Roma Mendax OR THE FALSHOOD OF ROMES HIGH PRETENCES TO INFALLIBILITY and ANTIQUITY EVICTED In confutation of an Anonymous Popish Pamphlet undertaking the defence of Mr. Dempster Jesuit BY JOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinity in Aberdene Greg. Nissen lib. 10. cont Eunom in append ad opera Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the sign of the Sun over against St. Dunstanes Church in Fleet-street 1675. IMPRIMATUR Guliel Wigan Reverendissimo in Christo Pat. D. D Humfr. Episc Lond. a Sacr. Dom. May 27 1674. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy Seal and one of his Majestys most Honourable Privy Council My Lord THough learned â—ens in most countries of Europe have travelled successfully these many years in discovering the impostures of Rome so as it might seem sufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates already extant on that subject Yet the sedulity of the ministers of that Church in proposing Sophisms often and long ago confuted in a new dress as if they were new topicks yea unheard of demonstrations thereby to ensnare unwary Readers doth impose a necessity upon sincere Lovers of Truth for undeceiving the simple to resume old Grounds from Scripture Antiquity and reason formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's This had the stronger influence upon me to write these cursory animadversions upon a Popish Pamphlet otherwise of small significancy because some through a lazy humour will not others being immersed in worldly entanglements hardly can peruse the large volumns of Chamier Whittaker Calvin Zanchius Jewel Usher Junius Chemnitius Gerard and other Champions for the Truth yea some are smitten with such a fancy of Novelty thaâ— nothing doth relish with them unless it come smoaking from the Press I shall not deny but I was likewise moved with a just indignation against the disputing party among Romanists many of whom being byassed with interest seem to violent their own consciences in obtruding impostures on the World Can it be supposed that men of such raised parts and eminent learning who cannot but be sensible from their own failours of the weaknesses attending humane intellects should believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical decisions seeing those who often sit therein are known neither to be men of greatest learning and Piety nor ever did God since the foundation of the World entail infallibility upon an elective succession of persons chiefly when secular interests and intrigues of Policy have the chief stroke in the election Can they believe an universal Monarchy over all Princes and Churches to be setled by a divine donation on the Bishop of Rome seeing Scripture hath no vestige of that fifth Monarchy unless it be in the Apocalyptick predictions and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not spared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions Can they believe the lawfulness of Image-worship whatever Metaphysical distinctions they have coyned to put a fair gloss on the matter it being so expresly prohibited in the decalogue and no practice thereof occurring in the Chatholick Church for three Ages and upwards after Christ whereof those great Antiquaries cannot be ignorant Can these great masters of reason believe the prodigius figment of transubstantiation which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius Ovid or Aesop and is so luculently repugnant to the common sense and reason of all mankind that a great man among themselves going to Mass is reported to have been so ingenuous as to say Eamus ad communem errorem Can they justifie the Lawfulness of half Communions without fighting with their own consciences these being confessedly opposite to the primitive institution and to the known practice not onely of the Catholick Church but also of the Roman for many Ages who would not be moved with indignation that men should upon designe abuse their parts and wit to cheat the World I know not how to reconcile these men to themselves unless it be supposed that because they received not the Truth in love they are given up to strong delusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant Bellarmine Barronius Perron and others of that Cabal have said much for an ill cause They have indeed shewed themselves to be men of great parts but of very evil consciences They who devote their endowments to the patrociny of heresie would remember that errors in religion are such creasy and burdensome superstructures that the strongest shoulders must needs shrink under them My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the sequacious multitude in the Roman Communion who in the Simplicity of their hearts surrender themselves to the conduct of such teachers How grateful is it to these who love easie methods of Religion among whom are not only those of the meaner sort of people but also many of greater quality to be fred from serious inquiries after divine truths by an implicite submission to infallible guides and having once intrusted their faith to those teachers how secure do they judg themselves being taught by no meaner Casuist then Cardinal Tolet that it s not onely safe but also meritorius to believe the doctrines taught by their teachers though false on the matter untill they know that the Roman Church teaches otherwise Thus the leaders of these deluded people cause them to err Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers be sufficient apology for them at the great day This rather will be their condemnation that upon such a pellucide and improbable pretence they should have made small account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scripture which God hath charged those to search who would find eternal Life Joh. 5.34 From this search nothing doth more deterr people then the thorny and litigious debates raised by School-men and Controversists as if men behoved turn Scepticks in religion if they did not implicitly intrust the conduct of their Faith to a Romish infallible guide But blessed be our God it s not a matter of such insuperable difficulty to find out the truth of Religion in the holy Scripture as they who design the inslaving peoples consciences do pretend If prejudices once being laid aside men would apply themselves sincerely to the use of appointed means For the wisdome of God hath with a perspicuity accommodated to the weakest capacities revealed these things which are necessary to Salvation according to that of Hilary In absoluto facili est Aeternitas Non per difficiles questiones nos ad vitam Aeternam vocat Deus and a greater then Hilary the Apostle of the Gentiles 2 Cor. 4.3 If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and a greater then hoth our Saviour Christ Joh. 7.17 If any do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God One thing I am sure it s much more easie to find out the true religion in Scripture then by any means whatsoever to attain a rational evidence of Papal or
Logical trespass in the structure of Jesuit Dempster's Syllogism was my least Exception against it The main thing I ever demanded was a probation of that minor whether it be formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of these could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconciles himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis descensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad aurat Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prâ—ve it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popositive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Dâ—mster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently lemands payâ—ent of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his dewands only with stoâ—ies of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reâ—terated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of Images the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the â—atholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replics did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions the had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he
