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
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
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
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
SalvatioÌ„ from the faith of the most ancient primitive Church Seeing your Formula fidei contrived by Pope Pius the fourth hath made all the canons of the councill of Trent necessarie which I am sure neither you nor any man shall be able to show to have been the faith of the most Ancient and primitive Church Though this hath been put to you once and againe yet have you not dared to touch upon this string Yea Fifthly from this your imposing new necessary articles of faith whereas Regula fidei as Tertullian well sayed Lib. de velandis Virgin Una omnino est immobilis irrefomabilis many of our Divines have demonstrated your Church to be the most Schismaticall society that bears the name of a Church under Heaven For by this you have cut your selves off both from the ancient Church and from the greatest part of Christendome at this day Among many others who have convicted you of this greivous crime you may try how you can expede your self from that which hath been said to this purpose by Decter Morton in his booke intituled The Grand Imposture of the Church of Rome cap. 15. by Stilling fleet in his Vindicatione of the Bishop of Canterbury part 2. cap. 2. And Voetius in his Desperata causa Papatus lib. 3. From this it were easy to demonstrat that notwithstanding your great pretences to Catholicisme we not ye are the true Catholiks For we acknowledge coÌ„munion with the whole Church both ancient modern which keep the essentials fundameÌ„tals of Christianity But your Chuch by imposing new necessary articles of faith which neither the ancient Church nor yet the greatest part of the present Church did ever acknowledge have cut your selves off from the body I shall close this Section with this Dilemma Either the Scriptures doe containe all that is necessarie to Salvation or not if they doe then you are a perverse wrangling sophister in cavilling against this truth If not then instance one necessary truth not contained in Scriptures And this should have been your worke if you would have done any thing to purpose against this precious truth of the Scriptures being a compleet Canon to have showed some Necessary article of faith not contained therein And if you set to this worke remember that according to your own principles you must prove it by some infallible authority which you will find as hard a worke as to roll Sysiphi Saxum In place of your third objection you enquire What are the means for interpreting Scripture what is the due use of these means Whether a false Religion may not use the meane And whether people without preaching can duely use the means of interpretation and come to the knowledge of all things necessary And from the use of meane of interpretation you would conclude the Scriptures not to be perspicuous Behold now of a disputant you are become a Querist You have need I confesse in your old dayes to turne a Catechumen and if you would become a docile Disciple you might receive convincing instructions and find that you had no just cause to have turned a Runnagade from the Religion of PROTESTANTS unto which you were baptized But so long as your Queries proceed from a cavilling humor you deserve no other answere then the retortion of some puzling Queries as our Lord Christ sometimes confuted the insidious interrogaturs of his adversaries A remarkeable instance whereof you may find Luke 20. from verse 2. to verse 8 And therefore to pull down these Spider webs in which you seeme not a little to confide know First that the use of means of interpretation doth nothing derogat from the asserted Perspicuity of the Scriptures especially seeing the principall means of interpretation are to be fetched from the Scripture it self Suppose a man be in a darke Roome with his eyes shut because he must first open both eyes and windowes before he can see the Sun will you therefore accuse the Sun of obscurity Is not the Perspicuity of Scriptures luculently attested Psal 119. vers 105.2 Pet. 1.19 2. Cor. 4.3.4 Rom. 10.7.8 c. If Scriptures be not perspicuous in things necessary it must be either because GOD would not speake clearlie in them or because he could not It were too hard blasphemie to say he could not Who made mans mouth Exod. 4.11 Hence Laâ—tantius lib. 6. Institut cap. 21. Num Deus linguae mentit artifex lâ—â—uinâ—n potest Nor can you say because he would not seeing this is the verie end of Scripture to reveal unto us the way of Salvation Iohn 20.31 Rom. 15.4.2 Tim. 3.15 Dare you say that our holy and gracious Lord did purposlle deliver the whole Scripture obscurely as Aristâ—tle did his Acromaticks and therefore said of them Edidi non edidi You might have learned a better lesson from Ierom on Psal 96. Where he makes this difference betwixt the writings of Plato