciall grounds whereby may be made manifest that our Clergie men are qualified in actu primo with sufficient ability to give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture and then let them be produced or we are destitute of them and then it is impossible that our Clergie men can give the true sense of Scripture Because it is impossible to doe any thing in actu secunde without a speciall hability in actu primo to doe it And so they can onely guesse at it Who doth not see how this judicious Dilemma such as it is doth recoyl upon your own head Mutatis mutandis But I did canvase it so fully in my last both by retortion and direct answere which you have not as yet adventured to take under your consideration that I must remit you back to what was then said Only now I take notice of your ludibrious confirmation of the latter branch of your Dilemma viz. that if we cannot prove antecedently that the Clergie hath assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture then it is impossible that our Clergie can give the true sense Because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secunde without a speciall abilitie In actu primo It is a wonder to me how ever such a Childish consequence could drop from the pen of one who wold be reputed a Scholer Is the Sequel good A negatione probationis ad negationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse Because you or I cannot prove that such a thing is doth it therfore follow that it is not Because I cannot infallibly prove you to be Mr. Dempster the Iesuit Doth it therfore follow that you are not he who but a child wold conclude that because I cannot prove Antecedenter and a priori that such a Doctor of the Church hath an assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture therefore he hath it not The Spirit breaths on whome and where he pleases The assisting influence of the Spirit may be given when I cannot demonstrat A prtori that such a one hath it Hic nunc But surest arguings in such cases are A posteriori from the effect Such an one hath given the true sense of Scripture Ergo he had the assistance of the Spirit to give it Had you but consulted with your Romanists Principles you would have found that you were under a necessity to acknowledge the truth of this For you pretend not to conclude peremptorily and antecedently of any Doctors of your Church that they have this assistance In actu primo for giving the true sense of Scripture except of your Pope in Cathedra and generall Councills yea some of your Authors dare not conclude so much of them Will you the refore say that none beside the Pope and the generall Councills can give the true sense of Scripture You cannot prove antecedently by any Medium that Tostatus Toletus Pererius Esthius A Lapide c. had assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture For none of these were Popes Nay nor can it be proven A priori that Aâ—stine Jerome or Chrysostome had this assistance In actu primo Will you therefore conclude that none of these ever gave a true sense of Scripture but onely guessed at it But the root of your mistake is that you apprehend the objective ground on which our belief to such a truth is built must be the Perswasion We have that such a Doctor is guided by such an infallible assistance which is a manifest untruth For whereupon I pray you is that perswasion grounded That must surely have another foundation But because you had so often insinuated this therefore I did appeal you and againe doe appeal you to produce Grounds for this pretended Infallibility of your Clergie or else I will take your silence for an evident desertion of your cause Your last brawl is because I had said that what ever solid Grounds were brought by Tertullian and the rest of the ancient Apologists to prove the truth of the Christian Religion or are to be found in the late Tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald and Vives De veritate Religionis Christianae These also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Who say you will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian
your own Doctors then it must be a sufficient ground and Test to discerne a True Religion from a false Your cavill concerning the ambiguity of Scriptures is frivolous For if Scripture had not sufficient objective grounds means of interpretation being duely used to clear its own genuine sense in all things necessarie to Salvation then were it not Perspicuous which is against the Hyphothesis laid down against which you have not adventured to move one Objection So that still it holds that if Scripture be perspicuous in all things necessarie to Salvation it must be a sufficient ground and test to discerne a True Reilgion from a false What therefore remains but that either you show the Scriptures not to be clear in all things necessary to Salvation or else that both the Religion of PROTESTANTS and Papists be brought to this Test and examined which of them are really conforme thereunto But next as to the other ground I argue thus Either the faith of the Catholick Church in the first Three Centuries was the True Christian Religion or not If not then there was no true Christian Religion at all Absit blasphemia If it was then what accords with it in its essentials must be the True Christian Religion and on the contrary what differs from it in essentials cannot be the true Christian Religion and therefore here againe I appeal you either to show an essential difference betwixt the ancient True Christian Religion in these ages and ours or that there is an agreement in essentials betwixt the ancient Religion in these ages your Romish Religion as it is expressed in that Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth or else to acknowledge that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the True Religion and that your Romish Religion is but a Farrago of falshoods and Innovations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In your penult section you whisle like a child concerning the Clergies assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture and you call upon me to prove that our Clergie hath such an assistance As if it were a point of our faith that the knowledge of the Clergies infallible assistance for of that onely you must be understood were a necessary prerequisite before the true sense of Scripture can be known But have I not often told you that this is denyed by us and also often appealed you if you could to prove it else I would hold it for confessed that you could not doe it But to call you to your duety is Surdo canere Yea from this your assertion concerning the knowledge of the Clergies assistance I have showed you to be encircled in an inextricable Contradiction from which you have never attempted to expede your self Onely in your last Paper you flinched from your own principle as if you had onely affirmed that the Actus secundus presupposes Actum primum which none denyes Know therefore againe that a Doctor may give the true sense of Scripture and we may have ground enough To beleeve that it is the true sense which he gives though neither he nor we have an anteceden knowledge of his Infallible assistance in actu primo as a civill Judge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and I may have sufficient ground to beleeve that he hath sensed it aright though neiâ—â—er he nor I have antecedent knowledge that he hath Infallible assistance in act primo Though in all these things you have bewrayed shamefull weakenesse and as a Thersires declyned to examine what was reponed to you in all my Papers yet now like a vaiue glorious Thrasâ— in the conclusion you sing a Triumph but without a Victorie Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici What means this insulting that you cry out of the poor posture out Religion is brought too Have you said ary thing that would have reduced the weakest Tyro in our Schools to a strait Have I slipped one Punctillo in any of your Papers which I have not confuted Hath not all you have writen been sitted Ad furfures Can you say the like of my Papers Yet you are bold to compare the Religion of PROTESTANTS to a Knâ—ve pretending Honestie and not able to prove it but Mutato nomine narratur fabula de iâ— He that would compare your Romish superstition with the Religion of PROTESTANTS might aswell compare Catiline with Cato the Rogue Ziba with Honest Mephibosheth or the strumper Thais with chast Lucretia But I shall propose a true Emblem of the stare of our Religion and yours from the state of the present debate betwixt you and me leaving the application to your own self Suppose that Titius and Sempronius stood at the barre and that Titius acclaimed the monopolie of Honesty to himself And withall accused his Neighbour Sempronius as a verie Knave because as Titius alleaged he could produce no grounds to prove his Harestie On the other hand Sempronius modestly shew how easie it were to recriminat and retote all these accusations upon Titius Yet though he might have desired Titius as the Accuser to prove his indytment or else to suffer Secundum Legem talionis and to be esteemed as an arrand Knave yet he would condescend so far as to give Grounds by which his Honesty might be proven But with this Proviso that both he and his Accuser Titius might be brought to the Test that the World might see who was the Rogue and who the Honest-Man The first Ground to which Sempronius appeales is the Law protesting that both he and his Accuser Titius may be judged by that Rule The other Test to which Sempronius referres himself for tryall Is the practise and example of men of untainted Honestie such as Aristides Fabricius Cato c. Protesting likewise that he be stigmatized as the Rogue whose conversation shall be found discrepant from theirs Tïtius though at first a bold Accuser yet not able to endure so accurate a tryall studies all the subterfuges his poor wit could invent And first he declines the Law alleaging it could not be the Ground of tryall because it is ambiguous and admits of diverse and contrarie senses nor can any give the sense of the Law except he be Iufallible Which gift of Infallibility Titius would have all men to beleeve though he cannot prove it to be peculiar to himself alone so as no sense of the Law may be admitted but that which he homologates And for the example of Aristides Fabricius and Cato c. They are too strict Paterns for Titius yet not dareing openly to condemne them he makes this evasion What Knave sayes he is there that may not pretend conformitie both with these and also with the Law But Sempronius gravely answers that however Knaves might pretend conformity both to the Law and Practises of Good-Men yet they had it not And againe he solemnly protests that the matter might be put to exact tryall whether the Accusers or his conversation were agreeable to the Law and these untainted
but commend yowr ingenuity in that yow confesse cleirly that all the things that yow have spoken hithertoo in so long lybells ar not true grounds but onely reasons to show that yow wer not obliged to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion and so yow Disowne and recant them all as taken under this formalitie But let them be called as yow please either grounds or shifts to disoblige yow from producing of grounds yet the mâ—ine point remains alwayes that they may be with as great reason assumed be an false Religion as be yow and so all this time yow have been pleading â—swell for an false Religion as for yowr own After yow have Disclaimed and recalled under the formalitie of grounds all things that yow so copionstie have spkoken of hithertoo Now you prodoce your Achilles in which yow professe that yow will own as a ground of the truth of yowr Religion to wit Scripture taken as containing perspicuously all things necessarie to Salvation So that Scripture taken under this formalitie is the onely ground distinctive of your Religion from all false Religion But let us goe on here sofilie that it may appeare better the juglings that lurbs under this answere and the labyrinth and obscuritie that yow have