all who dissent from them Now it can hardly be told what influence bold Assertions from persons of reputed gravity especially joined with high pretences and some plausible Sophisms will have upon credulous apprehensive or melancholy persons yea upon most of people who are not well grounded in Religion and some way studyed in the Controversies But fourthly Both Romish Seducers and Quakers joyne issue in this that the persons they intend to prey upon may have nothing to guard them against their Seduction they reflect heavily upon the holy Scriptures and Faithful Ministers The Scripture say they is but a dead letter Ambiguous Obscure capable of diverse yea contrary interpretations and insufficient to terminat controversies in Religion They reproach Ministers as Hyrelings they load them with calumnies and the trespasses of some few they charge upon the whole function by which meanes they so abuse poor people that they despaire of good by consulting either with the Scriptures or Ministers These Seducers deale with poor people as the Wolves in Demosthenes his Apologue to the Senat of Athens who offered to make peace with the Sheep if they would put away their Dogs but the Wolves intended to prey upon the poor Sheep when once their Guardians were gone They therefore who would not betray their own Soules to these Imposters would bring every thing to the Scriptures as to a test Isaiah 8.20 and would consult with their Spiritual guides I meane the Ministers of GODS Word Mal. 2.7 The serious consideration of these few overly hints may be useful through the LORDS blessing against the growing defection of these times Let it with-all be thought upon what heavy Characters the Scripture sets upon Apostacy and Seducers I commend to this end the reading of these Scriptures Heb. 10.38 2. Pet. 2.1.2.3.2 Thess 2.9.10.11.12 1. Ioh. 2.19 Matth. 24.24.25 2. Cor. 11.13.14.15 And in particular there be most dreadful threatnings against Complyers with Romish Babylon which may make the eares of all that hear to tingle I mention but one at the time Revel 14.9.10.11 If any man worship the beast and his Image and receive his marke in his fore-head or in his hand the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out with out mixtur into the cup of his indignation and he shall be termented with fire and brimstone and the smoke of their terment ascendeth up for ever and ever Shall not then these who are ensnared by Romish Impostors hearken to the call Revel 18.4 Come out of Babylon my people that ye be not partakers of her fins and that ye receive not of her plagues I know Romanists turn these things off as not concerning them But if a common Whore can as Solomon sayeth Pro. 30.20 Wip her mouth as if she had done no wickednesse is it any wonder that the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth Revel 17.5 endeavour to palliat her Villanies with floorishes of words School-distinctions especially having so many thousand Iesuits and other Ianisary's under pay for that effect Will Antichrist when so ever he appeares proclaime himself to be the Antichrist Will he not dissemble the matter Why else is his worke tearmed a Mysterie of iniquity 2. Thess 2.7 Why is it said that the Beast Revel 13.11 Hath two hornslike a Lamb why hath the great Where upon her fore-head writen Mysterie And if great Authours doe not misinforme us the same is writen upon the Popes Mitre Have not Learned PROTESTANTS in their debates on this subject made it more then Probable that the Papal faction is that Antichristian state spoken of in Scripture I shall only now remember you of the Reply which Sir Francis Bacon gave to King James when he asked at him whether the Pope were the Antichrist If said Sir Francts a hus and cry were made after the Antichrist and I should apprehend the Pope I would make him clear himself of the markes of the Antichrist before I would let him goe Perhaps this warning shall not have much influence upon them who have already devoted or rather mancipated themselves to the Popish or Quaker interest For Heresy is a pertinacious disease Sin is never so dangerous as when it is covered with the mantle of Truth or Duety It was the ingenuous confession of a good man Error meus erat Deus meus That once his Errours were his Idols and then it seemed as hard for him to forsake them as to renounce his GOD. O how piteous is the case of deluded Soules who esteeme their Apostacy from Truth their Blaspemyes and Idâ—latry acceptable service to GOD Yet though Israel play the Harlet let not Judah offend Hos 4 15. Let me therefore obrest these who through Mercy are preserved from the contagion of Popery and Quakerisme as they regard the Eternal Salvarion of their Soules that they would hearken to the peremptory Scripture-caveats against Apostacy 2. Pet 3.17 Beware lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your stedfastnesse Revel 3.11 Behold I come quickly hold fast that which thou hast that no man take thy Crown 1. Cor. 10.12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he slandeth take heed lest he fall Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling Jud. 24.25 And to present you faultlesse before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy to the only wise God our Saviour be glory and Majesty Dominion and Power both now and ever AMEN Cicero Tantam semper potentiâ—ns veritas habuit ut nullis machinis aut cuâ—usquam hominis ingenio aut arte subverti potuerit licetâ— in 〈◊〉 nullun Patronum aut defensorem obtineat tamen per scâ—ipsa defenditur A faithfull Copie of the Papers exchanged betwixt Master IOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinty in the Mareshall Colledge of ABERDENE and Master Francis Dempster Jesuit otherwise Sir-named Rinne or Logan The Jesuits first Paper For Master IOHN MENZEIS whose Answere is civilly required according to his promise 1. GOD Almightie who is supreame Lord hath decreed for man eternall happinesse after this life and howbeit he might have decreed to give it him absolutely without any condition yet de facto he hath tyed the obtaining of it to certaine conditions to be fulfilled upon our part whereby Christs blood and passion is applyed to us and amongst these conditions one is that we be of one true faith and one true religion 2. Since that by Gods decree eternall happines and salvation is tyed to one true religion this true religion must be sufficiently furnished with grounds and principles whereby it may prove it self to be a true religion which grounds and principles are so determinat to trueth that they cannot serve to prove a false religion to be a true religion 3. It is to be supposed that all parties agrees in this conditionall proposition that they would submit their judgements and belief with all firmnes to any thing if they knew certainly that God had spoken
can prove the Assumption of your Syllogisme or not If you can give I pray you a specimen of your Acumen and tergiverse no longer If ye cannot then professe ingenuously as the truth is that ye have undertaken a work which ye cannot performe And it is no wonder that here you be at a Non-plus For if the Christian Religion revealed in Scripture hath grounds to prove it self to be the True Religion which none but a down right Infidell can deny then surely the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth not grounds to prove it self For the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the Christian Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures as I told you in the explication of the terms in my first Paper And consequently what ever solid grounds were brought either by these Ancient Apologists Iustin Martyr Tertullian Athenagoras Arnobius c. Or are held out in the moderne tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald yea in your own Vives to prove the truth of the Christian Religion these also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Nay doe not you Romanists acknowledge the most of all our Positives So that the great question which remains is Whether you Papists have any evidence for your superadditions And is it not your concernment to shew this But when I think upon your Tautologizing way it calls to my minde the custome of children who when their memorie failes them in saying their lesson least they should seeme to say nothing they will needs ingeminate the last word Away then for shame with these childish unmanly and insipid repetitions You blot much paper needlesly with foure Synonima propositions But I might advertise you first that your discourse concerning them is wide from the purpose For it supposeth that I am now proving the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the True Religion which is not at present my work But seeing ye have undertaken to impugne it my bussines is to cleat it from your cavills Secondly I doubt if ye can reconcile what ye have said of the Equipollencie of these foure Propositions with your Tridentine Faith For if it be the same thing for a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforme to the Scriptures then it cannot be true which your Councill of Trent hath defined that Unwritten Traditions are to be received Pari pietatis affectu with equall devotion as the written Word of GOD. For if this Tridentin Canon be true the truth of Religion cannot stand adequatly in its conformity to the Scriptures but partly in its conformity with the Scriptures and partly in its conformity with unwritten traditions and consequently your fore-mentioned propositions cannot be adequatly Synomma's You may bethink your self whether ye or the Councill be in the Error But thirdly granting these propositions to be Synonima's that is to have an Objective identitie I pray by what Logick will ye prove that one of them cannot be brought to prove the other Is it not lawfull to argue á Definitione ad Definitum betwixt which there is an objective identity Doe not Logicians acknowledge an identity betwixt objective Premisses and the Conclusion And therefore though a True Religion be a Religion cōforme to the Scripturs yet there is no absurditie in proving the truth of Religiō by its cōformity to the Scripturs Even as to use your old example from which ye are fallen off as seems because it made so much against you An action to be honest and conforme to the Law are Synonima's and yet the best way of proving it to be honest is to prove its conformity to the Law By all this it appears that your plain Scots which ye are not ashamed againe to repeat is plaine Non-sense as I demonstrated in my last For the truth of Religion consisting in its conformity with the Scripture may be demonstrated by holding out its conformity with the Scripture An objective evidence of a Religion being nothing else but a ground whereby the truth of Religion may be demonstrated it is unconceivable how a Religion can have objective evidence and yet want a ground whereby to manifest it self to be a True Religion If here you but understood your own self I hope there would be no more controversie as to this betwixt us So that the matter is not obscured by my terms as you say but by your contradictory Non-sense As to your frivolous oft repeated cavill that a false Religion may pretend the like conformity and objective evidence it was confuted so fully in my last that I shall remit you to what was then said Though Anaxagoras and Hypochondriack Persons may mantaine Snow to be black Shall that make others who have their eyes in their head and the use of their Reason turne Sceptickes and question whether it be white or black Towards the close ye passe by many things as your coustome is which I hade said concerning the assistance of your Clergie men In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture And ye only labour to extricat your self from that Contradiction wherein I shew you to be involved but all in vaine Nay ye involve your self the more by affirming That a proposition may have an universall obiect whereof it self is a part and yet that something may be affirmed of that universall object which cannot be affirmed of that part of the object A rare notion forsooth implying a manifest repugnancie But I am loath to digresse to a Philosophick debate with you Can any thing I pray you be affirmed of every man which cannot be affirmed of you and me As for that proposition of Davids All men are liars which you bring to illustrate your paradoxall notion How could you make use of it in your argueing with me untill first you proved your infallibility For if you may be beleeved I can take no sense of it from you untill you first prove your self infallible which I suppose you pretend not to But it is your ill luck to be still involved in contradictions Yet to speake more particularly of this example and not to take up time in enumerating the severall acceptions of this Syncategorematick particle All it may be evident that David did not take it Universally of all men in reference to all their sayings else he had not only convicted himself of a lie but also charged all the penne men of holy Scriptures as liars in all that they said Which I beleeve no rationall Person will affirme It must therefore be restricted to one of two Either to these who had said that DAVID should be King and if thus it was indeed an over-reaching and false assertion in DAVID For among these the Prophet Samuel was one And no wonder that DAVID did over-reach in this for he acknowledges he spake it in Festinatione in his haste Or secondly to which I rather encline it must be understood thus every meer man of his own nature is prone to lying and fallible as your Esthius and A Lapide upon Rom. 3.4 And many others doe
Religion but your Prot estant Religion And then your choier is stirred that you should be remitted to our Authors Morney and Grotius I confesse smyling and silence are your best Topicks But laugh you fret you you must hear truth Are there I beseech you more true Christian Religions then one that you say As if there were no Christian Religion but your Protestant Religion Sayes not the Apostle Ephes 4.5 Una fides unum baptisma One faith one Baptisme We shall not therefore declyne this Iest Prove if you can our Religion not to be the Religion of the purest ancient primitive Church in the first three Centuries or that there is an essential difference betwixt their Religion and ours and I shal yeeld to you the Buckler and grant that our Religion is not the true Religion But you may sooner pull the Sun out of his Orbe then performe this Nay if I were not resolved to keep you at the probation of your Assumption I might argue thus That Religion which in all its essentials agrees with the Religion of the purest and most primitive Antiquitie in the first three Centuries must be the true Religion But the Religion of PROTESTANTS in all the essentials thereof agrees with the Religion of the purest and most primitive Antiquitie in the first three Centuries Ergo the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the true Religion The Major you must admit or else condemne the primitive Church yea and Christianitie it self The Assumption is evident by comparing our Religion with the apologies of Tertullian Iustin Martyr Athenagoras Arnobius c. I appeal you out of all the authentick writings of the Fathers of these three Ages to produce one essential difference betwixt their Religion and ours But on the contrary it were easie from this same Principle to demonstrat that your Romish Religion is not the true Religion Thus If the Romish Religion differs in its essentials from the Ancient Christian Religion in the first three Centuries then the Romish Religion is not the true Religion But the Romish Religion differs in its essentials from the Ancient Christian Religion in the first three Centuries Ergo the Romish Religion is not the true Religion â— The Major is clear the true Christian Religion being but one For proofe of the Assumption I remit you to that Formula fidei or Romish Creed contrived by Pope Pius the fourth which is set down by Onuphrius in the life of the said Pope to which all the Bishops of your Church must solemnly swear In which after the Constantinopolitan Creed there be added many articles which never were either in the Apostolick Creed or in the Nicen. Or in the Athanasian or in the Constantinopolitan or in any other Christian Creed much above the space of three hundred years after Christ Nay in it all the articles defyned in the Councill of Trent are declared to be Fides vera Catholica extra quam neme salvus esse potest the true Catholick faith without which there can be no Salvation Now I appeal you to produce any evidence from the indubitat writings of the first three Centuries that this was the faith of the Catholick Church in these three Ages Which if you doe here under my hand I engage to become a Papist If you cannot as I am perswaded you are not able then confesse that your Religion is not the true Christian Religion Nay learned Divines amongst the rest Crakanthorp in his Defens Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalat cap. 15. num 4. And long before him Bishop Iuell in a Sermon preached at London Anno One thousand five hundreth and sixtie appealed the Doctors of your Church to produce either Church Councills or Fathers for the space of six hundreth years after Christ who mantained all these Articles which now are concluded by the forementioned Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth to be necessarie to Salvation And yet to this day none of your men have been able to performe this Was it I pray you a point of faith necessary to Salvation in the first three Centuries I might goe much lower to acknowledge the Church of Rome the Mother and Mistris of all Churches Or the headship of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Catholick Church What meaned then the opposition made to Pope Victor by Polycrates and the Asiaticks or by Cyprian and the Africans to Pope Stephanus not to mention others Or was it a part of the Christian faith necessarie to Salvation in the first three hundreth years that Images were to be adored that there is a Purgatorie after this life That Bread and Wine are transubstantiated into the Body of Christ That the Communion ought to be given under one kynd abstracting the Cup from the people As to this last I shall present to you the testimonie of your own Cassander by which you may judge of the rest In Consult Art 22. Satis compertum est vniversalem Christi ecclesiam in hunc usê™ diem occidentalem vere seu Romanam mille amplius a Christe annis in solenn ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione utramê™ Panis Vinâ— speciem omnibus ecclesiia Chrsti membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum Scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est You needed not to have offended that I remitted you to Morney and Grotius especially I having joined with them your own Vives and these Tractats not having been written in opposition to you Papists But against Jews Heathens and Mahumetans And it was but shallownesse in you to desire me to squeeze them for one ground to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion seeing I did appeal to all the solid grounds that ever were made use of either by Ancients or Moderns either by these of the Eastern or Western Church either by PROTESTANTS or Papists to prove the Christian Religion against Heathens that it might be examined whether these did not likewise prove the PROTESTANT Religion to be true Squeeze you them all and if you find it not to be so Herbam dabo Onely I must adde that these last named Authors were Persons of such eminent learning that neither you nor I need to be ashamed to learn a lesson from them This much further I have written then once I intended to have done so long as you hold on in your trifling straine But untill you answere to all the particulars of this Paper and to these you have omitted in my former Papers know that I will looke upon any thing that comes from you as unworthie of a Reply I shall close with that saying of Cyprian Epist. 40. Qui mandatum Dei rejictunt et traditionem suam st atuere conantur Fortiter a vobis nobis et firmiter respuantur Aberdene June 9. 1666. John Menzeis The Jesuits fifth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he continues to perswade that the grounds which he produced for the truth of the Protestant Religion were not
any proofe as if a Religion which you your selves gives out for a false Religion did not with as great reasone pretend all this for themselves The third is that Religion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but one after another As a man who hath a hundred pices of Gold and would prove whether they be upright Gold or not this proofe cannot be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone But this likewise may be assumed with as great reasone by a false Religion or assigne wherefore they may not use this shift as well as you when they are required to give some ground for the truth of their Religion The fourth is that the grounds which Tertullian and the holy Fathers brings to prove the truth of Christian Religion against Pagâ—nes proves likewise the truth of your Protestant Religion But this with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion or show wherefore not The fifth that you adde in this Paper now is this that the perspicuity of Scripture in all things necessarie to Salvation is a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion But though this were true what makes it more for the truth of your Religion nor for the truth of a false Religion since they with as great reason as you may and does pretend that the tenets which they hold as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture Likewise you have been often pressed to produce grounds whereby might be showen that your Clergie hath In actu primo some peculiar assistance to give In actu secundo the true sense of texts of Scripture which doeth not prove the like assistance to the Clergie of a false Religion So that in handling of Scripture you are all one with them having no more assistance to handle it rightly then they have As to that which you adde now in this Paper that this sense which is given by a Doctor to a text of Scripture may be the true sense though neither he nor others reflect or know any thing of the habilitie that he hath In actu primo to give this true seuse for Spiritus ubi vult spirat But though this answer wer to the purpose may it not be assumed with as gryt reasone in favour of a false Religion Next you force me to discover the shallownesse of the discourse that you make here because it seems you onely intend to induce a plausable and glittering scroofe upon things to dazle the eyes of simple people not earing what stuffely under For the question is not whether a thing may be truelie such in it self though I doe not know it to be such nor knows any thing of the causes whereof the truth of it depends since things are such and such in themselves whether they be known or not known by us Neither is the question about matters of Science where objective evidence convicts the understanding to assent and that independently of all authority of the Proponer But the question is about matters of Faith where all the motive to induce one to beleeve a thing is reduced to the authority of the Speaker and according to the divers degrees that are found in the authority of these that speakes a thing so are the correspondent degrees of firmnes in the assents whereby the hearer beleeves such things and because the authority of GOD is a supreame authority and above all other authorities therefore the assent that is due to such authority when it speakes or reveals any thing must have a firmnes above the firmnes which other assents have and which we give to matters proponed onely by inferiour authorities Now I ask how can people be induced to exerce one Act of faith or to beleeve with that firmnes which is due onely when GOD speakes or reveals a thing if they be not first assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man and consequently that such a man hath sufficient assistance and direction In actu primo that he cannot deceive nor speake one thing for another Now you are required to produce some speciall ground whereby the people may be assured that their Clergie who should instruct them in matters of faith hath this assistance In actu primo and which is necessar if they would beget superuaturall faith in their hearers that is to say Such a beleefe whereby the hearers doe adhere above all to the things that are proponed to them as revealed by GOD in such texts of Scripture otherwise it will follow that the assistance which you have does not exceed the assistance which the Clergie of a false Religion have and consequently that preach what you will and though you rune over the whole Bible you will never be able by your preaching to produce so much as an sol Act of supernaturall faith in your hearers Out of all this appears at what poor posture you have reduced the truth of your Religion notwithstanding that in the begining you did so bragingly undertake to mantaine the truth thereof before whomsoever against whomsoever and in whatsomever place And likewise to this effect have spent and blotted so much Paper since all ends in this that your Religion is indeed true but so that it cannot be shown wherein it differs from a false Religion as if one had taken in hand the defense of the honestie of a man and after long pleading at the barre and brought the matter to this passe that he were declared to be indeed an honest man but such an honest man that there were no seemable difference betwixt him and a knave Mr. JOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Jesuits fifth Paper Which was not delivered to Mr. John Menzeis till June 15. 1666. Some Animadversions on the Iesuits fifth Paper HOW forcible are right words but what doth your arguing reprove Job 6.25 You are pleased to censure the Prolixity of my Papers but you might have known that of Seueca Epist 48. Longiore mora opus est ut solvas quaestionem quam ut proponas You take the boldnesse also to asperse these lines with Impertinencie But were not you afrayed whom I had so oft convicted of manifold Impertinencies to have it reponed to you Calvus calve calvitium ne objiciat Is not the true cryme whereof these poore lines are guilty because they have touched you in the quick so as you are not able to answere and therefore they must be endyted of Impertinencie though you could not particularize one impertinent line But I shall be suretie for them that they shall not decline to have their Pertinencie examined by your Romish Inquisitors though your Pope like another Rhadamanthus presided in the Court Onely your Fathers would remember that we PROTESTANTS are not besotted with an Implicit faith as if there charres were made of Irish timber which cannot bear a Spider Wherefore they had need to be more cautious then you have been and not to
Ancient Church And to instance if you can One difference in essentialls betwixt the faith of the Ancient Church and our Religion else it must be held for confessed that our Religion which you so much reproach is The truely Ancient Christian Religion and yours but the tares which the envyous one did latly sow in the Lords field and that your pretence to Antiquity is no better then the Gibeonits mouldie bread Ies 9.5.12 Towards the Conelusion you are so discreet as to upbraid me as Altogether ignorant of the nature of supernatural faith Because foresooth I would not acknowledge That the assent of faith which is given to articles of Religion must be founded upon the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounders thereof I suppose you meane the Clergie of whome you spake in your former Papers But First were you not concemed if you had looked to your reputation before you had taken the boldnesse to reproach me for Ignorance in this matter first to have cleared your self from these Contradictions wherein I have demonstrated you to be involved from your former assertions concerning This infallible assistance of the Clergie Secondly were you so shallow as not to discerne that you intangle your self in a New contradiction by this your present discourse For if everie supernatura assent of faith to a divine truth must be founded upon The foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder thereof then the first assent to The necessity of the foreknowledge of this assistance in the Propounder must presuppose it as being according to you An Act of supernatural faith And yet it cannot presuppose it because it is the first assent which the person hath concerning that assistance And consequently if it did presuppose a former knowledge of that assistance it should be first and not first Is not this a goodly Religion which you have that you cannot move one step in mantainance thereof without intangling your self still in contradictions But Thirdly either This necessity of the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the propounder of divine truths which you make the foundation of all supernatural faith can be proven or not If not then all your faith is founded upon a fancie which cannot be proven If it can be proven why shunne you to doe it I haveing so often required it of you But now I will lay this Dilemma about you If it can be proven either it must be from Scripture or from some Unwriten Word to use your Romanists phrase Not from Scripture for according to you no sense of Scripture can be known unles first the Infallible assistance of the propounder thereof be known and therefore when one doubts of the infallible assistance of the proponer it is impossible according to your principles that this can be proven from Scripture Nor can you prove it by any Unwriten Word For you have asserted in your former Papers that a point of Religion To be true and to be conforme to the Writen Word of GOD are Synenima's and that the one of these cannot be proven before the other Therefore you cannot prove the truth of this point conceming the Clergies assistance meerly by an unwriten Word else it should be known to be true before its conformity to the writen Word were known which is the Contradictorie of your former assertion But besides to know the sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition or what ever else you will runne to as distinct from the Scriptures of GOD there is as great necessitie of The foreknowledge of the assistance of the propounder thereof as for the knowing of the true sense of Scripture And therefore before I assent to the true sense of a Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition by a supernatural Act of faith I must first know that the propounder is guided by an infallible assistance and consequently when one doubts of this infallible assistance of the propounder neither can it be proven by anie Vnwriten word Decretal Canon of Councill or Tradition Expede your self from this Dilemma if you can without destroying your own principles by which you are locked up in Contradictions Nay more I here freely offer will you or any prove to me either From Scripture or Vniversal Tradition That the foreknowledge of such infallible assistance of your Clergie is a necessarie prerequisite before I can give a supernatural assent of faith to an article of Religion and I will turne Romanist Can I make a fairer proffer to you Will you not have so much compassion upon me as to make me your Proselyte But I may divine here and not be a Propher you will as scone remove the Earth out of its place according to Archimedes bold undertakeing as to prove your Hypothesis from either of these forementioned grounds Fourthly when you talke so liberally of this Assistance of the Propounder of articles of faith ought you not to determine whome you meane by This Propounder I hope you extend it not to all the people nay nor to all who have received Orders It was 〈◊〉 pretended that everie one of these was infallible whether therefore is it the Pope or General Council or both that you meane If you cannot agree among your selves who this Infallible Propounder is doe you not reel as to the Foundation of your faith I therefore require you againe to determine to me if you can An Infallible Propounder of articles of faith agreed upon by you Romanists and to produce the evidences for this infallibity from Scripture or Vniversal Tradition or Canon of general Council You would make the world beleeve that you had an infallible Propounder of divine truths and yet you cannot agree who he is Nor have any of the parties into which you are broken in this matter Evidence from your Romish principles for the infallibility of him or them whom they would place in Appâ—llo's chaire Pitch therefore on whome you will as your Iufallible Interpreter and let us see if his Infallibilitie can abyd the Test. Who knowes not how impiouslie your Popes have erred and that both In cathedra and extra cathedram How Pope Liberius subscrived to to the Arrian confession of the Council of Sirmium and to the condemnation of Athanasius How Pope Honorius being consulted by Sergius of Constantinople gave out sentence for the Monethelite Heresie How Pope Iohn the twentysecond denyed the immortalitie of the Soul Yea not to insist further in takeing this Dung-hill your own Platina in the life of Stephanâ—s the sixth records that it is almost the constant custome of the succeeding Popes to infringe Or wholly abrogate the decrees of their Predecessors Are these the infallible propounders of divine truths upon which our faith must be built It were easie also to give an account of the errours and lapses of Councils though I should be loath to derogat in the least from their due esteeme I shall therefore at present but mind you of that luculent testimonie of Austin lib. 2.