and the Apostles Plato said he purposlie affected obscurity that few might understand but the Apostles wrote clearly that they might accommodat themselves to the capacities of all the people of GOD. But Secondly Are not you Romanists as much concerned as we in finding out the means for interpreting Scripture yea and besides to find out also means for interpreting the Decretalls Bulls and Breves of your Popes Are you not acquaint with the perplexed debates of your Authors and particularlie how Stapletons eleventh booke de Principiis fidei Doctrinalibus is wholly spent De mediis interpretandi Scripturam And when all is done you Jesuits can never think your Roman cause sufficiently secured except your Pope be made the onely Infallible Interpreter of Scriptures and therefore Gregorius de Valentia lib. 7. De analysi fidei cap. 1. Proposes this assertion as that which he would prove throughout the whole booke Pontifex ipse Romanus est in quo authoritas illa residet quae in Ecclesia extat ad judicandum de omnibus omnino fidei controversiis And though in his Lib. 8. he mentions diverse rules in determining controversies of faith yet at last he concludes in Cap. 10. That the Pope may use these according to his discretion and that he is not tyed to take advice of Cardinals or other Doctors but according to his pleasure and that he may desyne as Infallibly without them as with them So that till the Scripture have no libertie to speake any thing but what sense your Popes are pleased to put upon it you can never secure either your Pope or Papal Religion from Scriptural Anathema's Were it not easie for me here to give you and the World a Specimen of goodlie expositions of these your infallible interpreters I meane your Popes such as Syricius Innocent the third Boniface the eight c. They who can expound Statuimus by Abrogamus and Pasee â—ues meas of deposing and killing of Princes what Glosses can they not put on scriptures By this it may appeare that this your Querie like all
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
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
certitudinem quia nec Scriptura expresse de eis loquitur Sancti etiam Ambrosius Hil. rius Augustinus Hieronimus minime loquuntur de indulgentia And your Aiphonsus à Castro lib. 8. de Haeres Tit. Indulgentiae â—mer omnes res sayethâ—â— De quilus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est qu im minus aperte sâ—â—crae literae prâ—â—â—â—â—â—int de qua minus vetusti scriptores dixeâ—int And your Rassensis contra Lutherum art 18. Quis jam mirari potest quod in principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit indulgenti trum 〈◊〉 Where he plainly conâ—esses that there was no use for these Indulgerces in the prinâ—inve Church Yea your Agrippa de vanitate seien cap. 61. Is bold to doreâ—mine the first broacher of this impierie namely Bomsare the eight who lived a thousand and three hundred yeares after Christ He was the first sayeth Agrippa who extended Indulgences to Purgatorie I know Bellarmine Lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 3. and other Your Romish Authors that they might seeme to lay some claime to Antiquity alledge that Gregorie the first give indulgences In diebus stationum And for this they cue Aquinas and Altisiodorensis But you may see this alleageance judiciously confuted by Doctor John Forbes in his Instruct historico-theol lib. 12. cap. 8. § 13. For though it were as they affirme it would fall short of Primitive Antiquity Gregorie living about six hundred yeares after Christ But no such thing is affirmed by Gregorie himself in all his writings or by any contemporarie Author yea or by any credible Historian for the space of other six hundred yeares thereafter What credit then is to be given to two of your Superstitious-schoolmen who lived above six hundred yeares after Gregorie Especially seeing to these other School-men of eminent fame testifying the contrary are opposed by our Authors as particularly by Doctor Morton in his Appeal lib. 1. cap. 2. sect 20. and by Gerard tom 5. loc de Eccles cap. 11. sect 6. § 206. your great Autoninus whom also youn ave Saincted is cited Part. 1. sum titul 10. cap. 3. saying De ind dgentiys nibil expresse habemus nec in scripturis necex dictis antiqu rum doctorum Chemnitius produceth the like testimonies out of Magister Augelus or as some write him Angularis and Sylvester Prieras which Bellarmine in his Reply to Chemnitius testimonies Lib. 2. de indulg cap. 17. doeth quite and quieâ—lie omit They thatâ—vo â—â— infer any thing conceraing Indulgences as extended to Purgatorie from the Stations used in the Aucient Church discover them elves to be grosly agnorant of the nature of Stations amonest the Ancients as may be seene in Doctor John Forbes his Instâ—uc histâ—◠〈…〉 cit § 14. Should I enumerate more Irslances wherein your Present Romish Church is found 〈…〉 the Ancient Romish Church and to other Ancient 〈…〉 I should