Caihedrâ when he declared ex Authoritate sedis Apostolicae in his Constitutum which was exhibited to Justin the Emperor and to the fifth General Council the Epistle written by Ibas Bishop of Edessa against Cyril and against the Ephesine Council to be Orthodox which was found by the fifth Gen. Council to contain most impious heretical and Nestorian Principles Is it not a ludibrious evasion of others to say The Pope as Pope cannot be a Heretick because how soon he turns Heretick be ceases to be Pope Alphonsus à Castro says they who answer thus Jocantur in re seria and in effect attribute no more infallibility to the Pope than to the meanest believing Colliar every Believer in this sense is in fallible namely in sensu composito for how soon he turns Heretick he ceases to be a true Believer if every private Heresie degrade a Pope how then shall we know who is Pope or graced with infallible assistance seeing we cannot be certain but he entertains some private Heresie Among all the Subtersuges of Romanists I know none more ludibrious than that of Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. col 233. wherein yet they chiefly confide viz that the Pope may be smitten with a manifest errour or with an errour against which the Church hath given a prior definition and may endeavour to obtrude it upon others by his definitive Sentence but that he cannot give Sentence for an errour not manifest or for an errour against which the Church hath passed no former definition I am sure there is no Vestige either in Scripture or Antiquity for such a distinction nor yet is it agreeable to sound Reason it being much more easie to fall into an errour not manifest than into a manifest errour there being more means to preserve from manifest than from not manifest errours if therefore the Popes infallibility doth not secure him against manifest errours much less against not manifest errours if the Scriptures alledged for infallibility prove not his immunity from manifest errours how shall his immunity from not manifest errours from them to be concluded The Pope as a private person may be smitten with a not manifest errour by the confession of Valentia if then the exigence of the Church require a decision of that Controversie must not the Pope discern according to his private errour It 's a piteous off come of the Jesuit that God will take away the Pope by death lest he should pass sentence for such an errour A goodly pass indeed to which his Infallibility is brought M. Demster and this Pamphleter spake of Infallibility as a special assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding their Judge unto all truth but now it 's turned to an act of severity in killing the Pope lest he should give out an erronious sentence But seeing God in the depth of his Judgment hath spared Popes to confirm manifest errours by their sentences who shall assure us that he will not permit them also to confirm not manifest errours To this it 's answered That there is more hazard to the Church by a not manifest errour than by a manifest one for when the Pope defines contrary to a prior definition then he is known to be a Wolf and not a Pastor but when he defines a not manifest errour then there is no mean left to know him to be an Impostor and so the Church were bound to assent to his erronious Sentence But this Reply takes for granted two manifest untruths First that there is no ground by which to discern Truth from Errour but the definition of the Church whereas when the Church is first to define a Truth she must have some sure ground why she gives Sentence for this rather than for the contradictory thereof consequently there must be a ground by which to discern Truth from Errour antecedent to the Churches Sentence Secondly that the Church is bound to assent to the erronious Sentence of a Pope But where ever did God so far inslave the Consciences of his people to erronious Teachers Moreover the hazard to the Romish Church appears to be much the same whether the Errour for which the Pope defines be manifest or not for by his definition it becomes not manifest to them he having a multitude of Parasites to devise distinctions and glosses to elude prior definitions as either not being definitions of the Church or not contrary to this As fell out when Leo the 10. passed his Sentence in the Lateran Council for the Popes Supremacy contrary to the definitions of the Church in the Councils of Constance and Basil how many Advocates were set on work to maintain that these definitions of Constance and Basil were no definitions of the Church or of Oecumenick Councils In a word so manifest it is that Popes may err in Cathedrâ concerning matters of Faith that the same is asserted by eminent Romish Doctors as Gerson Almaynus Pope Adrian 6. Alphonsus à Castro c. cited by Melchior Canus lib. 6. loc com cap. 1. and by Azorius Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 4. Yea the Jesuited Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is pronounced by Thomas Ab Albiis in Sone Buecinae tract 2. Sect. 22. not only Haeretica but Archibaeretica mater spurcissimorum errorum that is superlatively Heretical and the source of pestilent errours What need I more Doth not Pope Innocent the 3. confess the fallibility of Popes Serm. 2. de Consec propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possune ab Ecclesia Judicari if Pope Innocent truly assert the fallibility of Popes then surely they are fallible and if falsly by his false Assertion he demonstrated that Infallibility was not tyed to his Chair Next as to Councils Protestants have much more respect for real Oecumenick Synods consisting of Pastors from all true Churches of Jesus Christ than any Jesuited Papists Protestants acknowledge that real Oecumenick Synods are the Supreme visible Ecclesiastick Judge of Controversies of Religion and that they have choice promises of God for their assistance if they sincerely seek his glory and the discovery of truth Yet there not being promises that all the members of an Oecumenick Synod or greater part of them shall infallibly observe the conditions upon which that asfistance of the Spirit may be expected Nay on the contrary seeing in these Meetings much may be done through faction or interest and those who come thither in simplicity may be byassed by the influence of others therefore we cannot assert an absolute infallibility of Councils But Jesuited Papists are so far injurious to Councils that they will not have Councils to be acknowledged except they be called by the Pope and swear subjection to him Yea and they suspend all their infallibility upon the ratification of the Pope Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 1. deals plainly Conciliorum Judicium tum firmum ratum est quum accesserit summi Pontificis confirmatio proinde ultimum judicium est
Claim to this Promise by enjoyning many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocaring Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3.15 Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doth stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est eagn secre esse primum ens c. Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behâ—ve thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Naziauzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19. to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo-Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. eolumna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmata quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13.3 it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe
concerning this Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow ergo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Priuciples are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some of these are grosly misâ—cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Priuter for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odi fastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10 hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysâ—st Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deâ—eased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next
or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus caelum quâ—m habemus in Evangeliâ— testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis invenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as those To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clearin terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against M Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down-right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1.8 Next he objects That Hereticks for their Herâ—sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10.8 All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8.12 I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6 shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91.11 leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non
rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impudent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder is necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatican Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of Faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euolids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church
or then to have confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4.42 Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoneret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the proeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14.18.21 which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence those two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praesat ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie snake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should the
that he puts in the word sola in the Text which was not in the Original Car. Molinaeus says Calvin in his Harmony makes the Text trip up and down Castalio accuses Beza 's Translation of many errours M. Parkes taxes the Geneva Translation of many errours and so doth M. Burges and Hugh Broughton our English Version yea Broughton says that it causes millions of Souls to run to eternal flames and in the Versions made under Q. Elizabeth and K. James there be many diversities sometimes that put in the Text which was in the Margin and that in the Margin which was in the Text. To this first Atheistical invective against the holy Scriptures which for most part is stoln from Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. and tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 2. I answer first by retortion This Objection militates as strongly against Romanists as against us For after the same manner it may be enquired whether the definitions of their Church or infallible visible Judge namely the Decretals of Popes and Canons of Councils be the ground of their Faith and Religion in the Languages wherein they were first given out viz. in Greek or Latin or as Translated Not as Translated because the Translations are not Authentical but in so far as they agree with the Principals and the Principals by many are not understood But besides what assurance can they have that those Originals are not corrupted in the conveyance by fallible men Have not Learned Criticks discovered that many supposititious Decretals and Canonâ— of Councils are obtruded on the Christian world by Romanists Hath not Isidore Clarius a Popish Writer noted as many Errours in the Vulgar Latin Version as any of those mentioned in the Objection have alledged in the Versions of Protestants consequently Romanists themselves must confess this Argument of the Pamphleter to be a Sophism seeing it overturns also the ground of their Religion Nay the same Cavil might have been moved against the Ancient Christian Church for in her also there were many who understood not the Hebrew Text yea some of the Fathers had little understanding of that Language then also there were innumerable Latin Translations made by fallible persons witness Austin lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 10. 11. though he do prefer cap. 15. the Italian Translation to the rest yet so far was the Ancient Church from esteeming it perfect that Hierom judged it needful to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew as himself reports lib. de viris illustribus cap. ult and to correct the errours of the Vulgar Version of the New Testament out of the Greek which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome as appears by Hierom Epist 123. Praefat. ad Evangad Damas and by Cassiod Instit lib. 1. cap. 12. Doth not the Pamphleter behave himself like an Atheist seeing his Objections against us militate against Christianity it self Is not this a strong demonstration that our Religion is the true Christian Religion that the Arguments of Papists against us are the Cavils which Infidels might use against Christianity it self Secondly Therefore leaving retorsion I answer absolutely that Scripture both in the Originals and when faithfully translated is the Rule of Faith If an Ambassadour deliver his mind by an Interpreter are not the words of the Interpreter the words of the Ambassadour Was not the Faith of the Ephesians built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 But it cannot be supposed with any probability that all the Ephesians did understand the Originals of the Prophets writings for they were not Jews therefore surely their Faith has been built on translated Scripture Neither can Christs Command of searching the Scriptures Joh. 5 39. be restricted to the Originals only seeing himself and the Apostles did frequently cite the Scriptures according to the Version of the 70. Neither say Chamier Featly or D. Barron any thing contrary to this for they only deny Versions to be the Rule of Faith in so far as they disagree from the Originals yea then to speak properly they are not Translations at all I notice not much the wrong Citation of Chamier in whose lib. 1. cap. 2. there is not a Sect. 15. for the Pamphleter shews himself to be as implicite in his Citations as in his Faith Only it may be replied How can illiterate persons resolve their Faith upon a translated Bible seeing they cannot examine its conformity or disconformity with the Original they being ignorant of the Language But it may as easily be retorted How can an illiterate man resolve his Faith upon the definition of the Council of Trent or upon the Doway or Rhemist Translations or upon a Bull or Decretal of the Pope seeing he cannot examine if these be faithfully translated from the Latin What answer Romanists give we can give the same Had not the Pamphleter been disposed to quarrel he might have found this difficulty copiously cleared in that Cap. of D. Barrons Apodex which himself cited viz. tract 1 cap. 2. Shortly then for satisfaction of the Reader I answer that a person unskilled in the Original Language may not only have a humane moral certainty of the conformity of his English Bible with the Original upon the testimony of a Protestant Church and Learned Pastors but also as Camero in his excellent tractat de notis quibus verbum Dei in specie dignoscitur Not. 3. observes there is a special Divine Character in the Scriptures which is not to be restricted to the Original Languages but individually inherent to the Doctrine of Scripture in whatsoever Language if it be faithfully translated which the Author doth there copiously illustrate Among other things he uses this example pag. 32. Some of Averroes writings are translated into very barbarous Latin yet there is no judicious Reader saith he but will discern Averroes to have been a most Eloquent man the Tropes Figures and Metaphors being kept in the Version He compares a faithful Translation to a Picture drawn with Ink by which we may discern the lineaments and comeliness of the person represented thereby though not the colour So albeit there be some things accidental in the Original Language which a Translation cannot express yet still there is as much as may manifest the Divine Original of the Scriptures For further satisfaction in this thing I shall commend to the sincere Lover of Truth the perusal both of that Tractate of Camero and of an excellent little Treatise of D. Owen of the Divine Original Authority and self-evidencing light and power of the Scriptures Neither ought it seem strange to any that there should be such a self-evidencing light in the Doctrines of salvation contained in holy Scripture yea there is a kind of necessity it must be so considering the posture of humane affairs For seeing the World is divided into so many various Languages whether the Lord thought fit to reveal