collectivly taken or the Catholick Church cannot erre in Essentials if the faith of the Catholick Church in these ages can be found out in the undoubted writings of the Fathers in these times then Conformity with their Religion will irrefragably prove Our Religion to be the True Religion as to all Essentials Yea if from the writings of the Aâ—â—ients in these ages we can find what was the faith of any one true Particular Church we may solidly argue thence as to the Truth of Religion in essentials For though a true particular Church may erre yet so long as it is a True Church it retaines the essentials of faith else it were not a true Church This Distinction which I have proposed is not mine onely but of our PROTESTANT Writers in this question concerning The Churches infallibility As you may see in Whitaker De Ecclesia quaest 3. cap. 1. Doctor Field His way to the Church lib. 4. cap 2. And others So that it is no evasion I propound to you but the received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and hence the rest of this your cavil on which you foolishly dilate may be cut off If we grant say you Any infallibility to the Church in these three Centuries how did that gift expyre in the fourth and after following ages It is easily Answered This infall blility which we grant to the Collective body of the Church as to the Essentials and Fundamentals of faith agrees to her in every age else the Church in some ages should be utterly lost But though we grant that the whole Catholick Church cannot erre in Fundamentals be not so foolish as to apply this to your Romish Church You might as well say that Italians are the collective body of mankind as that you Romanists are the collective body of the Catholick Church Remember Jeroms smart admonitioÌ„ In Aepistola ad Evagrium Orbis major est urbe Only this I adde that though the Catholick Church be exempted from error in Fundamentals in every age yet the Church in all ages is not blest with Equal purity and splendor For in some ages the Integrals may be much more vitiated then in others Yea some particular Churches may erre in Fundamentals and so cease to be True Churches and many of these who were eminent Lights in the Church may be smitten with these Fundamental errors and the sincere Professors of the truth may be reduced to a great Paucitie and through persecution be scattered into corners as in the dayes of Athanasius Quando totus orbis miratus est se factum Arianum Lest therefore you cavil further at the restricting of my argument to these First three Centuries you may remember the first occasion of it which was this as you will find in my Fourth Paper I was speaking of the Ancient Apologists in the first Three Centuries who pleaded the truth of the Christian Religion against Heathens And I appealed both to Their grounds and their Religion in these dayes that it might be tryed whether our Religion were not agreeable to theirs in all Essentials and whether the solid grounds which they brought for the truth of the Christian Religion did not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS This I say was the occasion of limiting the argument to these ages though it might have been extended further Yea and as then we told was extended further by Bishop Juel and Crakanthorp even to the Sixth Centurie so also is it by learned Whitaker Contra rarionem quintam Campiani Nay others have extended it to all ages Nor need you carp at the limiting of the argument to the first Three Centuries For the faith of the Catholick Church in these Three ages was the faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages For there is but one Faith and therefore if it be proven that our Religion was the Religion of these ages it doth consequently follow that it was the faith of the Catholick Church in all ages So that this is the most compendious way to try whether a Religion be the faith of the Church in all ages by ascending to the fountain I mean to these first three centuries concerning which there is least doubt made by any Party and which was lesse viriated by superstition or errors in integrals then was the Church in some after times I come now to your second Evasion wherein you pretend That conformity with the Ancient Church is at least no distinct ground from conformity with the Scriptures seeing the truth of the faith of the Ancient Church can onely be proven by its conformity with the Scripturs But the vanity of this subterfuge doth easily appeare For First whether it be a Distinct ground or not yet if it be a Real ground why decline you to be tryed thereby You must surely have an ill conscience and know your wares to be sophisticat that they cannot abide the light Secondly If these grounds be not distinct how doth your Melehior Canus In his booke of commone places distinguish them giveing the first place to the Seripturs of which he treats Lib. 2. only the Sixth to Ancient fathers of whome he discourseth Lib. 7 Or how doth Bellarmin and other your Controversists ordinarly distinguish their argumeÌ„â—s founded on Scripture from the arguments founded upon Antiquity But Thirdly wholly to remove this cavil I grant that the truth of Religion in any former age may be proven from its conformity with the Scriptures and therefore that conformity with the holy Scriptures is the onely Primarie ground of discerning a True Religion from a false whereupon I did put it in the first place Yet we may abstract Pro hîc nune from this way of procedour and argue from the faith of the Church in some ages without proceeding at the time to examine the truth of every point by the Scripture And the rather seeing in Scripture there are general promises of the perpetuity of the Church and consequently of preserving in her all fundamental truths If therefore we can have evidence that this was the faith of the Catholick Church I meane of the whole collective in any age then I may conclude this is the true faith and the True Religion and consequently what is agreeable thereto must also be the True Religion for nothing can be consonant to truth but truth From this it appeares that sisting in the Religion of the Catholick Church in the Second and Third Centurie as a Principle upon the general promise of the Churches perpetuity without a further progresse for the time to examine the truth of every particular it may become in some manner a Distinct ground of argueing from that according to which every point is severally reduced to Scripture-tryal Even as in Subalternas sciences the Conclusions of the Subalternant science are made use of as Principles without making a further progresse The Astronomer takes the Geometricians Conclusion as a Priuciple not seeking a Demonstration thereof So may the Divine in some cases take the faith of the
is the genuine sense of Scripture but onely the authority of the speaker Surely then nothing spoken by you or your fellow Jesuits and Friers can be received as a Divine truth for you pretend no Infallibility Nay your fallacies are become so notorious to the World that it hath past into a proverb A Fryar a liar But perhaps you meane your Popes or Councils by your Propounders Yet besides that your people doe not hear them immediatly and their sentences may be vitiated in the conveyances by the hands of fallible persons besides this I say must not your Popes and Councils have a reason that moved them to own rather this sense of Scripture then the opposite Or else they must be perfect Enthusiasts If they have a reasone why may not the same reasone that moved them move the people also when it is sufficiently proposed to them Let the indifferent Reader now observe to what fluctuating uncertaintes you expose your hearers wheÌ„ you say that their faith must be resolved upon the authority of the Speaker whether you meane Pope or Council or both for I suppose you cannot determinatly tell which of the three Now how many things are here to be cleared before the faith of the poor people can be at a stand As First that these whome you call Popes are true Popes and successours to Peter and your Councils true and legitimat General Councils Secondly that these Popes and Councils have an Infallible authority Thirdly That this which you give out is the true and genuine sense of the Popes or Councils All which while the World stands you will never be able solidly to prove And I doe appeale you if you can to doe it But I must here reveal another prodigious Mysterie of your Romanists Namely that what ever is proposed not onely by your Popes and Councils but also by your inferiour Clergie-Men though by your own Confession Fallible yet the poor People who cannot examine by themselves the truth or falshood of what is proposed ought not onely to beleeve upon the authority of the said Fallible Clergie-Men but also Doe merit by beleeving though the thing beleeved be Erronious and Heretical Hear this from your Great Casuist Cardinal Talet Lib. 4. De Instruct. Saterd cap. 3. Si rusticus sayeth he circa articulos credat suo Episcopo proponenti aliquod dogma haereticum meretur in credendo lieet sit error quia tenetur credere donce si constet esse contra Ecclesiam I will english it If a country man sayeth he beleeve his Bishop propounding some heretical doctrine about the articles he meriteth by beleeving though it be an error because he is bound to beleeve until it manifestly appeare that it is against the Church What a damnable Religion must this be according to which men merit Heaven by beleeving lies If this doctrine of Cardinal Tolet be true that people are bound to beleeve your Fallible Clergie-Men even speaking lies and may Merit thereby How dare you conclude that our Faith to unquestionable Divine truths is no Supernatural faith because our Preachers doe not arrogat an Infallibility to themselves Is it better for a Romanist to beleeve a lie then for a PROTESTANT to beleeve a Divine truth Think you still to abuse the World with such prodigious impostures As for your ludicrous Example of an Old Wife We bless God there are old Wiwes young Boyes and Girles amongst us who could instruct all old deceiver like you in the true grounds of ReligioÌ„ Did not Priscilla a poor Wife instruct Apolles in the mysteries of Christianity of whose Infallibility Apollos had no previous assurance Yet from the Scripture she convinced him Act. 18.26 So that from this your Example though brought in by you only as a foolish jeer all that you have said may be redargued If there may be a ground to assent to divine truths proposed by a Poor Wife such as Priscilla of whose Infallibility there is no previous assurance then it is a falshood which you affirme that the Faith of divine truths must only be founded upoÌ„ the Authority of the Speaker But the first appears to be true from the Case of Priscilla and Apolles A poor Priscilla may hold forth convincing and luculent grounds of what she asserts from the Scripture when a Priest A Iesuit a Cardinal a Pope an Annas or Cajaphas may obtrude on the consciences of others erronioâ—s and groundles fancyes To this purpose I might produce many testimonies from your own most famous Writers as of Gerson Panermitan c. But I shall at the time content my self with one from Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus De Ordine credendi Theor 16. Which though I have at the second hand the author not being by me yet have I it from so many good Writers that I doubt not of the truth of it Quin imo sayeth he simplici potius rustice infanti anicula quam Pontifiti Maxime mille Episcopis credenduÌ„ si contra Evangetium isti illi pro Erangelio verba facereut I Have been more copious in this Reply then your Scurvy Paper did deserve yet if in this I have superogated it is without the least tincture of Poperie You but play the fool in upbraiding me with boasting or gloriation upon the account of the frequent losses which you are left at For I reckon it no point of honour either to deale with or to vanquish such an insignificant persons as hitherto you have discovered your self by your Papers I have rather so far endeavoured to deny my self as to be at the paines to give a check to an arrogant but an emptie Caviller against the truth But because Cepious Answers doe oppresse your dry and steril braine therefore I have subjoined a Succinct answere confuting all your Seven Papers in two words And if you find not your self comperent to answere this Long Paper in all the particulars thereof without your usual Tergiversations you may deale with this Succinct One. In the meane time let this suffice Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT A Short Answere in two words to all Master Dempster the Iesuit alias Rind or Logan his seven Papers Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene October 31. 1666. Iohn Menzeis The Reason why the returne of this Paper hath been so long delayed it because how soone I read your Seventh Paper I found that it ranne upon the old trifling straine and therefore I threw it by me for sundry weeks For it was likesome to me to be still examining your Titivilitia and scurvie Tautologies Now therefore either come to the point and answere Categeries without your tergiversations or else get you gone for ever The Jesuits eight Paper Reply to a seventh Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein is showen that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginary and groundles conformitie 6. November 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS untill November 9. 1666. YOUR Seventh Paper
justifie your proceeding in that Conserence which we had be mouth since you should remit all that thing to the judgement of these illustrious persons that were then present and let them judge whether you did feebly and cowaraly act your part and seeme to compeare there onely to game time Likewise in what school did you learne this civil title wherewith you honor me calling me a Neat-herd rather nor a Disputant that I am a man of â— brâ—sen face and a leaden heart that I am both shamelesse and as â—lesse that I am a Lazie drone c But this proceeds because my Popers which you verballie vilisie calling them Pasquills and not w.r. â—ie to be answered yet you sind they gall you and seeing your self not sâ—â—ffâ—â—ent with reputation to answere to supply this desiciency you seek help from the desusion of Bile that it may subministrat to you such uâ—comely and ume sonable words But let us come to the matter it self In my first Paper and in all others since there was nothing urged upâ—r you but onely that since you 〈◊〉 gerinrailing against Catholick Religion you would produce sâ—â—â—e ground to show the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion and whereby it may be distinguished from a false Religion that be this means you might bath confirme PROTESTANTS in their Religion and â—ime others to embrace the same But hitherto in so many Papers all that can be extorted out of you is that your PROTESTANT Religion is proven to be a true Religion be this Medium because it is grounded upon the word of GOD and conforme to the true serse of the letter of Scripture a reason indeed most solid and convincent if it were true But this pretended conformity of PROTESTANT Religion with Scripture was showen this way to you to be a meer imaginar and groundlesse conformity because as it is impossible a thing to be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed to be a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense except it be first showen and proven that there is a true sense Ergo you cannot prove your Religion to be true because it is conforme to the true serse of the letter of Scripture except first you bring some pregnant reason whereby the understandings of men may be convinced that you have upon your side the true sense of the letter of Scripture Now since all dependes upon this one point you were desired to apply your self wholly to satisfie this onely and to doe in a substantious and school way laying aside for a whyle your diffuse railing Pulpit way But let us now examine the noble answeres that you give in this your last Paper The first answere is not direct but rather a declining of the difficulty under pretext that it makes a Non-sese to say That before a Religion can be showen or proven to be true it must first be proven that there is the true seate of the letter of Scripture upon their part who professes such a Religion because the true sense of the letter of Scripture and the truth of Religion are one and the self same thing and so â—â— would follow that a thing were proven before it were proven which is a grosse Non-sense But this subtility in the which you seeme to take some complesance and put great force serves onely to discover grosse Ignorance For First he this you show your self altogether ignorant of the nature of Formal Praecisions who have uâ—rtue where they interveen to make asâ—â—fficient distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleâ—me None you show your self Ignorant of the 〈…〉 be no Objective difference betwixt true Religion and the truths contained under the letter of Scripture But thir two are seperabâ—â— Since all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be and yet not componit any Religion at all to wit if there be no obligation imposed upon us to beleeve them or if GOD had not decreed it nor made the faith and beleef of these things necessar to obtaine our Salvation Lastly giving not granting that this your speculation had some soliditie yet it cannot serve to better your cause since all this just as it lyes may be wuh as great reason assumed be a falfe Religion for a scouge and refuge of their ignorance when they are pressed to assigne some ground wherely it may appeare that they have the true sense of the letter of Scripture upon their side or bring some disparity betwixt you and them Your second answere to prove that the true sense of the letter of Scripture is upon your side is Because your sense is conforme to the sense of the Fathers that lived in the first three Centuries But first in this you resile from your foundator Calvin who as you know disclaimes the Fathers in many things taxing them of errors and hitherto your other reformers harped alwayes upon this string that all doctrines even of the Fathers should be examined be the sell Scripture as the onely rule admitting no wise the doctrine of the Fathers themselves but in so far as they did agree with Scripture But now since you invert altogether this order you give occasion to suspect that you are hatching Some new Religion of your own leaving their principles Againe this conformtiy cannot serve your purpose except first you show that the Fathers of the first three Centuries did in the bookes that are now extant teach all points that are necessar to Salvation And this must be proven either be some tectin ony drawne either out of Scripture or out of themselves or else we will have nothing for this but onely your bare saying In the closing of your Paper beside your ordinary braging whereby you doe over value all your own things and undervalue all things brought against you you play the Prophet in Ryme Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acts Corruet mandi desinet esse caput Bo sie yat yis your prophesie be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris prophesie who when he lept out of the churche did brage that with tuo yeiris Preaching he would abolische and eliminat all Poperie out of the world sa yat efteryir tua yeiris yair wold be no moir in the world nather Pop nor Cardinalis nor Monkis nor Nunnes nor Mase nor Belis c. This Paper was not delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS many dayes after it was dated but to excuse this the following Postscript was subjoined to the Paper with an other hand POSTSCRIPT Tho this Paper came from the author the day efter it was dated it could not be sent sooner to Master IOHN MENZEIS in regard the Person to whom it was adressed was not in Towne Master IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Jesuits ninth Paper Some Reflections upon Master Dempster the Iesuit his ninth Paper wherein he scarce touches what hath been Replyed to him and yet foolishly imagines that he hath confuted the conformity of the Religion
our Reformed Divines have often offered to disput against you Romanists the controversies of Religion out of the Fathers Did I not show you this before from Juel Whitaker and Crakanthorp And how often doth learned Calvine in his Institutions confute you Romanists from Antiquity as your transubstantiation Lib. 4. cap. 17. § 14. Your Communion under one kinde Ibid. § 47. 48. 49. 50. The necessity of Auricular confession Lib. 3. cap. 4. § 7. Your Papal Indulgences Lib. 3. cap. 5. § 3. 4. The Popes supreamacie over the whole Catholick Church Lib. 4. cap. 7. § 3. 4. 5. c. Yea and not to insist in reckoning out particulars when he is treating of Councils and their authoritie Lib. 4. cap. 9. § 1. Veneror Councilia sayeth he ex animo suoque in honore apud omnes esse cupio and a little after Sicuti ad plenam doctrinae nostrae approbationem totius Papismi eversionem abunde verbo DEI instructi sumus ut nihil praeterea requirere magnopere opus sit ita si res flagitet magna ex parte quod satis sit ad utrumque vetera Concilia nobis subministrant where Judicious Calvine affirmes that out of Ancient Councils both the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be confirmed the Papal superstition confuted From all this may it not appeare how ludibriously you say that I seeme to be hatching a New Religion of my own Am I not offering to defend the received Religion of PROTESTANTS and to have the truth thereof tryed By its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Primitive Church Is the Ancient Religion a New Religion Is the Religion both of Ancients and PROTESTANTS a Religion peculiar to me Will you not blush that such foolish Non-sense should have droped from you But you have another trifling Shift Before say you That conformity with the faith of the Ancient hurch in the first three Centuries be admitted as a Test by which the truth of Religion may be discerned it ought to be proven that all the necessaries of the Christian Religion are contained in their writings which are now extant But First may it not with better reason be resorted on you that before you had rejected it from being a Test you ought first to have proven that there were some necessaries and essentials of the Christian Religion no where to be found in any of the writings of these three ages If any be wanting produce them and your evidence of their absolute necessity If you can produce no necessarie article that is wanting why decline you the tryal But the truth is you Romanists mantaine such a desperat cause that if either Scripture or Antiquity be Umpyre you must surely be condemned There is no way to get a favourable Interloquitur for you but by setting up your Infallible Propounders that is your own selves to be Supreame judges to the whole World If such a Religion be not to be suspected let the World judge But Secondly doe not you Romanists boast bigly sometimes of Universal traditions And here by the way I tel you I shall never declyne to have all the Essentials of Religion tryed by the famous rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis in Commonitorio primo contra Haereses cap. 3. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus est creditum But if any of the necessaries or essentials of Christianity are not to be found in the writings of the Three first Centuries how shall we have a Perpetual and universal tradition for these seeing the current is supposed to be broken off at the fountain for three hundred yeares thereafter Must we take the voice of your Present Church as an Oracle to tell us what was beleeved by the Church so many ages agoe though there be no record left that such a thing was ever beleeved We must examine her Credentials before we become so implicite to her in matters of Fact But Thirdly If any of the Necessaries of Christian Religion be altogether wanting in the writings of Ancients of these ages how did your Gualterius the Jesuit undertake to prove the truth of your Religion by the testimonies of the Church in all ages It is true he was most unhappie in his undertaking in so much that Chillingworth in his Defence of Doctor Potter part 1. cap. 2. § 119. affirmes that he heard an able man of your Religion say That Gualterius had not produced one pertinet testimony in the first three Centuries The like may be said of Ioannes Andreas Coppenstenius a Predicant in his Historical supplement to Bellarmine who undertakes the like but with as little successe Yet doe not such undertakings suppose that all necessary and essential truths of Religion may be found in the writings of these times Sed laterem lavo I doe but lose my travell what wonder to see a Thief declyne the Court and jurie He knowes upon tryal he must be condemned I have pressed you to come to be examined either by Scripture or Antiquity or both or to produce any other solid way of discerning a true Religion from a false but you declyne all Have I not just cause therefore to discharge finally with such a babling Lucifuga After I had signed my last Paper that known Distich dropped from my pen in a Postscript Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta Corruct mundi desinet esse caput At this you behoved to have a fling though you scarce said any thing to the controversall points of the Paper Bot sie say you yat yis your Prophesie be not lyk your Patriarche Lutheris Prophesie who when he lept out of the Churche did brage yat with tue yeiris Preaching he wold abolische and eliminat all Poprie out of the world sa yat ester yir tua yeiris yair wold be no mor in the world nather Pop nor Cardinalis nor Monkis nor Nunnes nor Mase nor Belis c. I have set down your own words with your own spelling that the Reader may discerne what a Famous Clerke you are But here I must Querie you in a few particulars and First how call you this my Prophesie Are they not the lines of a Germane Prince Were they not sent to Pope Gregorie the ninth by Frederick the second the Emperour who felt the heavie hand of your usurping Popes as other Princes have done Secondly how cal you Luther our Patriarch We indeed honor Luther and Calvine as precious servants of GOD. But we make neither of them Pope or Patriarch or Master of Sentences Non sumus jurati in verba Magistri Our faith is pinned to no mans slieve Though you be implicit Slaves to the Pope yet we to no man Thirdly what Church I pray you doe you mean when you say that Luther did leape out of the Church Is it the Catholick or universal Church But when I pray you did the Roman Church become the Catholick a part become the whole Are not the Grecian Russian abyssine c Churches parts of the Catholick
to these ages as not to goe further After we have gotten the verdict of the First three Centuries I shall not then declyne to trace you successively through all succeeding ages to this day And I am confident upon a through discusse it will appeare that Your present Romish Faith as to all its Essentials was never the faith of the Catholick Church in anie age let be in All. And upon the conttarie neither you nor any of your Adherents shall be able to prove that our Religion differs in Its Essentials from the faith of the Catholick Church in anie age Now in such an enquiry can we fall upon a more convenient Method then to beginne at the fountain I meane at the most pure Ancient and according to Egesippus Elogie Virgin Church in the First three Centuries If our ReligioÌ„ be found conforme thereto in all Its Essentials as I am coÌ„fident it shall then sure it is conforme to the True Catholick Religion in all ages If yours be found dissonant thereto as I doubt not but it will then sure it is dissonant to the Christian Religion in all ages For there is but one faith Eph. 4.5 and one True Religion But Secondly you have the boldnesse to upbraid me with Two contradictions Only before I propose them I must minde you that neither of these pretended Contradictions are in my Ninth Paper to which you now answere So glad it seemes you have been of any thing to fill up the roome wherein you should have answered that Ninth Paper If my Former Papers were guilty of these ContrÌ„adictions were you not very obtuse who did not discover them more timely Yet let the unpartiall Reader judge of these Contradictions The first alledged contradiction is That upon the one hand I should have affirmed Religion to be a complex of many truths which are to be severally tryed as the severall pieces of gold in a purse and that I would descend to the severall particulars yea and that all points necessary to salvation were contained perspicuously in Scripture Yet when you called me to give a list of all these particular points then I disclaimed my former example of a purse and alledged that I was not obliged to descend to particulars I see now I was in no mistake when I said that you walked by that Machiavillian principle Calumniare audacter c. Resume all my Papers and see if ever I refused to descend to a tryall of any particular Controversie betwixt you and us Yea have I not all this time been pressing you to this and you dared not to peep out of your lurking holes Have I not passed through many of the Controversies in particular to which you have not adventured to make any Reply Produce the page or leafe in any of my Papers where ever I disclaimed that forementioned example Of trying the severall peices of gold by the touch stone yea or one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that once I gave you under my hand But I shall ingenuoussy tell the truth of that which you so deceitfully misrepresent and when I have done contradict me if you can I said indeed That Religion is a complen of many truths and to prove them all as matters are now stated bemint us and you Remanists were to write a body of controversies But yet that I should never decline to examine any of those with you And I have further said that all the necessarie points af Christian Religion were contained perspicuously in the Scriptures But when you in stead of comeing to a discusse of parâ—â—cular points only started that old threed bare Cavill Concerning a precise catalogue of necessarie points I shew That it was but a meer tergiversing shift in you and demonstrated by many reasons which you was never able to answere That there was no necessitie lying upon me in order to the decision of the maine controversie at present betwixt us to determine a precise Catalogue of necessarie truths You may call in for your assistance the rest of your Society and try if you can find a reall Contradiction in all this Indeed if I had promised to give you a Catalogue of points necessarie to Salvation and hereafter had refused to give it oâ— if since I declared a readiness to debate with you any point in Controversie betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome I had declined to performe my promise you might have accused me of Inconsistencie with my self Or if haveing â—ffiâ—med that all things necessarie to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture I had denyed any article of faith necessarie to Salvation to be contained clearly in Scripture you might have charged me with a Contradiction But you and your Associats may canvase what I have said againe and againe and try if you can find either a Contradiction or that I have declyned any thing that is necessarie for the decision of the present Controve sie Cannot all the points in Controversie betwixt the Reformed Churches and Pomanists be particularly examined without Desyning a precise catalogue of truths simplie necessarie to Salvation Have I ever said that everie one of your Romish errors is Fundamentall Or that no points of truth are clearly revealed in Scripture but only Fundamentals or such the explicite belief whereof is absolutly necessarie to Salvation Nay I tell you that on maine reason why I did and doe forebear for the time to pitch upon such a Catalogue was because I stand now to justify the Religion of PROTESTANTS against your Cavills But the Reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions have not so farre as I have observed determined that Precise Catalogue of necessaries So that in pirching upon such a Catalogue at the time I should leave my worke to follow a tergiversing vagrant Yea some of our Divines particularly acuâ—e Chillingworth in his booke entituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation part 1. cap 3 § 13. Affirmes that more may be necessarie to the Salration of some then of others And therefore to call for a precise catalogue of points necessarie to the Salvation of every one were as if one should call for a Dyall to serve all Meridians or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her Changes You may likewise remember that I shew in my Sixth and Seventh Papers that Romanists are no lesse concerned to give a Catalogue of necessaries nor exposed to fewer difficulties in doing it then we and that in this matter your Authors have been often Non-plussed by PROTESTANT Divines For you have made points Necessarie which the Ancient and Catholick Church never held as Necessarie And so have separated your selves from the Catholick Church of IESUS CHRIST But to let you see that I am still ready to performe what ever I undertooke pitch you upon any point controverted betwixt the Reformed churches and You whether belonging to the Essentials or Integrals of Religion that is whether simply necessarie to Salvation or not and you shall find that I
they were not faithful in Circumstances we had cause to jealous them much more in Substances This passing I publickly declared before all present that I had received from such a Gentle-Man two Challenges One as if I had charged upon Popish Doctors eoncerning Repentance that which they doe not mantaine The Other to debate the Controversies of Religion with this person who appeared as Champion for the Romish interest Which my Reverend Colegue and I were ready to doe not against him only but against the whole Conclave of Rome if there present As to the first I repeated to the Iesuit what I had charged upon many of the chief Doctors of the Present Romish Church concerning the Doctrine of Repentance viz that they mantaine That when a man hath sinned haynously he is not bound to repent presently And required him as one whom I presumed to be acquaint with their writings to declare whether it was so or not And if he would deny it I offered instantly to prove it against him The Iesuit answered he came not either to answere Questions or Objections against the Romish Religion but only to impugne the PROTESTANT Religion It was Replyed to him we were not affrayed of his Impugnations but matters behoved to be managed orderly The Religion which we professe being not only the Truth of GOD but also established by the Law of the Land We could not betray our Trust by suffering it only or in the first place to be impugned But he should have all which in Reason or Iustice could be desired Let him answere us either two or six Arguments against Poperie we should answere as many propounded by him against the Religion of PROTESTANTS And this previous question concerning Repentance being of a matter of fact might soon be at an end So as not to impede the General discuss of the Truth of Religion But the Iesuit peremptorly insisted upon his Declinatur That he would answere nothing neither Question nor Argument but only impugne Here it pleased a Grave Iudicious Person who lately before had born Principal Charge in the Magistracie of this Town G. G. P. whom we found in the Lodging with others at our coming to interpose himself thus I am a PROTESTANT said he nor have I any scruple concerning my Religion yet I could willingly hear the controversies of Religion fairly debated But I cannot be witnesse to have the PROTESTANT Religion only called in question or in the first place But it seemes a most just and reasonable proposal which is made that so many objections be first moved against the Popish Religion and then as many against the Religion of PROTESTANTS This the Iesuit pertinaciously declyned stil affirming that he would only impugne Whereupon our PROTESTANT Friends thought it was fittest for us to be gone And indeed we were once at the door removing untill these of his own Party being ashamed of his tergiversing perswaded him at length by their importunity first to be Respondent We returning and the Iesuit shunning to debate with my Reverend and Learned Colegue Master GEORGE MELDRUM who had offered to impugne him the Iesuit was againe desired First to Answere to the Question of fact concerning the Doctrine of Repentance and then Arguments of more general concernment should be propounded But he refuseing to answere to that question unlesse it were framed into an Argument against their Religion I told that for gaining of time I would frame it into an Argument against their Religion though it would oblige Me to a more general accusation of their Church as to that particular then I had delivered in the Pulpit Yet to extort an Answere from him I would doe it hoping afterwards to have liberty granted to propound other Arguments against their Impious and Idolatrous Religion The Thesis which I undertooke to prove was That the Popish Religion is Impious My first Argument was framed after this manner The Religion which teacheth that when a man hath sinned haynously he is not bound to repent presently is Impious But the Popish Religion teacheth that when a man hath sinned haynously he is not bound to repent presently Ergo the Popish Religion is Impious After that this Argument was several times repeated to the Iesuit he denyed the Major Whereupon I tooke Witnesse of all that were present but especially of the Gentle-Man who had sent the challenge to Me that the Iesuit had admitted the Minor viz. That the Popish Religion teacheth that when a man hath sinned haynously he is not bound to repent presently Which was the only thing which I intended to have cleared by this Argument and was more then I had affirmed in Pulpit of that particular And that he only denyed the Major that it is an Impiety to teach so Then I would have been at the propounding of a new Argument Had not he and that Party as seemes to drive of time and to keep Me from propounding other Arguments against their Religion by their clamorous outcrying cōstrained me to insist on that which I never intended namely The confirmation of the Major which of it self might seem evident enough to any who had any sense of Godlynesse It would be too tedious in this Epistolar discourse to rehearse to your HONOURS all that was said in Confirmation of that Major Only I shall briefly relate to you the Result of it The Iesuit in end was reduced to say That when a mans Soul or Body or his Neighbours Soul are in extreme danger he is not bound presently to take care of any of them Which whether it savour of Atheism intelligent Christians may judge Yea some of the Hearers who were not called by us speaking of that busines could make no better Apology for the Romish interest then to say That the Iesuit behaved himself like one who resolved to betray the Romish Cause Then I propounded another Argument which indeed was the first that I designed against their Religion the former being only occasionally put into a Syllogistick frame to extort an answere from him in reference to the Matter of Fact whereof I had been challenged after this manner The Religion which destroyeth all certainty of Faith is Impious But the Popish Religion destroyeth all certainty of Faith Ergo the Popish Religion is Impious Though the Iesuit would make no Answere at all to this Argument yet I proposed a Confirmation of the Assumption which was the only proposition which he could deny from the Tridentin and Florentin Canons which make the efficacy of all Sacraments to depend upon the intention of the Priests who officiat From which it followeth that seeing they cannot have Certainty of Faith concerning the Priests intention all certainty of Faith must be overturned in their Religion They cannot certainly know who is Pope Bishop or Priest Ordination with them being a Sacrament or who is Baptised and consequently they cannot know who is capable to be a Constituent member of a Council or to celebrat the Eucharist and so they
found in it Yet what scurrilous and dung-hil eloquence the Iesuit useth in his next Paper vvithout any provocatioÌ„ is obvious to any Reader But next I appeale to all rationall Persons vvho shall peruse these Papers vvhether he gives not just cause for smart Language by his nauseating Repetitions shameful Preteritions and impudent Calumnies for vvhat I knovv vvithout a parrallel In so much that sometimes he vvould inscribe his Papers vvith a splendid Calumny affirming that I had disovvned all vvhich I had said before So he did in his sixth Paper When these his Papers were disseminated among the Popish Proselyts without my Answeres who tooke all the Iesuits bold Assertions for Oracles and were ready thereupon to clamour through the Country would not such dealing have moved the Choler of a Person of ordinary Meeknesse It was the saying of a great Iurist Non irasci ob eas causas I ob quas irasci oporteat stultoruâ—â— est Yea Aristotle affirmes it to be an Act of meeknesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch was not afraid to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet if either Master Dempster or any for him will hereafter prosecut this Debate in a Rationall and Civill way they may be assured of as Courteous and Civil Entertainment as they shall give But leaving these things I have made bold to superscribe your HONOURS NAMES to these Papers Your known Affection to the True Reformed RELIGION and your zeale for promoting the wel-fare of this Famoâ—â— CITY the Happynesse whereof is more wrapt up in the Interest of Religion then in any Earthly concerne suffer me not once to doubt of your Willingnesse to undertake the Patrociny of the Truths herein asserted The Obligations are so many and so great which ly upon me from this CITY and from the MAGISTRATS and COUNCIL'L thereof especially these twenty and one yeares last bygone wherein I have been through Mercy officiating though weakly in the publick Ministry of the Gospel among you beside the Personall respects which I owe to your selves who at present doe possess the Chair that you may justly challenge a Proprietie in all my performances It is therefore become a Probleme with me whether this poor Present which I humbly tender to you ought not more properly to be termed the Payment of a just Debt then a SYMBOL of GRATITUD But under whatsoever notion you shall be pleased to accept of it I shall surely be the more deeply addebted to you I adde no more only the GOD of all Grace and Truth rebuke a Spirit of Errour Prophanesse and Idolatry which hath Alas fermented too too many in this Place That this City may become a City of Righteousnes a Faithful City wherein Mercy and Truth may meet together Righteousnes and Peace may kisse each other and the Cognizance thereof may be IEHOVAH SH AMM AH The LORD is there I conclude with that Apostolical supplication in behalf of you our Governours The very GOD of Peace sanctifie you wholly I pray GOD your whole Spirit Soul and Boâ—â—â—e preserved blamelesse unto the comming of our LORD IESVS CHRIST So prayeth he who is YOVR HONOVRS In all humble observance Iohn Menzeis To the Impartial READER BEside the historical account of this affair given in the Dedication I have yet some few things whereof to advertise thee Know therefore that necessity and not choyse did put â—e upon this whole undertaking I was provoked by solemne challenges first to a vocal debate then to exchange of Papers and lastly by insolent clamours to the publishing of all I believe no discreet Person will ascribe this appearance in Print to vanity For I acknowledge the debate is inglorious the Papers which I had to examine being so very insignificant I may indeed be blamed for wasting Oyle and Paines to confute such tristes But Mr. Dempster and what dropped from his mouth or pen how frivolous so ever were so admired I had almost said adored by our Romish Apostats that had I not answered him and published both his Papers and mine I should have been judged by many as wanting in duty to the PROTESTANT Interest Who in such an exigence would not rather submit to have his labour censured as unnecessary then to be deemed unfaithful to the Truth T 's true on whose worke had been only to state Controversies and to argue pro and con might have said more in a very few sheets for the satisfaction of an ingenuous lover of truth then is said in all these Papers But I have been constrained to follow the anomalous motion of a tautologizing Iesuits Who could never be induced to speake to any particular Controversie Sundry times I stated Controversies and hinted at impugnations of Romish Doctrines but could prosecute nothing unlesse I would fight with my own shadow for the Adversary had not the confidence to speake to any particular And besides these Papers were not at first designed for the presse but as privat missives to give a check to a petulant Caviller Many things may passe in privat missives which are hardly tolerable in tractats designed at the first contrivance for publick use So true is that saying Aliud est uni scribere aliud omnibus More of my worke stood in discovering the prevarications of the Iesuit then in canvasing his Arguments This readily will not have so savoury a rellish with thee yet I hope it will be judged excusable in me when the circumstantiated case wherein I stood is considered However to compense this losse I intended by way of an Appendix to have added some Arguments against the Popish Religion As First from its direct Contrariety to cleare Scriptures in many weighty points 2. From its Novelty and Dissonancy from the faith of the Ancient Church notwithstanding the vain and deceitful pretences of Romanists to Antiquity 3. From the manifold and grosse Idolatry established thereby 4. From its Contrariety to Catholick Vnity and the Schismatical constitution of the present Romish Church though Romanists have the confidence to glory as if they were the only Catholicks 5. From the Impious reproaches which Romanists and the Present Romish Religion doe throw upon the Holy Scriptures 6. Because the Popish Religion is greatly injurious to the Satisfaction and Merits of our Blessed REDEEMER the LORD IESVS CHRIST 7. Because Poperie overturnes all certainty of divine faith or rather to use the expression of learned Mr. Pool who hath given a blow at the root of the Romish Church because of the Nullitie of divine faith in the Romish Religion 8. Because many of the Principles of Popery have a manifest tendency to practical ungodlynesse and particularly Iesuits who are as it were the soul of the present Court and Church of Rome and the chief Emissaries for promoting the Romish Interest doe mantain principles opposit to sound Christianity and Mordlity Yea there is scarce one Command in the Decalogue whereof grosse and impious â—olations are not justifyed by these Men I whereof a considerable account is