involved yowr self in For first by Scripture of which yow affirme that it is a distinctive of yowr Religion from all false Religion must be understood the letter of Scripture taken in the true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost So that to containe all things necessarie to Salvation with perspicuitie is affirmed of the letter of Scripture taken with this true sense as contradistinguished from all false sense Ergo it cannot serve for a distinctive ground of yowr Religion from all false Religions except first yow prove that the sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost and that all other senses which doe not coincide with yours are false and erronious Because according to your self Scripture is not a ground to distinguish your Religion from a false Religion but in so farr as it is suppoued to containe and that with perspicuitie all things necessarie to Salvation and againe it does not containe this but so farr as it suppons and is taken for the letter of Scripture with the true and genuine sense Now I ask how can you assume the letter of Scripture taken with the true sense for a ground to prove your Religion to be true and to be distinguished by this from a false Religion Except first yow show with pregnant and convincing reasons that this sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost Neither does it avail yow that which yow now here infinuate that the sense which yow give must be the true sense For the conformitie it hath with the sense holden by the Church in the first three Centuries Because this claime to Amiquity is common to all Sexts And so yow cannot mak vse of it except first yow bring some solid reason to prove your claime to be more just then theirs Secondly I ask yow how can yow affirme so boldly that all things necessarie to Salvation ar contained and that perspicuously in Scripture except first yow draw up A list or a catalogue of all things that are necessarie to Salvation as contradistinguished from all other things not necessarie and whereof a great pairt ar likewise eleirly contained in Scripture and Scripture it self makes no mentione to distinguish the one from the other For according to the rules yow gave your self it cannot be but blindlings affirmed That all the peices of Gold that one hath in his purse ar upright Gold except they be all produced to be tryed Thirdly you say that all things necessarie to Salvation are perspicuously in Scripture but with this limitation and supposition That the means for the interpretation be duely used so that Scripture is not of it self alone so perspicuous in all things necessar to Salvation except there interveene the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true sense of Scripture But heir againe yow plunge your self in a new labyrinth of obscuritie for I ask what ar thir means and what you mean by the due use of them And whether the people without your preaching can duely use thir means by the due use of them attaine to the knowledge of all things necessar to Salvation as well as your Clergie men can doe whether a false Religion and acknowledged by your self to be a false Religion may not use duely thir middes aswell as yow Now I know all thir things will be called by yow nonsense childish things and not worthie of the sublimitie of your understanding and such railing will be all the answere that I will get Likewise when you was asked whether a man can beleeve a thing to be true precisly for this motive because it is revealed and spoken by GOD unlesse he be assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of him that propons such a thing To this you answere here That a Preacher may propone and give the true sense of Scripture and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve the thing proponed to him though he have no antecedent knowledge conifying him that the Proponer hath such assistance that he cannot propone a false revelation in place of a true as a Iudge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve that the sense given is the true sense though he have no antecedent knowledge that the Judge hath infallible assistance But in this answere yow 〈◊〉 your self altogether Ignorant of the nature of supernaturall faith Since supernaturall faith is not everie sort of assent and adhesion but an assent above all things and an adhesion with such firmnes as can be given onlie to the supreame authoritie of GOD when he speakes a thing Now I aske how is it possible that the intellect who in matters of faith hes no other motive to induce it to assent bot the meer authoritie of the speaker can produce any assent whereby it adheres above all things and with all sort of firmnes to a thing which it knowes not otherwise to be true bot precislie because GOD hes spoken it and revealed it except there preceed a knowledge certifying that GGD speakes by the mouth of him that propones such a thing and that he cannot deceive him in saying GOD to have spoken a thing which he hes not spoken or else one would either suspend his assent or else not give it in that highe degree of firmnes and adhesion which is necessarly required to supernaturall faith and which he is oblidged to give in case he knew certaâ—nlie that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man And the example which you bring of a Judge giving the sense of the law confirms manifestly that yow ar altogether Ignorant