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yet there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatur but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui-pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Henthens were greater and their Learning not inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Maith 11.25 and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.20 Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men
have these men a face to challenge others of their divisions about the number of Fundamentals Had the Pamphleter considered the distinction betwixt credenda facienda petenda he would have seen these forementioned seeming difficulties among Protestants were not so hard to be reconciled If one said the Creed contains summum credendorum the Decalogue faciendorum and the Lords Prayer petendorum If some have reduced the Sacraments to an Article of the Creed inter credenda others to a Precept of the Decalogue inter facienda the contrariety is not so great as the Pamphleter would insinuate Neither do all Persons take the word Fundamental in the same restristive sense Hence Paraeus in Irenico cap. 29. after he had branched forth the Fundamentals into four heads the Decalogue the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments subjoyns in his ipsis tamen Capiâ—ibus ciserimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vel minus ad salutem sunt necessaria To reduce the Pamphleters disorderly discourse of Fundamentals into some method I shall briefly enquire into these eight things 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals or Non Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion 2. Whether all Fundamentals be clearly contained in Scripture 3. Whether every thing which the Church imposes to be believed as an Article of Faith become on that very account a Fundamental 4. Whether there was a necessity of determining the precise number of Fundamentals for decision of the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author 5. Whether the Popish Religion be injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity 6. Whether the Waldensez Wicklevists and Hussites were of the same Religion as to Fundamentals with Protestants 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals 8. Whether the Religion of Protestants be openly against Gods Word and contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity as the Pamphleter does alledge SECT I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is saith he either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and beliefe thereof none can be saved Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fundamental If by Fundamental be understood that for which other Articles are to be believed then sure we must suppose there be other particulars which are believed for that As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith so there are distinct material Objects of Faith If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith which is the reason for which the rest are believed be one and the same then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity there be as many Non-Fundamentals If you take a Fundamental for that without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved I am sure likewise there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion Else the Romish implicite Colliar and all who walk in his Footsteps as do the plurality of their Communion must be damned eternally If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation and Fundamentals what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.11 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation and Gold Silver and Precious Stones built thereupon There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation which yet are not the Foundation Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith toward God when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths If all Articles of Faith be Fundamental and the explicite belief thereof absolutely necessary to Salvation than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont Epist Fundam cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit and so may be obnexious to many â—â—ours in Religion But what speak I of the Multitude What did become of all the Fathers who were leavened with the Millenary error of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot 233. and lib. 6. annot 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vission before the day of Judgement of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian Cyprian Firmilian Deny's of Alsxandria who maintained rebaptization What became of Austine Innocent the 1. and others who as Maldonat witnesses in John 6.53 affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants Were all these Fathers damned eternally Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamental or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternally Do we not know but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 Who can understand his Errors Psal 19.12 If every Error did plunge men into Damnation who then could be saved I know the ordinary reply That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium the exclusion of Saints from the Beatifique Vision Rebaptization the necessity of the Eucharist be Heresies now in regard of of the declaration of the Church yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers This supposes another absurd Error which I hope Sect. 3. to confute viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Fundamental and consequently the basis falling the Superstructure cannot stand At present I onely argue thus if these points be Fundamental now which were not in the dayes of the Fathers than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was nor make we up one Catholick Church with them Their Religion and ours differing in Essentials If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization It should therefore follow that St. Cyprian and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamentally Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints for Firmilian is Sainted in the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4.5 I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E.W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceives it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake not may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsut à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1.8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D. Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impious consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usurpation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks or persens erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be still prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held as such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap.