then apologize for me One Objection must needs be removed It may be asked how I doe charge the Iesuit as declyning to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity seeing he profers at lest to have one Controversie examined by Scripture Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments But let any rational person though a Romanist if he can but dispossesse his own mind of prejudice cognosce whether my Charge be just How disingenuous the Iesuit was in that seeming profer concerning the number of Sacraments is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered And 1. When did the Iesuit make this profer Only in his tenth or last paper imeÌ„diatly before his getting out of the nation Why did he it not sooner especially seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before and he had been frequently appealed to a discusse of particular Controversies Did he not in former papers positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity By Scripture because as he affirmes paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture By Antiquity also because sayeth the Iesuit paper 5. page 61 This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion Yea doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries in his 9. paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming profer at such a time after so many declinaturs ingenuous Romanists may judge But secondly Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures Transubstantiation Adoration of Images Communion under one kinde Papal indulgences Apocrypha bookes the Popes Supremacie over the whole Catholick Church and his Jurisdiction over Princes Yea had it not been shewed as the breviry of missives would permit that the Church of Rome doth grosly erre in all these Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these Let Romanists therefore againe judge whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity to prove the present Romish Religion erronious in all the foresaid particulars and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments doeth shew a through willingnesse to have the Truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity Thirdly If there he any Controversie tossed betwixt Rom mists and us where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies is not this it which the Iesuit hath pitched upon coÌ„cerning the number of Sacraments Must it not be acknowledged on all hands that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense a man may affirme that ther be more or fewer Sacraments But of this you may see more at length in the Aâ—swere to the Jesuits tenth paper page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural tryal who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies and only betaks himself to this wherein the Adversarie may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies But fourthly Doth the Jesuit really profer to have that on Controversie concerning the number of Sacraments betwixt Papists and us decyded by Scripture Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor fewer which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church Nor at all What then Only that he might seeme to say something he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments or that there be no more then two which is in very deed to require me to prove the Negative while he himself declynes to prove the Affirmative viz. That there is not only more then two but compleatly seven Though the Iesuits demand be irrational I hope I have satisfied it in its own proper place But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us concerning the number of Sacraments were not decyded except it be proven that there be precisely seven neither more nor fewer If there be not a precise septenary one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground Consequently the Iesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural tryal untill he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments which as yet he hath not done nor I believe will adventure to doe He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here But neither I suppose will these serve his turne But Fifthly what are all these ensuing papers but a demonstration of the Iesuits tergiversing humor In his first paper he proposed foure postulata like so many Oracles I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogisme but could never thereafter adventure on a second which was retorted in better forme against the Popish Religion more wayes then one but these Retortions to this houre remaine unexamined I denyed the Assumption of that long studied Syllogisme but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof In that Assumption the Iesuit had said that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture To repell that bold allegeance I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture which either the True Christian Religion hath or that the Popish Religion can pretend to which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants But he could never be moved to produce any Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders or to answere Arguments against their Infallibility At length being outwearied with his tergiversing I produced positive Grounds for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures and the disconformity of theirs viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and Conformitie with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries Hereupon he positively declyned both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries as a test to find out the Truth of Religion Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any viz Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine and the sense which Romanists impose to
it or that the sense that is given to such a text of scripture were the true sense or the sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words Since then that all must agree in this conditionall proposition all the controversie must be reduced to this what partie purifies this conditionall that is to say what part hath more solide and stronger reasons that they have the assistance of the holy Ghost to give the true sense of the letter of the word of God 4. As it is impossible for one to prove himself an honest man except he can shew some distinction betwixt him and a knave and that there can be verified of him something which is not applicable nor can agree to a knave so it is as impossible for a religion to prove it self to be a true religion except it can assigne some distinction betwixt it and a false religion and that there can be verified something of it which cannot be verified nor applyed to a false religion Out of these premisses is deduced this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true religion which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God But the Protestant religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God Ergo it cannot be a true religion May it please the answerer of this syllogisme to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion or that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor cannot be assumed to prove a false religion to be a true religion or to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God as the ground and principle that one produces to prove that he is an honest man must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man or if he alleadge that the ground or principle whereof he serves himself is only misapplyed by a false religion then he is obliedged to assigne some good reason whereby he showes that it is well applyed by him and misapplyed by the other Likewise he is intreated to answere shortly to the point and lay aside all long homilies and excursions least by multiplying many words he incurre suspition that he seeks onely to obscure the matter that the weaker sort may not penetrat nor see through his weakness 20 Apryll 1666. Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits first paper An answere to a paper from an anonymous person of the Popish profession commonly supposed to be Master Francis Dempster alias Logan IT had been sufficient for me upon the first reading of your paper instantlie to have returned this or ely answere NIGO MINORIM I deny your minor For I found but a poor naked Syllogisme the assumption whereof is splendidlie false and ye have not so much as added the shaddow of a proofe to confirme it Neither can ye be exempted from being tyed to prove it because it is a Negative as shall afterwards appear Yet for the clearing of truth and also if it may please GOD for your conviction I have added these following animadversions 1. And first Ye lay down foure previous Propositions as so many oracles which might extort an assent from any Reader But you must give me leave to tell you how specious soever they seeme to you they want not their own flawes Take one instance from your third proposition wherein there is an egregious fallacie committed in your explication of that conditionall wherein ye suppose all parties to agree For it is one thing to know that the sense given to such a text of Scripture is the true sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words which is the condition at first mentioned by you and it is a quite other thing to know that he who gives the sense hath the assistance of the holy Ghost to give that true sense which ye hold out as the explication of the former This latter savors rankly of that erroneous Popish tenet concerning the necessitie of an infallible visible judge of controversies Now is it handsome under pretence of explayning a proposition wherein all agree to foyst in one of the maine points of difference as if that also were agreed upon could there be a greater cheat put upon a simple Reader 2. But secondly It had been of more use then all these your propositions to have laid down the Thesis which ye were to oppugne and to have explained the terms thereof Since therefore ye have omitted it it will be necessary for me to doe something to it least we seeme to fight Andabatarum more as Persons blindfolded The Thesis then which we defend and you oppugne is this The Protestants Religion is the True Religion Take these few hints of explication of the terms By True Religion We understand the true doctrine of salvation concerning God and the right way of serving and worshipping him By the Religion of Protestants we mean the Christian Religion contained in the holy Scripturs By Protestants these Christians who protest against and doe reject Popish-Errors and additions to Scripture truths So that Christianitie is our Religion and our Protestancie is not our Religion but our rejection of your Popish corruptions If then ye consider the importance of the Thesis which ye impugne ye will find that ye undertake a hard work nay an Infidells cause Namely that the Christian-Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures and held by these who are called PROTESTANTS because of their rejection of Popish-Errors is not the true Religion 3. Thirdly Because ye so oft make mention of some peculiar Grounds and Principles which the true Religion must have to prove it self to be the true Religion and which cannot be verified of a false Religion which ye illustrat by the similitude of an Honest-man and a Knave I desire that these two things may be noted in reference to this which may perhaps give some light to the whole matter And first these Grounds and Principles must be understood ex parte objecti on the part of the object not of the subject That is to say that the true Religion hath sufficient Grounds in it self to manifest it self to be the true Religion if it meet with a well disposed intellect For to use your own similitude an Honest-man may have Ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a Knave albeit a fool cannot discerne it So the true Religion may have Ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an Infidell or Heritick whose foolish minde is darkened Rom. 1.21 cannot take it up Secondly The prime peculiar difference of the true Religion from a false stands in its
conformitie to the will of GOD revealed in the Scriptures and this conformitie hath a sufficient intrinseck objective evidence in it self to any who have a well disposed understanding to collate and compare these two together to observe the exact correspondence betwixt the one and the other This likewise may be illustrated by your own example of Honestie and Knaverie An Honest-man being one whose actions are squared according to the Law what ever a Knave may pretend yet when both are compared to the Law the honest-Mans conversation is found to be that which the Law enjoineth not so the Knaves So that this honestie which is the conformitie of his actions to the Law hath an intrinseck objective evidence to demonstrat it self to any discerning Person who can compare the mans actions with the Law So it is in the present case Yet besides this intrinseck objective evidence which is in true Religion I doe not deny but there are many externall and accessorie Grounds which stronglie perswade its credibilitie Having thus paved my way I come to examine your Syllogisme which runes thus That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the PROTESTANT Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Answere 1. I might here first friendly advise you to take better heed hereafter to the forme of your Syllogismes For both your Premisses are Negative and ye know the Logick rule sayeth ex ntraque premissa negativa nihil sequitur But I shall endeavour to help this by improving your medium in a better forme and I hope also to better purpose against your self and your Romanists thus The true Religion hath a peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Popish religion hath no peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Popish Religion is not the true Religion Hade ye intended to satisfie the conscience of any Persone you would have held forth these peculiar grounds and characters of a true Religion which is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God and ye would at least have endeavoured to demonstrate that thes did exactly quadrat with your Romish Religion and not at all with the Religion of PROTESTANTS But as to this there is nothing but deep silence in your paper Before you make good your retreat from this Argument as thus inverted against your self ye may perhaps find that ye are taken in the ginne which ye designed for others Ans 2 But Secondly I wold try you with another Retersion thus If the true Religion have grounds and principles to prove its conformitie to the true sense of the letter of the Word then no article of Faith and Religion can be founded upon an unwritten Tradition But the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is clear from the Major of your Syllogisme The consequence of my Major is no lesse clear For it is impossible that an article founded meerly upon an unwritten Tradition should prove its conformitie with the letter of the written word of God else it should be written and not written Nor can ye handsomely resile by saying you did thus only argue ad hominem against PROTESTANTS For this your Syllogisme you deduce from your foure premised propositions which ye suppose ought to be agreed to by all Parties Now what thankes you are to expect for this manner of arguing from your late Pamphleters who doe so highly magnifie your unwritten Traditions ye your self may judge Ans 3. But Thirdly leaving Retorsions I Answer directly denying the Assumption viz. that the PROTESTANT Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Nay surely it hath that intrinseck objective evidence in its conformitie with the Scripturs to demonstrate it to be the true Religion of which I was speaking a little before which neither Poperie nor any other false Religion either hath or can have But now it lyes on you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption It seemed strange to me that this Proposition whereon the whole stresse of the Controversie didly was so nakedlie proposed by you without any proofe Onely it would appear because it is a Negative you would lay over upon me to prove the contrarie Are ye so soon wearie of the Opponents office who were so eager to have it Find you the burthen of impugning the Religion of Protestants so heavie that so soone ye shrink under it Are there no Negative Propositions proved in the Schools Doth not Philosophie teach us more Moods and Formes of Negative Syllogismes then of affirmatives Shall there be no way to oppugne an affirmative position but by turning the Respondent to an Opponent Yea let me put you in minde that though your assumption and conclusion be expressed Negativly yet upon the matter we doe rather mantaine the Negative and you the affirmative Which I thus make out If any consider our Religion and yours it will be found that in most of our Positives ye and we are agreed As that there is a GOD three Persons that Christ is both GOD and man c. But the difference is mostly in our Negatives As for instance Ye affirme the necessitie of a visible infallible judge of controversies we deny Ye affirme the necessitie of subjection to the Pope of Rome as head of the Catholick-Church we deny Ye affirme that there is a propper propitiatory sacrifice in the Masse we deny Ye affirme that the Apocrypha books are Canonick Scriptures we deny Ye affirme that Saincts are to be invocated that Crosses Images and your Sacramentall Hosty are to be adored we deny Ye affirme a Purgatorie we deny c. In all these and such as these we mantaine the Negative and ye the Affirmative yea and these are your Superadditions unto Scripture truths And consequently when it is demanded whether that which we or ye mantaine in these particulars be agreeable to the sense of the Scriptures The meaning is whether doth the Scripture hold these things out or not Ye affirme and we deny Therefore according to the saying that Affirmanti incumbit probatio It lyes upon you to find out the exact measures of the true Religion and the peculiar Grounds which doe evidence its conformitie to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and also to demonstrate that these Grounds cannot agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS Bellarmin Gretser Valentia and others of
their fellowes who have travelled long in this work have been able to effectuat nothing by all their vast Volumes And have ye the confidence to doe the bussinesse by this one naked Syllogisme But that I may shut up these lines remember ye cannot now call upon me to shew a peculiar ground or evidence which the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath to prove it self to be the True Religion and that it is conforme to the True sense of the Scriptures For Religion is not one individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot all be proven at once or with one breath though there be none of them but through the mercie of GOD we are able to demonstrate against any Adversarie But now it lyes upon you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption Instance therefore if ye can one Ground Necessarlie requisit for evidenceing and proving the True Religion and its conformitie to the True sense of the Scriptures which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS which I hope I may confidently say neither you nor any of your fraternitie shall ever be able to doe Aprill 24. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTCRIPT August lib. De unitate Ecclesia contra Epist Petiliani cap. 3. Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum authoritati utriqueue consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus Ibi quxramus Eccesiam ibi discutiamus cansam nostram Idem Patrlo infra Ergoin Scripturis sanctis Canonitis Ecclesiam requiramus It is desired that any Answere which shall be returned be subscrived as the Author would have it taken notice of Apryll 28 1666. The Jesuits second paper A Reply to an Answere made be Mr. IOHN MENZIES to a discourse of a Romane-Catholick shewing that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be a true Religion or a Religion wherein men can save their Souls I Have perused your paper and find that in writting â—â— are like to your self in conference by mouth because in both much that you may seeme to the simple sort to say something The controversies that we have in hands about the means to know a True Religion and to distinguish it from a false Religion is not of small concernment neither hath it so narrow dimensions as within the compasse of them it 〈◊〉 not able to detaine for a little while all the pith or force of 〈…〉 or be leaping out be the sides to mix it with other digressions about traditions visible judge of controversies untimely retortions of Arguments c. Which maketh nothing to the present difficultie which may be fullie â—nded without mentioning any such things Laying them closs aside and purposely â—â—ske nuing all your excursions as out of the line and swelling only of tergiversations and diffidence to answere directly I lay againe to your doore this point viz. It is impossible that the Protestant Religion can be proven to be a True Religion or the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternal life and consequently that whosoever aimeth at eternall happiness after this life or intendeth to save his Soule is oblidged to quite it and to make search to find out the True Religion Prescinding for now where this True Religion is to be found since the present difficulty is only to shew that Protestant Religion cannot be it This point I proved by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculias ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. Ergo it cannot be a True Religion To this Argument you answere first carping it that is not in forme as having two Premisses Negatives but in this you are farr mistaken for the Negation in one of the Premisses is not taken Neganter but Infinitanter and doth not affect or light upon the Copula but is a part of the subject of the Proposition Next you answere as you say directly admitting the Major and denying the Subsumption to wit that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall ground or principle to prove that it is conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD and so denying that it hath no speciall ground or principle you consequently must affirme that it hath some speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be destinguished from a false Religion and to be conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now lay all these things together first that under your own hand writ ye have undertaken to mantain the Protestant Religion to be a True Religion Next that you grant a Religion cannot be True except it have some peculiar ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be Ture or conforme to the True sence of the letter of the word of God Thirdly that you deny that the Protestant Religion hath not thir speciall grounds and principles whereby she may prove herself to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now let any be judge whether to weind your self out of this labyrinth and without manifestly deserting of your cause ye be not oblidged to produce these peculiar grounds or principles whereby you say that Protestant Religion is furnished to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Which likewise may be extorted by this Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion is furnished with sufficient grounds or principles to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD or it hath no such principles if it have no sufficient principles then confess ingenuously it is a groundles Religion if it have them then let them be produced and examined And why doe you reserve keep them up since the producing of them is necessarie to mantaine and defend the truth of the Protestant Religion are they perhaps invisible or are you ashamed to bring them to light only remember that the grounds or principles that you produce to this effect to prove your Religion to be True must be speciall and have this propriety that they so prove the Protestant Religion to be True or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of God that they cannot be affirmed to prove a false Religion and which you your self holdeth for a false Religion to be a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. As the ground or principle which is produced to prove Honesty or one to be an honest man must have this propriety that it cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest-man Lastly in your paper you insinuat two superficial and fleeing shifts and evasions which doth nothing help you The first is that the Protestant
Religion hath ex parte objecti intrinseck grounds and principles whereby it is constitute a True Religion though it hath not ex parte subjecti But this onely is to bring new obscure termes which put in good SCOTS signify onely the same which hath been said hitherto to wit that Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformitie with the true sense of the letter of the word of GO'D but is destitute of all speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to have such intrinsecall and objective truth and conformity But I pray you what false Religion is there that may not with as good reason apply the same termes to themselves and say that their Religion is true ex parte objecti and hath intrinsecall and objective evidence truth and conformity with Scripture though they cannot shew this ex parte subjecti Likewise they have as great Reason as you to say that their Religion and the truth of it may be made evident if it encounter with an understanding well disposed though it cannot be made evident to fools So you are pleased civilly to call all those who have their understanding of such temper that they cannot see the truth of your Religion The other shife and evasion is that Religion is not one individual truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven at once or in one breath But what makes this to your purpose since that before you can prove any one of those particular truths to be conforme to the true sense of the text of such a Scripture you must first produce some speciall ground or principle to prove that your Clergie-men in Actu primo hath such assistance or hability as is prerequired in men that should give out to People the true sense of particular texts of Scriptures or else how can men be induced to beleeve that the sense which you give is the true sense since every false Religion might pretend with as great reason as you doe that they give the true sense though plaine contrane to the sense that you give In the end of your paper you desire me to subscrive and to put my name to the answere that I make as you have put to your name to yours but this your demand doth not seem rationall since your condition and mine are not alike for you are at home and as a Cock on your own midden and there must lurke some other thing under this demand since it can make nothing to your cause who proponeth the reasons against if they be pertinent and to the purpose Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Iesuits second paper May 2. 1666. An Answere to a second paper from the traffiquing Romanist who commonly passeth under the name of Mr. Francis Dempster alias Logan YOur consident undertaking to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS made me once to expect great things But for what I can yet discerne Parturiunt montes c. I did truely nauseat to read this your raw and indigested paper in which you wholly passe by the most materiall points in my Answere and are pleased to reflect on them as unnecessarie excursions that so your Omissions might seeme lesse criminall A very easie subterfuge by which any faint disputant may decline to meddle with these difficulties which he sees would nettle him But that I may keep you closse to your work I must crave leave to reminde you of some of these omissions and yet to desire that first ye would cleare your self of that fallacie wherewith I charged the third proposition of your first paper Whether it were an impertinent excursion to discover an egregious fallacie in one of these propositions which ye laid down as a foundation of all your ensuing superflâ—â—cture the indifferent Reader may judge Secondly I desire you to answere directly to the retorsions whereby I inverted your Syllogisme against your self and your Romanists Is there any thing more ordinary in School debates then retorsion of Arguments or when the grand debate betwixt you and me is whether the PROTESTANT RELIGION or Popery be the True Religion was it untimely or impropper for me to shew that the weapons which ye bring against the Religion of PROTESTANTS doe strick at the very foundations of Popery And thirdly I desire you to prove the assumption of your Syllogisme denyed by me or else to refell the Arguments whereby I shew that though it be a Negative yet this is no sufficient ground to turne over the opponents office upon me If you doe not performe these things to all which ye are tyed by the rules of disputing I beleeve ye shall hardly escape from being censured by judicious Readers as an Ignoramus I shall not insist upon the evasion which ye have devised to cloak the informalitie of your Syllogisme ex omnibus negativis pretending that in one of the propositions you take the Negative Infinitanter not neganter Although you have not been pleased to tell in which of the propositions it is so taken and though there be no indifferent Reader but would look upon all the Propositions as simple Negatives neither could you in our Language expresse them more Negatively if you intended to affect the Copula with the Negation Yet I shall passe this seeing I have onely used this transient insinuation to admonish you to look better to the forme of your Syllogismes and withall did shew you a clear way how to have corrected your error without â—unning to these Termini infinitantes Onely you must remember that if your Nâ—gatio infinitans fall in the Minor then it becomes an Affirmative and so your pretence of liberating your self from being tyed to prove it doth wholly evanish There be diverse other things in your paper deserving severe castigation but they are truely so Iudibrious that it is irksome to me once to mention them Nay hardly shall any thing materiall be found in the whole paper beside the repetitions of what ye had said in your first Yet lest the wrapping up of all these in generall should give you occasion to say that my complaint were groundles I shall therefore branch forth two or three of the particulars And first Ye seeme to strengthen your Syllogisme with a Dilemma which yet upon the matter is nothing but Recocta crambe the same thing in a new dresse And thereupon you insult not without petulancie as if you hade nothing to doe but to triumph saying Hath the Religion of PROTESTANTS no principles whereby to prove it self Are they invisible or are you ashamed to produce them Soft I beseech you Is the Sun invisible because the blind Mole doth not see it Did I not tell you that the Religion of PROTESTANTS hade peculiar grounds and principles to prove it self to be a True Religion Did I not likewise declare wherein this chief Ground and Principle consisted Namely in its conformity to the Will of God revealed in the holy Scriptures Which neither Popery nor any false Religion hath or can
have Were you so dull as not to take up this or if you did why did you not either acknowledge it or at least goe about to disprove it I find you indeed a little after objecting thus What false Religion is there that may not say with as good reasone that they have the like conformity with the Scriptures But did I not pre-occupie this cavil in my first paper and by your own example of Honesty and Knavery illustrate the whole matter know therefore againe that it is not pretended but reall conformitie with the Scriptures which demonstrats a True Religion A Knave may pretend but not with good reason conformity with the Law which he hath not And the only way to discover him is to compare his actions with the Law whereby the dissonancie thereof will appear A man may be so absurd though contrary to reason as to affirme a crooked lyne to be straight But when his lyne comes to be applyed to the rule the obliquity thereof is clearly discovered Just so Popery and other false Religions may prerend albeit with as little good reason a conformitie to the word of GOD. But learned Divines by applying the rules of Scriptures to them have demonstrated their obliquity and dissonancy as with a Sun beam Hath not this been the way how our Lord Christ his Apostles the aneient Fathers and the faithfull witnesses of Truth confuted Heresies and false Religions in all ages But secondly In your next section you prevaticat yet more grosly For whereas I had said that the True Religion hath sufficient grounds ex parte objecti to prove it self to be a True Religion Ye offer thus to make Scors of my words That the PROTESTANT Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformity to the sense of the letter of the word of GOD but that it is destitute of all speciall grounds to prove it self to have such objective truths and conformity to the Scriptures I beleeve rarely hath such contradictory Nonsense been heard You might aswell if I had asserted Snow to be white have concluded that I mantained it to be black Did I not make plaine Scots of my assertion in my own paper explaining it thus That is to say That the True Religion hath sufficient grounds in it self to manifest it self to be the True Religion if it meet with a well disposed intellect Or if ye would have it yet clearer take it thus The True Religion hath such grounds to manifest its truth That if it be not taken up and assented to it is not through any defect in the Religion but through the defect and indisposition of the subject which it meets with You doe acknowledge that I affirme the PROTESTANT Religion to have Objective evidence If it have objective evidence how can it want grounds to manifest it self to be the True Religion what else I pray you can be meant by Objective evidence but grounds Exparte objecti to manifest it self Let this be a Caution to you that you doe not henceforth substitute your Non-sense as an explication of my assertions Thirdly In your penult section ye involve your self in a palpable contradiction saying That before any particular truth of Religion be proven to be conforme to the true sinse of Scripture it must first be proved that the Clergie hath such habilities and assistance in actu primo as is requisit for giving out the truesense of Scripture If you mean infallible assistance ye not only take for granted what ye know all PROTESTANTS doe deny but also ye declare that no sense of Scripture can be taken off your hand or such Traffiquers as you Seeing according to your Romish principles none below the Pope or generall Councill are the subjects of this pretended infallibilitie Yes not only are your own men divided in this whether this infallible assistance be entailed to the Pope or Councill but also some of your greatest Rabbies have concluded that both Pope and Councill may erre And if so who then according to your Arguing should give the true sense of Scripture But leaving this to let you see how your own words entangle you I shall desire you to consider this Enthymeme Before any particular truth of Religion be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the Scriptures this must first be proven that the Clergie hath such requisite habilities and assistance In Actuprimo for giving the true sense Ergo this truth concerning the Clergies habilities and assistance must be proven before it be proven which implyes a manifest contradiction The Antecedent is your assertion The Sequel is clear Because that the Clergie should have such assistance according to you is one truth of Religion If therefore it must be proven before every truth it must be proven before it self Is not this not only to contradict the truth but your own self Who would not pitie a Person smitten with such a Vertigo Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse Go not henceforth to cavill that it is either through diffidence or tergiversation that I decline to prove the contradictorie of your Assumption The Grounds on which I have done it are these First because that I resolve to keep with you exactly the rules of disputing And therefore seeing you have taken upon you the office of an Opponent you must eitâ—â—er doe his worke or else acknowledge that the PROTESTANTS Religion is such aâ— you cannot impugne Secondly because to prove the PROTESTANTS Religion to be a True Religion is to prove the severall Articles of our Religion to be conforme to the Scriptures which as I said cannot be done with one breath But if you desiderat to see it done I shall remit you to Chamieri Panstratia Catholica not to mention the workes of other Champions for the Truth In the mean while remember I have appealed you and yet againe doe to instance any One Ground necessarly requisit to prove the True Religion which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS In the close of all you offend that I should have desired you to signe your papers And your language concerning this savours of a Dunghill But I shall ingenuously tell you why I did desire it That I might know with whome I deal For this hath been observed as one of your Romanists practises when ye have been worsted in debates then to alleadge it was no Scholler that sustained such a debate but some obscure Person Againe therefore it is required of you that you would signe your papers as you would have them regarded I once intended with this paper by way of retaliation to have sent you some demonstrations that Popery cannot be the True Religion But as yet I have spared because I confesse it is lâ—kesome to me to grapple further with you untill ye discover some more stuffe Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT Augustinus de doctrine Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. In iis Qua aperte posita in Scriptura sunt inveniuntur illa omnia qua continent fidem moresqueue vivends After
the writing of this a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me correcting somewhat the dresse of it but nothing the matter which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition Reader know That the Corrections in the second Edition of the Iesuits second paper were only of some trespasses of Orthography which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER The Jesuits third paper An Answere to a Reply of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he labours to justifie that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion were not meere shifts and evasions May 5. 1666. YOUR reply is stuffed with words wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you calling them none-sense raw and indigested that you have a faint disputant that the matter is Recocta crambe c. But doe you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum Since every one who hath a tongue and penne may say or writ what he pleases or why may not all thir things be reponed with as good reason to your self calling you a faint disputant and that your discourses are raw and indigested and so a matter of so great importance as to discerne a True Religion from a false shall be resolved in a flyting whereof you have this advantage to have the first word Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way I propone to you againe this point that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimes at eternall happines after this life or intends to save his soule is obliged in conscience to quite it and to search for the True Religion prescinding or abstracting for now where this True Religion is to be found and insisting for the present in this only point that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it and assure your self that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta and alwise set before you till by sufficient heat you disgest and make good substance of it This point we proved by this one Syllogisme which againe is repeated to you That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Therefore the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion Here you deny the Subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and consequently you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a Religion grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and being pressed to produce your grounds to prove the truth of your Religion in stead of solide grounds you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions The first is That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti that is if they doe not alwise prove the defect is not in the Religion or in the grounds considered in themselves but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applyed But it was told you that it was a meer shift and that your obscure termes being resolved in good Scots signifies onely that your Religion hath objective and intrinsecall truth or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD but so that it is destuute of all speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answere can have no other sense but this is proven because all thir foure propositions are Synonima to wit A Religion to be a True Religion A Religion to be conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture A Religion to have objective and intrinsecall truth and evidence A Religion that is able to convince if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity These foure propositions being all Synonims and signifying the same thing and so all equally in controversie you cannot prove one by another but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium otherwise you must grant that your answere is a meer shift and which in good Scots signifyes only this That your Religion is true in it self but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true and so we must beleeve it to be true only because you say that it is And with this I set againe before you this Recocted Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that it is a True Religion that it is a Religion conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsecall truth and evidence that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed or else it hath no speciall ground or principles whereby all thir can be verified of it If it have speciall grounds let them be produced and examined if it have none let an ingenuous confession have place that it is groundless and destitute of all principles whereby it can prove these foure Synonime propositions to agree to it Which is confirmed because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false may affirme with as good reason and pretend that all these foure fore-named Synonime propositions may be verified of their Religion To wit that their Religion is a True Religion that their Religion is conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that their Religion is true Ex parte objecti and hath objective and intrinsecall grounds that their Religion is evident and true if it meet with an intellect well disposed All the answere and disparity you give is that they are fools and ye wise men that they are blind and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you with as good reasons as you doe to them The other shift that in stead of a solide ground you brought was this that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle to prove in generall your Religion to be true because Religion say you is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another But this answere is a meer shift whereby you would decline the onely and maine difficultie by bringing in a whole body of controversies which likewise can no wayes help you Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths to
flesh to compound a soveraigne Triacle I am sorrie that as your Paper began with a falshood in matter of fact you must excuse my plainnesse so it should be shut up with another Sic respondent Ultima Primis You may not expect that I will trifle away more time in answering your frivolous unsubscrived Tautologies Either therefore leave your repetitions and doe the worke of an Opponent seriously or else you will constraine me to give a publick account to the World of your trifling and tergiversation Turpe est difficiles habere nugas Aberdene May 9. 1666. John Menzeis The Iesuits fourth Paper Answere to a third Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS whereby he labours of new to perswade that the Grounds which he produces for the truth of the Protestant Religion were not meere shifts and evasions 28. of May 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Mr. IOHN MENZEIS till Iune 2. YOVR third Paper bearing the date of the ninth of May Did not come to my hands before the twenty seventh of May. Neither know I wherefore it hath been so long keept up Since as I am informed you did first dyt it to your Scholers who out of zeal to the reputation of their Master did use all diligence to disperse many copies of it and although it be not authentick and subscrived with your hand with the solemuities used in your former paper yet for the ordinarie straine of digressions not making to the purpose I doe acknowledge it for yours And it is pleasant that you say that you marvell that I passe over in silence and does not answere But how can you marvell at this since I have alwayes protested to you and protest to you againe that I would closse misken and take no notice of any thing that is out of the way and which does not concern the decision of the present controversie to wit Whether the Protestant Religion can be shown to be a True Religion by any ground or principle which may not serve with as great Reason to prove any false Religion to be a True Religion And so soone as you who hath bragingly undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion shall produce any such ground whereby it may appear that you put your self at least in the way either to give some satisfactory answere or at least to confesse ingenuously that you have no such ground for your Religion I oblige my self and shall finde you Surtie that I shall answere at length to all your Digressions to all your Retorsions and likewise shall disput with you at great leasure about the rules of Logick and shew how groslie you are mistaken in confounding Objective negations with formall negations as if a formall affirmation might not fall upon objective negations united be an objective affirming Copula As for your injurious and undervaluing words both in Greek and Latine wherewith your paper is stuffed calling all things brought against you Tantologies Battologies Insipid and Childish things and Non-sense c. I told you before that any man that hath a tongue may heap up and utter injurious words even against GOD himself And this way of proceeding would be thought by the judicious to be a clear testimony of a deserted cause and that since by sufficient reason you cannot propt the tottering truth of your Religion at least by Digressions Injurious words and other practises you will shoulder and hold up your reputation before simple people who adjudges the Victorie to him who rails most As if the means to try a True Religion from a false were not of such high concernment it self alone as did deserve to confine both your thoughts and penne within the gyre of it So that without wrouging the weightines of the matter ye cannot decline to squable about other things before it be fully ended Laying then aside as before all other things as out of the rod this is laid againe before you that the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion nor the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever armes at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and betake himself to a diligent search for the True Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting for the present is this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This point is proven at before by this Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a true Religion Though you leave off to call this Syllogisme a Crambe recocta being conscious to your self not to be able to produce sufficient heat to dissolve and digest it yet you call it a poor and naked Syllogisme which if it be as you say it beggs this favour of you that you will cloath and cover the nakednesse of it with some fitting answere Only be pleased to remember that since you deny the subsumption and so puts your self in obligation to produce grounds for the proofe of your Religion that the grounds you produce must have this propertie that they cannot serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be a True Religion As the grounds which serves to prove one to be an honest man must have this propertie that they cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest man Neither doe you satisfie in saying that Honestie consists in a conformity of actions with the Law as Knaverie in a deformity of actions to the Law this I say does not help you because this is onely to explicat the terms and to draw the lineaments not filling up the fields and vacuities For the present controversie is not wherein consists objective Honestie or objective Knaverie nor wherein consists objective truth of Religion or objective falshood of Religion but suppoining the one to consist in a conformity or difformity of actions to the Law and the other to consist in a conformity or difformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD it remains to shew by some speciall ground wherefore of one man is verified this objective Honestie and not of the other and wherefore of one Religion is affirmed this obiective truth and not of the other To this you answere that this is easily known be applying and comparing onely the actions of both with the Law and the tenets of both with the word of GOD as the obliquity and crookednesse of a rule is presently known by applying it to a straight and even rule and with this popular discourse you think to have cleared and exhausted
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