is the genuine sense of Scripture but onely the authority of the speaker Surely then nothing spoken by you or your fellow Jesuits and Friers can be received as a Divine truth for you pretend no Infallibility Nay your fallacies are become so notorious to the World that it hath past into a proverb A Fryar a liar But perhaps you meane your Popes or Councils by your Propounders Yet besides that your people doe not hear them immediatly and their sentences may be vitiated in the conveyances by the hands of fallible persons besides this I say must not your Popes and Councils have a reason that moved them to own rather this sense of Scripture then the opposite Or else they must be perfect Enthusiasts If they have a reasone why may not the same reasone that moved them move the people also when it is sufficiently proposed to them Let the indifferent Reader now observe to what fluctuating uncertaintes you expose your hearers wheÌ„ you say that their faith must be resolved upon the authority of the Speaker whether you meane Pope or Council or both for I suppose you cannot determinatly tell which of the three Now how many things are here to be cleared before the faith of the poor people can be at a stand As First that these whome you call Popes are true Popes and successours to Peter and your Councils true and legitimat General Councils Secondly that these Popes and Councils have an Infallible authority Thirdly That this which you give out is the true and genuine sense of the Popes or Councils All which while the World stands you will never be able solidly to prove And I doe appeale you if you can to doe it But I must here reveal another prodigious Mysterie of your Romanists Namely that what ever is proposed not onely by your Popes and Councils but also by your inferiour Clergie-Men though by your own Confession Fallible yet the poor People who cannot examine by themselves the truth or falshood of what is proposed ought not onely to beleeve upon the authority of the said Fallible Clergie-Men but also Doe merit by beleeving though the thing beleeved be Erronious and Heretical Hear this from your Great Casuist Cardinal Talet Lib. 4. De Instruct. Saterd cap. 3. Si rusticus sayeth he circa articulos credat suo Episcopo proponenti aliquod dogma haereticum meretur in credendo lieet sit error quia tenetur credere donce si constet esse contra Ecclesiam I will english it If a country man sayeth he beleeve his Bishop propounding some heretical doctrine about the articles he meriteth by beleeving though it be an error because he is bound to beleeve until it manifestly appeare that it is against the Church What a damnable Religion must this be according to which men merit Heaven by beleeving lies If this doctrine of Cardinal Tolet be true that people are bound to beleeve your Fallible Clergie-Men even speaking lies and may Merit thereby How dare you conclude that our Faith to unquestionable Divine truths is no Supernatural faith because our Preachers doe not arrogat an Infallibility to themselves Is it better for a Romanist to beleeve a lie then for a PROTESTANT to beleeve a Divine truth Think you still to abuse the World with such prodigious impostures As for your ludicrous Example of an Old Wife We bless God there are old Wiwes young Boyes and Girles amongst us who could instruct all old deceiver like you in the true grounds of ReligioÌ„ Did not Priscilla a poor Wife instruct Apolles in the mysteries of Christianity of whose Infallibility Apollos had no previous assurance Yet from the Scripture she convinced him Act. 18.26 So that from this your Example though brought in by you only as a foolish jeer all that you have said may be redargued If there may be a ground to assent to divine truths proposed by a Poor Wife such as Priscilla of whose Infallibility there is no previous assurance then it is a falshood which you affirme that the Faith of divine truths must only be founded upoÌ„ the Authority of the Speaker But the first appears to be true from the Case of Priscilla and Apolles A poor Priscilla may hold forth convincing and luculent grounds of what she asserts from the Scripture when a Priest A Iesuit a Cardinal a Pope an Annas or Cajaphas may obtrude on the consciences of others erronioâ—s and groundles fancyes To this purpose I might produce many testimonies from your own most famous Writers as of Gerson Panermitan c. But I shall at the time content my self with one from Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus De Ordine credendi Theor 16. Which though I have at the second hand the author not being by me yet have I it from so many good Writers that I doubt not of the truth of it Quin imo sayeth he simplici potius rustice infanti anicula quam Pontifiti Maxime mille Episcopis credenduÌ„ si contra Evangetium isti illi pro Erangelio verba facereut I Have been more copious in this Reply then your Scurvy Paper did deserve yet if in this I have superogated it is without the least tincture of Poperie You but play the fool in upbraiding me with boasting or gloriation upon the account of the frequent losses which you are left at For I reckon it no point of honour either to deale with or to vanquish such an insignificant persons as hitherto you have discovered your self by your Papers I have rather so far endeavoured to deny my self as to be at the paines to give a check to an arrogant but an emptie Caviller against the truth But because Cepious Answers doe oppresse your dry and steril braine therefore I have subjoined a Succinct answere confuting all your Seven Papers in two words And if you find not your self comperent to answere this Long Paper in all the particulars thereof without your usual Tergiversations you may deale with this Succinct One. In the meane time let this suffice Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT A Short Answere in two words to all Master Dempster the Iesuit alias Rind or Logan his seven Papers Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis The Reason why the returne of this Paper hath been so long delayed it because how soone I read your Seventh Paper I found that it ranne upon the old trifling straine and therefore I threw it by me for sundry weeks For it was likesome to me to be still examining your Titivilitia and scurvie Tautologies Now therefore either come to the point and answere Categeries without your tergiversations or else get you gone for ever The Jesuits eight Paper Reply to a seventh Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein is showen that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginary and groundles conformitie 6. November 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS untill November 9. 1666. YOUR Seventh Paper