So Luther ad March Brandeburg tom 2. germ pag. 243. again patres evangelium fidem in Christum absque ulla bypocrisi pure simpliciter tradiderunt ecelesiam ab junumeris erroribus expurgarunt So the same Luther Comment in cap. 5. ad Gal. by this it may appear that Luther had a great honour for ancient Fathers and believed that the ancient Church was a true Church of Christ Consider fourthly the granting of Protestant Authors that the Church was overspread with error doth not conclude that they held the Church to have utterly perished Every error in Religion destroys not the being of the Church a maimed man is a man though not a whole man a leprous or paralitick man is a man though not a sound man so one erring Church if the error be not in the essentials and fundamentals of Religion is truly a Church of Christ though not usque quaque pura throughly pure and sound yea in as much as the Church is said to be erroneous her existence is supposed doth not the inexistence of an accident in a subject suppose the existence of the Subject After that the worship of God was grosly corrupted by Idolatry in Israel and Judah they remained visible Churches and begat Sons and Daughters unto God Ezeck 16.20 So Learned Protestants acknowledg that after the Roman Church was polluted with Idolatry and other absurd errors yet she remained a visible Church though a very impure one So Calvin epist 103.104 and lib. 4. instit cap. 2. Sect. 11.12 Zanch. in Epist ad Comitem Barch and lib. de relig Christ cap. 24. Sect. 19. Iun. lib. sing de eccles cap. 17. Mornaeus de eccles cap. 2. Sect. ecclesia Latina cap. 9. Sect. Secundo quemadmodum Dr. Feild in append ad lib. 5. part 3. cap. 2. where also he shews the same to be the judgment of Luther Bucer Melanctiton and Beza Neither is this for the advantage of the Popish interest for most of these Authors acknowledg the Romish Church in these latter and corrupt times only so to be a visible Church as the Apostle predicts the visible Church to be the seat of the Antichrist When he says 2 Thes 2.4 that he shall sit in the Temple of God Yea all of them look upon Apostat Rome as a Church so impure that the reformed Churches did but their duty and were not schismatical in making secession from her for she was the Author of the Schism not only by adhering so pertinaciously to her corruptions but also by imposing on others the owning of them as grounds of communion with her and by driving Protestants from her by Bulls and Excommunications because they could not own these corruptions in so much that as King James in resp ad Epist. Card. Perronij saith Non fugimus sed fugamur How ever by this it may appear that the prevailing of errors over the face of the visible Church doth not totally destroy the being of the visible Church Yea Jesuit Valentia in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6 confesseth quasdam veritates fidei quandoque ob hominum negligentiam vel proterviam ingenij perversitatem demersas latuisse forsan adhuc latere that some Doctrins of Faith and not only probable opinions once delivered by the Apostles thorow the ignorance or perversness of men were for a time drouned and lay as it were buried until afterwards by the diligence and faithfulness of the Church they were revived And perhaps saith he some truths may be in that case at this very day Hence to the clamorous cavil where was our Religion before Luther may solidly be replyed It was as to essentialls at least where ever God had a visible Church and consequently not only in the Greek Syrian Aegyptian and Aethiopian Churches which remain visible Churches and more pure then the Roman but also our Religion was preserved in the Roman Church she likewise being a visible Church though a most impure one I say our Religion was preserved in her as the true Religion was preserved in the Jewish Church when she was defaced with gross Idolatry Neither should this seem strange especially seeing many thousands in the Roman Church then groaned for reformation as appeared by the conjunction of so many with Luther upon his first appearance I further add that we are not obliged to grant the same of the Roman Church at this time which we grant of her before the reformation For surely since the reformation the Church of Rome is greatly changed to the worse as Dr. Feild in the place last cited and Voetius in desper causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 3. cap. 3. have evicted by many Instances and particularly many things being now defined by her as Articles of Faith which formerly were only debated as School-opinions And yet perhaps notwithstanding all these alterations to the worse she may be in a large sense allowed the name of a Church vere ecclesia though not vera ecclesia as Learned men distinguish Consider fifthly though the phrases of some Protestants concerning the prevailing of error in the Church in these last times especially may seem broad yet Scripture Fathers yea and Romanists themselves speak as broadly in reference to times of Apostacy And. 1. for Scripture what expression would seem broader concerning the time of Antichrist then that Revel 13.4 That all the world wondred after the beast and worshipped the beast and the dragon what would seem wider then the World Revel 18.3 all Nations have drunk of the Wine of the wrath of her fornication and the Kings of the Earth committed fornication with her Did ever Protestants speake broader Language concerning the apostacy under the Romish Antichrist then is there spoken by the Spirit of God 2. as for Fathers how lamentably do they bewaile the general overspreading of the Arrian heresy ingemult orbis miratus so factum Arrianum said Jerom. dial advers Lucif Remarkable is the discourse in Theod. lib. 2. Hist cap. 16. betwixt Constantius the Arrian Emperor and Liberius Bishop of Rome who then zealously owned the truth Quota pars es tu said the Emperor orbis terrarum qui solus facis cum homine scelerato How small a part art thou of the whole World that thou alone should joyn with that wicked man so he designed the good Athanasius To whom Liberius replyed non diminuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei Nam tres solum inventi fuere qui edicto resisterent that is the price of truth is not diminished by my solitude for three only were found to resist Nebuchadnezzars impious edict And Austin Epist 80. ad Hesych expresly says when the sun shall be darkned and the moon not give her light all which he interprets allegorically Ecclesia non apparebit impijs tunc persequutoribus ultra modum saevientibus The Church then shall not appear thorow the extream violence of wicked persecuters Yea and thirdly Popish writers themselves confess that Antichrist shall take away the
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