meer shifts and evasions June 13. 1666. THIS your fourth Paper carying the date of the ninth of June came to my hands the twelth of June and in it you make a more ample muster of your ordinar digressions contumelies and misapplyed Eruditions though you know that the better sort esteems this weak-mens weapons and clear testimonies of a deserted cause but it seems all one to you if by this means you can uphold your reputation with the Vulgar sort who seeing you blot so much Paper remains in conceit that you retaine still your post If I had the qualities to render me worthie of your friendship I would in a homelie and friendly manner suggest to you a compendious way to spare Paper observing onely thir three omissions First that you omit all exeursions out of the way that is to say that you omit all these things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully deeyded Secondly that you omit all contumelies and undervalueing words as more besetting a scolding Wife then a Scholer Thirdly that you omit all these things which cannot favour your Religion but with this inconvenient that in the same degree in the which it favours you it must favour and shelter a false Religion and which is holden by your selves for a false Religion And I hope that you will grant thir things to be very rationallie demanded of you since it is known that there is a great difference to be put betwixt the handling of a controversie in a Pulpit where one railes at randome having none to contradict him and the handling of it in a School way where you must foot your bowle and hold you within the score under the paine to be exploded Now if you will be pleased to observe thir three things which are so rationally demanded I oblige my self to make it good that you will not be able to put ten lines in Paper which shall be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie And for proofe hereof you may be pleased to take all your foure Papers misaplyed as they are squeeze them and see if you expresse out of them thir ten lines taking first away thir three things to wit Digressions about other matters Contumelies and base flyting words and things that cannot favour your cause without favouring in the like degree a false Religion And since it is to be presumed that none can expresse more substance out of your own Papers nor your self it is expected of you that after you have taken the pains to blow away all this chaffe you will show that there remains greater quantity of solid corne upon the floore then can be contained in ten lines of Paper That it may appeare how farr you wander out of the way you must be content to have patience that the maine point be laid alway againe and againe before you which is the Protestant Religion cannot be the True Religion or the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimeâ— at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is obliged to quit it and to betake himselfe to a diligent search for the true Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting only for the present that the Protestant Religion is it not This is both a substantiall point and proponed in so clear terms that none can but understand it And it is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion To this Syllogisme you answered first cavilling the forme of it as componed of two premisses negatives and so concluding nothing But in this you discover grosse ignorance confounding and calling negative propositions affirmative premisses of objective negations Next you come to deny the subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds to prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And you adde that since the subsumption is denyed by you it is my part who is the Opponent to prove it Let it be so But hath it not been sufficiently proven first Because if it have any good grounds they are produceable but they are not produceable or else produce them Next hath it not been often inculcat and is now of new inculcat that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture but such that with as great reason may serve to prove a false Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo it hath no true principles or grounds because a true principle is not of an indifferent nature but is so determinat to truth that it cannot protect nor shelter any error Now that it may appear that all the principles or grounds which you bring to prove the truth of your Religion are indifferent and consequently cannot be true principles we shall runne them over and lay them open to the view of all The first ground you produced is that your Religion hath objective truth and objective ground or evidence and can sufficiently show and prove it self to have this truth upon condition that it encounter with a well disposed intellect But all this may be assumed and is assumed by a false Religion or assigne some reason wherefore you have right to assume it and they not The second is that your Religion is easily known to be a true Religion by applying and confronting the tenets of it with the Word of God as a man is easily known to be an honest man be confronting his actions with the Law as likewise a line is easily known to be straight and not crooked by the conformity it is seen to have with a right rule But what false Religion is there that doth not apply all this to themselves with as great reason as you doe And though the letter of Scripture is of it self capable onely of one genuine sense to wit which was intended by the holy Ghost which is all the shift which you adde now in this last Paper But what makes this for you since you bring no reason whereby may appeare that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is that one genuine sense intended be the holy Ghost or that the sense which you give is that right rule by the which all crookednesse is to be known You think it is enough to say thir things without
period to this controversie I had condescended to mention to you Grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS which are not really competible to any false Religion however they may be pretended too It is hard to me to tell whether in your enumeration of them or in your ludicrous way of confutation you manifest more Childish weaknesse and folly And first in the enumeration of the grounds of Religion you number up five more indeed then ever I gave you For the first two namly the Intrinsick objective evidence of Religion and The conformity thereof to the word of GOD were never mentioned by me as two distinct grounds yea your self in your third Paper reckoned these as Synonima's and therefore you but play the child in reckoning them as distinct Neither is the fifth ground which you mention concerning The perspicuity of the Scriptures to be adequatly distinguished from these But your cheife prevarication is in that which you mention as the Third ground of the truth of our Religion namly that Religion being a complex of many divine truth cannot be all proven at once but by compating each of these truths with the word of GOD. I could not have expected that a man who was not in a perfect Delirinm could have bewrayed such stupidity for this was never laid down by me as a Ground of our Religion Nay a Child might have discerned by the very terms that this was onely brought as a reason why in such a short Paper I could not be tyed to give you the grounds of our Religion For it were to tye me as matters are now stated to writ a whole bodie of controversies What an impudent cheat then is this you would put upon your Reader to substitute that as a Ground of the truth of our Religion assigned by me which in very deed was brought by me as a reason why I was not tyed at this time to give you any grounds Henceforth therefore when you goe to impugne any thing in my Papers propose it in my own terms else I must say to you in the words of the Poet. Quem recitas meus est O Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus You discover no lesse weaknesse in your trifling confutation of these grounds of Religion for all ye say to every one of them which five times you doe repeat is that a false Religion may alleage all these grounds But herein you play the silly Sophister Ab ignoratione elenchi for the question is not whether the PROTESTANT or true Religion hath grounds which a false Religion may not alleage or pretend but whether the PROTESTANT Religion hath grounds which cannot be verified of a false Religion I freely grant that a false Religion may lay claime to the grounds of the true Religion as the mad man of Athens laid claime to all the Ships that came into the Harbout as his own though none of them were his But the Grounds of the true Religion can never be verified of a false Religion It was not enough then for you to say that a false Religion may lay claime to those Grounds nay nor was it to the purpose unlesse you could also have shewed that the Ground of the PROTESTANT Religion namely Conformity with the Scripture might be verified of a false Religion This you ought to have showen if you had intended a real confutation of my grounds But this you will find as impossible for you as to remove the Earth from its Axis If you looke againe to my last Paper you will finde that in stead of these Five grounds of your mustering I gave only these Two grounds from which indeed the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS and the falshood of the present Romish Religion may be discovered The first was The perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessarie to Salvation which I did confirme by luculent Authorities which you have not once dared to examine The other was From our Agreement in essentials with the faith of the purest and most Ancient primitive Church in the first three Centuries And with all from this I deduced a demonstration of the falshood of your now Romish Church and Religion from the discrepancy thereof in essentials from the faith of the Catholick Church in the first three Centuries which I confirmed from your Formula Fidei or Popish Creed contrived by Pope Pius the fourth which differs in its essentials from the faith of the Church in the first three Centuries Had you been willing that imparriall search should be made whether the truth stood on your side or on ours Had you not here matter enough to work upon both from Scripture and Antiquity But dissembling all my arguments from these principles you onely give this snifling Answere that they who have a false Religion may also pretend that their Religion is also contained in Scripture and is conforme to the Religion of the primitive Church To which I Reply first that these forementioned grounds doe not cease to be grounds for proving the True Religion because Hereticks pretend an interest in them Nay on the contrary Hereticks laying claime to them is a strong persumption that they are the induitable grounds of the true Religion as a Rogues pretending conformity with the Law is so farr from proving that the Law is no discriminating Test betwixt Honestie and Roguery that it is rather a vehement presumption of the con-ratie Secondly Had you resolved to goe to the borrome of the busines you should have proved that either these grounds assigned by me are not proper grounds for the discerning the True Religion from a false or that these grounds doeth really agree to a false Religion that is That a false Religion is perspicuously contained in Scripture and doth agree in its essentials with the Religion of the primitive Church in the first three Centuries or that these grounds doe not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS But none of these doe you once attempt to performe Nay over againe you are put to prove any of these which if you doe Tu Phillida solus habeto But thirdly I demonstrate on the contratie that these are sure grounds by which the truth of Religion may be discerned Thus if Scripture be not a sufficient ground and Test to distinguish a true Religion from a false then it must be either because it doth not containe All things necessary to Salvation or because it doth not hold out Perspicuously all these things for there is no other impediment imaginable unlesse with the Infidell you should question the Authority of Scriptures But when we say that the Scripture is the indubitable Test for discerning the True Religion from a false it is to be understood among Christians who acknowledge the divine Authoritie of Scriptures Consequently if the Scriptures be Perspicuous in all things necessary to Savlation as our Divines have often demonstrated and I cleared in my last by irrefragable testimonies both of Ancients and of
your own Doctors then it must be a sufficient ground and Test to discerne a True Religion from a false Your cavill concerning the ambiguity of Scriptures is frivolous For if Scripture had not sufficient objective grounds means of interpretation being duely used to clear its own genuine sense in all things necessarie to Salvation then were it not Perspicuous which is against the Hyphothesis laid down against which you have not adventured to move one Objection So that still it holds that if Scripture be perspicuous in all things necessarie to Salvation it must be a sufficient ground and test to discerne a True Reilgion from a false What therefore remains but that either you show the Scriptures not to be clear in all things necessary to Salvation or else that both the Religion of PROTESTANTS and Papists be brought to this Test and examined which of them are really conforme thereunto But next as to the other ground I argue thus Either the faith of the Catholick Church in the first Three Centuries was the True Christian Religion or not If not then there was no true Christian Religion at all Absit blasphemia If it was then what accords with it in its essentials must be the True Christian Religion and on the contrary what differs from it in essentials cannot be the true Christian Religion and therefore here againe I appeal you either to show an essential difference betwixt the ancient True Christian Religion in these ages and ours or that there is an agreement in essentials betwixt the ancient Religion in these ages your Romish Religion as it is expressed in that Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth or else to acknowledge that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the True Religion and that your Romish Religion is but a Farrago of falshoods and Innovations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In your penult section you whisle like a child concerning the Clergies assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture and you call upon me to prove that our Clergie hath such an assistance As if it were a point of our faith that the knowledge of the Clergies infallible assistance for of that onely you must be understood were a necessary prerequisite before the true sense of Scripture can be known But have I not often told you that this is denyed by us and also often appealed you if you could to prove it else I would hold it for confessed that you could not doe it But to call you to your duety is Surdo canere Yea from this your assertion concerning the knowledge of the Clergies assistance I have showed you to be encircled in an inextricable Contradiction from which you have never attempted to expede your self Onely in your last Paper you flinched from your own principle as if you had onely affirmed that the Actus secundus presupposes Actum primum which none denyes Know therefore againe that a Doctor may give the true sense of Scripture and we may have ground enough To beleeve that it is the true sense which he gives though neither he nor we have an anteceden knowledge of his Infallible assistance in actu primo as a civill Judge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and I may have sufficient ground to beleeve that he hath sensed it aright though neiâ—â—er he nor I have antecedent knowledge that he hath Infallible assistance in act primo Though in all these things you have bewrayed shamefull weakenesse and as a Thersires declyned to examine what was reponed to you in all my Papers yet now like a vaiue glorious Thrasâ— in the conclusion you sing a Triumph but without a Victorie Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici What means this insulting that you cry out of the poor posture out Religion is brought too Have you said ary thing that would have reduced the weakest Tyro in our Schools to a strait Have I slipped one Punctillo in any of your Papers which I have not confuted Hath not all you have writen been sitted Ad furfures Can you say the like of my Papers Yet you are bold to compare the Religion of PROTESTANTS to a Knâ—ve pretending Honestie and not able to prove it but Mutato nomine narratur fabula de iâ— He that would compare your Romish superstition with the Religion of PROTESTANTS might aswell compare Catiline with Cato the Rogue Ziba with Honest Mephibosheth or the strumper Thais with chast Lucretia But I shall propose a true Emblem of the stare of our Religion and yours from the state of the present debate betwixt you and me leaving the application to your own self Suppose that Titius and Sempronius stood at the barre and that Titius acclaimed the monopolie of Honesty to himself And withall accused his Neighbour Sempronius as a verie Knave because as Titius alleaged he could produce no grounds to prove his Harestie On the other hand Sempronius modestly shew how easie it were to recriminat and retote all these accusations upon Titius Yet though he might have desired Titius as the Accuser to prove his indytment or else to suffer Secundum Legem talionis and to be esteemed as an arrand Knave yet he would condescend so far as to give Grounds by which his Honesty might be proven But with this Proviso that both he and his Accuser Titius might be brought to the Test that the World might see who was the Rogue and who the Honest-Man The first Ground to which Sempronius appeales is the Law protesting that both he and his Accuser Titius may be judged by that Rule The other Test to which Sempronius referres himself for tryall Is the practise and example of men of untainted Honestie such as Aristides Fabricius Cato c. Protesting likewise that he be stigmatized as the Rogue whose conversation shall be found discrepant from theirs Tïtius though at first a bold Accuser yet not able to endure so accurate a tryall studies all the subterfuges his poor wit could invent And first he declines the Law alleaging it could not be the Ground of tryall because it is ambiguous and admits of diverse and contrarie senses nor can any give the sense of the Law except he be Iufallible Which gift of Infallibility Titius would have all men to beleeve though he cannot prove it to be peculiar to himself alone so as no sense of the Law may be admitted but that which he homologates And for the example of Aristides Fabricius and Cato c. They are too strict Paterns for Titius yet not dareing openly to condemne them he makes this evasion What Knave sayes he is there that may not pretend conformitie both with these and also with the Law But Sempronius gravely answers that however Knaves might pretend conformity both to the Law and Practises of Good-Men yet they had it not And againe he solemnly protests that the matter might be put to exact tryall whether the Accusers or his conversation were agreeable to the Law and these untainted
Paterns of Honesty and withall added that it was an intolerable reproach thrown both upon the Law and the Lawgivers that a Law was given to people to walk by which no man except Titius with his pretended infallibilitie could understand Is it not strange said Sempronius that my Accuser Titius can speake his accusation so intelligibly that a Child can understand the sense thereof and yet that our Lawgivers had not so much wit as to expresse the Laws which they would have to be the Rule of our lives in intelligible language What prudent Senators would suffer themselves and Lawgivers thou to be reflected upon by Titius and would not for his pleading after this manner condemne him as a petulant Rogue The application af this Embleme is left to you and to the judicious Reader I have made so many experiments upon you that if there had been any Mercurie in you in all probabilitie before this time it had been extracted but the longer I deal with you the greater Dounce doe you appear I am both wearied and ashamed to graple further with one who multiplies such Childish impertinencies and notorious falshoods Least therefore I should seeme Cum Cretensi Cretizare I discharge any further exchange of Papers with you except you change your straine Yet because I know the Genius of many of your Party to be such that if you transmitted to me a Rapsody of perfect Non-sense to which no answere were returned you would glory as if you had approven your self as a Doctor Irrefragabilis Therefore to put a check to this insolencie and withall to satisfie the judicious I adde two things And first you are required though an Adversarie to doe me so much Iustice as when you communicate to others any of your Papers that you doe likewise communicate my Answere and then I shall decline no rationall Person either of your or of our profession who is not either Ignorant or Blinded with prejudice tosiâ— as Umpyre or Arbiter betwixt you and me If you doe otherwise after so solemne admonition it will be an evidence that you are conscious that your Papers are naught and not able to abide the Test But next if you find an abler Person then your self that can manage this debate to better purpose then you have done he shall not GOD-willing lake an answere so far as the interest of truth doeth require it In the mean time I say to you as Cyprian did to Demetrian Oblatrantem te are Sacrilego verbis impiis obstrepentâ—â— frequenter Demetriane contempseram melius existimans errantis imperitiam silentio spernere quam loquende dementis insaniam provecare Nec hoc sine â—agisterii divini Numinis authoritate faciebam quum scriptum sit noli respondere imprudenti ad imprudentiam ejus ne similis flas illi Cyp. lib. ad Demet. Aberdene 28. of June 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT This Paper was written on Iune 18. but I being called to the Countrey on Iune 19. and not returning untill June 26 it could not be transcribed untill this 28. of June 1666. The Iesuits sixth Paper Answere to a fifth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS wherein he brings a new Shift and Evasion for a Ground of the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion disowneing all thinges for to be grounds which he hath brought hitherto July 6. 1666. YOV was disired to give a proofe of your abilitie to put onely ten lines in Paper which could be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie observing three things first to â—â—it all exâ—â—sions out of the way that is to say to omit all things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully decyded Secondly to omit all hase undervalucing words as more besetting an flyting Wife then an Scholler Thirdly to omit all things which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion but with this inconvenient that it equally serves to prove an false Religion to be true But in this Paper deboarding mor then ever you give cleir testimony that all your strength consists in thir things So that the confyning of you within thir limits wer to disarme you altogether and to bind up all the fecundity which you have to blot Paper and multiply words for hyding your weakenesse Laying asid then all things of whatsoewer sort that ar out of the line I lay befor you againe the maine point to wit the Protestant Religion cannot be the true religion nor the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whoseever aims at eternal happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is oblidged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search for the truth prescinding for now whair it is to be found insisting for the present in this only that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This cannot be called a nonsense since its both an most substantial point and likewise proponed to you in such cleir terms It is proven by this one Sylogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be the true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion To this Syllogisme yow answered first carping the forme of it as if it wer of tuo premisses negatives and though it was showen yow yowr gross ignorance in this calling affirmative propositions negations becaus they ar of objective negations yet now yow add with alse gryt ignorance that the conclusion is negative Is it possible that an Rabbi in Israel is so ignorant that there most be made to him a lesson of Summules to make him capable to discerne betwixt affirmative and negative propositions Here indeed would come in season a way for sham and such hissing and histrionicall expressions as yow use now and then in yowr Papers Next yow say that though hithertoo yow have onlie denyed the subsumption yet yow have acquired by the benefit of so long a time a new light which discovers a defect also in the Major But this argues that the Sylogisme is not of so obvious a nakednes as yow stylled it since a man of yowr capacity hath need of so long tyme to acquire light for the discoverte of the defects of it But giving and not granting that there wer defects in the Major yet since yow have ingaged yowr self in denying the subsumption long agoe and so incurred an obligation to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion yow must first end this before yow begin the other either confessing that yow have no grounds or else producing them that they may be examined whether they subsist or not And here I cannot
Scriptures or not If you have it produce it Sure I am your Councill of Trent hath passed no such Decree and for what I know none else If none then are you a manifest wrangler and you have no certainty of faith for the Thesis which you mantaine But let you wander in the mist as you will I have premised this to clear the grounds on which I walke and so I shall proceed to examine your Objections which are like so many roveing arrowes shot without the prefixing of a marke First then you object That the perspicuity of the Scriptures cannot serve as a distinctive ground of our Religion from a false except first I prove that the sense which we give of Scripture is the genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost But this precarious and meerly assertory Objection may with far more reason be inverted against your self For if the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessary cannot serve as a distinctive ground of our Religion from a false then must it either be because Scripture is not perspicuous in all things necessary or else because the sense given by PROTESTANTS is not the genuine sense of Scripture and consequently it was itcumbent to you as the Opponent who have undertaken in your fourth Paper To impugne any ground affigned by me I say it was incumbent to you either to have proven that Scripture is not perspicuous in all things necessary or else that the sense given by PROTESTANTS is not the genuine sense of Scripture But neither of these doe you once attempt to prove It is like you did perceive the worke would be too hard for you and therefore according to your tergiversing humor you set your self onely to studie shifts and evasions whereof this Objection is the first to decline your duty But from this your first subterfuge you may easily be beaten by this Dilemma For either Scripture is perspicuous in all things necessary or not If you say not then why doe you not bring arguments to disprove its perspicuity you being the Opponent If you grant that it is perspicuous then why may it not be a ground to distinguish a True Religion from a false Even as a clear luculent Charter or Patent under the great seal may be a ground to justifie the title of an honest Sempronius against the pretences of a cavilling Titius Nor can it be matter of such impossibilitie for PROTESTANTS as you falslie insinuate to find out the true sense of Scripture if Scripture be perspicuous May you not then see what worke is incumbent to you if you desire to have the matter in controversie canvased Namely either to prove That Scripture is not perspicuous in all things necessary or else That the Religion of PROTESTANTS is not agreeable to that true and perspicuous sense of Scripture And seeing you may as easily prove light to be darkenesse as disprove the perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessary to Salvation you may try your Acumen upon the consonancy of our Religion with the true and genuine sense of Scripture Pitch therefore upon the chiefe points in controversie betwixt you and us such as your pretended Infallibilitie The headship of your Pope your Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the Masse and let it be tryed whether they be agreeable to the genuine sense of Scripture I shall be willing to heat and to examine what you have to say for them and withall Godwilling I shall not be wanting to repone to you arguments to prove them to be impious errors and dissonant or the perspicuous and genuine sense of Scripture Then may you best discerne whether we PROTESTANTS can hold forth the true sense of Scripture But your whole designe appears to be to shift a Scripturall tryall And this is generally observed now to be the way of your late Pamphleters and herein you resemble the old Hereticks of whome said Tertullian Lib. De resurrections Carnis cap. 3. Anfer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis suas quaestionâ—s sistant stare non possunt A noble and luculent testimony both for the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scripture seeing all heresies may be confuted by Scripture And withall a remarkable character of Hereticks in shuning to be brought to this Test as knowing then that they cannot subsist And justly you as well as old Hereticks may on this account be termed Lucifuga But lest I should seeme onely to make use of Contra-argumentation against you Therefore I adde from what hath been said this briefe and direct Answere to your first tergiversing Objection If say you for this is all the force that I can reduce it to The perspicuity of Scripture serves as a distinctive ground of our Religion from a false then should I first have proven the sense given by PROTESTANTS to be the true sense of Scripture Answere had I sustained in this debate the part of an Opponent this inference might have had some colour of reason But seeing at the time I onely stand in the capacity of a Defendant and Respondent I simply deny that any such thing was incumbent to me at present I thus answere not from any diffidence of the PROTESTANT cause and therefore forbear cavilling But that I may keepe with you the exact rules of disputing The truth of our Religion and its consonancy with the genuine sense of Scripture hath been so often and so luculendy shewed by the Champions of the PROTESTANT cause that for me to adde any thing thereto were but to bring a torch to give light to the Sun All that could be expected of me according to the Rules of disputing is to clear off any cavils which you bring against the consonancy of our Religion with the true sense of Scripture Yet will you come to the examination of particular points in controversie you shall perhaps find that I shall not only doe the part of a Defendant In the mean time is it not a strong presumption that the truth shines brightly on our fide seeing after all your insolent boastings and so many peremptorie appeales from us you can bring no positive argument either against the Scriptures perspicuity or the consonancie of our Religion with the genuine sense of Scripture but only betake your self to your flieing shifts declinaturs this for your first objectioÌ„ Ye object Secondly That before I affirme so boldly that all things necessary are contained in Scripture I should first have drawne up a List and Catalogue of these necessary truths whereas Scripture say you makes no distinction betwixt these necessarie truths and others And now you would be making use of an old example of mine That there is no way to prove a piece of Gold to be upright but by producing it to be examined To which I repon First that by this your objection against the Scriptures being a sufficient Canon as containing all things necessarie to Salvation you contradict your own self For a great part of
the rest returnes upon your own Pate But Thirdly had PROTESTANTS devysed new Means of interpretation which had not been made use of by the Church in all times you might have had some pretext for this demand But we doe cordially subscrive to that of the Apostle 2. Peter 1.20 No prophesie of Soripture is of any privat interpretation I shall therefor remit you to Whitaker controver de Scriptur Qu. 5. cap. 9.10.11 12. Chamier Tom. 1. Panstratiâ— Lib. 16. A. cap. 4. ad finem Zauchius Tom. 8. tract de script â—u 2. Gerard the Lutheran In Uberiori exegesi loci de scriptura cap. 25. Where you will find the means of interpretation acknowledged by PROTESTANTS and the way how they are to be used luculently set down and vinditated from the cavilâ— of Stapletâ—n and others Or if your prejudice will not permit you to take them from our Authors you may take them from Austin in his Foure bookes de Doct. Christ Where it is verie remarkeable that though he be verie copious in assigning rules for the right understanding of the Scriptures yet he never once makes mention of that Infallible assistance of the Bishop of Roâ—e which is an undoubted evidence that Austin was not of your now Romish faith By this we understand what an impudent calumny that is of Bellarmin lib. 3. De verbo Dei cap. 1. who when he is stateing this question of the perspicuity of the Scriptures charges reformed Divines as mantaining Scripturam esse tam apertam in se ut sine explicatione sufficiat ad controversias sidei terminandas As if we mantained that there were no need of interpretation of Scripture which none of our Divines doe affirme And therefore to cut off that cavill I purpofly added that caution of Using the means of interpretation albeit on the other hand you would abuse this concession to derogat from the Scriptures perspicuty but with equal ingenuity with your Cardinal Fourthly Whereas you ask Whether the people without preaching can duely use the means of interpretation and come to the knowledge of things necessary to Salvation A ludibrious question as proponed by you implying as would seeme a clear Contradiction in it self For preaching is one of these means of interpretation and therefore it is all one as if you had asked whether people may at once use all the means and yet not use some of them Is it not a manifest Contradiction to use them all and not to use them all at once But to take of all mistakes we say that attendance on publick preaching is one meane to which people are tyed Necessitate praecepti when they may have it which is clearly confirmed by these Scriptures 1. Thess 5.20 Despise not Prophesieing Luke 10.16 He that despyseth you despyseth me Rom. 10.17 Faith cometh by hearing Yet doe we not affirme that the Publick preaching of the Word is a meane so indispenlably necessary that the true meaning of the word can in no case be had by the use of Other means such as reading Private instruction c. When the publict preaching is providentially denyed To this purpose you may see Ruffin lib. 1. Hist Eccles cap. 9. 10. But Fifthly there yet temaines one of your judicious queries namely Whether a false Religion may duely use the means of interpretation I think you would have asked whether people professing a false Religion may use duely the means for it is a verie incongruous speach to say That Religion useth means But passing that incongruicy I answere breifly that people professing a false Religion are bound De jure to use the means duely though De facto they doe not use them duely so long as they adheare to A false Religion For as I said from the beginning of this debate there is such an Objective evidence in Scripture truths that if they be not perceived when sufficiently proposed it is still through some defect on the part of the subject As doth luculentlie appeare from 2. Cor. 3.4 If our Gospel be hid it is to them in whome the God of this world hath blinded their minds And Joh. 7.17 If any man doe the will of GOD he shall know the Doctrine whether it be of GOD. This far have I condescended to satisfie your Extravagant Queriet and I hope have sufficiently vindicated from all your cavills this First ground of the true Religion taken from The Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures But doe not expect hereaftere to meet with the like indulgence as if I would take notice of your ' Digressive questions when you neither observe rules of disputing nor keep close to the maine hing of the controversie I cannot here but put you in minde againe of another ground which I proposed in my last two Papers from which the truth of our Religion may be demonstrated namely The conformity thereof in all its essentials with the faith of the most Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This you still dissemble as if you were deafe on that eare Onely in the close of one of your observations concerning the perspicuitie of the Scripture to confuse these two grounds together that so you might escape in the darke and that your tergiversation and not speaking to this ground distinctly might be the lesse observable you doe impertinently throw in this word That the claims to antiquity is common to other sexts I beleeve you would have said Sects But besides what hath been said in my former Papers to redargue such a trifling Reply now I adde that the falshood of the claime of the other Sects may be evicted by holding out the discrepancy betwixt the faith of the ancient Church and false Religions As I proved the falshood of your Romish Religion from the dissonancy betwixt your now Romish faith or Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth and the faith of the ancient Church in these ages which as yet you have not once endeavoured to answere though now it be the third time put to you If you had intended to say any thing to purpose against us PROTESTANTS to this particular you should have instanced Some essentials of the Christian ReligioÌ„ wherin the ancient Church did differ from us But I find that the chief facultio of your Romish Champions lyes in braging and false accusing How often have they accused PROTESTANTS as Innovatours And who are such pretenders to antiquity as they But it is a true character which Scaliger gave long agoe of our and your writers Non sumus nos novatores sed vos estis veteratores And therefore to vindicate the truth which we mantaine from all their reproaches I have offered to dispute the cause of Religion betwixt us and you both from Scripture and Antiquity But you doe shift the tryall from both these grounds as much as a Theif would shift to be examined by a Iurie You are therefore againe required to answere my argument From the diserepancy betwixt your now Romish Creed and the faith of the
to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search where the True Religion is to be found prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting meerlie in this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be the True Religion which hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no special ground or principle whereby it can be proven to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion You denying here the Subsumption were advertised of this one thing that a true principle or ground is not an indifferent nature but is essentially determined to prove and infer onely truth and so not to produce any thing for a principle or ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion which may serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be true After much fluctuation and many shifting toes and froes at lentgh you have pitched on two things which you say you will mantaine as solid grounds to prove the Protestant Religion to be true and to be distinguished from all false Religions The first is The perspcuity of Scripture in all points necessary to Salvation But it was showne you the great jugling that lyes under this answere For first by Scriptur of which is affirmed that it contains perspicuously all things necessary to Salvation must be understood the true letter and the true sense of the true letter of Scripture Ergo it cannot serve for a ground to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion except it be first proven that the Protestants hath both the true letter and Translation and likewise the true sense of the letter To this in which the maine point consists you give no answere nor brings no proofe but onely remits me to read your Protestant Authors whome you call Champions and who as you say have made all thir things clear as the Sun But wherefore doe you not produce the reasons of these your Champions that they may be examined and impugued Secondly It was asked how you could so boldly affirme that all things necessar to Salvation or rather that all the tenets which the Protestant Religion holds as necessary to Salvation were contained clearly in Scripture except first Drawing op a catalogue of all things that the Protestant Religion holds as points necessary to Salvation and as contradistinguished from all other things not necessary To this you answere now that a Proposition in generall may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of all particulars contained in it So we beleeve that all the dead shall rise though we cannot give a particular account of their persons But it seems this answere hath escaped your penne when you were thinking on other things For though I beleeve a proposition in generall when that proposition is revealed in generall But where is it revealed that all the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds for points nocessar to Salvation are clearly in Scripture For giving and not granting that this generall proposition All things necessar to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture were revealed by Scripture it self attesting it yet it doeth not follow that this other generall proposition is revealled All the tenets that the Protestant Religion holds as necessar to Salvation are clearly contained in Scripture or that they may be clearly deduced out of things clearly set down in Scripture Ergo it cannot be an object of divine faith but by deduceing it by Induction of particulars And to this serves your own example of a purse full of an hundred pieces of Gold for though I may beleeve in general that all the gold contained in that purse is upright gold if this were revealed in general by a sufficient authority yet prescinding from all authority affirmeing this I cannot assent that they are all and none excepted upright gold except taking them all one by one and putting them to the tryall because if only one of them were not upright the whole assent would be false Thirdly Though you say all things necessar to Salvation to be clearly set down in Scripture yet you require the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true knowledge of thir things and being demanded to specifie thir middes and what you meane by the due use of them And for answere to this you bring now onely a long Digression about rules to interpret Scripture slightin the maine print which is to show in this a difference betwixt you and these of a false Religion and whether these of a false Religion may not use as duely these middes as you can doe for attaining to the true sense of Scripture To this you onely answere that De facto they doe not use duely these middes and That the God of this world hath blinded their minds c. But what if they apply this to your self The second ground that you have pitched upon to prove the Protestant Religion to be a true Religion and to be distinguished from all false Religion Is the conformity it hath with the doctrine of the first three Centuries But this cannot be a ground distinct from the conformity which you say your Religion hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Because giving and not granting that your doctrine had this conformity you cannot by this prove that it is a true doctrine since by you All these were fallible and might have erred And conformity with doctrine that may be error cannot serve to prove a doctrine to be true And if you reply that though they were fallible and might erre yet they did not erre because the doctrine they gave is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo the conformity with them is not a ground distinct from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Or else you might prove the conformity with the Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion to be a ground to prove the truth of your Religion and a distinct ground from the conformity which these Acts hath with the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make good that the conformity of your Religion with the doctrine of the Church in the first three centuries is a distinct ground from the conformity with the true sense of the letter of Scripture you must give some Authoritie to the Fathers who were then whereby they were preserved from error though of themselves they were fallible And this must consist either in some intrinsecal quality inherent in them or in some special extrinsecal assistance founded on Christs promite And here you have likewise to prove that this
whol structure of your Syllogisme which is the marrow of al you have hitherto said You have bestowed many years if my information fail not in studying this your rare Syllogisme Could you not in all that space have put it In modo figura But it seemes you will take as many years to prove either the Major or the Minor thereof But so much hath been said to these things before that now I shall adde no more least I should seeme Cum Batto balbutire In my first three Papers I required you to prove the Assumption of your Syllogisme But this like a Thersites you still declined which I could not but looke upon as an evidence that you succumbed in your probation I did likewise appeal you to produce a ground of the true Christian Religion which doth not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS But neither durst you adventure upon any Hereupon I might have turned my back upon you as a smattering fellow wholly incapable to mantaine a Theological debate But to render you the more inexcusable and to convince all to whose hands these Papers may come how desirous I was to have the truth examined I condescended Ex superabundanti though not tyed thereto by rules of disputing to produce in my fourth Paper Two irrefragable grounds by which the truth of Religion may be examined Viz The perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation And Conformity with the faith of the most Ancient Christian Church Hereupon I have urged with all the earnestnesse I could in my Fourth fifth and sixth Papers that both your Religion and ours might be brought to these Tests and examined thereby namely both by Scripture and Antiquity But you like one who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned knowing in your conscience that it is a wicked cause which you doe mantaine have still declined And the scop of this your seventh Paper is yet to decline the examination of Religion by either of these grounds But Veritas non quaerit angulos It is he who doth evill that hates the light Joh. 3.21 Yet have you the impudencie in this your Seventh Paper to say that after many toes and froes now I have produced two grounds as if either I had delivered some inconsistencies or had been driven to produce these grounds by force of your arguments or that now only in my last Paper these grounds had been first produced All which are manisest untruths Is this your gratitude to him who had so liberally gratified you with the production of these grounds When you were clearly at a Nonplus The two grounds which I produced I did prove in my Fourth Paper to be solid and sufficiently distinctive of the true Religion from a false and from them I did demonstrate the truth of our Religion and the falshood of yours for Rectum est sui obliqui Index but you have not once dared to examine these arguments While therefore you hold on in this your tergiversing way it might be enough for me to say to you with the Poet Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua Ought you not either to acquiesce to these Grounds produced by me or to produce others more solid especially you being the Opponent But yet once more I offer against you to disput the truth of our Religion both from Scripture and Antiquity and shall withall examine the scurvie pellucid and tergiversing evasions which you have made use of in this your seventh Paper You repeat here againe your three cavils against The Perspicuity of Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation or rather your three cowardly subterfuges to decline a Scriptural tryal but without any confirmation deserving a review I should the more patiently have borne with these taudologies had you been pleased for clearing the state of the controversie betwixt you and us to have delivered the judgement of your Romish Church concerning the Perspicuity of the Scripturs I told you the judgement of PROTESTANTS and shew you how they are injured by your writers I required you with the like plainness to set down the judgement of your Romish Church and the rather because your Authors are found to be inconsistent with one another in this matter And though I have looked upon your ablest Controversists namelie Bellarmin lib. 3. De verbo Dei cap. 1. Gretser In defensione capitis primi libri tertii Bellarmin De verbo Dei and Stapleton lib. 10. De principijs fidei cap. 3. Yet can I not find one Canon of a Council produced by any of them as to this particular Would they not have done it if they had any Doe you not manifest to the World you play the jugler when you dare not adventure to tell the judgement of the Romish Church even in that against which you doe so eagerly cavil You think you have disgraced all that I have writen by calling it A heap of digressions copied out of controversie bookes I find you indeed still better at calumniating then at arguing If my Paper did containe any impertinent Digressions why doe you not particularize them But I have already unfolded the Mysterie That which you cannot answere must be branded as a Digression to palliat your ignorance I acknowledge I have improven against you somewhat of the writings of Ancients of Schoolmen and of modern Coutroversists both of your side and of ours nor am I hereof ashamed This I hope is not the base Plagiarie trade which I leave to your Iesuits as being better acquainted with stealing other mens Papers Have you not heard how your famous Iesuis Antony Possevin did steal from Doctor Iames a learned PROTESTANT his Cyprianus redivivus and put it in his great Apparatus under his own name for which you may find how sharply he is chastised by Doctor Iames in his excellent treatise concerning The corruption of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Prelats Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome Part. 2. page 9.10 Goe trace backe all the Papers which I have sent to you and see if you can fix any such trespasse upon me As for you I confesse we have no cuase yet to accuse you of ripping up the bowels of many Authors All the Authority wherewith you have hitherto loaded us is Master Dempsters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You need not fear that any thing which as yet hath come frō you will be standered as Olens lucernam you onely ramble out any fleeing tergiversing Shifts that come first In buccam as a man who minded not to dive into the controversie However once yet as I have said I will trace your footsteps In your first Cavill you alleadge that The Perspicuity of the Scripturs cannot serve as a distinctive character of the Religion of PROTESTANTS from a false except I first prove that the PROTESTANTS have the true letter and translation and true sense of the letter To which you say I answered nothing but remitted you to our PROTESTANT Authors Here we