perhaps â—tempr your patience too much for 〈◊〉 to be verie sherâ—oâ—â—â—thed Onely now from these to 〈◊〉 let me renew my Argument this If the Ancient Romish Church And the trâ—e sense of holy Scripture as you dare not deny then surdly your Present Romish Church in many things hath not the true sonse of Scripture Seeing the sense of your present ROMIâ—H Church is contradictorie in many thinges to the the sense of the Ancient Romish Church and two controdictories cannot be true Consequently therefore seeing our PROTESTANT Churches doe agree with the Ancient Romish and other Catholick churches in these things wherein they are contradicted by you consequently I say we Protestants must have the true sense of holy Scripture in these Negatives also Quod erat demonstranduÌ„ Perhaps you may lay aside al these things as imperineÌ„t DigressioÌ„s as you have done other things before But let an impartial Reader compare your Papers and mine have the umpirege betwixt us You clamour greatly that my last Paper was not returned sooner to you As if I had no worke to doe in School or Pulpit but to revise your Pasquils GOD knowes whether your raw Rapsodies require much time to confute them I confesse neither Quakers Sermons not your Papers require much Studie Albeit you as seems to counterfie a piece of more quick dispacth have dated most of all your Papers some dayes before they came to my hand But I should advise you if you would have your lines of any significancie to take some more time to them Fistina lente Have you not heard how that Zeuxes the curious Painter bâ—iâ—g demanded why he tooke so much time in drawing his draughts answered Pingo Aeternitati If I be justly blameable for any thing in this exchange of Papers with you it is that ever I should have denzied an answere since the first to such tantolig zing babâ—iâ—gs But seeing you seem only to contend for the last woâ—d how impertineÌ„s so ever I can easily indnige that to an emptie vaine glorious Rabula Yet to let you know that the whâ—le last Paper remaines unanswered I will subjâ—ine yet againe the former socciâ—ct confutation of all your Eight Papers in two words with which alone you may deals if this â—argâ—t discourse oâ— too burthensome to your lazie head Aberdene Ianuary 31 1667. Iohn Menzeis A succinct Confutation of all Master Dempster the Iesuit his eight Papers in two words Nego Minorem Or Nego Conclusionem Aberdene Ianuary 31. 1667. Iohn Menzeis Roma diu titubans variis erroribus acta Corruet mundi desinet esse caput The Iesuits ninth Paper Answere to an eight Paper of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein is confirmed that the pretended conformity of Protestant Religion with Scripture is a meer imaginar and groundlesse conformity 8. February 1667. YOur Papers carieing the date of the thirtyone of Iannary came to my hands the sixth of February wherein you complain that 〈◊〉 the pretext of prolixity of your Papers does not answere to the contents of them 〈◊〉 your thou doe not fail to answere to the I omes of Bellarmine notwithstanding of their great vastues But it is not the Prolixity that makes your Papers to be slighted but the Barrennes and superfluity of them being stuffed with all sort of Digressions and diverticles out of the way Mend your self in this bring only things that are proportionat to show a solid difference betwixt the Protestant ReligioÌ„ afalse ReligioÌ„ which is the onely thing controverted with you from the beginning and you shall be fully answered though you should writ whole Tomes for you know how often it hath been protested that there would be taken no notice at all of any thing you bring out of the line And to speake onely of the superflaous excursiores that you use in the same verie Last Paper What makes it to â—â— our purpose your Digressions about Images about Transs bstantiation about Communion under one kind about The Popes Supremacie about Apocryphal bookes about Indulgences Purgatorie c Likewise what makes it to our purpose your long and tedious discourse whereby you labour to
then have they too much if to reconcile this repugnant indytment you say that these Papers have much matter but little to the purpose you must remember that this may be more easily affirmed then proven withall I appeale you to instance any thing in my Papers which hath not a tendencie to confute you and your Romish Religion and consequently to establish our or that hath not a genuine rise from someâ—â—ing in your Papers And are not these the measures by which the Pcrtinencie of my Replyes to you are to be judged Among the many doc ments of prodigious impudencie which you have given in your Papers I could not but smyle at one how ye could say That your Papers galled me because I could not answere them have I not rather been too superstinious in examming every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these your despicable Pasquils which truely are unworthy of one glance of a serious