apud Cassand loc cit wonders how the custome of these solitary Masses came up If any do object the reservation of the Sacrament in primitive times Answ They make nothing for these solitary communions of the priest alone The Minister had ever others present who did partake with him as appears by all the Ancient Liturgies yea by the Roman Missal neither were those reservations for such ends as now they are used in the Roman Church viz for a Pompous circumgestation and adoration but to be received by Sick and absent persons who were reputed as a part of that congregation which did partake with the Minister at the first consecration Though the carying home of the Sacrament to be eaten apart be a far different case from that now under debate yet Bell. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 5. ad tertiam cannot deny but that also was long ago abrogated by the Council of Caesar Augusta and the first of Toledo Instance sixth the present Roman Church holds the absolute necessity of confessing to a Priest all the mortal sins that we can remember and that Juro Divino by a â—ivine ordinance So the Council of Trent sess 14. cap. 5. and can 6.7 Thus did not the primitive Church as is acknowledged by Barnes the Benedictin in Cathol Rom. Pacif. Sect. 8. and for it cites the Greek Church Gratian and the Glossator the Abbot of Purnormo Scotus Durand Modina Beatus Rhenanus Cajetan Erasmus and in further confirmation brings of Ancients Tertullian Cyprian Cyril of Alexandria and many Testimonies of Chrysost Yet Protestants do not altogether condemne the confession of secret sins to a judicious person far less to a faithful Minister as may be seen in Calvin lib. 3. instit cap. 4. Sect. 12.13 and Chemnit examin Concil Trid. Part 2 cap. 5. de paenit and is confessed by Bell. lib. de paenit cap. 1. But that we condemn in the Romish Church is that contrary to the Ancient Catholick Church she has imposed the absolute necessity to Salvation of confessing all mortal sins so far as we can remember and that by a jus divinum a president for this will not be found in the first three Centuries nor much lower in so much that Gratian part 2. caus 33. q. 3. cap. 34. says ore tacente veniam consequi possumus Though at first publick confession was only injoyned to be of publick offences yet others perceiving what benefits redounded to penitents thereby and finding their own consciences burdened with the like sins which being carryed in secrecy were not Subject to the censures of the Church to the end they might obtain the like consolation and quiet of mind did voluntarily submit themselves to the Churches discipline and undergo the burden of publick confession and Canonical censures Hereoff the Learned Vsser gives an large account in his answer to the Jesuits challenge cap. 4. and proves it from Origen homil 2. in ps 37. Tertul. lib. de paenit cap. 9. Cyprian serm de lapsis Ambros lib. 1. de paenit cap. 16. A further account is given of the same in another Learned but anonymous tractat of Confessionâ— Entituled Sin dilmantled cap. 7. Sect. 2. and before them both in Chemnitius examin Concil Trid. part 4. de indulg cap. 4. Pag. 724. edit Genev. 1641. And that the publication of these secret faults might be done to the more edification Some prudent Minister was first acquainted therewith by whose direction the delinquent might understand what sins were fit to be brought to the publick notice of the Church and in what manner the confession was to be performed Hence Origen homil 2. in Psal 37. is so earnest in advising to make choyce of a skilful Physician to whom to disclose griefs of this kind But about the time of the Decian presecution it was ordained that in every Church on discreet Minister should be appointed to receive the confessions of those who relapsed into sin after Baptism and then the penitent had no more the choyce of his confessor This is that addition which Socrates Notes to have been made to the penitential canon lib. 5. Hist. cap. 19. this was observed until the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople who because of a notorious trespass of a deacon to wipe of the Infamy from the Clergy and to prevent the like Scandals abrogated these private confessions If Nectarius Chrysost and the Greek Church had looked upon this confession as appointed by a Divine ordinance or absolutely necessary to salvation would they have abrogated it Or had the Roman Church then been of the now Trent Faith would they not have expostulated with the Greek Church on this account How much are Romanists netled with this argument when Bell. lib. 3. de paenit cap. 14. to evite the dint of it accuses Sozomen and Socrates the Ecclesiastick Historians as Lyars though he have no ground to convict them in that matter yea they are assoyled by his fellow Jesuit Suarez in partem 3. tom 4. disp 17. Sect 2. Num. 31. and therefore being affraid that this shift would not prove sufficient he further alleadges that Nectarius abrogated only publick confession a most ludibrious fiction When an Infamy was brought on the Clergy by a trespass committed under the covert of secret confessions had this been a way to wipe of the blot or to prevent more evils of that kind to ordain that thence forth there should be no confessions but in secret Certainly this would have increased the Infamy on the Clergy and given further opportunities to these impure dalliances But what need I more when Chrysost immediate successor to Nectarius in persuance of the statute of Nectarius is so full and frequent in preaching against the necessity of secret confessions as homil 31. in heb eum qui agit paenitentiam nunquam opertet predere peccatum sed Deum rogare ne ejus meminerit And homil de paenit confess solus te Deus confitentem videat In so much that F. Barnes spares not to say Chrysostomus apertus est pro hac sententiâ Who desire a large confutation of the pretended necessity Antiquity or jus divinum of these secret confessions together with the inextricable perplexities in which they involue the consciences of poor people and the most impious consequences of them as they are managed by Romanists I remit them among others to Dr. Taylouâ—s diswasive part 2. lib. 1. cap. 11. and to the foresaid anonymous tractat cap. 6. and 7. For my purpose at present It will be enough to advertise the Reader that Platina the Popes secretary in vita Zepherini could find no higher rise for the imposed necessity of this confession then from Innocent the third about 1200. Yeares after Christ Yea Bernes loc cit thinks the imposing of it as a jus divinum no older then the Council of Trenâ— and for it has this argument because in the Florentin Council the Roman Church was willing to make peace with the Greeks albeit notorie
Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex superabundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3.15 I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3.15 but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176. by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2.2.3 Math. 16.19 Math. 18.19 Ephes 4.11 But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2.2.3 Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16.19 Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18.19 I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4.11 which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Ghurch to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No