touch of their contrary opinions in your Cardinal De Lugo tract De fide Disp 5 Sect. 1.2.3 But at this time also I have purposly waved the absurdities which our Divines have deduced from your Romish Doctrine concerning these Motives of credibility Because I would keepe you closse to the point And therefore I shall demand no more of you but that you demonstrate the Infallibility of your Propounders from these Motives of credibility which till you doe you remaine shut up within the lines of that objected Contradiction I Now proceed to the other difficulty objected to you in expeding your self from which you are as unhappie For evidenceing whereof there needs no more be said but to propose the Aenigma which you pretended to enervat for you craftily wrap it up in silence The Argument did runne thus If our faith must be built upon the Precognition of the Infallible assistance of your Propounders the either this their pretended Infallibility can be proven or not If not then the whole Romish Faith is built upon a Fancy which cannot be proven If it can then First you were required to produce your Arguments for proving it And Secondly you were persued by this Dilemma If the Infallibility of your Propounders can be proven then either by a Writen or Unwriten Word Not by a Writen Word seeing the sense of it cannot be known according to you untill first the Infallibility of the Propounder and Interpreter be known but now that is supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very point in controversie Not can it be proven by an Unwriten Word Both because you had asserted before That a point of Religion to be True and to be conforme to the writen word are Synomma's And because there is as much need of an Infallible Propounder that we may be assured of the truth and true meaning of an Unwriten word as of that which is writen If therefore we cannot know the sense of the Writen word till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility neither can the truth or the true sense of the Vnwriten word be known till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility and consequently when the thing to be proven is his Infallibility it cannot be proven at all either by a writen or an unwriten word This Argument you dared not to propound and make a formal answere thereunto But all you say to this Suppressed Argument is that when you affirmed That a point of Religion to be true and to be conforme to the writen word of GOD were Synonima's you spake it onely Ad Hominem This is all your Reply and suppose it were true let any who hath sense judge whether you have evacuated the Argument For you touch but one part of the confirmation of one branch of the Dilemma which is abundantly proveÌ„ by another reason which might suffice suppose that which you touch were wholly laid aside You are far from the gallant resolution of Alexander who said Nola furari Victoriam Nay you are so base that when you cannot solve an Argument you wrape it up from the knowledge of the Reader and having given a touch of that without which the Argument abydes in its entire force you have the confidence to give out that you have confuted the whole Argument This is not the first experience I have of your Iesuitical ingenuitie But I must adde that even that which you have said cannot be admitted as if the Equipollencie of the two forementioned Propositions had onely been asserted by you Ad Hominem And the rather because what you say in this is agreeable to the grounds which you lay downe in your First Paper which there Interminis you affirme should be agreeed unto by all Now the chief scope of the First Paper and Syllogisme is to hold out that the True Religion hath grounds to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And therfore both in my answere to your First Paper and in my Answere to your Third wherein you had asserted the Equipollencie of these Propositions â— drew an Argument against your Romish unwriten Traditions to which then you durst make no Reply albeit now as if what you had then writen had been forgoten you would flinsh from what you had formerly said upon this pretext as if it had been spoken Ad Hominem If you had said that you had spoken that onely Pro tempore from your Iesuitical principle of equivecation when you meaned nothing so I could indeed have beleeved you Though you have bewrayed as much basenes as I beleeve ever man did in so much writing yet you have the boldnesse to traduce some of our Divines not telling whome as citeing the Objections of your Authors for their Assertions But Turpe est Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipsum Hath not the strength of your Romish Writers lyen in misrepresenting both the lives and writings of Reformed Divines Yea. your baseness in this hath stretched it self beyond them How grosly have you corrupted and falsifyed the writings both of Ancient and Moderne Authors as hath been demonstrated by Doctor Iames In his Treatise of the corruptions of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Pastors Prelats and Pillars of the Church of Româ— and by Cocus in his Censura veterum Scriptorum Beside many others You close all with a Tale of an Old wife And I confesse all you have said may well be reckoned Inter Aniles fabulas Yet you have the boldnesse againe to accuse me of Ignorance because I cannot homologat your absurd assertion That before we beleeve a Divine truth there must preceed a knowledge that God speakes by the Propounders Had you so often charged another with Ignorance you might perhaps have heard from him or now Sus Minervam I doubt truely if ever your dsperat Romish cause met with a more Blocksh Advecat then your self If I know that GOD speakes by such â— man must I not Simul semel beleeve it to be truth which he speakes How then were you so stupide as to affirme that the knowledge that GOD speakes by a man must preceed the beâ—â—â—f of the truth spoken Were you not more cautions before â—hen you onely required the previous knowledge of the Propounders assistance In actu primo But now your words would seeme to require the previous knowledge of GODS assistance In actu secundo For in propriety of speach GOD speakes not by a man but when he assists him In actu secundo Is this the nature of mans intellect to assent to a proposition which hath no evidence in it self without any reason Why then demand you an assent from me to your proposition concerning this Infallible assistance which I am sure is not Per se nota when neither can a reason be extorted from you to prove it not can you solve the objections brought against it Is there no ground upon which a Hearer may be convinced that this
did come to my hands the fourth of November and I doe not wonder of your long silence of near three moneths for it is patched up of so various and copious Digressions copied out as it seems of Controversie bookes that you will scarce find one of twenty that will take the paines to read only over And to make it grow you have adjoined a long and tedious discourse about Real presence which appearingly is the substance of all you taught your Scholars this last Year But all this your painful labour for so many moneths is lost since as alwayes I have protested to you that I take no notice of things out of the way Neither will begiune any other thing before we have fully ended the maine point This debate was occasioned of a continual Railing made by you in the Pulpit againes Catholick Religion but with such ingenuity out of that your Chaire of Verity that in place of Catholick Dogmes to be impugned you did often substitute and propone in a ridiculous manner to the people Problematick opinions holden by some Scholastickes and Casuists as manifestly appeared out of the conference we had by mouth Whether this did proceed out of gross Ignorance or Malice or out of both I remit to your self Seeing that you did show so great fervour in skaring your Auditors from Catholick Religion you were desired to confirme them in their own Religion by produceing some solid but special ground and principle whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion And though in the beginning under the pretext that you had onely the Defenders part you stood stiffe not to be obliged to this Yet because you saw that it could not consist with the reputation of a man in your place to play altogether the Dumme in a matter of Religion of so great concernment as is the putting in question whether the PROTESTANT Religion be a True Religion or not lest this declineing should be imputed either to your ignorance or to the want of positive grounds after that with defuse digressions of all sorts you did runne your self as it were out of breath At long lang length you were forced to have your recouse to the Old jock trot that your PROTESTANT Authors teaches you to wit that your Religion is proven to be true by this Medium or principle because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture As containing perspicuously all things necessarie for mans Salvation This then being by your own confession the chief and most plausible ground for the truth of your Religion you are desired to lay asid all other things hold you at this precisly until you make it good and proportion at to confirme your own PROTESTANTS in their Religion You say â—â—en that your Religion is proven to be a True Religion because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture But it cannot be showen that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture excep first it be showen that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make this good you must first produce some special ground or principle whereby a judicious man may be reasonably induced to think that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture that is to say the sense intended by the holy Ghost For as it is impossible that a thing be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there be a true sense so it is impossible to show or prove a thing to be conforme to the true sense except it be first shown and proven that there is a true sense Al then that is required of you is that you produce some special ground or principle to make it appeare that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture since all the rest depends upon this onely one thing and that the ground which you produce to prove this be such as cannot equally serve to prove a false Religion acknowledged by your self for a false Religion to have the true sense of the letter of Scripture And this incumbes upon you if you will vindicat your Religion from this foul note that there can be shown no difference betwixt it and a false Religion And consequently that it is impossible that your Religion can be shown or proven to be a True Religion And it is expected that you will performe this with a clear Substantious Laconick and School-way laying altogether aside your diffuse reviling Pulpit way It is fatal to you to close your Paper with braging and praising your self and extolling your own answeres and withall to undervailne all that is brought against you but this as other things doe not reach to the maine point Mr. IOHN MENZIES Answere to the Iesuits eight Paper Some Animadversions upon Master Dempster alias Rind or Logan the Iesuit his eight Paper wherein he so shamlesly tergiverseth that he answeres not to one word of that which was replyed to him HOW now you Thersites Have you so shamlesly deserted the Scene Is your Syllogisme which Seven times you had repeated in Folio now relinquished without proving either Major Minor or justifying the Forme thereof Had you nothing at all to say for your Cavils about Acatalogue of necessaries the Rules of interpretation of Scripture the Infallibility of your Propounders or your Motives of credibility nor yet the ingenuity to acknowledge your self to be overcome by reason Are all your whisperings why the truth of Religion may not be examined By its conformity with the faith of the most Ancient Church silenced and yet dare you not comit your cause to the tryal Is it a sufficient confutation of what was replyed to you to say that the Prolixitie of the Reply would outwearie the patience of the Reader Would such a complement have been taken from Whitaker and Chamier as a sufficient confutation of Bellarmin's Vast volumes What a lazie Drone are you who could hardly digest the paines of reading two poor sheets of Paper Had I not so far condescended to your dulnes as to give you a confutation of all your Seven Papers in two words Could I be more Laconick Did I not put it in your option either to deale with the Large Paper or with these Two Words Could you neither read nor confute Two Words Are not you fitter to be a Neat-Herd then a Disputant Doe you not deserve that very character which Melâ—hior Canus puts upon the author of your Golden Legend Lib. 11. Loc. Com. cap. 6. Where he cals him Hominem ferrei eris plumbei cerdis a man of a brasen face and a leaden heart that is both shamless and witless Doe you not nobly act the part of a Champion for your Romish Cause who in stead of a consutation of a Polemick discourse stricking at the foundation of your Papal Superstition doe substitute a calumnious reflexion upon the first occasion of the debate Who
that your Romish Church like an old Whoore doth still wax worse and worse How often have our Divines demonstrated that your Romish Church is much more corrupt and grosse in her Tenets since the Council of Trent then before Doe not we know how often you set at nought Old Doctors when they agree not with the principles of your Present Papal faction Hence your Jesuit Escobar Tom. 1. theol moral in praeloq cap. 2. num 8. frequenter accidit sayeth he ut quae opinio paucis ab hinc annis in â—su non erat mode communi consensu recipiatur è contra Yea though you doe vainly brage of your Unity how few points of controversie are there betwixt you and us wherein you are not sub-divyded amongst your selves You may find this learnedly made out by Doctor Morton in his Appeale for PROTESTANTS out of the confession of Roman Doctors I will give you but one Instance at the present Your Papal indulgences are one of your now received Romish articles and yet some of your Ancient Doctors mantained them to be but Pias fraudes meere impostures So our of your Aquinas testifyeth Gregorie de Valentia lib. de indulg cap. 2. It may be Objected secondly That your Jesuit Escobar hath disputed may safely goe away he is not bound to doe it but may without sinne kill the man who intends to strick him though but lightly or if the Priest be consulted by another that over-reaches in his passion he may flatter him declaring with the same Tolet. Lib. 4. cap. â—3 num 4. That if a man be in a great passion so transported that he considers not what he sayes if in that case he doth blaspheme his blasphemie is not mortal sinne So may the Priest sooth them who commit horrid crimes in their drunkenness with the foresaid Cardiual Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 10. num 3. That if a man be beastly drunk and then commit fornieation that formeation is not sinne Yea he may with the same Cardinal lib. 5. cap. 13. num 2. Declare that if a man desires carnal pollution that he may evite carnal temptations or for his health it were no sinne Time would fail me in reckoning out such Probable nay Damnable Doctrines of your Casuists according to which your Confessors can determine exceeding many cases sutable to the inclination of the party with whome they have to doe either according to their own opinion or according to the opinion of some other Grave Doctor And what ever is delivered according to a probable opinion may be warrantably practised though there be another more probable Quaelibet opinio probabilis tutam reddit conseâ—entiam in operando sayeth your Escobar Tom. 1. Theol. Moral lib. 2. Sect. 1 cap. 2. num 22. Now shall your Casuists be permitted to introduce such unheard of impieties into the World by the pretended authoritie of Out grave Doctor without check or controll Shall their Problematick decisions warrand such shavelings as you to encourage lewd persons to murther their Neighbour blaspheme GOD violat womens chastity and cut off Princes for to that purpose also they have many Problematick decisions and when we oppose these impieties shall we be rated as ridiculous Railers Doth your Church of Rome thinke to wash her hands in innocency as if she were not guilty of these impious decisions because they are not ratified by the decree of a General Council What I pray you bath she decreed against them Your Religion at least is such with which all these impieties are wel consistent There is nothing in your Religion repugnant to them But besides are not these Casuistick tractats writen by your gravest Doctors in the face of the Sun under the Popes nose Is not this pernicious doctrine of Probables publickly avouched and known among you Yea are not these bookes approven by your authorised Licencers who are intrusted to looke Ne fides Ecclesiae detrimenti aliquid patiatur Your Church therefore will never be able to vindicat her self either before GOD or rational Men from being an abettor of these impieties Nay this leaves an undenyable conviction upon the consciences of your own authors in so much that Dominicus a Soto cited by Doctor Taylor in his Dissuaesive cap. 2. sect 1. I am so fat from stealing as often times doe your Jesuits that I ingenuously tell you when I have not a booke by me sayeth Non ilico ut â—â—mo se reum sentit culpae paenitentiae lege paenitere constringitur Haec profecto conclusie more usu Ecclesiae satis videtur constabilita Where he charges your Church with this Prophans doctrinâ— which hardens men in impenitencie But of this enough for the time After your impertinent and calumnious Digression concerning the first occasion of our Debate and your Problematick points for my worke in all these eight Papers hath been to follow a roving Vagrant from one impertinencie to another you claver to as little purpose concerning the sense of holy Scripture Before say you that our Religion be proven from Scripture it must be first proven that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture But First Ought you not remember that in this writen debate you doe sustaine the part of the Opponent might it not therefore be better retorred upon you thus Before you prove that the PROTESTANTS have not the True Religion you ought first to prove that they have not the true sense of Scripture And may it not be a convinceing argument Ad Hominem against you that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and consequently the True Religion seeing in all these Eight Papers you who appeared as the Romish Champion to disprove the Religion of PROTESTANTS have not been able to produce one Medium to prove the falshood of their Religion or of their sense of holy Scripture But it seems that you would willingly forget that you are the Opponent I wonder nothing that you who turne the weighty points of the Law to Problems should make a Probleme of this matter of fact how evident so ever it be So miserably have you discharged the Opponents office that you may truely be ashamed to owne it But SecoÌ„dly Could I make fairer proffers to you then I have done Have I not offered to disput whether PROTESTANTS have the True Religion and the true sense of Scripture both by Intrinsick Arguments from the Series of the context of Scripture from parallel places and the analogie of faith as also by a more Extrinsick test namely the conformity of Religion with the faith of the most Ancient Christian Church But as a perfect Coward who distrusted your cause you durst adventure on neither of these Nay all your cavils which once you started against both these grounds such as a catalogue of necessaries rules of interpretation of Scripture c. I have so convinceingly confuted that you have not dated once to mention them againe in this your last Paper Yea Thirdly Flave I not gone a further length and
though I was onely the Defendant yet being out-wearied by your Cowardlynesse Have I not demonstrated that in sundrie chief points of controversie such as the Perspicuity and perfection of Scripture the fallibility of Popes and Councils and in the matter of transubstantiation that the PROTESTANTS had the right and true sense of Scripture and that you Romanssts were in the trespasse But you as a Catholick Doctor have one Catholicon by which you coufute all that your Adversarie objects namely by calling it a Digression for with that Reply you have satisfied your self throughout all your Papers Onely as to the last Specimen which I gave you concerning Transubstantiation you think you come off with honour by saying That it savours of what I taught my Scholars this last year Are not you a brave Champion indeed who are as afraid of an Argument that hath beene handled in the Schools as you would be of a Crocodile What sport would your men have made had our Whitaker Iunius Chamier and Danaaus declined to examine Bellarmins arguments because he had handled them before in that Colledge where he was Professor But whereas you say That the Argument which I brought against your transubstantiation seems to have beene the summe of all that I taught in the School this last year you shall know that I have not been accustomed to such laziness as to drone whole years like you upon one Syllogisme As in these forementioned particulars I have demonstrated that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and not you the same might be showen in all the rest of the points of controversie betwixt you and us and hath beene abundantly done by our Divines But to propose more Arguments to you is but Margaritas porco projicere For it would seeme you dare graple with none of them Fourthly I must advertise you of a Radical error which leades you into many more For you seeme still to suppose that who ever are a true Church must have one general ground from which the truth of all the points of Religion which such a society doe owne may be demonstrated without an examination of particulars And this if I mistake not is your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leades you into all the rest of your errors And therefore you still wave the examination of particulars and call for such a general ground But in this you show extreame basenesse that you neither prove the necessity of such a Principle nor yet produce that Principle by which your and our Religion is to be examined Only you insist still upon one general false Hypothesis as if it were an undenyable Axiom and a Datum Whereas in very truth a true Church may mantaine the fundamentals of Christianity and yet alas have the Tares of some errors mingled with the Wheat as is largely demonstrated by our Divines in that Question Num Ecclesia possit errare And therfore there is not one General Ground to be expected proving that all the points of Religion mantained by such a society are truth without examining particulars And this may be strongly confirmed Ad Hominem against you For if there were any such Commone Ground it would be the Infallibility of your Propounders but not this as I have proven in my former Papers Nay I have so soundly cudgelled this your Romish principle in my Last that you durst not once mention it in this your Eight Paper How ever if there be any ground which you suppose to prove the truth of Religion as a Test which none can justly decline I appeale you to produce it and I undertake by the helpe of GOD to show that either it is a false ground or else that it agrees to the PROTESTANT Religion Fifthly this Assertion of yours That before we câ—in prove the truth of our Religion from Scripture we ought first to prove that we have the true sense of Scripture had need of a very favourable and benigne interpretation else it is perfect non-sense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our ReligioÌ„ is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove we have the true ReligioÌ„ before we prove that we have the true Religion A noble stick of Romish non-sense Sixthly how easie were it to demonstrate against you Romanists that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture seeing in most of all the Positives of our Religion you doe agree with us as that there is a GOD that he is to be adored and that there are three Persons c. Consequently The PROTESTANTS sense of Scripture must be the true sense else your Religion cannot be true You must either acknowledge that vve have the true sense of Scripture or condemne your ovvn Religion The chief controversie that remaines betvvixt you and us is concerning your Supernumerarie Additions as vvhether not onely GOD is to be adored but also Images and Crosses and not onely GOD is to be invocated but also Saincts and Angels c. That is vvhether there be so many more Supernumerarie senses of Scripture besides those vvhich PROTESTANTS mantaine and you Papists dare not deny Whether I say besides these there be other senâ—es of Scripture mantained by you Romanists and denyed by us Ought not you then to prove these your Supernumerarie senses And are not vve sufficiently vvarranted to adhere to the Negative except there be solid grounds for these Superadded sexses vvhich I beleeve neither you nor the vvhole sâ—lb of Jesuits shall be able to shovv though you get a superaddition of all Lucifers Acumen But Seventhly and Lastly Seeing nothing will satisfie you unlesse I though onely the Defendant doe also prove against you the Negative that is that not onely Our sense of Scripture is true but also that these Your superadded and supernumerarie senses are not true therefore to draw you if it be possible our of your lurking holes I will try you by this Argument The sense of Scripture given by your present Romish Church in many things contradicts the sense given by the Ancient Romish Church Ergo the sense put upon Scripture by your Present Romish Church in many things cannot be true The Sequel is cleare because two contradictories cannot be true If therefore you confesse that the Ancient Romish Church had the true sense of Scripture which ye must doe or else destroy the great foundation of your Religion namely the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome in all ages then wherein you contradict the Ancient Romish Church therein surely you deviat from the true sense of Scripture It remaines therefore onelie that I confirme the Antecedent which I doe by a few cleare Instances Instance first Your present Romish Church mantains that Images are to be adored Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by the
true Ergo c. The Sequel of the Major you dare not but admit unlesse you mine Insidell and deny that the true Christian Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the Scripture And for the probation of the Assumption you cannot but allow me that measure against you which you allow your self against me and therefore I appeale you to produce any solid ground which the True Christian Religion hath which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth Yea or any solid ground which you Râ—â—anists can pretend to for confirmation of your Religion which we want You have never adventured to name any but the pretended Infallibility of your Propounders But this we have so battered to you that now you have stolen fom it not daring to mention it againe in any of these your Two last Papers Nay Fourthly I must remember you of a Dilemma ad Hominem against you Romanists which you might have gathered from my last If we deviat from the sense of holy Scripture then it must be either in our Affirmatives or in our Negatives Not in our Affirmatives you and we agreeing in most of these Therefore either in these we have the true sense else you have it not Nor in our Negatives else your contradictorie Affirmatives should be true But I proved in my Last that in many of these you doe manifestly erre as contradicting the Ancient Romish Church particularly in your Adoration of Twages Transubstansiation Communion under one kind The Poper suprexmatie the Canonicall authority of Apocry ha bookes The jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Printes your papall Indulginces at extended to Purgarotse And I am readie to prove the falshood of the rest of your Super-induced articles when ever you have the confidence to come to a particular tryall But I am utterly discouraged from multiplying more instances against a tergiversing fellow who is neither moved by credit nor conscience to examine what is replyed to him Fifthly seeing you shun to tell a ground by which the truth of Religion is to be tryed lest the Balfardie of your Religion should be proven I will give you a solid ground from a person of great fame in your Romish Gourcâ—â— though a Grecian by extract This is Goorgius Scholarius who pleaded for the interest of the Latine Church in the matter of the ProcessioÌ„ of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son at the Councell of Florence Now this Scholarius tom 4. Conciliorum in Orat. 3. ad Concil Florent proposes these rules for determining controversies in Religion Et primo quidem sayeth he non decet velle omnia disertis verbis è scriptura desumere cum multos haereticos scimus pratextu hoc usos Sed si quid verbis it a prolatis sit consequens adaeque erit honorandum similiter quod veris confessis fuerit repugnans contrarium nullo modo est admittendum deinde eorum quae obscurius dicta sunt sumendae sunt è scriptura ipsa veluti magistra explicationes per ea quae uspians clarius illa disserit Where this learned Author holds these foure choise Positions for discerning betwixt truth and error in Religion to all which we PROTESTANTS doe cordially agree The First is That all divine truth are not revealed in so many words in Scripture Secondly that some divine truths are plainly set downe Diserris verbis and what by firme consequence is deduced from these ought to be beleeved and received with the same respect as these which are delivered In terminis Thirdly whatsoever is repugnant to these truths which are plainly Diserris verbis set downe or confessed upon all hands ought to be rejected as erroneous Fourthly that these things which are more obscurely treated of in Scripture are to receive their explications from other cleare Scripture as the Mistres of our faith These grounds so laid downe he afterwards accon modaâ—s to his present Hypothesis for decyding the controversie betwixt the Latine and Greek Church concerning the procession of the holy Ghost and may by the same measure be applyed to the controversies betwixt us PROTESTANTS and You Romanists If therefore you will dire to adventure upon the tryal of particular controversies betwixt you and us according to this standard I trust you shall see if prejudice doe not blind you that all the points of the Religion of PROTESTANTS are either revealed in Scripture plainly and In terminis or the by solid consequence are deduceable from these which are revealed In terminis And on the contrary that your Supe irauce Romish article wherein we differ from you are neither In terminis in Scripture nor yet by solid consequence deduceable from these things which are clearly revealed in Scripture but on the contrarie are repugnant thereunto I hope therefore the intelligen Reader wil observe that if you descend not to a particular tryal it is not because a ground was not assigned to you from discerning truth in Religion from error but from diffidence of your desperat cause Onely that you doe not returne to your usual trifling Cavill that Hereticks and those of a false Religion may pretend the same grounds for justifying their Heresies let me tell you that Hereticks may indeed pretend a patrocinie from these grounds which upon examination will overturne their cause And therefore what I say to you I say the same of all other Hereticks Socinians Pelagians Nestorians Aâ—â—baptists Antinomians c. That if they will come to a particular discusse according to these premised rules what ever their pretences be it shall appeare that their Heresies are neither In terminis contained in Scripture nor yet are deduceable by solid reason from these things which are clearly revealed but are repugnant thereunto Sixthly I answere Directly to this your Cavill by this Distinction If you meane that PROTESTANTS or whatsoever society acclaiming the True Religion before they prove the truth of their Religion or the conformity thereof to the true sense of Scripture must first produce one ground proving all the senses which they give in Scripture In cumulo to be true without a particular examination of the several senses and points of Religion mantained by them that I say is a grosse falshood and mistake For a Society may professe the true Religion and mantaine all the essentialls the cof and yet as I told n my last have some errors mingled in with these 〈◊〉 as our Dâ—vines have demonstrated in the Question Nom Ecclesiâ— possit errare Therefore if this be your mâ—â—ning it concernes you to have proven it for I doe and in my Last I imply did deny it But if you onely meane that PROTESTANTS or others acclaiming the truth of Religion must either have the essentials and all truths in their Religion plainly and In terminis revealed in Scripture or else solidly deduceable upon a particular discusse from these things that are so plainly revealed I grant it freely that it ought and must be so And therefore it you will
nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion it remaines alwise in that state as hath been often told you that a man is in who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaime Calvine as the author of your Religion and claimes to Iohn Hus and the Albigenses at last to be upon your side though the world knowes that theyâ— were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrocinie that you make to defend your patriarch Luther that he did not leap out of the Catholick Church but only out of the Romish Church though if you had done compleatly this defence you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhâ—â—e and with which he did keep externall communion when he left the Roman Church Good Sir leaving all your Paterga's remember that the occasion of this debate was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholick Dectrines and being desired to give some good solid ground for the truth of your own religion whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to imbrace it You did very stoutly undertake the bussines did bragingly protest that ye would mantaine the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever before whomesoever or in whatsoever place or time but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion Your first refuge was that you as the Defendant was not obliged to produce any ground but all the burthen incumbed on me as the Opponent to prove that you had no grounds And in this you behaved your self just as if one should come as sent from the Council to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Councill of Aberdene a charge to apprehend a persone as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince and the L. Provest desiring to see his Commission he should reply that he was not obliged to show his Commission but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion and being demanded that you show your grounds whereby the truth of it may be mantained you reply that you are not obliged to produce grounds but that another should prove that you have no grounds not considering that religion is a positive thing and a complex of positive dogm's and so cannot be mantained to be true but by producing of positive grounds and the shifting to produce them will make all to give sentence that it is destitute of solid grounds Your next refuge was that your Religion was proven to be true because it was conforme to Scripture that is to say to the true sense of the letter of Seripture Now this pretended conformity was proven to be meerly imaginary and groundlesse because as it is impossible that a thing can be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense exceept it be proven that there is a true sense Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style and by a judicious and school way to produce some soild ground whereby mens understanding might be convinced that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost of the letter of Scripture To this you answered first that it makes a Non-sense to say that a Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be proven that there is a true sense Now I ask you where lyes here a nonserse or point me out any thing here that is not most cleare Indeed you in place of this my proposition did substitute one of your own and with your own words and I willingly grant to you that yours makes a Non-sense Next you seeme to chasse because I taxt your discourse to be founded upon grosse ignorance both about the nature of Formall Precisions and about the nature of True Religion and to this you reply first that to speake to you of Formall Precisions is a Pedantick thing But is it possible that you who professeth your self to be a Divine should so slight Precisions since they are the very quintessence of all superiour sciences and Aristotle might teach you that there is no science of particulars but in so far as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision and that every science hath his own particular abstraction whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences Next you remit me to your School-Boyes who will teach me the nature of Formall Precisions I am glade that Scholers are so learned but if it be so they out-shut their Master and knowes more nor their Master at least showes to know as appeares in this same answere that you make here For I telling you That the objective grounds of precisions is separability and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture and True Religion and that on both parts because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture Since there was true religion in the World before there was any Scripture writen And on the other part All the truths revealed in Scripture might be though they componed no Religion to wit If GOD had so revealed them that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to beleeve them as he might have done or wherefore might he not have done it Now to impugne this you bring texts of Scripture to prove that De Facto this obligation to beleeve is not seperat I speake of Separability and what GOD might have done and you argue against Actuall separation as if I had said that De Facto there is no obligation to beleeve things revealed in Scripture Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking Or were not well applyed to you those civill termes that your self use in this Paper to wit that you behoved to be drunke or dreaming when thir things escaped your penne Likewise how grosse mistaking is it to say That I granted that a Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture are Synonima's whereas I said only this Ad Hominem and to argue you out of your own principles who admits no rule of divine truth but the writen word And in this you imitat many other of your Champions who as I told you else where did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves Your second answere is that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is proven to be a true sense because it coincids
grounds to prove its conformity with the Scriptures but also to stop the mouth of a Caviller I declared to you what was that ground and I tooke it from Georgius Scholarius his Third Oration in the Councill of Florence and did appeale thereunto for the decision of all controversies betwixt us and you But you never once touched this ground How then could you imagine that you had confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with Scripture Doeth the Devil abuse the imaginations of Jesuited Hereticks as somesay that he doeth the fancy 's of Witches making them imagine that they doe the thing of which they only dreamed Fourthly did I not give a Direct Answere to your Objection by a formall distinction If any thing should have been taken notice of ought not this Yet ye wholly overleap it A goodly Dispistant indeed Fifthly I refuted some new Cavils which you started to prove That the truth of Religion ought not to be tryed by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries But you found my Replyes thereto so thornie that you have not dared to meddle with them Only you have an impudent Calumny concerning that matter which I may afterwards touch Sixthly whereas as you had accused Calvine and our Reformers as contemners of Antiquity I shew not only that Calvine had confuted your Religion from Antiquity but also that Antiquity is more contemned by you Romanists then ever it was by the Reformed Churches I brought many Instances hereof from Bellarmine Maldonate Melchior Canus Brisacerius and Cornelius Mussus but all these you smother in silence Thus have I given an overly touch of some few of your Omissions Whoso will be at paines to compare my ninth Paper with your Tenth will find you guilty of many more Only now let me ask are these the Digressions the Parerga's and the Superfluities which you talk of in my Paper Doe not every one of those touch the Cause Have they not a genuine rise from Your Papers Who that regarded either truth or his own reputation would have overleaped all those You have made great haste to transmit your Papers to me but you have still left your worke behinde you I have gotten Ten Papers from you but not One Answere Take a view of your Omissions and you will find all My Papers unanswered Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your after thoughts have need to be set on worke to supplie your Omissions In the next place I shall gleane up some of your Vnfaithfull misrepresentations in doing whereof I shall not need to stand to the precise Method of your Rapsodick Paper And first you have such a shamelesse fore head as to say That I had recanted the confineing of my discourse concerning the conformitie of our Religion with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries This is that Calumnie of yours at wich I was hinting in your Fifth Omission How could you hatch such a manifest unteach Let all the Iesuits in Europe play the Criticks on My Papers and see if I have recanted one Syllable that ever I avouched in any of them I told indeed in my Last that you like aâ— Dreamer â—haâ— substituted that Concerning conformitie with the Fathers of the first three Centuries as a Second Answere which I had given in my Eight Paper to your Cavil concerning the sense of Scripture whereas in all that Eight Paper of mine there was no expresse mention at all of the Fathers of the first three Centuries Is my discoverie of your Mistake a recanting of ought that ever I had said concerning the Fathers of the first three Centuries Doe you not behave your self like a Dreamer when you substitute Quid pro quo Any hint I had in my Eight Paper at that Matter was to challenge you that though in your Eight Paper you had been reduced Ad metam silentii in that point all the Cavils mentioned in your Seventh being so fully confuted that you had nothing to Reply in your Eight yet you durst not adventure to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformtie with the faith of the most Ancient Church In my Ninth I did expresly confute some New Cavils which upon further deliberation you had started in your Ninth against the tryall of Religion By the conformitie thereof with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries So farre was I from recanting or refusing to admit that as a discretive Test for trying the truth of Religion Surely the first 300. years were the flower of the Primitive Church Hence is that testimony which Egesippus in Euseb lib. 3. hist Eccles cap. 29. gives to the Church in those dayes Ad ca tempora Virgo pura incorrupta mansit Ecclesia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church then had continued a pure and a chast Virgin Shall you never have the ingenuity to Recant such impudent Calumnies But I nothing wonder that you cannot be induced to have the truth of Religion examined By its conformitie with the Church in these Centuries For as a Learned Divine hath observed In these ages most of your present Râ—mish tenets were unknown to the Wold Your Papal Indulgences were then unhatched Purgatorie fire was then unkindled to make your kitchin 's smoake The Masse was then uumoulded Transubstantiation unbaked The Treasurie of Merits was then unmiuted The Popes transcendent power was uncreated Ecclesiasticks were unexempted And deposing of Kings was then undreamed of The Lay People were not cozened then of the Cup Communion under one kinde onlie was not then in kind It was not then known that Liturgies and Prayers were publicklie made in an unknown tongue They did not then worship or adore any wooden or breaden God They worshiped that which they knew and that in Spirit and in truth Thus Simon Birkbeck in his Tractat entituled the Protestants Evidence Sect. 3. pag. 18. Edit 3. By which you may perceive That it is no new sect of my own that I am hatching when I appeale to the Religion of the Church in the Three first Centuries as you foolishly whisper in your Ninth Paper But because you use these invidious words of Confyning my discourse to the three first Centuries You may remember that in my Seventh Paper I cleared that the First Restriction of my Argument to the Three first Centuries for proving the truth of our Religion and the falshood of yours was occasioned by the discourse I was then upon concerning the Ancient Apologists in these Centuries And that my argument might have been extended further as in such like exigences it had been further extended by Juell Whitâ—ker Crakâ—nthorp and other learned PROTESTANTS Now only I tell you that if you have the confidence to try the truth or falshood of Religion By the consonancie thereof with or dissonancie to the faith of the Catholick Chruch in the first three Centuries you shall find that I never intended so to astrict my self
shall never declyne the discusse thereof with you or any of your Romish Synagogue But let us take a view of the other pretended Contradiction which you object Namely That I affirme that I doe sustaine in this debate the part of the Defendant and that yet the greatest part of my Papers containe impugnations of your Romish Doctrines And is not your shame so much the greater that I have impugned so many of your Doctrines and you durst never adventure to vindicat one of them If most of my Papers containe impugnations of your Religion how did you before alledge that I declyned to come to particulars Should not alyat have a good memorie But is there any apparent Contradiction in that which you object It might perhaps be disputed whether it be proper for a Respōdent to use Contra-argumentations but who ever said that it was a Contradiction May not I as a Respondent hold you to your worke to prove the Negatum and yet Exsuperabundanti reach forth a blow against you by Retortion Nay your self perceived that this would be reponed to you therefore say you That retortion doth not serve the turne in the present case betwixt us because it is not enough that PROTESTANTS have all the grounds for their Religion which Romanists have for theirs seeing PROTESTANTS have rejected the Romish Religion and the grounds thereof But this is like the rest of your cobwebs for though a valid Retortion doth not alwayes suffice to establish positively the Hypothesis of the Respondent yet it conduces to stop the mouth of the cavilling Opponent And besides you Romanists doe often pretend to Grounds which doe not compet to you as to a Conformity with Scripture and with primitive antiquity Shall conformity with Scripture and Antiquity cease to be grounds by which the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS may be demonstrated because you Romanists doe falslie pretend thereunto How often hath this been hammered upon you that conformitie with the Law may prove luculently one to be an Honest-Man though a Knave pretend thereunto Excellently said Austine Lib. 3. de Baptism◠contra Donatistas cap. 19. Haeretici Scripturas tenent ad speciem non ad veritatem and againe Ad imagines phantasmatum suorum convertunt omnia Sacramenta verba librorum sanctorum Nec tamen quia illae imagines falsae sunt doctrinae Daemoniorum propterea illa Sacramenta divind eloquia sic exhonoranda sunt ut illorum esse putentur The summe of this choise testimonie of Austine is that Scriptures must not be laid aside as no being grounds of the True Religion because Hereticks boldly though fasly pretended thereunto By this time you may see that notwithstanding all your Jesuit breeding you may goe to School againe and searne what a Contradiction is I come now to take some notice how you behave your self in vindicating your poor cavill Concerning the sense of Scripture Suffer me therefore to lay before you some Instances of your weakeness herein As First You now acknowledge that in the sense wherein I proposed your objection in my nynth Paper it is perfect Non-sense But in my Ninth Paper I gave no other sense of it then I had given before in my Eight Paper Nay in my Ninth Paper I did repeat In terminis what I had said in my Eight to make you sensible of your ludibrious whifle cōcerning Formal precisions But notwithstanding the sense which I had given of your objectiō in my eight paper you mantained it to be Good sense that ther interveened a sufficient distinctiō betwixt the Medium the Problem But now without any variatiō since it is become perfect Nonsense according to your own acknowledgment If this be your skill of Formal precisions wherein you glory to turne Sense to Non-sense neither I nor others will much-envy your Acumen Secondly therefore to make some sense of this your cavil you exhibit it thus to us A Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be first proven that there is a true sense And you cry out Where lyes there any non-sense here And you call on us to point you out any thing which is not cleare But I doe yet desiderat both clearness and truth in this your Assertion as it is now proposed by you I say First I desiderat Clearness for hereby you would seeme to question Whether scripture had a true sense As if the GOD of Truth could not speake Sense or had delyvered Non-sense in the holy Scriptures Yet I have more charitie to you then to thinke that you are come to that height of prophane Scepticisme This only I have said to show that the Sense of your words appeares not so cleare and that they might suffer such a Blasphemous construction But I am apt to conceive that the thing which you would have said was That before we PROTESTANTS prove our Religion to be conforme to the scriptures it must be proven that the sense which we give of scripture is true But besides all which hath been said in my two former Papers to this most of which to this houre remaines unanswered I now say that I desiderat the Truth of this Assertion even as thus expressed For a Proposition may be so suculent that the words being understood the understanding if it be sound cannot but presently take up the sense thereof without any antecedent proofe Else in proving the true sense of any Proposition we should runne In infinitum And therefore that a Religion may be proven to be conforme to the sense of the letter of the Scripture it is only requisite that the sense of the letter of Scripture be either in it self luculent obvious and clear the words being once understood or if it be not so obvious and clear that in that case it be proven This I freely grant and shall never decline in the handling of any controverted point with you But Thirdly in stead of proving that there doth interveen a Formal precision sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme in your Proposition as it was glossed upon by me in my Eight Paper which was the thing incumbent to you you only fall out upon a commendation of Formal Precisions together with some scoffing jeeres against me and my Scholars which discover more of your follie then injure either of us I meddle not with such excentrick foolries Neither doe I deny but Divines may make use of Precisions as occasion serves But to turne so grave a Theologick debate into a Logical scuffle about Formal precisions savoures at best but of a Pedantick spirit Especially when it appeares that it is brought in only to cloacke that which now you confesse to be a Non-sense Fourthly after this whifle about Formal Precisions you bewray grosse inadvertencie about your Objective precisions and separability betwixt all the truths contained in scripture and true Religion Because say you all the truths in Scripture
might have been revealed and no obligation laid upon us to believe them And in this you blame me That I only proved by the Scripture-instances which I brought that there is no actuall separation betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion but did not prove them insenarable But if you looke againe to my Paper you will find that your inadvertencie is onely to be blamed For I did prove the absolute inseparabilitie betwixt all the truths contained in Scripture and the true Religion Which againe I thus demonstrate according to the grounds laid downe in my Last If all the truths in Scripture cannot be without an obligation to believe them in order to the obtaining of Salvation then All the truths of Scripture cannot be except they compound a Religion But the first is true therefore also the last The Sequel of the Major is clear because this is the only pretence upon which you suppose that all Scripture Truths may be and yet compound no Religion because they may be and yet no obligation be laid upon us to believe them If therefore they cannot be except an obligation be laid on us to believe them then surely they cannot be except they compound a Religion It remaines therefore only that we prove the Assumption that they all cannot be revealed without an obligation to believe them and this is cleare from the Scriptures cited in my Last Paper because this is one of the Truths in those Scriptures that we are obliged to believe these Truths And I cited purposlie these Scripturs to prove this And therfore it is impossible that all Scripture truths can be and we not be obliged to believe them For this is one Scripture truth that we are obliged to believe the Truths revealed in Holy Scripture What now I have demonstrated more prolixlie I set downe clearly enough though more succinctly in my Last Albeit it seemes you have been so taken up with your Precifive airie Notions that you have not understood the Paper which was sent to you But to prevent your further mistake in this I thinke it fit to let you know that I distinguish betwixt these two I doe indeed confesse that a Religion may be though nothing be coÌ„mitted to Writing And this was the case of the Ancient Church before Moses But this concernes not our present debate But the thing I deny is That all the truths contained in Scripture way be and yet make no Religion at all And this I hope now I have demonstrated against you both in this and in the former Paper Though your Notional precisions have made either your sight or your judgement Preseind from the Paper which you should have examined and consequently from the purpose By these hints you may consider whether you have added any strength to your insignificant Objection Concerning the sense of Scripture But because you are still harping upon this Cavil About the sense of the Scriptures It would appear that you Looke upon Scripture as so obscure as not able to be a ground for decision of controversies in Religion unless there be some infallible visible-judge I shall desire you to consider how different you are in your apprehersions as to this matter from the Ancient Church in which the decision of Controversies in Religion was committed sometime to Secular persons yea sometime to Heathens which your self will confesse not to be Infallible Have you not read that writing which passeth under the name of Vigilius Bishop of Trent in which there is a dispute betwixt Sabellius Photinus and Arius upon the one side and Athanasius on the other concerning the Trinitie and Deitie of the Lord Jesus Christ and Probus a Heathen is constituted judge to determine betwixt them not according to his own fancy but according to the proofes which they should produce from the Scriptures and after hearing of both he gives sentence for the Truth This dispute you will find set forth among Cassanders works from Page 460. and the sentence of Probus the Judge page 506. c. I doe not say that this Conference was real for the Collocutors were not contemporarie Yet the Learned and Ancient Author of this Dialogue who by some is supposed to be Pope Galosius doth clearly insinuate that the most sublime Mysteries of Christianity are so luculently revealed in Scripture that a meer Pagane may finde out the true sense of Scripture concerning them Have you nor tâ—ad in Epiphanius haeres 66. how that Archelaus an Orthodox Bishop had a dispute against the pernicious Heretick Manet in Caschara a City of Mesopotamia and how by commone consent they â—â—bâ—â—icâ—ed unto Foure Heathen Judges to Marcipus a Phil sâ—ph to Claudius a Physitian to Aegialous a Gramariare and to Clerbâ—lus a Sophister who after hearing adjudged the Victorie to Archelaus And this was no fiction but a reall deed What should I tell you how Laurentius a secular person was Arbiter in a dispute betwixt Augustine and Pascortius an Arian as appeares by Austineâ— Aepist 178 Or how Marcellinus a Tribune did preside by the appointment of Honorius the Emperour at a conference betwixt the Orthodox and the Donatists as Augustine holds forth Tom. 7. in Brevic. Collat Doe not all these make it evident that the Ancient Church did not apprehend such impossibility of finding out the true sense of Scripture without the previous decision of an Infallible visible judge How did Christ command us to Search the Scriptures John 5.39 if their sense be unsearchable Is not this on controversie in Religion whether there be a necessity of an Infallible visible judge and Propounder and who he is And who I pray you shall determine this if not the Scriptures If you have an Infallible Propounder without whose decision the sense of Scripture cannot be attained how injurious is he to the Christian World who will not put forth a clear Comment upon the Whole Scriptures for the finall decision of all Controversies Why doth he not at least give a Decision concerning these inrestine debates among your selves as betwixt your Dominicans and Jesuits c. Are you so farre deluded as not to know that this Fable of Infallibility is the cunning imposture whereby men of your imployment have laboured of a long time to cheat the World But now these of the Traditionarie way among you beginne to perceive that the World is too wise to be still cheared by that one Trick therefore they are betaking themselves to another Method but as fallacious as the former You have a Querie which you expect that I should notice You desire to know When Luther leapt out of the Church of Rome as you phrase is if there was any Church on earth with whome he had visible Communion May ye not be ashamed to move such a Question to me I having convicted you of so many Falshoods and Foolries concerning your last discourse of Luthers separation from Rome and of a Lying Prophesie which you following Bellarmine and Cachlaeus imposed
PAPISMUS LUCIFUGUS OR A faithfull Copie of the Papers exchanged betwixt Mr. IOHN MENZEIS Professor of DIVINITY in the Marischal-Colledge of ABERDENE and Mr. Francis Dempster Iesuit otherwise Sirnamed Rin or Logan WHEREIN The Iesuit declines to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity though frequently appealed thereunto AS ALSO Sundry of the chief Points of the Popish Religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity yea to the Ancient Romish-Church TO ALL WHICH Is premised in the Dedication a true Narration of a verball Conference with the same Iesuit Tit. 1.10.11 There are many unruly and vain Talkers and Deceivers Whos 's mouths must be stopped who subvert whole houses teaching things which they ought not for filthy Lucres sake Aug. lib. 2. de Bapt. con Don. cap. 6. Non afferamus stateras delosas ubi appendamus quod volumus quomodo volumus pro arbitriâ— nostro dicentes hoc grave hoc leve est Sed afferamus divinaâ—â— stateram de Scripturis sanctis tanquam de the sauris Dominicis in illa quid sit gravius appendamus Immo â—on appendamus sed a Domino appensa recognoscamus ABERDENE Printed by IOHN FORBES Younger Printer to the TOVVN Anno Dom. M.DC.LXVIII BON ACCORD Insignia Vrbis abredoniae Unto the Right Honorable M R. ROBERT PATRIE of PORTLETHEN Lord Provest Bailies ALEXAND R. ALEXANDER IOHN SCOT IOHN DUNCAN IOHN SMITH ANDREW SKENE Dean of Gild GILBERT BLACK Treasurer And to the rest of the honorable COUNCILL of ABERDENE RIGHT HONORABLE It was not any supposed Worth in these Papers which moved me to consent to the publishing of them But because our Romish Adversaries had the confidence openly to triumph in City and Country though I hope without ground as if their Champion Master Dempster had left not me only which had been no great matter but also the Religion of PROTESTANTS at a great losse and disadvantage Who Who am I the meanest of the thousands of ISRAEL that any infirmities of mine whether supposed or reall should be charged on so GLORIOUS a CAUSE which is the invincible Truth of the Most High GOD may bid a defyance to all the Goliahs and Hoasts of Romish Philistins Hath not the Reformed Religion stood as an impregnable Rock against all the assaults both of Speculative and Pragmatick heads and bloody hands which have been kept at worke these many years in opposition thereto by the See of Rome Who then that is but one remove from madnesse can imagine that the insignificant scufle of this Iesuit should endanger it I freely confesse what I have said or can say is infinitly below the dignity of the CAUSE which I mantaine yea and exceedingly short of what eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches have said and can further say in behalfe of our Religion Must it not argue either height of prejudice or pitifull shallowness to impute whatsoever deficiencies of such an one as Me to Religion it self Wherefore Reverend Learned Pious Iudicious Persons with whome I did communicate all these Papers when they were exchanged have judged it sit that all should be faithfully published that the World might have a new demonstration on how small grounds to say no worse our clamorous Romanists can triumph as if they were more then conquerours Well may that saying of Austin in Psalm 32. Be accommodated to them Non remanet iis nisi sola infirmitas animositatis quae tanto est languidior quanto se majores vires habere aestimat There only support is the infirmity of an high or overweening stomach which is so much the more feeble as it overvalueth its own strength It hath been the usuall artifice of Hereticks when they could not conquer Truth by their captious argueings to load the assertors thereof with reproaches Austin complained of such dealing both from Pascentius a champion of the Arrians tom 2. Epist. 174. As also from the Donatists tom 7. in Epist ad Donatist post collat What wonder then though Romanists who are so Hereticall in their Doctrines be Acted by the same Calumniating Genius Learned Doctor Prideaux lect 9. de visib Eccles § 11. Hath been at the paines to present his Reader with a multitude of instances of most impudent Calumnies wherewith Romanists have aspersed faithfull witnesses of truth I will not rake in that dung-hil Only let me remember you that Romish practises of this nature were long agoe so known to the World that learned Doctor Featly before that he and Doctor Francis Whyte engaged in their disput with Fisher and Sweet two Iesuits could easily presage and foretell to the pitcher of the field that whatever were the issue of that combat and at whatever disadvantage the Iesuits should be left yet he and his Colegue Doctor Whyte should be conquered in effigie and led in triumph in many a Pageant at Doway Bruxels Rhemes and Rome as afterwards fell out Yea so impudent were the Romanists that Doctor Weston told at Sainct Omers to a Protestant Lord who had been present at the disput viz. to the Earle of Warwick that the two Iesuits had acquitted themselves so admirably well and with so much advantage to the Romish interest that two Earles and an hundreth Auditors were gained to the Church of Rome and of these Earles this noble Lord to whom the Doctor spake was affirmed to be one who could not but smyle as these ludibrious Legends For the Earle well knew there were not near an hunder persons present at the Conference nor one PROTESTANT staggered thereby Yea the person for whose satisfaction that conference was principally intended though before he had his own doubts yet after the debate professed that he was fully resolved as to the Reformed Religion All this is testified by judicious Doctor Featly in the Relation of that Conference Should it then seem strange to any that the tristing debate wherein I have been lately engaged with this Iesuit hath been so grosly misrepresented by men of these principles Who could have expected any thing else Doe men gather grapes of Thorns or Figs of Thistles Yet as to my own particular interest I could have borne all their reproaches remembring that of the Ancient Quisquis volens detrahit famae meae nolens addit mercedi meae But judicious Lovers of Truth finding Religion it self to be thrust at through my sides laid bonds upon me to give the World a faithfull account of that whole transaction though otherwise I could willingly have destined these poor Papers so farre as they concerned me to perpetuall silence Since therefore Very Honorable this scufle with Mr. Dempster fell out under the intuition of your Authority I judged it incumbent to me to present you with this brief ensuing account thereof As you in your Civil Capacity and we your Ministers in our Ecclesiastick Lyne travelled to suppresse Error and Vngodlynesse in this CITY We had frequent opportunity to deal with Persons of a Popish perswasion When we
texts of Scripture and let thir grounds be produced and shown that they cannot be assumed with as great reason to prove that the Clergie of a false Religion hath this ability In actu primo or else you are destitute of speciall grounds and then it is impossible that your Clergie can give the true sense of Scripture because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secundo without a speciall ability In actu primo to doe it So that all the ability that your Clergie is furnished with In actu primo is onely to guesse at the true sense of Scripture and wherefore should people pay you Stipend for guessing since they are endued with sufficient ability themselves and without you to guesse at the true sense of Scripture In this your last Paper you adde a third shift to wit that all the grounds whereby Tertullian and other Fathers proved the truth of Christian Religion against Paganes proves likewise the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion But who will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian Religion but your PROTESTANT Religion And what Christian Religion is so false which may not with as great reasone assume this shift of yours As to that whereby you remitt me to the grounds which Morney Grotins and others of your own Authors brings I pray you since they are your own take all the help you can of them and either be distilling or squeezing all their writs Expresse me one solid ground to prove the truth of your Religion which may not with as great reason be applied to prove a false Religion to be a true Religion Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits fourth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan TO apologize for your long silence you alleage that my third Paper dated May ninth came not to your hands untill May twentyseventh and that it was unsubscrived and hade been first dictated to my Scholers To which it is answered that on the ninth of May I sent an authentick copie of that paper to the Gentle-man of your profession by whome the rest both of yours and mine were addressed If he hath neglected to deliver it to you untill the twentyseventh of May you may call him to an accompt and put him to Pennance at your next shriveing for being so negligent of the concernments of his Ghostly father Whereas you say it was unsubscrived I can hardly beleeve you yet if it be so it hath been a lapse of memorie But you are not In bona fide to object that omission to me who never had the confidence to signe any of your papers However Quod scripsi scripsis what I have written I have written And to give evidence that I am ready to mantaine what ever is in that Paper against all the fry of Jesuits transmit to me with a confident hand the copie which I sent and it shall be returned with my subscription manuall As to the alleagance that it was dyâ—ed to some Students before I sent it to be conveyed to you it is a grosse untruth For it was not communicated to them or to any else untill the week thereafter which I was the more easily inclined to doe hearing how busie your Romish proselyts were to disseminat your Papers and that with the addition of impudent calumnies But beleeve me I should not have accused you for your delay if at length you had supplied the omissions of your former Papers and done the work of an Opponent neatly and throughly as ye were required Sat cuò si sat benè But you must give me leave to give you a free Character of this Paper I finde it to be nothing but a Rapsodie of Railings Repetitions Tergiversations yea and shamefull flinching from your own principles So that if I mistake not it had been more for your credit utterly to have kept silence For Stultus est labor Ineptiarum By this time it appears that it is lost labour to presse you any further to make a Reply to the principall points of my former Papers For now you protest you will not doe it and you cloak your shamefull tergiversation with this pellucid excuse that these things in my Papers were out of the way That is if you may be beleeved impertinent But who beside you will say that it was impertinent for me to discover a fallacious Sophistication in the ground of all your discourse What ingenuous person would not have judged himself concerned to clear himself of such an imputation Yet though this hath been now foure times charged on you ye think it not pertinent to vindicat your self Who besides you but will acknowledge that it was pertinent for me to demonstrate that by your own discourse you had ensnared your self in Contradictions and had cut the sinews of your Romish and Tridentine faith What a poor Advocat then are you for the Romish cause and an unworthy Stipendiarie to your Master the Pope who have no more to say but that it is not pertinent for you now to speake to these things But what need I wonder at this Seeing you judge it impertinent to prove the Assumption of your own syllogisme which I had not onely requited you to doe but also condescended to demonstrate by many Mediums that you were tyed to doe it And yet it seems not pertinent to you either to prove it or to refell these my arguments Shall onely impertinencie be pertinent with you I doubt if that cowardly boast shall raise up your falling reputation that if I should answere according to the method which you prescribe that is if I would liberat you of the burthen of proving your Assumption then you would answere not only to all these my Digressions as for the salving of your credit you are pleased to terme them but also dispute at leasure with me about Logicall Rules and I know not what notionall whimsies concerning Formall and objective negations Quid dignum tante feret hic promissor hiatu When I compare your bigg but conditionall braging with your lean performances at present I remember of him in Plutarch who was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Semper dicebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunquam dabat He was liberall in promises but nothing at all in performances If you be so able to expede your self in these particulars what mean you by all these shifts and dilatours Quinon est hodie cras minus aptus erit If you were once become so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you cannot prove your Assumption I would so farr commiserat you as to grant you an exemption But till then how can you expect courtesie at my hands Might not a man of your years have learned so much discretion as not to prescribe methods of answereing to his Adversarie Vaine debates for victorie and not for truth doe not become grave persons Yet I purpose never to decline to exchange a
Paper with you or any Romanist either upon a Philosophicall or Theologicall subject when I see it for edification or the Churches advantage This trifling encounter with you hath made the esteeme of your Romish breeding to fall exceedingly with me For though you have been of such fame among these of your Cabal that I promised to my self learned and accurat discourses from you yet I must professe that the most of the lines which I have received from you have been like the ludibrious pratlings of a Quaker You take it ill that I accuse you of your Tautologies and Battologies Is it a cryme to call Scapham Scapham or to call black black Had I not just cause so to doe when now the fourth time you have repeated one Paralogisme yea and glorie in your recocted colworts as if they were delicious food Would it not tempt the patience of another to have to doe with one who will needs still repeat the same note Apage coccysmum You call upon me To cloath your naked and informall Syllogisme with an Answere If you look back on the Papers which ye have received from me you will find that I have returned three Answeres unto it in my first Paper though as then I told you it was unworthy of any further reply then NEGO MINOREM That I denied the Minor Is it not rather your concernment To cloath your Syllogisme with a probation of the denyed Assumption All that was incumbent to me was to publish the Nakednesse of it which I hope in some measure I have done You say that they who have a tongue or penne may throw the like reproaches upon me I have indeed sufficient experience of your revilings For it is ordinary with you to upbraid me with shallownesse and superficialnesse c. Yet these shallow discourses have so as seems affrighted you that ye have not adventured to plumbe them But I rather never put penne to paper before you or any other had just ground to accuse me of such Childish repetitions If you hold on in this way the like fate may befall you which did that Rudolphus who for his trifling was to his reproach sirnamed Nugax Whether I have deserted the cause which I have undertaken as you are pleased to reproach me let your self or any of my most prejudicat adversaries after they have perused all these Papers judge You have studied now at length an evasion but a miserable one to elude the example whereby I did illustrate in my foregoing Papers that the truth of Religion may be proven by holding out its conformity with the Scriptures even as the honestie of a mans actions may be demonstrated by holding forth the conformity thereof with the Law But what say you if the letter of the Law be capable of divers yea and contrarie senses and then making application to Religion you affirme That the letter of the Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and thereupon you would inferr that the truth of Religion cannot be known by its conformity with the Scripture But you are so unhappie in all your arguings that they are both false on the matter and returne with more violence on your own head then upon your adversarie And first may it not with more reason be retorted on you that the Canons of your Councills the Bulls Breves and Decretalls of your Popes and what else of that nature you would make use of to verifie the truth of your Religion are capable of diverse and opposite senses Need I put you in minde of the eager debates of the Jesuits and Dominicans about the sense of Posse dissentire si velit in the Fourth canon of the sixth session of the Councill of Trent Or shall I remit you to see further digladiations of your Doctors about the sense of other Canons of the said Councill in Vasquez in primam secundae disput 203. and cap. 9 When you loose this knot in behalf of your Romish principles you will ease your Adversary of the paines of discovering the vanity of your arguing But I shall not wait for your help and therefore I plainly Answere by this distinction If you mean that the Law which is the measure of honest actions is capable of divers and contrarie genuine senses it is a manifest falshood For the Law cannot at once command two contraries more then a man can at once blow hot and cold breath out of his mouth else two contrarie propositions should at once be true which Logicians tells you cannot be But if you mean that the Law may have divers yea and contrarie imposed senses Sive ex inscitia sive ex nequitia whether through the ignorance or perversnesse of cavilling imposers or one genuine sense and others imposed It is granted that this may be But these misprisions of cavillers will not impede the clearing of the reall honestie of a good action by its conformity with the genuine sense of the Law No more then the cavilling of a Sophister pretending a crooked line to be straight will impede the discerning of a straight line from a crooked by the application of both to the rule Which was another example formerly made use of by me of which also in this your last paper you make mention but the evidence thereof seems so to have dazled your eyes that you have not been able to finde out a Sophisme to elude it This same distincton serves for the other branch of your discourse concerning the Scriptures For if you mean that the Scriptures have divers or disparat yea and contrarie genuine senses intended by the holy Ghost you speake both falsly and impiously as if the Spirit of GOD did equivocat in Scriptures and Scriptures were like to Apollo's dubious Oracles But if you mean onely that divers and disparat yea and contrarie senses may be imposed on Scripture through the ignorance or cavilling humor of men it is granted But this hinders not but that the truth of Christian Religion may be demonstrated by its conformity with the one genuine sense of Scripture Especially seeing though there be depths in the Scriptures of GOD yet they are clear in all things necessarie to salvation As our Divins have demonstrated in the controversie De Perspicuitate Scripturae Know you not that of Chrysostome Homil. 3. in 2. Epist ad Thess In divinis Scripturis quacunê™ necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Or that of August in Psal 88. Et si quadam sunt tecta mysteriis quadam tamen siâ— manifesta sunt ut ex ipsis facillime apâ—riantur obscura Or what think you of the boldnesse of Irenaeus lib 2. Contra Hereses cap. 46. Vniversae Scripturae Propheticae Evangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audirâ— possunt Yea this truth is so luculent that it hath extorted testimonies from your own writters Hence Aquinas part 1. quest 1. art 10. Nihil sub Spirituali sensu continetur fidet necessarium quod Scriptura per
literalem sensum alicubt manifeste non tradat and Sixtus Senensis lib 6. Bibliotheca Annot. 152. Affirmes that part of Scripture apertam esse dilucidam quae complectitur summa rerum credendarum principia pracipua bene vivendi praecepta exempla So that were I not resolved to keep you at your worke as an Opponent it were easie thus to redargue all which you have said If the Scriptures be clear in all that is necessarie to Salvation then the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath a clear ground to prove it self to be a true Religion But the first is true Ergo. The Sequell of the Major is so clear that your Romanists have no other evasion but to accuse the Scriptures sometimes of obscuritie sometimes of ambiguity as being capable of divers yea of contrarie senses And in this you imitate the old Hereticks as appears by that luculent testimonie of Irenaus lib 3. cap 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi variè sint dicta non possit ex bis inveniri veritas ab iis qui nesciunt traditionem The assumption is proved at length by PROTESTANTS in the controversies De Perfectione Perspicuitate Scriptura When you have tryed all the art of Iesuitical Sophistrie to disprove these popular discourses as in the height of your Spirit you are pleased to terme them I hope you shall find them both solid and impregnable This may silence your clamour that I should produce a ground by which the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be proved for you suppose that you are tyed to no more but to presse me to produce the grounds of the PROTESTANT Religion that you may impugne them But to silence this your vociferation you may remember first that I have demonstrated that you are tyed to doe more Had you indeed undertaken to prove the Hypothesis of the Atheist that there is no true Religion at all in this case you might have demanded of me a ground to prove a True Religion But when you affirme that there is a True Religion which hath peculiar grounds which can be verified of none else you were tyed to have produced these grounds and to have demonstrated that they could not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS Especiallie I having solemnlie appealed you to instance one ground requisit to prove the true Christian Religion whith is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS Secondly You had not onely in the generall affirmed that the True Religion had grounds to prove it self but you had particularly condescended upon one namely the knowledge of the assistance as seems infallible of the Clergie In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture before the true sense thereof can be known Whereupon in my last I told you this was expressly denyed by us PROTESTANTS and therefore appealed you if you could to prove it But you have been so farr from doing it that you have shamefully flinched from it as shall a little after appear But thirdly I have Ex superabundanti though not tyed thereto by rules of disputing given you a Ground of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS namely The Perspicuity of the Scriptures but not excluding the use of means in all things necessary to Salvation which you might have collected from that Intrinseck objective evidence of which I spoke from the beginning Onely remember that you call not upon me to prove this though it were easie to doe it and hath been done times without number by PROTESTANTS in their debates against your Romanists But now we are to keep the rules of disputing and you have acknowledged that it is your concernment As the Impugner when a ground is produced to impugne it And therefore you must either doe your worke or else become so ingenuous as to confesse that you are not able to impugne the truth of God In the mean time trouble me not with the cavils of your fellowes which have been often already refured by our Divines else I will remit you to the Authors who have examined these Sophisms before But if you have any new thing worthie of consideration you may propose it I wish you were moved by such principles as he who said 2. Cor. 13.8 We can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth Yet doe you as you will Fortis est veritas praevalebit I had shewed you in my last that your whole discourse concerning your foure Synonime propositions was both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wide from the purpose and likewise inconsistent with your Tridentine faith Yet so rare a disputant are you that you make no returne to these things what can I conclude but Qui tacet consentire videtur The reasons which I brought have so farr prevailed with you as to make you explicitly grant that of two propositions Objectivly Synonims the one may be brought to prove the other except when both are equally in controversie But this can be of no use for you in the present case untill you disprove the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in these things which are necessarie to Salvation which I beleeve you will finde beyond your reach This Hypothesis also takes off the cavill of Heretiks pretending a conformity with Scripture for these Hereticall vapours cannot stand before the radiant beams of Scripture-light You discover both your Humour and Ignorance in alleaging that it was a Shift in me to say That Religion being a complex of many truths it could not be proven at once Suppose a man had an hundred pieces to be tryed whether they be upright Gold or not Can I beseech you this be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone Suppose there were an hundred lines to be examined whether they be straight or crooked Can this be done but by applying each of them to the Rule Even so there being a multitude of points of Religion to be tryed whether they be agreeable to Scripture or not How can this be done but by comparing each of them with the Scripture I have admired nothing more since my encounter with you then your flinching toward the end of your Fourth Paper from your own Principle Viz. That the knowledge of the assistaence of the Clergie In actu primo is a necessarie prerequisite before the true sense of any Scripture can be known from which I had concluded you to be involved in an Inextricable contradiction I had besides reflected upon a Paradoxall yea and implicatorie notion of yours That something might be affirmed of an universall object distributively taken which cannot be affirmed of every particular under that universall I likewise discovered your Childish and inconsistent discourse concerning that word of David All men are liars I shew further that your last Dilemma concerning the Clergies assistance did fall so heavily on your own head that your Romists could have no infallible certaintie that they had any Clergie at all let be that they had this pretended assistance
Yet to these things and many more which here were tedious to me to repeat you make no more particular Reply then if they had never been objected to you It your silence the strongest confutation of your Adversary All I find you saying is What contradiction can it be to say that the actual operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primuÌ„ But Quid hoe ad Rhombum Was this the question betwixt you me whether the Actus secundus did presuppose Actum primum From which no more can be concluded but that they who give the true sense of scripture when they give it have assistance In actu primo to give it which no Protestant or rationall man ever denyed Yet if you understand your Iesuits principles the Actus secundus or actuall operation doth not necessarlie presuppose such an infallible assistance In actu primo as here you seeme to plead for For according to them Omnia quae tenent se ex parte actus primi in free agents may consist Cum actu vel actu contrario vel actus negatione But to leave this the question betwixt you and me was as appears by your former Papers Whether the knowledge of the Clergies assistance in actu primo be a necessarie prerequisite before we can know the sense of Scripture given by them to be true Which is vastlie different from what you now assert Who seeth not the difference betwixt this proposition He that gives the true sense of Scripture when he gives it hath assistance in actu primo to give it And that other Before I can know the sense given by such an one to be true I must antecedently know that he hath assistance in actu primo to give it It is true one cannot exercise the operations of Seeing and Hearing which are your own examples unlesse he have a sufficient abilitie In actu primo to exercise these operations But he may exercise them although he doth not know and actually reflect upon the facultie which he hath In actu primo A beast both Sees and Hears so doeth an Infant who yet cannot reflect upon the Actus primus of these operations I can hardly say whether in this prevarication you have discovered more craftie falshood you must excuse this plainnesse follie or impudencie Onely henceforth I commend to you that rule of Ruffin Lib. 1. historiae Ecclesiasticae cap. 11. Dolis apud ignorantes locus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum movere Afterwards you bring your old Dilemma upon the Stage againe but in a more ludibrious dresse then before Either say you we can produce some speciall grounds whereby may be made manifest that our Clergie men are qualified in actu primo with sufficient ability to give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture and then let them be produced or we are destitute of them and then it is impossible that our Clergie men can give the true sense of Scripture Because it is impossible to doe any thing in actu secunde without a speciall hability in actu primo to doe it And so they can onely guesse at it Who doth not see how this judicious Dilemma such as it is doth recoyl upon your own head Mutatis mutandis But I did canvase it so fully in my last both by retortion and direct answere which you have not as yet adventured to take under your consideration that I must remit you back to what was then said Only now I take notice of your ludibrious confirmation of the latter branch of your Dilemma viz. that if we cannot prove antecedently that the Clergie hath assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture then it is impossible that our Clergie can give the true sense Because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secunde without a speciall abilitie In actu primo It is a wonder to me how ever such a Childish consequence could drop from the pen of one who wold be reputed a Scholer Is the Sequel good A negatione probationis ad negationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse Because you or I cannot prove that such a thing is doth it therfore follow that it is not Because I cannot infallibly prove you to be Mr. Dempster the Iesuit Doth it therfore follow that you are not he who but a child wold conclude that because I cannot prove Antecedenter and a priori that such a Doctor of the Church hath an assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture therefore he hath it not The Spirit breaths on whome and where he pleases The assisting influence of the Spirit may be given when I cannot demonstrat A prtori that such a one hath it Hic nunc But surest arguings in such cases are A posteriori from the effect Such an one hath given the true sense of Scripture Ergo he had the assistance of the Spirit to give it Had you but consulted with your Romanists Principles you would have found that you were under a necessity to acknowledge the truth of this For you pretend not to conclude peremptorily and antecedently of any Doctors of your Church that they have this assistance In actu primo for giving the true sense of Scripture except of your Pope in Cathedra and generall Councills yea some of your Authors dare not conclude so much of them Will you the refore say that none beside the Pope and the generall Councills can give the true sense of Scripture You cannot prove antecedently by any Medium that Tostatus Toletus Pererius Esthius A Lapide c. had assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture For none of these were Popes Nay nor can it be proven A priori that Aâ—stine Jerome or Chrysostome had this assistance In actu primo Will you therefore conclude that none of these ever gave a true sense of Scripture but onely guessed at it But the root of your mistake is that you apprehend the objective ground on which our belief to such a truth is built must be the Perswasion We have that such a Doctor is guided by such an infallible assistance which is a manifest untruth For whereupon I pray you is that perswasion grounded That must surely have another foundation But because you had so often insinuated this therefore I did appeal you and againe doe appeal you to produce Grounds for this pretended Infallibility of your Clergie or else I will take your silence for an evident desertion of your cause Your last brawl is because I had said that what ever solid Grounds were brought by Tertullian and the rest of the ancient Apologists to prove the truth of the Christian Religion or are to be found in the late Tractats of Morney Grotius Amyrald and Vives De veritate Religionis Christianae These also prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Who say you will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian
deliver there naked affirmations for Oracles In the mean time you are required to verifie this your ignominious accusation with particular instances for Dolus est in generalibus as you would not convict your self to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have drunk in that Machiavillian principle Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit You fret at the plainnesse of my Admonitions but could I have chosen a more proper medicine to purge you of your tautologizing and tergiversing humor Yet for what I can discerne your disease is likero prove so pertinacious and malignant that well it may be reckoned Inter Medicorum opprobria Neverthelesse if you can pitch upon one of my expostulations for which you have not given too much ground you may hold it for a contumelie You fill up the Paper wherein you should have examined my Reply with an excentrick discourse concerning Rules of brevitie But in this as in all the rest you are so unhappy as to be an impudent transgressor of your own Canons For had you waved Impertinencies you had not transmitted any of these lines to me since your first Paralogisme And for contumelies you think me too narrow a marke to shoot at unlesse you reproach the whole Ministric as Railers at random But there was a more compendious Rule for brevity then all these which you have named which I wonder you did not recommend from your own practise viz to passe in silence what ever seems to be of moment in the Paper of the Adversary to hold that for a learned confutation This is all the Laconick concisenes which I have discovered in your discourses which how justifiable it is or satiafying to the judicious Reader when you come to your self you may judge Doth not the shamlesse repetition no lesse then five times and still in Folio of that one insignificant and often confuted Syllogisme without any proofe bewray both a disperat cause and an emptie braine If you produce it the sixth time you may for me goe on till you come to the perfect number of the Beâ—st Six hundred and sixty six Are not your Recocted colworts of hard digestion with your own self which doe regurgitat so often with you If both the premisses of your famous Syllogisme be Affirmatives as herey you alleage to cover the informality thereof how then is the Conclusion a Negative Or what pretext had you hithertoo for shunning the probation of you Assumption but becase it was a Negative Or might you not have shewed as you were required how in our Language you would have expressed these propositions more Negativelie if you had intended to make them Formall Negatives But perhaps this may be one of your Mâ—steries of Jesui isme so to expresse your selves that men shall not understand when you Affirme or when you Dâ—â—y Your frequent repeating and glorying in this ludicrous Syllogisme tempts me to discover more of its vitiosirie then once I intended Though I for brevity did onely deny the Assumption and did require no more from you but the probation thereof yet I might have denyed both Major and Minor yea and the Conclusion also I say first I might have denyed the Major For the True Religion and the true sense of Scripture is the same What is the True Religion but the true Doctrine of Salvation And is not the true sense of Scripture the true Doctrine of Salvation Now must the true sense of Scripture have a ground to prove that it is conforme to it own self So that your Major which I did let passe might justly have been questioned Next I denyed the Assumption because Religion or the Doctrine of Salvation may be considered under a double notion either as revealed in Scripture or as professed by men Under the former notion it is the very true sense of Scripture and so to prove it to be conforme to the sense of Scripture were to prove it to be conforme to it own self and that Sub eadem formaliratione But under the latter consideration namly as professed by us the truth of Religion may admit of such a probation as when the truth of an Apograph is proven by its conformity to the Autegraph or the truth of a Transumpt by its conformity to the Original Nay lastly I added that I might have denyed the Conclusion because of the informalitie of the whole structure which you have been endeavouring to palliat by your formall and objective negations yet have you not been able to salve May you not by all this discerne that your gloriation hath been De re nibili yea in your own shame You subjoine a piece of notable Pageantrie For though hitherto you have been declying to prove the assumption of your Syllogisme yet now with a brasen fore-head you affirme you have proven it and that oftner then once But how I pray you Because forsooth you have here twise magisterially affirmed that there can be no grounds of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS produced which cannot be verified of a false Religion and these your two affirmations you hold for two learned probations But are not your affirmations Synonyma's upon the matter with the denyed assumption and equally in controversie with it Think you us so simple as to beleeve your assumption because you doe once and againe affirme it to be true Then indeed you might conclud us as well as your self to be Boeotûm in patria crassoque sub aëre natos At least you could not be ignorant that I would desider at a probation of your Affirmations as well as of the denyed Assuption And it hath been often told you that by rules of disputing you could not ty me to produce Grounds of the truth of our Religion you being the Opponent and having affirmed that there is a true Religion which hath peculiar Grounds competible to no false Religion Therefore had you either manifested that candor wich might have been expected or endeavoured the satisfaction of consciences you would have produced the Reciprocall Grounds of the True Religion and have essayed to show that they could not compet to the Religion of PROTESTANTS especially I having often appealed you Sub perîculo cause to produce one ground of the true Religion which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS but Hic haret aquâ— Consider therefore this Dilemma Either you acknowledge that there is a true Religion having peculiar and reciprocall Grounds which can be verified of no false Religion or not If not then it is not onely the Religion of PROTESTANTS which you impugne but all Religion and it is Atheisme which you goe about to establish If therefore you grant that there is a True Religion which hath these peculiar and reciprocall Grounds let them be produced and let it be examined whether they doe agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Romanists Hic Rhodus hic Saltus Had you not distrusted your cause you could not being the Opponent have shifted this so long But to put a more speedie