been Who can read what their own Bartholomaeus de la Casa hath written of the proceeding of the Spaniards in the West-Indies without horrour Did not a Great Person when a dying hearing that Catholick Spaniards went to Heaven profess he would never go there if Spaniards went thither judging it could be no good place where such bloody men went Yea Granado as cited by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 4. § 188. confesses Ea crudelitatis immanitate Hispanos erga illos usos ut Sanctissimum Christiani nomen non Pietatis Religionis sed crudelitatis immanitatis nomen habitum sit that is through their Barbarity the holy name of Christians became an Epithete of cruelty As for the East-Indies it's supposed there were some remainders of the Christian Faith among them lest by the conversions of these people in ancient times and the truth of Popish relations concerning conversions there are justly to be questioned finding how unfaithful they are in Relations nearer home whereof I gave a hint cap. 3. Sect. 4. And besides their design is to convert them rather to the Pope and Papal Superstition than to Jesus Christ But if any Real Conversion be wrought by them it 's wholly to be attributed to the common Principles of Christianity yet retained among Papists but not to any of their Popish errours Let the Pamphleter notice these particulars and then frame an Argument if he can without Rhetorical declamations to prove their Church to be the true Catholick and Infallible Church But I invert also this his second Note and from it prove the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion by which alone Nations have been converted to the true Christian Faith is the only true Religion but by the Religion which Protestants hold Nations have only been converted Ergo. I prove the Assumption by the Apostolick Religion Nations have only been converted to the true Faith but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion and we own none else Let theirs and ours be compared if they be not the same Ergo by the Religion of Protestants Nations have only been converted If any again say that a Quaker or other Heretick may make the same Argument it hath been answered already Let matters be brought to tryal by Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and it shall be found our Religion and not theirs is the true Apostolick Religion And we have this strong presumption for us against both Papists and Quakers neither of them dare refer the Controversie to the decision of Scripture the one running to an infallible visible Judge the other to an infallible Light within But we remit all to the decision of Scriptures which Christians of all perswasions acknowledge to be of Divine Inspiration yet it 's not by presumptions we would deal but by a particular examination of Controversies let their Cause only prevail who have real conformity with Scriptures ARTICLE III. Of Sanctity of Life THe third Note of the Church brought by this Jesuit is taken from the pretended Sanctity of Romanists Lives But besides that Sanctity of Life is no solid Note of the true visible Church there is nothing to which Romanists have less ground to pretend I say first it 's no solid Note of the visible Church For either they speak of real internal Sanctity and Heart-Renovation or of external and apparent Sanctity If of the first though undoubtedly the Church has always a Remnant of truly Holy Ones yet internal holiness cannot be infallibly discerned by others and so much Bell. himself acknowledges lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 10. yea Romanists deny that a man can be infallibly certain of his own Sanctity If therefore he speak only of external and apparent Sanctity it 's not peculiar to the Church Hypocrites and pernicious Hereticks may have it are we not told that false Teachers may come in Sheeps cloathing Matth. 7.15 that they speak lyes in hypocrisie 1 Tim. 4.2 that they have a form of godliness 2 Tim. 3.5 that the Ministers of Satan transform themselves into Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.12 Did not Pharisees make long prayers Mat. 23.24 Are they not on this account resembled to painted Sepulchres vers 22. Did not Bell. lib. 5. de lib. arb cap. 10. confess that by the works of Teachers we cannot pass a sure judgment on their Doctrine because their inward works are not seen and the external works are common both to sound and unsound Teachers Did not the Novatians pretend to so much Sanctity that they would appropriate to themselves the Name of Cathari as testifies Austin de Heres cap. 38. Who pretended more external Sanctity than the Pelagians See Hierom. lib. 3. advers Pelag. Were not Douatists such pretenders to Sanctity that they denied a Church to be where there were any wicked See Alphonsus à Castro advers Haeres tit Eccles Doth not Austin testifie lib. 1. de moribus Eccles cap. 1. that the very Manichees deceived many by the seeming Sanctity of their lives Do not Socinians who hardly deserve the Name of Christians pretend to much Sanctity as also our deluded Quakers Will Antichrist himself want his pretensions to Sanctity Hath not the Beast two Horns like the Lamb Revel 12.11 Hath not the Whore a Golden Cup in her hand that is she guilds over her Abominations with the specious pretences of Piety It were indeed to be wished that all the Lords People were holy yet alas how oft hath the Real Church of God been overgrown with scandals Are not the complaints of the Prophets on this account known Micah 7.1 c. Ezek. cap. 16. cap. 22. and cap. 36. Doth not the Apostle complain also of Gospel Churches as 2 Cor. 12.20 21. Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. Hist cap. 1. hold out the wicked lives of Christians yea and of Ministers to be the cause of the grievous persecution under Dioclesian Hereupon Ancients would not have the truth of Doctrine examined by mens lives Hierom lib. 3. cont Ruffin Quis unquam Catholicorum in disputatione Sectarum turpitudinem ei objecit adversus quem disputat And Austin lib. 1. de mor. Eccles cap. 34. Nunc vos illud admoneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholica male dicere desinatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filios corrigere studet What need I more to compesce this Pamphleter seeing Stapleton himself lib. 1. de Princip Doct. cap. 19. confesses Sanctam esse Ecclesiam sed per suam Sanctitatem non innotescere Did not Tertull. de praescript long ago teach that we must measure persons by Doctrines non ex personis fidem It were the wisdom of Romanists to be silent as to this matter were I disposed to write a Satyr I might fill a Volumn with complaints of the impiety of the Romish Church and that out of their own Authors Did not their own Pope Hadrian the Sixth in his instructions to Cheregat his Nuncio