but commend yowr ingenuity in that yow confesse cleirly that all the things that yow have spoken hithertoo in so long lybells ar not true grounds but onely reasons to show that yow wer not obliged to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion and so yow Disowne and recant them all as taken under this formalitie But let them be called as yow please either grounds or shifts to disoblige yow from producing of grounds yet the mâ—ine point remains alwayes that they may be with as great reason assumed be an false Religion as be yow and so all this time yow have been pleading â—swell for an false Religion as for yowr own After yow have Disclaimed and recalled under the formalitie of grounds all things that yow so copionstie have spkoken of hithertoo Now you prodoce your Achilles in which yow professe that yow will own as a ground of the truth of yowr Religion to wit Scripture taken as containing perspicuously all things necessarie to Salvation So that Scripture taken under this formalitie is the onely ground distinctive of your Religion from all false Religion But let us goe on here sofilie that it may appeare better the juglings that lurbs under this answere and the labyrinth and obscuritie that yow have involved yowr self in For first by Scripture of which yow affirme that it is a distinctive of yowr Religion from all false Religion must be understood the letter of Scripture taken in the true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost So that to containe all things necessarie to Salvation with perspicuitie is affirmed of the letter of Scripture taken with this true sense as contradistinguished from all false sense Ergo it cannot serve for a distinctive ground of yowr Religion from all false Religions except first yow prove that the sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true and genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost and that all other senses which doe not coincide with yours are false and erronious Because according to your self Scripture is not a ground to distinguish your Religion from a false Religion but in so farr as it is suppoued to containe and that with perspicuitie all things necessarie to Salvation and againe it does not containe this but so farr as it suppons and is taken for the letter of Scripture with the true and genuine sense Now I ask how can you assume the letter of Scripture taken with the true sense for a ground to prove your Religion to be true and to be distinguished by this from a false Religion Except first yow show with pregnant and convincing reasons that this sense which yow give to the letter of Scripture is that true genuine sense intended by the holy Ghost Neither does it avail yow that which yow now here infinuate that the sense which yow give must be the true sense For the conformitie it hath with the sense holden by the Church in the first three Centuries Because this claime to Amiquity is common to all Sexts And so yow cannot mak vse of it except first yow bring some solid reason to prove your claime to be more just then theirs Secondly I ask yow how can yow affirme so boldly that all things necessarie to Salvation ar contained and that perspicuously in Scripture except first yow draw up A list or a catalogue of all things that are necessarie to Salvation as contradistinguished from all other things not necessarie and whereof a great pairt ar likewise eleirly contained in Scripture and Scripture it self makes no mentione to distinguish the one from the other For according to the rules yow gave your self it cannot be but blindlings affirmed That all the peices of Gold that one hath in his purse ar upright Gold except they be all produced to be tryed Thirdly you say that all things necessarie to Salvation are perspicuously in Scripture but with this limitation and supposition That the means for the interpretation be duely used so that Scripture is not of it self alone so perspicuous in all things necessar to Salvation except there interveene the due use of certaine middes to attaine to the true sense of Scripture But heir againe yow plunge your self in a new labyrinth of obscuritie for I ask what ar thir means and what you mean by the due use of them And whether the people without your preaching can duely use thir means by the due use of them attaine to the knowledge of all things necessar to Salvation as well as your Clergie men can doe whether a false Religion and acknowledged by your self to be a false Religion may not use duely thir middes aswell as yow Now I know all thir things will be called by yow nonsense childish things and not worthie of the sublimitie of your understanding and such railing will be all the answere that I will get Likewise when you was asked whether a man can beleeve a thing to be true precisly for this motive because it is revealed and spoken by GOD unlesse he be assured that GOD speakes by the mouth of him that propons such a thing To this you answere here That a Preacher may propone and give the true sense of Scripture and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve the thing proponed to him though he have no antecedent knowledge conifying him that the Proponer hath such assistance that he cannot propone a false revelation in place of a true as a Iudge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and the hearer may have sufficient ground to beleeve that the sense given is the true sense though he have no antecedent knowledge that the Judge hath infallible assistance But in this answere yow 〈◊〉 your self altogether Ignorant of the nature of supernaturall faith Since supernaturall faith is not everie sort of assent and adhesion but an assent above all things and an adhesion with such firmnes as can be given onlie to the supreame authoritie of GOD when he speakes a thing Now I aske how is it possible that the intellect who in matters of faith hes no other motive to induce it to assent bot the meer authoritie of the speaker can produce any assent whereby it adheres above all things and with all sort of firmnes to a thing which it knowes not otherwise to be true bot precislie because GOD hes spoken it and revealed it except there preceed a knowledge certifying that GGD speakes by the mouth of him that propones such a thing and that he cannot deceive him in saying GOD to have spoken a thing which he hes not spoken or else one would either suspend his assent or else not give it in that highe degree of firmnes and adhesion which is necessarly required to supernaturall faith and which he is oblidged to give in case he knew certaâ—nlie that GOD speakes by the mouth of such a man And the example which you bring of a Judge giving the sense of the law confirms manifestly that yow ar altogether Ignorant
at first I resolved But whether you terme it New light or Old yet such a light it seems to be that your eyes could not more looke upon it then if they were of the same constitution with the eyes of an Howl In vocal debates I acknowledge the challenging of many faults at once and putting the Opponent to the probation of more propositions then one might breed confusion but when matters are managed by writ there appears no inconveniencie therein However you should the more easily have obtained pardon for this trespas had you at length proven the Assumption which from the beginning was denyed and which in my last you were pressed to prove by a Dilemma which if you had adventured to examine would have constrained you either to professe your self a down right Atheist and Infidel or else to produce some peculiar ground of the true Religion by which both our Religion and yours might be examined But it appears that your whole designe is to decline a tryall Let the Reader here remarke that the Major Minor and the whole Structure of your Syllogisme hath been questioned and that the probation of both Major and Minor are utterly declined by you and to justifie the Forme you have no other evasion but to affirme Negations to be Affirmations Transmit if you will this your conclusion Ergo the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be the True Religion to your Universities of Doway Lovan Paris and Rome and set them judge whether it be an Affirmative or Negative After you had againe repeated that impudent Calumny that I had Recallid the grounds of Religion which I had formerly given You say that now I produce my Achilles namely the Scriptures as perspicuous in all things necessary to Salvation Where you insinuate two manifest Untruths The first is that Now as if never before I had given the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie as the ground of our Religion The other is that this is given as my Onely ground which are both notorious falshoods in the matter of fact For neither was that the only ground I having also given another Viz. The conformitie of our Religion with the faith of the Christian Church in the first three Centuries from which I did demonstrate the falshood of the now Romish Religion because of its discrepancie from that Ancient Christian faith Neither was my last Paper the first time that I produced these grounds Have you made lies your refuge Had you no way to support your lying cause but by such manifest untruths Doe you not give occasion to your Reader to say Perîsse frontem de rebus As for that which you terme my onely ground namely The Scriptures as perspicuous in all things necessarie which by way of derision you terme my Achilles I have no cause to be ashamed of that ground Scripture hath proven against Atheists Infidels and Hereticks and will prove against you Romanists also to be a brasen wall You make the fashion of moving some Objections against the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie But before you were in Bonâ fide to have objected against it both the termes should have been cleared and you should have examined the Authorities whereby I confirmed it from Chrysostome Austine Jrenaeus yea and from your own Aquinas and Sixtus Senensis But to let this passe Cum caeteris erroribus I proceed to the examination of your Objections which I hop I shall make appear to be nothing else but Jugling shifts to use your own termes to keep off from the examination of the maine controversie Onely that the state of the question betwixt us may be clear Let it be remembred first that we doe not affirme that all Scriptures are Perspicuous and clear as the Rhemists in their 1. Marginall Note on Luke cap. 6. And other Rhomists have traduced us Secondly That we doe not exclude means of interpretation as Bellar lib. 3. De verbo Dei cap. 1. Prateolus in Elench Haereseon lib. 17. cap. 20. And Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 6. Annot. 152. Charge upon us And thirdly that by Perspicuity we doe not means that all things are expresly in so many words in Scripture But that they are either expresly in Scripture or by firme and clear consequence are deduceable from it And what is deduced by firme and clear consequence from Scripture may well be said to be Perspicuously contained in Scripture Even as a Conclusion which is luculently deduced from the Premisses is said to be clearlie contained in the Premisses And this I adde also against Bellarmin who in his fourth booke De verbo Dei cap. 3. States the controversie as if Papists onely mantained against us Totam doctrinam sive de fide sive de moribus non continer◠expresse in Scripturis For if by Expresse he means in so many formall words neither doe we affirme it Fourthly by this Perspicuity we means an externall and objective evidence and therefore this perspicuity is nothing impeached by the misunderstanding of Hereticks or others For their mistakes flow not from the obscurity of the Scripture but from the defect Exparte subjecti or from the indisposition of their understanding◠who hear or read Scripture And fifthly by things necessarie may be meaned either these truths the explicite beleefe whereof is necessarie to Salvation Necessitate medii so as without the beliefe thereof Salvation cannot be had or also these articles the beleefe whereof are onely necessarie Necessitate praecepti Many things may be necessarie this latter way which are not necessary by the first kynd of necessity Therefore you should have cleared what kynd of necessitie you meaned For us we freely acknowledge al things necessary either of the wayes are contained in Scripture though not with equall clearnesse But these things which are of absolute and indispensable necessitie to Salvation are either expresly revealed in Scripture or luculently deduceable by firme consequence from that which is expresly revealed therein And of this last is our present controversie I have told our Iudgement but you like a jugler bring Objections yet doe not tell your judgement nor I beleeve can you tell the judgement of your Church I could here have set down the discrepant opinions of your men in reference to this point for which I shall remit you to Gerard Tom. Vlt. Loc. Com. De Script cap. 20. § 422. 423. Where he showes that some of you mantaine all things in Scripture to be obscure as your Rhemists your Divines of Colen and Canisius but that others grant many things in Scripture especially these that are necessarie to be clear as Hieron ab Oleastro Thomas Costerus Catharinus c. You are therefore required if you can to set down the judgement of your Romish Church in this matter as clearly as I have done ours And you may if you will in the entrie consider this Dilemma Either you have a Definition of that Church which you call infallible against the perspicuity of the
De Baptis contra Donatistas cap. 3. where he affirms Concilia plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari that former plenatie and generall Councills are amended by the latter and consequently the former undoubtedly erred The figetree â—â—ves wherewith Bellarmin and other of your authors would palliat these things are so fully examined by Chamier and other our controversists that I shal remit you to them But Fifthly if the peoples faith must be built upon the foreknowledge of the propounders assistance then whereupon is the faith of your Infallible Propounders built Must they not be perfect Enthusiasts What difference I pray you is there betwixt them and Quakers You may see if you will a prettie parallel to this purpose written by Clopenburg in Syntagmate selectarum exercitationum disp 2. The title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Sixthlie suppose it were granted that either Pope or Council or both together were infallible yet seeing Christians dispersed through the world cannot receive the sentence of Pope or Council immediatly from themselves but at the second hand from such fallible persons as you How shall they know that you have sensed the Canon or Decretal aright Or what rule of interpretation have you for finding the true sense of these Canons or Decretals Did I not show you in my Fourth Paper how your own Authors altercate without end concerning the sense of your Canons What advantage then shall your people have by that supposed Infallible assistance of Pope or Council How shall they know that such a one as you who pretend not to Infallibility is not deceived in takeing up the sense of Canon or Decretal or that for base ends you will not deceive them But Seventhly did I not in a former Paper show that your Tridentiâ—e and Florentine principle of suspending the efficacie of Sacraments from the intention of the Preist doth destroy all certainty of Clergie men among you so that none of you can tell who is Pope Bishop or Preist And therefore you cannot have certainty of infallible assistance attending any person as a Clergie man and consequently you Romanists can have no certaintie of faith at all the verie foundation of it being overturned And yet you have the impudence to reproach us as having neither certainty of falth nor knowing what the nature of a supernatural assent is Quis tulerit Gracches de seditione querentes Know therefore Eightly that the assent which we give to divine truths Is truely supernatural I shall not blot Paper at the time with the aiery debats of your Schoolmen concerning the nature of a Supernatural being They who would recreat themselves with a diversion may see enough of these needle headed nyceties In Ripalda de Ente supernaturali in Arriag 1. part Disp. 3. And Carleton Tom. 1. Disp. 12. No to mention others Onely the assent we give is Supernatural both Objectively and Effectively That is both in regarde of its Formal object Viz divine revelation or the testimonie of GOD that cannot lye and in regard of the Efficient cause namely infused grace which doth elevat corroborat and quicken out understanding to the production of this assent Now whether there be no more to be said for the Supernaturality of our assent which is founded on the authority of Divine Scriptural testimony then for yours which is onely founded upon the authority of your Propounders that is a Priest or Jesuit for these are your immediat Propounders or at best a Pope or Councill whose Infallibility you can never prove and concerning whose sense you may fluctuat till you die whether I say there be not more to be said for the Supernaturality of our assent then for yours let these who are rational Judge But Ninthly that I may cut off all ground of cavilling whereas you propound the question thus Whether a man can beleeve a thing to be true precisly because it is revealed and spoken by GOD unlesse he be assured that GOD speakes by the month of him that proponed such a thing I Answere to both the branches of your question distinctly And to the First I say that if by Precistie you meane a seclusion of the Means of interpretation for the question at present is of the sense of Scripture or a seclusion of extrinsick motives of credibility you may know that we PROTESTANTS mantaine no such Seclusion But if you meane the seclusion onely of any Vlterior formal object into which the assent of faith is to be resolved then indeed we mantaine that the authority of divine testimony is the Vltimat formal object into which our assent of faith is to be resolved And this seemes clear from the nature of Divine faith which in this is distinguished from the assent of Humane faith or purely Sciential That Humane faith is built upon the authority of an Humane testimony and a Sciential assent on the Principles of reason but Divine faith upon the authority of Divine testimony Should we therefore in the resolution of Faith proceed to an Ulterior formal object It would either cease to be a Divine faith or else we should onely proceed from one Divine testimony to another And so we must either runne In infinitum from one to another or else rest in some last and then why not rather in the first Scriptural testimony which by the acknowledgement of all is Divine Whereas the divine authoritie of all your other testimonies are justly questioned and will never by you be solidlie proven except in so far as they speake consonantlie to the Scripture To the second branch of your question I Answere thus If your meaning be that the assurance of the Clergies assistance In actu primo to propound nothing but truth be a necessarie prerequisire then I simply deny it and often though in vaine have required you to prove it Nay I have demonstrated you to be involved in Contradictions by asserting it And if yet you will mantaine such a thing I shall but demand of you whereon that assurance of the Clergie or propounders assistance is founded Wherein I beleeve you shall never be able to satisfie your self nor any rational person But if you meane no more but that when we give an Assent of faith to an article of Religion propounded by another we must also Simul semel assent that the testimonie which he hath given thereto is true This is indeed granted But from this it doth not follow that the Previous assurance of the propounders infallibilty is the ground of my assent Even as when a Mathematician demonstrats a proposition of Enclide the sciential assent of the Hearer is not founded upon the authoritie of the Mathematician but upon the evidence of the Premisses from which he deduceth his Conclusion Albeit the Mathematicians propounding the premisses was a meane to draw forth the hearers assent and in assenting to the demonstration he assents to the Mathematicians discourse as true The same was the importance of that other example of a
Catholick Church in the Second or Third Centurie and argue thence as from a Principle especially when he hath to doe with an Adversarie who may admit the faith of the Ancient Church as a Test and will decline the Scriptures under pretext of obscarity or ambiguity Yea as I have said before A Divine may in such a case argue from the faith of one true Particular Church Suppose that an Original writ were either lost or blotted and blurred from which there hath been several Transumpts taken and that there were two persons pretending to have Transumpts but each of them questioning the fidelity of the others Transumpt This Question could not be decided by the Original it being supposed either to be lost or blotted utterly and blurred and neither of the two Parties willing yeeld to one another But there being found another Transump which both the Parties acknowledge to have been the First Copie that was taken from the Original Could there be any way so good for decyding the Question next to the compareing of both the Transumpts with the Original if it could be had or were clear as to compare the two controverted Copies with this uncontroverted Transumpt In this case would not he who shunned to bring his Copie to the tryall leave a strong presumption that his Paper were but a forged draught Now though all the authority which the unquestioned Transumpt hath was derived from its conformity with the Original yet in these circumstances it may have the place of a Test to distinguish betwixt true and adulterat Copies The application is obvious The Papists like old Hereticks accuse Scriptures as being blotted and blurred yea as in a manner lost The Originals if you may be beleeved being corrupted albeit indeed Scripture is clear and by the good hand of GOD preserved to this day Yet seeing you sometimes seeme to magnify Antiquity as if you did acknowledge the faith of the Ancient Church to be a faithful Transumpt from that authentick Original of the Scriptures what more condescension can we PROTESTANTS in this case show to you Then seeing you will not be judged by the Scriptures which are out Heavenly Fathers authentick Testament then I say to acquiesce that the cause betwixt us be tryed by that Transumpt which you seeme to acknowledge And when you decline this tryal also doth it not speake you out to be real Prevaricators and Cavillers But because some may wonder whence it is that you doe not onely decline a tryall by Scripture but also by Antiquity I will here open the Mysterie that lurkes under it Though you Romanists seeme somtimes to magnify Fathers Councils and Antiquity yet there are none who set them more at nought then you as if you put me to it I will make good by particular instances And therefore laying them aside it is onely your present Romish Church that is your sure Author-hold And by your present Church your Jesuited Partie meanes only the Pope I doe not stander you Hear your great Champion Gretser who comes in to succour Bellarmin at a dead lift Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bellarmin De ver be Dei colum 1450. Quando Ecclesiam dicimus esse omnium controversiarum fidei juaicem intelligimus Pontisicem Romanum qui pre teâ—pore praesens naviculam militantis Ecclesiae moderatur When we affirme sayeth he the Church to be the judge of all controversies of faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being Governs the ship of the Militant Church So that there is no security for your unhappie Religion unlesse ye be made Chancelours in your own Assyze If it be asked how shall any know that the Romish Church is the True Church The answere must be because she that is her head the Pope sayes she is the True Church If it be againe asked how shall it be known that the Pope is the Head of the Church The answere must be because he sayes he is it But how shall it be known that he is Infallible in so saying The answere must be because he sayes this is his prerogative And how shall it be known that the Romish Religion is the onely True Religion The onely plaine answere is because the Pope whose grandour is mantained thereby sayes it is the True Religion And how shall it be known that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is a Wrong Religion Because forsooth the Pope whose triple Crown is shaken by the Religion of Protestants sayes that it is an heretical Religion Alace abcel that poore simple people should be so miserably cheaâ—ed and seduced GOD I trust will erre long open their eyes to see these damnable impostures You had asserted in your last That every supernatural act of faith must be founded on the foreknowledge of the infallible assistance of the Popounders of divine truths To which in my last I had Replyed many thing most of which according to your custome you never once touch I must therefore reminde you of the heads of them As First you were demanded who these Infallible Propounders are Whether you Romanists can agree upon them Whether you can produce grounds for their infallibility from Scripture or Universal Tradition I hope you will not pretend every one of your Shavelings to be infallible Yea I brought luculent evidence that both Popes and General Councils may erre and have erred Secondly I asked whereupon the Faith of these pretended Infallible Propounders was builded and wherein they differed from Enthusiasts Thirdly supposing Pope or Council or both had this Infalliblity yet seeing the people receive their sentence from the mouth of such fallible and fallacious persons as you how can they be assured that either you have not taken up the sense of their Decrees wrong or that for base ends you doe not falsifie them And Fourthly how it can be known who are your Clergie men that are gifted with this assistance seeing the efficacie of Sacraments of which Ordination with you is one dependeth on the secret intention of the Priest But none of these doe you once touch Are not you fitter to be a Trencher Chaplaine to a Biggotted and implicit Proselit then a Disputant I Might here also comit you with the late Patrons of your Traditionarie Way particularly with Master Cressy who in his Exomologesis Cap. 51. Sect. 4. Acknowledges That the pastors of the Church proceed not now as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the holy Spirit but with prudential collection not alwayes necessarie and that to the Apostles such an infallible certainty of means was necessarie but not so now to the Church And in his chap. 40. Sect. 3. He acknowledges the unfortunatness of that word infallibility And said that he could find no such word in any Council and that there appeared no necessity to him that any PROTESTANT should ever have heard that word named let be pressed with so much earnestness and that Master Chillingworth hath combated that word
is now guiltie of the impertinent Digression you or I the Reader may judge All the colour you could put upon this shameless and cowardly tergiversing is That it seemes say you These large discourses of mine are copied out of controversie Writers But why would not you copie an Answere thereto out of your controversie Writers Why at least doe you not name The Authors with whom I had made so bold Especially I having in my last given a particular instance of the Plagiary trade of Jesuits and appealed you if you could to convict me of the like cryme If you put me to it I will rip up yet more of their sores of this nature Could the confutation of all your Papers in Two Words be copied from any Author But I had so brow-beaten this cavil before that like a self condemned Malefactor who to use Tertullians phrase is Acorde suo fugitivus you dare not now positively affirme it only say you It seems But I wil deale more squarely with you You not onely seeme but really are an effronted calumniator If you take ill with this freedome learne henceforth to affirme no more then you are able to prove Had it not been to cleare a little of the matter of Fact against these your lying representations of the first occasion of this debate I had not denzied a returne to this your impertinet Paper wherein you have not answered one word that was replyed to you But I am the rather moved to examine these your calumnies because it is long since I heard that Scurvie Lybels to this purpose were disseminated by persons of your professioÌ„ and now I find that by this your Paper you doe homologate the same reproaches Yet no to notice these diffamatorie Pasquils which no man durst owne I shall at the time only discover the falshood of some few of your allegeances in this your Eight Paper And First you say That this debate was occasioned by our continual railing against your pretended Catholick Religion As if it were our custome to charge your Religion falsly with these things which you doe not mantaine A great crime I acknowedge if it were a truth But why did you not for the satisfaction of the Reader and our conviction instance some of these falshoods Doe you not hereby manisest the calumniating genius by which you have been acted all along Know therefore that we PROTESTANTS hold it not lawful to lie for GOD. Job 13.7 The truth of GOD needs not mens lies to support it Did I see that the PROTESTANT cause could not be mantained without calumnies and falshoods I should instantly disowne it as not being of GOD. I reckone it my mercie that I have been helped in some measure to give a faithful testimony against the Abominations of Poperie and wil account it my duety so to doe while I live I have inded said it from Pulpit and I hope I have also made it good that your Romish Doctors have corrupted much both of the Dogmaticals and Practicals of Christianity And what I have said herein I shall be readie through the grace of GOD to mantaine not onely against such an Ignoramus as you but the whole unhallowed crew of Jesuits This hath been often charged upon you and demonstrated against you by our Divines But because I see you are not for large Volumes I shall remit you at present onely to a little but learned tractare to this purpose writen by Doctor Jeremy Taylor Entituled A Dissuasive from Poperie But what Doeth a Jesuit accuse us of Railing Doth not the World know that persidious lying and equivocation are the Piae fraudes the holy I should have said Hellish Chears whereby their cause is mantained Have they ever been able to wipe off those staines which Watson their own Romish secular Priest fixed upon their societie in so much that he is not afraid to say that Lucian Machiavel yea and Don Lucifer might goe to school and learne Satanical practises from your Jesuits And as for you is it not too too apparent by all these your Papers that you serve for nothing unlesse it be to rail and lie like a Shimet At arguing have you not proven according to the Proverb Quaesi asinus ad lyram Remember therefore that smart admonition Matth 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast the beame out of there own eye then shall thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye You are pleased Secondly to say That in stead of impugning your Catholick dogmes as you terme them We propound to the people and that in a radiculous manner so gravely forsoth doe you occuse us Problematick points out of your Casuists and Schoolmen If you Iesuits were not Persons Effrontis imprâ—bitatis linguae effrauis habituated in confident asserting of lies would you not have examined the truth of this report before you had given it under your hand Whether we behave our selves ridiculously in Pulpit grave Auditors can witnesse Indeed if the Supremacie of your Pope and the infallibility of your Church if your Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the Masse it your Adoring of Images and invocating of Saincts and Angels if your Purgatorie and Praying for the Dead c. If these I say and such as these be the Problematick points you speake of Them I confesse we doe publickly propound and solidly confute If these be onely Problemes which a man may innoceÌ„tly affirme or deny why for opposing these doe you Romanists anathematize PROTESTANTS Why have you brunt so many of them alive and cruelly imbrewed your hands in the blood of so many thousands of them Sometimes I deny not occasions may occurre of speaking concerning the particular tenets of some of your Doctors But then judcious Hearers can beare us witnesse for we teach nothing in a corner that we no otherwayes represent these then as the judgement of such Doctors This appeared when I was confuting from Pulpit that impious tenet which I suppose is the Probleme you hint at of many of your Doctors That a sinner is not bound by the law of GOD immediatly after he hath sinued to repent For in Pulpit I did onely charge it upon many of your Doctors But though we be so ingenuous in representing the tenets of your Doctors I shall desire you to confider what a staine and reflexion these impious tenets of particular Doctors among you leave upon your Romish Church Are they not published with the approbation of your Authorised Licencers of books as containing nothing Contrary to the Catholick Faith Are either Authors or Licencers of the books censured by your Church Have not your Expurgatoris indices deleted much better stuffe in the writings boon of Ancient and Moderne Authors whereof you may find many examples in Doctor Iames his excellent booke of The corruption of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Prelats Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome part 4 But the impious tenets or your Casuists and Schoolmen stend uncensured with the
approbation of your Authorised Licencers to the eternal ignominy of your Church But Thirdly it appeared say you By the Conference betwixt us that we often propounded in Pulpit problematick points in stead of your Dogm's How so I pray you Was there nothing spoken of in that conference but of School-Problems Did I not conclude the impietie of your Romish Religion because it destroyes all certainty of divine faith from your Florentine and Tridentine Canons which suspend the efficacie of Sacraments from the intention of the Administrator For all certainty of divine faith according to you Is grounded upon the infallible assistance of your clergie But if Ordination which is one of your Romish Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Ordainer you can have no certainty of faith who are your Clergie men or who have this pretended Infallible assistance For how can you be certaine of other mens intētions To this you had not the confidence to make any Reply Can you say that this is a meer Problem Are the Canons of Councils problems with you Is it a Probleme among you whether that be an impious Religion which destroyes all certainty of faith But perhaps you will say There was another question tossed whether a man after he hath sinned be bound presently to repent I confesse and the sober Christian may judge how much that man differs from an Atheist who affirmes this to be a Problematick point Yet to put a stop to your lying misrepresentations concerning this particular I must crave leave to doe these two things I shall first give a true account how that Question concerning Repentance came to be moved at the Conference and in Order to this I must give a touch of the occasion of the Conference sit self Secondly I shall examine a little whether that point may justly be reckoned among Problems and how far it may be charged upon your Church of Rome You may readily exclaime on these discourses as Digressions but I am drawne to them by your Calumnies For the First the real occasion of that Conference and of moving that Question at the Conference was this In April last I received two challenges from a Gentle-Man of your profession The First was that I had wronged your Authors by affirming some dayes before in a Sermon concerning Repentance that many of your Doctors did mantaine That when people sinne they are not bound immediatly to repent Yea the Gentle-Man was so confident as to promise by the Messenger whome he sent to me that he would turne PROTESTANT if I would make good that my Assertion To whome I answered that I was sure of a convert if the Gentle-Man would stand to his promise and if he would come to my Studie his eyes should be judge whether my Assertion were true by reading their own Authors Some dayes after the Gentle-Man came to me not to have the truth of his former challeng examined but with a New provocation to me and to my Colegue Master MELDRVM who then was with me to debate at his Lodging with a Catholick scholer as his phrase was concerning the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS We told him we knew how conferences of that nature had been misrepresented by Papists and therefore to obviat such misrepresentations we condescended with him upon some Conditions of the meeting which you know were violated by your Party When we came after we had regrated the violation of promise made to us I told I had received the Two foresaid Challenges and desired you who there appeared as their Champion First to answere whether I had wronged your Authors in the forementioned Assertion concerning Repentance and then we should willingly disput the point of Religion not against you onely but against the whole Conclave of Rome if they had been there present To the First you refused to give an Answere and as to the Second you said You came onely to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS but not at all to answere arguments against your Romish Religion But it was Replyed to you that our Religion was not onely the truth of GOD but also was established by the Law of the Land and therefore we could not suffer it onely to be questioned in such a publick way But would you answere us Six arguments against Your Religion we should answere you other Six arguments against Ours Or would you answere us Two we should answere you other Two But you stifly denyed to answere at all till at length by the importunity of your friends you were moved to condescend to answere Yet as to the Matter of fact Concerning the Doctrine of Repentance you utterly refused to answere at al unlesse I would frame it in an Argument against Your Religion Wherefore to gaine time and to satisfie the Gentle-Man who had been my Accuser I framed an argument in more general termes concerning the Doctrine of Repentance then I had spoken thereof in Pulpit hoping to have had liberty thereafter to propound Other arguments of more general concernment against Your Religion The argument touching Repentance ran thus The religion which teacheth that a man when he hath sinned is not bound presently to repent is impious But the Popish religion teacheth that a man when he hath sinned is not bound presently to repent Ergo the Popish religion is impious You admitted the Minor and denyed the Major That it was an impious religion which so taught Whereupon I tooke all the Auditors to witnesse and in special the Gentle-Man who had been my Accuser that you admitted this to be the doctrine of the Romish Church That a man who hath sinned is not bound presently to repent And consequently that I had spoken truth when I affirmed from Pulpit that many of Your Romish Doctors taught this But now you being ashamed that you should have admitted such a Doctrine which all sober Persons are ready to cry down as impious to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome you have devysed this after-evasion to terme it a Problematick point Whether it ought to be looked upon as a probleme I may speake a little anone Now let the Reader observe This question concerning Repentance was onely moved by me to vindicat my self from the accusation of the Gentle-Man who had provoked me to the Disput hoping to have had occasion for Other Arguments afterwards And therefore when you had admitted the Assumption that is was the doctrine of Your Romish Church I would have left that argument as having obtained all by it which I intended Yea I did propound the argument in larger termes then I had spoken of that matter in the Pulpit onely to extort an Answere from you So that whether it be a Problematick point or not you could conclude nothing from it as to the ordinary straine of our preaching seeing you refused to speake to it in these termes wherein we delivered it in Pulpit Nay more whoever will terme this point a Probleme yet you are not In bonâ fide to doe it
for you did simply and without limitation at the Conference admit the Assumption which did assert this to be the Doctrine of your Church This I hope may suffice concerning the occasion of the Conference and the moving of that question at it I come now to consider a little of the Point it self whether it ought to be reckoned as a Probleme and whether it be espoused by many of your Doctors and how far it may be charged upon Your Church In order to which I shall say but Two things The First is that this is surely the received Doctrine of many of your Chief Doctors in the Present Romish Church That a man when he hath sinned is not tyed by the command of GOD presently to repent For clearing this I shall not 〈◊〉 your puny and obscure Writers but as many of your Grandees as I hope shall suffice to justifie what I have said from Pulpit I beginne with your voluminous Suarez in 3 part Tom. 4. disp 15. sect 5 I adde to him his contemporary Iesuit of no lesse renowne Vasquiz in 3. part Tom. 4. quaest 86. Dub. 5. With whome you may joine another of your Champions Gregorie de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 7. quest 8. punct 4. and Aegidius Coninck disp 3 de tanit 〈◊〉 3. as also your famous Bishop of the Canaries Mclâ—hior Canns Relect de Paenit part 4. Yea and from all these you may second to your eminent Cardiuaâ— de Lugo tract de pauit disp 7. sect 11 § 1. num 196. And if you would goe yet higher your Casuist Navar In Enchirid. cap. 1. num 27. Is not onely for it himself but also cites for the same your Rope Adrian the sixth What should I blot Paper with the names of Bican Meratins Bonaciuae Layman c Take that one general testimony of De Lugo in the place cited Sententia har sayeth he Communis est jam omnibus thâ—ologis uno vel altero recentiore excepte This doctrine is now commone to all Divines except it be one or two late Writers Yea divers of the forecited Authors and others of the like stampe have gone a greater length in this unhappie doctrine then I charged upon you For they not onely teach That a sinner is not bound to repent immediatly after his trespasse but also in many Remarkable eireumstances when GOD seemes to be signally calling for Repentance As First That a man is not bound to repent when he seriously cals his sinne to remembrance Nor Secondly When a grievous calamitie is upon him or the Countrey he lives in Nor Thirdly on holy and festival dayes all these and much more you will find in Vasquez Quest 86. dub 6. For after the enumeration of these and other weighty cases at length he peremptorly concludes That the precept of Repentance never obliges Per se that is but by Accident Except in the article of death Yea there are of your Doctors who goe yet a further length and Doe deny that a sinner by divine precept is bound to repent at all even in the article of Death of which a little hereafter What Christian ears can heare of these things and not tingle May not this suffice to justifie the truth of my Assertion in Pulpit viz That many of your chief Doctors mantaine that a man is not bound immediatly after he hath sinned to repent But I adde in the next place that your great Doctors seeme to lay more weight upon this point then upon a meere Probleme yea and that Your Church cannot cleare her innocencie as to this matter For your Cardinal de Lugo speaking of this Doctrine in the place forecited calls it Communem sensum omnium fidelium The commone sense of all Beleevers Doe your Authors speake so of meer Problems Nay the chief argument whereby the forecited Authors confirme this there tenet is from the Universal practise of your Romish Church Because sayeth Lugo no penitent De dilatione penitentiae se unquam accusat nec ullus Confessarius de hoc paenitentem interrogat And he addes this reason quia siz nemo in praxi existimat esse novam culpam actualem ex dilatione paenitentiae Hereupon the same Cardinal concludes the contrary doctrine to be Injurious to your whole Romish Church both Pastors and People Because it charges them with no smal guiltynesse seeing neither Delinquents in their Confessions nor Confessors in their examinations take any notice of the Delay of repentance I shall give you the words of your Cardinal Minus digne sentiunt de Ecclesiae corpore cum velint ab universis Ecclesiae non selum subditis sed Prelatis ex ignorantia omitti debitum And this was one ground whereupon in the conference I did charge Your Romish Church with this doctrine when you would not speake to it under these restrictions with which I had spoken of it in the Pulpit And if herein I have trespassed in charging it upon Your Church you may see that not so much I as your great Cardinal is to blame for it and other your Authors whose chief argument to confirme this doctrine is taken A praxi Ecclesia If this be the judgement of Your Church why give you it out for A Probleme If it be not the judgement of Your Church then how comes it that there is no notice taken of the delay of Repentance in your Penitential court of Conscience either by Priest or People as your great Authors doe testifye But that you may see that I deale not with you meerly upon the testimonies of your Schoolmen and Casuists Doth not your Council of Trent sess 14. cap. 4. Manifestly declare that Attrition with Sacerdotal absolution without Contrition is sufficient yea the words of the Council are so clear sayeth Aegidius Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 3. dub 1. num 5. Us sine aperta violentia non possint aliter explicari Therefore according to your Romish Tridentine faith a man may be saved eternally without Contrition Now let the world judge whether Our Religion or Yours have the greatest tendency to Holinesse We say that an adult Sinner cannot be saved without Contrition you say he may be saved with Attrition and sacerdotal absolution We say that a man how soone he sinnes Is bound to repent Most of the doctors of your Present Romish Church say That a man is not so much as bound presently to Attrition far lesse to Contrition Yea your own greatest Clerks testify that in your Confessions there is no notice taken of the Delay of repentance either by Priest or Penitent Would not the serious consideration of this one particular make any sober persone whose minde is not prepossessed with prejudice abhorre Your Papal Religion But it may be Objected in your behalf That some of your old Doctors such as Guliel Parisiensis Johannes Major c. Did mantaine that a sinner was presently bound to repent I grant it was so but this makes nothing against that which I have said Who knowes not
of PROTESTANTS with the holy Scripture DID ever Nature produce such a ludibrious trifling tergiversing Caviller Is not the great controversie betwixt you and me whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or your Popish Religion be the Christian ReligioÌ„ How then were you not ashamed when I had demonstrated the falshood of many of the chief articles of your Religion such as the Adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion under one kind The Popes supremacâ—e the holding of Apâ—criphal books for canonical Scriptrue the Jurisdiction of Popes over Princes your Papal Indulgences as extended to Purgatorie and consequently that PROTESTANTS who contradict you in all these particulars have the truth on their side how then I say were you not ashamed to make no other Reply to all these things But onely to say What make these things to the purpose Is it nothing to the purpose to prove the Fundamentals of your Religion to be falshoods and that the truth of GOD is mantained by the PROTESTANTS against your Popish Church Is not your Religion so unhappie that if it be convicted of one Falshood the whole fabrick and systeme thereof is overturned The Infallibility of your Church being a Fundamental point with you and yet when the falshood of so many points of your Religion is demonstrated What is that to the purpose say you Doe not such Papers deserve as Hierome said Alversus Vigilantium Indignationem scribentis rather to be answered with contempt and disdaine then with any serious confutation Are you not as ludibrious in your next Period Did not I in my last expostulat sharpely with you that in stead of making a polemick Reply to my Seventh Paper to which you answered not one word you did substitut a Railing Digression concerning the occasion of this Debate and of our verball conterence and so did put upon me a necessity of confuting your Calumnies concerning that Matter of Fact How then have you a face to charge me as if I had of my own accord and free choise fallen upon that Digression But though conscience move you not to answere to the arguments proving the falshood of your Religion for perhaps an ill cause and your Ignorance stand as invincible impediments in your way yet ought you not in commone honestie to have vindicated your self from the Falshoods charged upon you in that Matter of Fact Is it enough for you to say To what purpose are these discourses and ought not the matter of that conference be left to the judgement of the Auditors Who if you may be credited did see my feeblenes Am I from the purpose when I confute the lies of your Paper If you judge it not to the purpose to vindicat your self from so many Falshoods let you be stigmatized for the man you are If you would have had the matter of that conference remirted onely to the judgement of the Auditors among whom you had a company of judicious proselyts of the female sex why did you fall upon a Calumnious representation of it in your Last Why were Diffamatorie pasquils stuffed with reproaches long agoe disseminated through the Countrey May it not seeme strange that a person who hath given such shamefull demonstrations of His feeblenesse in nyne Papers should have the confidence to reproach another with Feeblenesse Loripedem derideat rectus But what occasion gave you in that conference to try either the feeblenesse or gallantrie of any Was any thing heard from you And if it should have been heard what noble stuffe it should have contained these your Nine Papers may testifie We should have had an Informal Syllogisme repeated Ad nauseam without probation of Major or Minor or rectifying the Forme thereof Would such a formidable Achilles have affrighted a poor School Boy Was there not an Argument propounded to you concluding the impiety of your Religion because it destroyed all Certainty of faith which you dared not once to examine And when you declined to answere thereto was there not cause Ex justa indignatione which you may reproach as Feeblenesse to refuse to hear you And in that which you were drawne with much importunity to answere with what credit came you off either of your self or your Church I am content that such of the hearers as had capacity may judge How comoe it that you touch not at all the foule staine which I shaw your Doctors leave upon your Romish Church by their Impious Doctrine of Probables How is it that you doe not at least turne thiâ— off as you have done the rest with your usual tergiversing Querie To what purpose is all this discourse Are you utterly silent as to this matter because you had occasioned this discourse by challenging us for proposing before our Auditors your Problematick Doctrines But then you should have keeped silence concerning the former particulars also for to them likewise were we led by your impertinencies Or doth your silence proceed from the conviction of conscience that you know not how these impieties could be justifyed like a School Boy who skips over the word in his lesson which he cannot read If this be the account of your silence I should not blame you so much onely I could wish that in your old dayes you might learne the ingenuity of acknowledging error to be error when it is convi cingly demonstrated to you Yet notwithstading all these tergiversing shifts and silent transitions you have the confidence to avouch Your readines to answere whole Tomes It is not a strange thing to see a Thraso and a Thersites joyned in one persone Who will beleeve that you who have sucoumbed these Eight or Nine times in answering a poor sheet or two for in all of them you have tergiversed and to some not answered one word at all that you are in such a Capacity to deale with Volumes Looke backe on the Papers which you have received and take a view of the Fallacies charged upon you as also how many Chiefe articles of your Religion I have impugned and all to his houre unanswered When you have discharged your self of that worke which already lyes upon you you may purchase some more credit to your emptie brags But I must correct my self I confesse you have invented a compendious Method of confuting both sheets and volumes by your usuall Querie To what purpose are these discourses If you please you may cause adde this your invention to the next addition of Pancirolli nova reperta Yet whether that compendious confutation looke like the Reply of a Disputant or of that which you are not willing to hear your self may judge Your Last apologie for not examining my Papers taken from the Prolixity of them seemes now too slender and pellucid to your own self therfore you are pleased to strengthen it by accusing my Papers of Barrennesse and Superfluity how well these your Rhetorications cohere together others may judge if my Papers be guilty of Barrennesse then have they too little matter in them if of Superfluity
come to the examination of particular Articles I engage to disclaime the Religion of PROTESTANTS if it be not found to be so and shall onely demand but the like ingenuity readynesse and engagement from you that you will renounce your Romish superstition if is neither be In terminis in Scripture nor solidly deduceable from these things which are there plainlie revealed If there be not enough said to put an end to your general whifling Cavils let these who are not fascinated by prejudice judge Is it not time after the exchange of nine Papers to come once to the matter for you are not as yet come to it The rest of your Paper you pretend to spend in examining the Answeres given by me to this your forementioned Cavil Concerning the sense of holy Scripture But it would seeme you had been either dreaming or drunke when you wrote this for you bring me in only making Two answeres whereas indeed I have made Seven of the two which you mention only one of them is to be found in my Last Paper But however I will try how you behave your self in examining these That which you say is my First Answere is indeed my Fifth as you will find when you awake from your sleep and looke on my Paper But before I take in your Reply I will first propose my former Answere not in your words for I seldome find them faithfull but in my own as I proposed them in my Last My words then were these This Assertion of yours that before we can prove the truth of our Religion from the Scripture we must first prove this we have the true sense of the Scripture bad need of a verse favourable and benigns interpretation else it is perfect Nonsense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove that we have the True Religion before we prove that we have the True Religion These were my words and if the inference be not solid upon the Supposition laid downe therein these who have common sense may judge Yet to this you have made Three Replyes but each of them more ludibrious then another Your First Reply is a pedantick whifle about formall Praecisions you say That I shew my self to be altogether ignorant of the nature of formall praecisions which have vertue where they interverne to make a sufficent distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme For all your pretended skil of these Pracisions there are schoole Boyes with us who could adventure to the lists with you concerning them Yet I confesse in some sense you may commence Doctor in the matter of Praecisions For you have a notable faculty of praescinding from the purpose But if you had said any thing to the point you should have shewed that there interveens a Formall Praecisions sufficient to make a distinction betwixt the Medium and Probleme betwixt these two V.Z. That our Religion is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost And this That our Religion is the true Religion Can you either conceive or conclude that our Religion is contained in the Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost and not conceive Ipso Facto and Formaliter that it is the True Religion Especially seeing from the beginning of your Papers you have acknowledged That a Religion to be a True Religion and to be conforms to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's You may try in the next how you can prove this for you still leave the greatest part of your worke behind you But in the Second place from this pedantick notion you proceed to a more absurd position as if heere There were an objective distinction betwixt the Medium and the Probleme still out of your Modestie Vphraiding me with Ignorance For say you The True Religion and truths contained under the letter of Scripture are separable one from another because all the truths of Scripture may be yet not compâ—uÌ„â— any ReligioÌ„ at all to wit if there had been no obligation imposed upon us to beleeve them And hereupon You conclude me ignorant of the nature of True Religion A greater cry me I confes then the ignorance of the nature of formal Praecisions Onely you had need to guard well that this your insolent accusation doe not recoyl upon your own head For First were you not sophisticâ—ting Ab Ignoratiore Elenchi you should have concluded that our Religion may be contained in the Scripture as the true sense hereof and yet make up no Religion at all But who sees not this to be a manifest contradiction And yet these were the two which you ought to prove to be separable for that was the Supposition whereon my Inference was builded But Secondly what ignorance and absurdity doe you bewray when you say That all the truths contained under the letter of Scripture may be and yet make up no Religion at all I will instance to you a few Scripture truths which it is impossible they should be and not make up a Religion Matth. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve John 20.31 These thinges are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and beleeving ye might have life through his name 1. John 3.23 This is his commandement that ye should beleeve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ These Scripture truths cannot be unlesse they concurre to make up a Religion and the reason is evident which also destroyes your fond Supposition and pretended reason to the contratie because they include in them a Form all obligation of worshiping GOD and beleeving in order to the obtaining or Salvation Do not you the refore bewray brutish ignorance of Scripture and of Religion when you say That all truths contained in the Scripture may be without an obligation to beleeve them and so compound no Religion at all For it is one Scripture Truth that we are commanded and obliged in Scripture to beleeve these truths in order to the obtaining of Salvation Your Third Reply is nothing lesse ludibrious then the former Two in which you say That what was said in that answere of mire to you may be said by persons of another Religion alswell as by us And who doubts but Hereticks may justly repell your Noneseâ—se May not Hereticks be otherwise solidly confuted albeit they laugh at your ridiculous Cavils I hope these transient to ches may suffice to discover with how little successe you have dealt with that Fifth Answere of mine which you call the first For I judge it unbeseeming for me in handling so weighty a controversie as this Whether the Religion of PROTESTANTS or Papists be the true
evidence for this exposition that your own Barronius Sixtus Senensis Ribera and others have acknowledged Rome to be Babylon Nor can this denomination be limited to Heathnish Rome for not only is Rome called Babylon by Tertullian who lived under the Heathnish Emperours but also by Hierome Esebius Austine and many others cited by your own Ribera who lived under Christian Emperours But I shall not now enter on that controversie Only let me remember you of Lactantius boldnesse Lib. 7. Instit cap. 15. Romanum nomen horret animus dicere sed dicam quia futurum est tolletur de Terra Is it not the refore the concernment of you Romanists to hearken to that advyce which Hierome long agoe tendered concerning this matter Lib. 2. Adversus Iovinianum speaking of Rome Maledictionem quam urbi Salvator in Apocalypsi comminatus est potes effugere per paenitentiam habens Ninivitarum exempluÌ„ But seeing you are so good at descanting upon Poetick Rythmes I will give you another which I assure you is no more mine then the other but what truth it containes the World may judge O Roma à Roma quantum mutata vetustâ es Nunc caput es scelerum quae caput orbis eras Fifthly and Lastly if ever Luther uttered such a speach as you alledge wherein we are not concerned yet can I not be induced to beleeve that he did it in such a ludibrious manner as you have expressed it For you would insinuat that he had foretold That within two yeares there should be no more Pope or Masse or any other relict of your Papal superstition Yet you have foolishly heaped up so many Negatives that what you intend for a Negative becomes an Affirmative and so you destroy your own Scope Indeed your Bellarmine in setting downe this calumnie of Cochlaus had more wit then to heap such a multitude of Negatives as you have done But as for you as you begane ludibriously so you end Dignum talli patella operculum If Hierome thought he had coÌ„descended farre in bestowing one lucubration against such a Trifler as Vigilantius have not I supererogated above measurein allowing nine Papers upon you who deserve more the Title of Dormitantius then that Adversarie of Hieromes Now therefore I doe finally discharge with you except you come to the purpose Yet to reduce you to that from which you have digressed in your Last eight Papers I subjoyne againe the confutation of all the nine in two words Aberdene May 10. 1667. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT A succinct confutation of Master Dempster the Iesuit his nine Papers in two words Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene May 10. 1667. John Menzeis The Jesuits tenth Paper Answere to a ninth Paper of Master IOHN MENZEIS wherein is confirmed that the pretended conformity of PROTESTANT Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginar and groundless conformity 14. May 1667. This Paper was delivered to Master IOHN MENZEIS on May 15. I Received the twelfth of May your ninth Paper and it seemes that you have made an obstinat resolution that since you cannot bear out your cause with solid reasones that in supple of this and to blâ—nd simple People you will cary it out by a Bastard sort of eloquence that is by a multitude of words that either wants a sufficient signification corresponding to them or else are about objects altogether disparat and out of line You carp at that which I said that the cause wherefore I did not answere to all things contained in your Papers was not the prolixity of them but barrennesse and superfluity of them This you say is a contradiction for if they be barren how are they superfluous But I tell you over againe that there is no contradiction in affirming your Papers to be both barren of stuffe that makes to the purpose or to our present controversie and stuffed with superfluous digressions out of purpose And with this occasion I call to your minde other sort of Contradictions upon your part For when you was urged to give some ground whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion Your answere was that Religion is not an indivisible truth but a complex of many and so that ye were not obliged to prove in generall the truths of your Religion but that you would descend to all the particulars and to this effect you brought an example of a purse holding an hundred pieces of gold in it which must be all applyed to the touch stone one be one But afterwards when you assigning for the ground of the truth of your Religion the perspicuity of Scripture in all particular points that you hold as necessary to salvation you were desired to give a list of all these particular points that so they might be tryed whether the perspicuity of Scripture did shyne brightly over them all here you disclaimed your former example of the purse alleaging that you was not obliged to descend to particulars Is not this to breath out of the same mouth both heat and cold Likewise you are alwayes pretending that you are a meer Defendant and not Opugnant and yet your Papers containes almost nothing else but Impugnations of Catholick doctrines which make nothing to our present controversie Neither will it avail to say that the Defendant may Retort arguments because the retortion of arguments in our present controversie doth only serve to condemne your own Religion of falshood and error For giving and not granting that you had all the grounds for the truth of your Religion which Catholicks have for the truth of theirs though it be most false and that this is all that you pretend by your retortions yet it cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion because you violently putting out the Catholick Religion under pretext that it was false and erronious were obliged to bring in another which was better consequently that had better grounds And if you did proceed reasonablie this only were sufficient to close your mouth and to make you lay aside all such superfluous digressions and to insist only in bringing such solid reasons that could not be applyed to any Religion that you esteeme to â—e erronious I purposly omit as I have professed alwayes to doe all your digressions that maks nothing to our present purpose As that misapplyed discourse of Sainct Chrysostome with the Pagans since just as it lyes and as it is cited by you it may be assumed by any new Upstart Sectarie if they were cited before your assembly asked in what Scripture he did found his error And though you call it a trisling cavill to object so often to you that all you bring to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be with as great reasone assumed to prove a false Religion to be true yet you must know that is no trisling matter but a maine point and an argument both of the weakenes of your Religion and of your insufficiency to mantaine it for since you can bring
on him to none of which you have answered one word But though you snake away in the dâ—â—ke when you are Non-plussed and though your scutvie behaviour merit no Answere yet for the satisfaction of others into whose hands these Papers may fall I Answere there was a Church on Earth with which Luther had visible communion For clearing whereof By having visible communion I understand that there was a visible societie who did professe the same Religion which Luther did as to all the essentials thereof If you ask what that Church was I answere the Catholick visible Church And doe not wonder that I speak of a Catholick Church as distinct from your Roman There was a Catholick Church before there was a Church at Rome and the Church of Rome in her greatest integritie was but a part of the Catholick When therefore Luther departed from the present Apostatick Church of Rome because of her imperious usurpation upon the Catholick Church he retained Communion with the rest of the bodie who did never submit to her usurpations For when Luther did brake off from Rome there remained foure gaeat Christian Patriarchships disunited from Rome viz of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Ierusalem Whatsoever Christians therefore under any of these Patriarchships or in other remot Nations have not ruinated any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion and are united to the True Catholck head of the Church the LORD IESUS CHRIST PROTESTANTS doe professe Communion with all these I doe not deny but there may be some differences betwixt us and other Churches as to some Integrals of Religion But diversitie of Integrals makes no different Religions so long as the Essentials remaine the same You may learne if you know not from Hoornbeck beside others in his Summa controversiarum lib. 11 de Graecis pag. 978. c. Edit 2. how Iosephus Patriarch of Constantinople sent Demetrius a Deacon of that Church to Wittemberg in the year 1559. to enquire into the state of the PROTESTANT Churches and how Demetrius after an half years abode at Wittemberg carried with him to the Patriarch a câ—piâ— of the Augustan Confession translated into Greek by Philip Melanchton under the name of Paulus Dâ—lscins You may also learne from the forecited Author how Hieremiaâ— another Patriarch who afterward sat in the same Chaire kept correspondence by letters with the PROTESTANT Divines at Tubing from the year 1574. for a long time thereafter And though they had there own debates about some particular points which your Stanislaus Socolovius labours invidiously to exaggerat ye both the Patriarch himself doth give GOD solemn thanks That the doctrine of the PROTESTANTS was in so many things consonant to the doctrine of the Greek Church And likewise Johannes Zygowalas a person of great account with the Patriarch in his letter which he wrote to Martine Cruzius in the year 1576. declares that it may be evident that the Greek Church and PROTESTANTS doe agree In continuis causam fides praecipue continentibus articulis or in the most important articles of the Christian faith and that in other things they may easily come to agreement and the rather as Stilling fleet in his Rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion part 2. cap. 8. § 15. relates out of the same letter from David Chytraeus de statu Eccles Orient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is Since neither party doth agree with the Bishop of old Rome or with the church which joines with him but both doe oppose the evill customes brought in by him Have you not heard how Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to George Abbat Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1616. and did commend to him a Student Metrophanes Chrysopulus to be bred in the Vniversities of England and to be farther instructed in our Religion And accordingly the said Metrophanes did avoid Romish Superstition and alwayes joine with the worship of the Church of England as is testified by Doctor Morton in his Grand imposture of the Church of Rome cap. 14. sect 3. The Letters exchanged betwixt the Patriarch and the Arch-Bishop you may find published in Ephraim Pagitts Christianography edit 3. part 3. You may read also in the forecited booke of Hoornbeck of the respect which Meletius Patriach of Contstantinople had for the PROTESTANT Churches and of his aversation of the Bishop of Rom's usurpation But above all memorable is the Confession of saith put forth by Cyrillus Lucaris Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 1631. in the name of the Greek Church exactly conforme to our Reformed Religion for which your bloody Jesuits did persecute that Holy Matyr to the death I know that this his Confession was afterward distallowed by Cyrill Berrhoeus and Parthenius two factious and bloody men who by ill means got into the same Chair whome Hoornbeck spares not to call Pseudo-Patriarchs But besides that they shortly suffered for their villanies being disgracefully as the same Author testifies ejected from their Patriarchships the Lord also stirred up another Parthenius in the same Chair to vindicat the fame and cause of Cyrillus Lucaris The aversation which the Greek Church have of you Romanists is sufficiently known to the World At the time that one Testimonie of your Prateolus in Elench haeres lib. 7. tit de Graecis pag. 202. might suffice Where he sayes of the Grecians Summum Pontificem Christi Vicarium omnesque Latinos pro excommunicatis habent that is They looke upon the Pope of Rome and all these of the Latine Church who adhere to him as persons excommunicated To wich you may joine that of Alphonsus à Castro lib. 6. de Haeres tit de Eucharistia haeres 2. Where he not only testifieth that the Greeks doe anathematize Latinos omnes all who are of your Latin Church but also that they Will not permit your Priests to consecrat on their Altars or if they doe it at any time with out their knowledge or coÌ„sent they wash their Altars before they coÌ„secrat on them as judging them polluted by your Priests Nay further Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography Part. 1. cap. 4. branches forth the agreement of the Greek Church and many other Oriental Churches with the PROTESTANT Churches in the chief heads wherein we differ from the Papists But because some Heresies destroying the Foundations of Christianity are objected to these Churches such as the Denyall of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son to the Greek Church and Nestorianism to these under the Patriarch of Mosal and Eutychianism to many others I shall remit you to see what is particularly said for the vindication of the Greek Church by Doctor Field in his way to the Church Lib. 3. cap. 1. Where he undertakes to show both from Greek and Romish Doctors of great fame I hat the difference betwixt the Greek and Latine Church touching the procession of the holy Ghost is meerly verbal Yea and he endeavoures to clear many other Oriental and African Churches from Nestorianism
your councill of Trent and your Pope Pius the fourth in his formula fidei have declared to be necessary to Salvation If she did then you may be pleased to produce evidences hereof wherein you may perhaps finde more difficulty then you are awarre of If she did not then is your present Romish Church a new upstart and Schismatical Church of a distinct faith from the Catholick Church in all ages You may notice how Doctor Field in the Appendix to his fifth booke part 2. cap. 2. goes about to prove that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was before Luthers appearance Things being now defined as Articles of faith necessarie to Salvation which were not so before I sincerely professe the Noveltie of your Romish Faith and the Schismaticall constitution of your Church are not the least grounds of my disatisfaction with your Religion You may desire your Masters to calculate to you the Antiquity of the Romish Canons establshing the points following as Articles of faith viz First The equality of unwriten traditions with the holy scriptures of GOD. 2. That concupiscence in the regenerat is not properly sinne 3. The desinit number of seven properly so called Sacraments neither more nor fewer 4. The Popes supreamacie above general Councils 5. Your Indulgences and Purgatorie 6. The abstraction of the Cup from the people 7. Your Transubstantiation 8. The infallibility of the Church of Rome 9. The adoration of Images 10. The Popes jurisdiction over secular Princes Not to mention more at the time I believe you will find some of these latter then Luthers appearance Others but a little before and all of them not only short of Primitive and Aprstolick antiquity but notone of them within the Verge of the Three first Centuries You may if you will take a briefe hint of the novel dates of most of these Romish Canons from Drelincourt in his PROTESTANTS Triumph Discourse 2. from page 39. to page 52. As also of sundry of your ritualls such as the Procession of the Sacrament the feast of the Sacrament your Jubilees the Canonizing of Saints nay of your present Romish Missal and how lately it was received both in the Gallican and Spanish Churches c. Is it safe to venture the eternall Salvation of Soules upon a Religion so Novel both in its Articles of Faith and Rituals You have one Trifle more which I cannot let slip Because I have required you to prove the Assumptiō of that goodly Syllogism which ye proposed in your first Paper wherein you said That the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the sense of Scripture and to this day you have been able to bring nothing in Confirmation of it Now therefore when Arguments fail you you would try if you could bring your self off or creat Odium to your Adversary with a popular but reallie impertinent Example You say That I have behaved my self as if one should come as sent from the Council to require the Provest of Aberdene to apprehend a person suspect of Disloyaltie but when the Provest did demand his commission he should answere that he was not bound to show his Commission but his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no Commission Is this the Scholastick method which you call for in stead of Arguments to substitute popular declamatorie Scenick examples which by a person of any Acuteness may be transformed into a thousand various shapes But seeing you will have the matter managed by Examples I must Examplisie time-about Suppose therefore First that a man were reallie Commissionated by the Secret Council to require the Magistrats of such a City to apprehend a disloyal person and for this effect did produce his Commission but the Magistrates did cavil at the sense of the Commission how luculent soever in it self alleaging that they could doe nothing upon that Commission untill the sense of it were cleared and that the sense of it could not be cleared without an infallible Expounder Would not the Secret Council have just cause to be moved with indignation against these Magistrates who had so ludified their Order And is not this the very case betwixt us and you Doe not PROTESTANTS still produce the Tables wherein the Ground of our Faith is contained Viz the Holy Scriptures Doe not we tell you if all our Religion be not found luculently there we shall disclaime it Is not this your verie Cavil that the Sense of Scripture is so obscure that without an Infallible Bropounder it cannot be understood Have you not cause then to feare the indignation of the Almighty who doe thus reproach the Scriptures of GOD and goe about to subvert the faith of his people suspending it till they get Propounders of whose Infallibility they must have an Antecedent and previous assurance whereas there are none such now on Earth The Fallibity of your Popes and Councils we did before demonstrat and you like a mute Advocat had not a word to mutter for them But Secondly in the case which you propose of a man pretending a Commission and having none and requiring the Magistrats to prove that he had none therefore the Rogue is justly blameable because he refuseth to prove the Affirmative which was incumbent to him and requires the Magistrats to prove the Negative But betwixt you and us the case is quite contrary For though you framed the Assumption of your first Syllogisme in Negative Termes yet upon the matter you refused to prove the Affirmative and required us to prove the Negative For what is it for us to prove the Truth of our Religion in points controverted betwixt you and us but to prove that there i◠no Purgatorie no Transubstantiation no Proper sacrifice in the Masse that your Pope hath no supreamacie over the Catholick Church that there Are not seven Sacraments that Saincts are not to be invocated nor Images adored c. All which are meet Negatives and so are the most of the points controverted betwixt us and you Now suppose that there were no Revelation from Heaven for Purgatorie Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Masse the Popes supreamacie c. Will not you confess in that Case that it were not duety to believe any of them and that then it were a sufficient Argument against them there is no Divine revelation produceable for these things therefore they are not to be believed and if any would obtrude the belief of them upon others that he were bound to produce a Divine revelation for them Now we PROTESTANTS mantaine De facto this to be the Case I would therefore demand of any rational man if there be a possibility to confute us but by produceing a Ground or Divine revelation for these things Are not you then guilty of the same Absurditie with the Knave in your own Example who refuse to prove the Affirmative and require us to prove the Negative But yet further
Thirdly Is not he at least bound to prove a Negative who undertakes the Probation thereof Should one undertake to prove that such an one had no Commission from the Secret Council would not his undertaking of this oblige him to prove it Seeing therefore by the Proposal of your Negative Syllogisme you undertake to prove the Premisses thereof how can you deny that you are bound to prove them But Lastly though I have keeped you to your duety that it might appeare that you have undertaken an impossible task yet I was so farre from shunning to give a Ground of our Religion that I have often produced to you the Grounds thereof as my Papers will witness and have cut off your Cavills against them Whether therefore I who have given Grounds on which we walk and appealed you to try accordingly the particular points of our Religion Whether then I say I or you who shunne to give the Grounds of your Religion yea or Any ground whereby the truth of Religion may be examined be like to the Knave in your Example let these who are not Knaves themselves judge You have frequently clamoured That those of a false Religion may assume the grounds which we have given with as much reason as we and so you repeat your old Knavish example comparing our Religion to an Honest-man betwixt whome and a Knave there is no difference How often hath this been confuted before But you have the impudencie to repeat Ad nauseam often confuted Calumnies not once concerning your self to examine what was replyed to them I confess an Heretick could soon give all the Grounds to prove his Religion and a Knave to prove his Honesty which you have brought to prove your Religion For though you have been often required to condescend upon the Groundâ— of your Religion you have been able to produce none only some hints you had at the Infallibility of your propounders but were soon beaten off from that pretence How often hath it been told you that these of a False Religion may pretend though falsly to the same Grounds with those of a True Religion as a Knave may pretend to the same Arguments to prove his Honestie which a truely Honest-Man doth Doe not Quakers pretend to Infallibility as well as your Popes Did nor Appallonius Thyanaeus boast of Miracles as well as your Romish Synagogue Did not the old Arians and Donatists claime the title of the Catholicks as well as you Doe not the Patriarchs of Alexandria whome you hold for Schismaticks alleage a Personal and Locall succession as well as your Popes Will you for this disclaime your Popes infallibility the Miracles of your Church the Title of Catholicks and Your succession But whereas you say That these of a false Religion may assume the same grounds which we have proposed with as good reason as we Is I pray you a False Religion plainly laid down in Scripture or deduceable by firme consequence from Scripture Is not this the Test by which you have been required to try all points of Controversie betwixt you and us But you have judged it your interest to hold rather on general Calumnies then to come to a particular discusse I come now to your last Paragraph wherein you make a Bravade of condescending to have one point of controversie betwixt us and you examined but with your usuall candor Have I not been obtesting you all this time that you would leave your trifling Generals and come to a discusse of Particulars Did I not assure you in my Last that if upon a particular examination it should not appear that all the points of our Religion are either plainly in Scripture or solidly deduceable from that which is plainly there I would renounce it and onely required the like ingenuity in you that if it be found that your Popish Religion is neither plainly in Scripture not by solide consequence deduceable from that which is clearly there that you would be as can did in disowning your Papal Superstition To this you say You imbrace the offer and onely desire that I would prove this one point of Religion viz. That there be onely two Sacraments Where I desire First it may be observed that in professing your acceptation of my Offer you dissemble the one half of it You make mention of my undertaking for the PROTESTANT Religion but you altogether wave the provision on your part for the Popish Religion and therefore you require me to prove that there be only two Sacraments yet you doe not once offer to prove that there are seven which is the Popish assertion What unfaithfulnesse and cowardlinesse is bewrayed by this mutilation of my Proffer the unpartial Reader may judge Were I to be blamed though I declyned to prosecut my Offer you not accepting it Intirely But I am not so base nor distrustful of our cause You say That love to my conversion moved you to accept the offer If your love to me were sincere you would not tergiverse as you doe for you ought to prove Positively that there be Seven Sacraments neither more nor fewer Though I could not prove that there be only two yet I could be no Papist in that point except I be convinced that there be only seven As your Cursing I had almost said Cursed Council of Trent hath defyned Sess 7. Can. 1. Si quis diâ—â—erit Sacramenta novae legis aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem viz. Baptismum Confirmationem Eucharistiam Paenitentiam Extremam Unctionem Ordinem Matrimonium anathema sit That is If any shall say that the Sacraments of the new law are more or fewer then seven â—â—â—ly Baptisme Confirmation the Euch â—rist Pennance Extreame unction Order and Matrimonie let him be accursed If therefore one should 〈◊〉 antaine that there were three or foure or five or six or eight or nyne or twenty c. Sacraments he should indeed differ from us in this particular but yet be no Papist Your tergiveâ—fing assures me you have no strength of reason with you to perswade me to become your Proselyt And if you had such a zeal for my Conversion why did you not imbrace this Offer sooner I having often made such like appeals to you in divers of the foregoeing Papers But Secondly if there be any point of Controversie betwixt PROTESTANTS and Papists where a cavilling Sophister may lurke under ambiguity of words and darken the Debate with Logomachies this is the point which you have chosen concerning the number of Sacraments For the word Sacrament in the strict notion wherein it 's taken either by our or your Divines in this controversie is not used in Scripture no not in your Vulgar latine unlesse you will be pleased to acknowledge that the Whoore of Babylon is one of your Sacraments For Revel 17.7 your Vulgar latine reads thus Dicam tibi Sacramentum mather is I will tell thee the Sacrament of the woman but your Rhemists are there ashâ—â—â—ed to use the word Sacrament Nor is
there any word either in the Hebrew or Greek exactly correspondent to the strict notion of a Sacrament which is not extended to other things which neither you nor we hold for Sacraments as Chamter bath demonstrated Lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere capp 3.4 And besides Ancient Fathers have used the word Sacrament in so large a sense that they have designed many things by this name which on all sides are acknowledged to be no proper Sacraments As Austine gives the name of a Sacrament lib. 2. de peccatorum merit is remissione cap. 26. to the meat given to Catechumens and lib. 4. de Symâ—olo cap. 1. to Exercismes lib. 19. contra Faustum cap. 14. to the signe of the cross yea lib de bono conjugali cap. 18. to Polygamie none of which you Romanists will acknowledge as Sacraments So that according as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense PROTESTANTS doe not deny but there may be said to be more or fewer Sacraments Yea if the word be taken largely Doctor Featly in his Stricturae in Lindo-Mastigem pag. 90. will grant that it may be said that there be not only seven but seventeen Sacraments And Doctor Whitaker praelect de Sacramentis quaest 6. cap. 1. will admit that seven times seven may be found in Ancient Fathers and Doctor Morton in his Appeale lib 2 cap. 26. Sect. 5. ascends to seventy seven And Crakanthorp in defensione Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalat cap. 30. § 1. spares not to affirme that you may aswell number seventie times seven as seven And Hierom as cited by Gerard de Sacramentis cap. 1. § 6 sayes Sacramenta Dei sunt praedicare benedicere confirmare communionem reddere visitare infirmos orare And Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 2. calls all Christianitie a Sacrament Religionis Christianae Sacramentum How little weight some of our great ' Divines have laid on this Controversie you may see in learned Whitaker loco citato where he spares not to say that barely to extend the name of a Sacrament to other things which are not so properly called Sacraments Error est non admodum periculosus is not an error of dangerous consequence provyding there be not Ordinances brought into the Church which are not of divine institution And learned Master Baxter in his Treatise of Confirmation pag. 88. 89. propos 10. grants that there are more then seven Sacraments in the largest sense that there be five in a large sense but only two Baptisme and the Lords Supper in the strictest sense Is this the Characteristick for distinguishing a True Religion from a False where a Caviller may wrap himself up in such Logomachies Have not some of your Divines affirmed that a Sacrament cannot be defyned as Occam Major and Richardus cited by your own Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere cap. 10 But one thing is remarkable that among all the various acceptions of the word Sacrament in Ancient writers there was never one of them who determined the number of proper Sacraments to be seven neither more nor lesse as you Romanists doe to day How unhappie then were you to pitch on this particular Controversie seeing the precise septenarie number of Sacraments can never be proven either from Scripture or Antiquity You may consider what a low ebbe in this matter you are at when your Bellarmine lib. de effect sacram cap. 24. is put to that shift Non debere adversarios petere à nobis ut ostendamus in Scripturis vel Patribus nomen septeuarii numeri Sacramentorum Scripturae enim Patres non scripserunt Gatechismum That is Our Adversaries he means PROTESTANTS should not demaund of us to shew either from Scripture or Fathers the name of the number of seven Sacraments For the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms Yet we shall hear the same Cardinal a little after rendring this as the reason why Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem did not reckon our seven Sacraments because they did write to Catechumens Is this the pregnancie of your Jesuits Acumen to use contradictorie Mediums to prove the same Conclusion Sometime thus the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms therefore they did not expresse the desinit number of seven Sacraments And at another time inferre the same Conclusion because they did write Catechisms May not such Sophisters inferr Quidlibet ex quolibet But sure it is Cyril of Jerusalem did write Catechisms why then did not he at least mention your Septenarie of Sacraments I suppose your Council of Florence and Trent were not writing Cathechisms when they targht a Septenarie of them But our Divines deale liberally with you in this matter They stand nor upon words They demand not the name of the number of seven They only ask a real demonstration of a precise septenarie though not in so many words Hence Doctor Mortone in the place last quoted We exact not sayeth he the name of the number of seven but only as two and three make five so would we have demonstrated that any of the Fathers in any place of their writings of the Sacraments of the New-Testament did give any certaine intimation of the number of seven Can PROTESTANTS be more condescending in their demands Yet this could never be performed by any of you A cleare evidence that all your Popish Party cannot Proselyte me to you in this point For they cannot shew that either Scripture or Fathers did approve the pretent Romish faith concerning a precise Septenarâ—e of properly so called Sacraments of the New-Testament Thirdly had you been a persone of ingenuity would you not first have cleared these articles of your Religion which I have impugned in my former Papers before you had started a new Question But by your deepe silence as to these it is easie to guesle what satisfaction is to be expected from you as to this Nay Fourthly is it not a meer Negative whereof you demand the Probation from me That there be only two Sacraments For you say It is not the probation of two but that there are no more then two which you desire so that it is a meer Negative you would have me proving Now would not all the reason of the World say that ye who mantaine the Affirmative viz that there be more then two properly so called Gospel Sacraments and that there be precisely seven Ought to prove this your Assertion and that we are sufficiently warranted to mantaine the Negative untill you prove the Affirmative for Ab authoritate negativa in rebus fidei optima est consequentia You must also know our Positives are the articles of our faith and by the Negatives which we mantaine in opposition to you we declare that your errors are no part of our faith so that when you lay the whole stresse upon your proving this Negative that there are no more then two Sacraments you doe not require us to prove an Article of our faith nor should we succumb in proving an article of
praesenti that the object thereof doe exist in that article of time wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced But according to you Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced for according to you Christs Body is not in the Sacrament till all the Words be ended Therefore the proposition according to your Glosse cannot be true And yet it must be true as being the word of him who is truth it self And consequently it must be Ture and Not True Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigma's but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth in so much that what one of them affirmes the other confutes As these hints prove the falshood of your Romish glosse so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS is manifest from the Series of the context For if by the pronowne Hoc or This Christ meaned the bread then the sense of the proposition must be figurative But by the pronowne This he surely understood the bread Ergo c. The Major is clear because disparats cannot be predicated of one another but Figuratively The Minor is easily proven Because what he tooke blessed and did breake of that he said This is my Body as is clear from the Series of the context But undoubtedly he tooke blessed and brake the bread therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronowne This. And consequently the sense must be Figurative Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS Said not Austin Contra Adimantum cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui That is when he gave the signe and figura of his Body And long before him Tertullian Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem cap. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Corpus suum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo ad est figura Corporis mei Could Calvin or Beza have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christs proposition to be Figurative I know your two Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron have scrued up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation But Spalatensis Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles cap. 6. à num 22. Ad numerum 164. not to mention other Authors hath copiously examined and fully vindicated all these testimonies and clearly demonstrated that the Church in the first Eight Centuries was in the same judgement as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Reformed Churches By this touch the judicious Reader may discerne whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds The like might be shewed if our expositions and yours were compared of other much tossed Scripturs such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18 Upon this rock I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of truth Iob. 21.16 Feed my sheep c. And this were the most compendions way to try whether your expositioÌ„ or ours were the more genuine This also was the advice of Augustine of old Lib. 3. Contra Maximin Arianum cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Arâ—minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illus detineris Seripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque proprys sed utrisque communâ—bus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratic cum ratione concertes It is true throogh prejudice interest or blindnes men may oppose the most luculent truth after all these meanes But then the whole defect is as we have often advertised you Ex parts subjecti on the part of the subject And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scripturs perspicuity in al things necessarie to Salvation In your next section as you declined a tryal by Scripture so likewise you shun to have your Religion tryed by Antiquity and you pretend two noble shifts The first is that according to us al these in the first three Centuries were fallible and therefore though our Religion were conforme to theirs it will not follow that it is the True Religion I doubt if ever any had to doe with such a shamelesse tergiversing fellow For First suppose it were true that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion and I admit their Religion as to all essentials to be a Test whether ours be true or not with what face can you decline it Know you not that Maxim of Law Testem quem quis inducit pre se tenetur recipere contrase Secondly how could you say That we affirme that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible seeing in these centuries were the Apostles whome we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine But Thirdly by saying That we mantains that all in these ages even excepting the Apostles and pen-men of holy writ were fallible and subject to errors you discover your self to be either grosly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS or to be a base scurvie sophister which will appeare by distinguishing two words in your assertion For First the particle All may be taken either Collectively or Distributively And Secondly Errors of Religion are of two sorts Some in points fundamental and essential some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity This being premised I propose this Distinction If you meane that we mantaine that All in these ages Collectively taken that is the whole Catholick Church may erre in Fundamentals and Essentials it is a most absurd falshood for PROTESTANTS mantaine no such thing We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church Isa 59. ver 21. Matth. 28 ver 20. c. But if the whole Catholick Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age then the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth It is True sundrie of your Writers either through Ignorance or through their calumniating Genius have charged this on PROTESTANTS that they mantaine that the Church may utterly fail But this is so impudent a slander that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants cap. 13. Notandum sayeth he Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere nam Calvinus cateri Heretici id concedunt If therefore this be your meaning you charge PROTESTANTS falsly But if you onely meane that All in these ages taken Distributively remember that now we speake not of Apostles or of pen-meÌ„ of holy writ or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetick spirit might erre in things not Fundamental this is granted Yet this hinders not but that the truth of our Religion may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church For though every one Distributively taken may erre in Integrals yet seeing Al