9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they inform thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee Learned Rivet in Cathol Orthod tract 1. q. 8. observes the place to be thus sensed by famous Authors in the Romish Church by Cajetan the Author of the Glossa Ordinaria Lyranus and Hierom Oleastrius and that Lyranus from the restriction according to the Law refutes that absurd gloss of the Jewish Rabbins that if the Judge should say that the right hand were the left and the left hand the right talis sententia est tenenda like to which is that forecited saying of Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif cap. 5. If the Pope command Vice and prohibit Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vice to be good and Vertue evil But we have not so learned Christ the Judge was to give sentence according to the Law or as Ezek 44.24 According to the Judgments of the Lord. I am not ignorant of the ordinary Cavil of Romanists that then the people were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim whether it were according to the Law I distinguish They were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim by an Authoritative Judgment it does not follow by a judgment of discretion in order to their own practise I grant This Romanists cannot deny unless they would devest the people of Reason and turn them into Bruits When Romish Missionaries labour to Proselite people to the Romish perswasion do they not labour to convince them that it 's more rational to believe their Church than to adhere to the Religion of Protestants Is not this to grant them a judgment of discretion How then can they condemn us for that which themselves allow Excellently said Clemens Alex. Stromat lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess the Learned Grotius in loc will not have these words according to the Law to be restrictive yet he denies that from the place the infallibility of the Sanedrim can be concluded the scope of the Statute being not to enjoyn all to believe what the Sanedrim did Decree but only non contra agere non contra docere not to act or teach contrary to the sentence of the Sanedrim How warrantably he thus glosses is not my concern now to examine only it overturns the notion of infallibility But are we not commanded to hear the Church Mat. 18.17 Yes But does it therefore follow that the Church that is her Pastors assembled in a General Council cannot err in matters of Faith who would not smile at such an inference Are we not also commanded to hear not only the Catholick Church in her Oecumenick Councils but also in National or Provincial Assemblies yea and particular Pastors Luke 10.17 He that heareth you heareth me Yet Romanists I hope will not thence conclude either Provincial or National Assemblies let be particular Pastors infallible Can any Romanist prove that the Church Mat. 18.17 is only taken for a Pope or General Council Is there a Text in all the Bible where the Church signifies the Pope of Rome I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to instance it if they can Doth not the word Church in this Scripture comprehend all those Churches which cognosce of effences if therefore that Scripture furnish one argument for infallibility then the particular Churches of Scotland and England might claim infallibility as well as Rome Is it not evident from that context Mat. 18.17 that there we are commanded to hear and obey the Church in her Censures and yet Romanists cannot deny but in her Censures she may err and proceed clave errante because in her decisions of that kind she depends on humane testimony See Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 18. it 's manifest therefore nothing can be concluded thence as to infallibility But how then are we commanded to hear the Church Answ In so far as she adheres to her Commission the Rule of Gods Word and thus she cannot deceive us if she or an Angel from Heaven go beyond that Rule they are not to be heard Gal. 1.8 Yet lastly Giving and not granting that a General Council could not err what 's that to the Pope and his Schismatical Conventicles which have no more of a General Council praeter nomen inane But Matth. 16.18 The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church I ask what Church if the invisible of the Elect then it touches not the question in hand concerning a visible Judge if the Catholick visible Church in her diffusive capacity then it 's yet from the purpose for as such she exercises no Juridical Power if the Catholick visible in her Representatives then he might as well conclude her impeccability as her inerrability for the Devil prevails over Souls by sins of practise as well as by errours in judgment But it 's confessed by all that impeccability of Councils cannot be concluded therefore neither inerrability I must remember him that his Fellow Jesuit Tirin as cited by Maresius controv 5. num 3. says it 's uncertain whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against which should be construed with the Rock or with the Church if it relate to the Rock then the words only affirm that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Rock upon which the Church is built which as Austin and many other Fathers expound is Christ himself yet granting that it were here said that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church how can it be proved that when the Pope or the major part of a General Council is smitten with a lesser Doctrinal errour that the Gates of Hell prevails against the Church Hath he not heard the distinction that albeit in such a case the Gates of Hell valent yet non prevalent they hurt the Church but do not wholly overthrow the Church To conclude all that I suppose can be inferred from that Scripture is that the whole Catholick visible Church shall not err in Fundamentals Indeed if the whole diffusive did err in Fundamentals the Gates of Hell should prevail then the Church should be extinguished But to prove the inerrability of the Pope and his Council from this Scripture the Pamphleter may improve all the assistance Rome can give him in his next Reply But hath not Christ promised to his Church Mat. 28.20 Loe I am with you to the end of the world Answ If every one be infallible who have a promise that God will be with them then every Believer may claim infallibility because of the promise Joh. 14.23 Is the presence and assistance of Christ with every one in the same measure and degree wherein it was to be with the Apostles Is not the promise of the presence of Christ Mat. 28.20 conditionel Doth he not say Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and then Loe in so doing I am with you to the end of the world Hath not then the Church of Rome forfeited her