persons eye But what I have done was to check the vaine petulancie of your party who are ready to make Eliphantem exmusâ—â All the galling I have is that I should have to doe with a Tristing Tergiversing Riviling Civiller and this indeed hath extorred from me some sharpe pressions if peradventure thereby you might have been quickened to love your trifling and tergiversing straine But I have so much comassion for you that I am ashamed in your behalfe that in every now Paper you should give new confirmations of these character 〈◊〉 you extort from me Amend your fashiones and I will mitigâ—â—â— sâ—ylâ— Are you not sensible that your Papers are not onely bâ—râ—â—n of matter but full of nastie and scurvie language such as Middeâ— Jecktrot scouge c. And for your trespasses in Orthogra◠〈◊〉 and Syllabicâ—â—ions were not that I take you to be Sexagen rius you might gos to School againe Whether therefore you deserve thâ—â— chaâ—acter which Hiercm gives to Vigilantius in that forecited Epiflle others may judge Est quidem sayeth he Et verbis scientia sermore inconditus ne vera quidem potest defendere sed propter homines saeculi mullerculas oner atas peccatis semper discentes nunquâ—m ad scientiam veritatis pervenientis un lucubratiuncula illius naeniis respondeâ— After that by these forementioned whimsies you have waved most of the matter in my last Paper then say you like a Material Disputant indeed Let us come to the matter But 〈…〉 For 〈…〉 some great matter I 〈…〉 the Ghost of your old Syllogisme or the same Rhapsody which you had in your Last Paper concerning The sense of holy Scripture repeated in terminis as if you thought to fright us with the frequent apparitions of this Specter All the sense which I can gather out of the heap of confused expressions which you have jumbled together is as I told in my Last That before PROTESTANTS prove their Religion to be true or conforme to the true sense of Scripture they must first prove that they have the true sense of Scripture To which it might be sufficient for me now to tell you that to this your alleageance I have given Seven answeres in my Last and you never resumed but One of them namely the Fifth which is but hypotheticallie exprest to draw from you a cleare explication of your meaning Till therefore you doe the rest of your worke I need give no further Reply Yet I shall at this time propose these Considerations to you And First you must suffer me to advertise you that you represent the Case betwixt you and me very deceitflly as if the Case were whether I can prove the Religion of PROTESTANTS to be the true Religion whereas indeed The present case is whether you can prove that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is not the True Religion In evidence hereof in your first Paper you propose a Syllogisme to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS concluding that the PROTESTANTS Religion cannot be the True Religion Beside other defects both in the Matter and Forme of your Syllogisme I denyed the Minor thereof which to this day you could never be able to prove and therâ—ote sin liâ—g that you are not able to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS you would craftily alter the Scene and of Opponent tâ—rne Responden But you must not â—o easily escape Yet to let you know that iâ— is not from weakenes of our cause that I kept you to your worke I offered â—o you to turne Opponent if you will but ingenuously acknowledge that you are not able to impugne our Religion But Secondly I must iâ— forme you that this your â—oo Cavill which it is like you have learned from some oâ— your Masters is an Old Heathenish objection brought against heâ—rath of the Christian Religion as you may find in Chrysost hom 33. in actae Apost Venit sayeth he Gentilis dicit vellem siers Christianus sed nescio quod dogma eligam singuli dicunt ego verum dico cuicredam niscio cum Scripturarum sim ignarus ills idem â—trinque pratexunt Is not this your very Objection in the mouth of the Pagan or rather the Paganes objection in your mouth But how answered Chrysostome Not as a Romanist or a Iesuit would have done today we have an Infallible propounder a Pope that cannot erre in determining articles of faith Chrysostome had not learned These Romish principles nay but be Answeres like a PROTESTANT thus Sea cum Scripture simplices sint vera facile tibi fuerit judicurs Siguso illis consentit Christianus est But Chrysostome brings in the Heathin instancing againe like a Iesuit Quod si ventens ille dicat hoc habers scripturam tu autem aliud dicas altter sciz enarrando scriptu as mentem earum pro te trabens and still he answeres like a PROTESTANT Tu dic mihi mentem ne habes judicium But yet the Pagane Replyes againe like a Romanist Quomode inquies passum judicurs vestra â—rsciens Discipulus fieri vellem cu autem me dactorem facis But Chrysostome holds on in the same way Empiurus vestem quamvis artis texio is imperiâ—â—sis hac verba non decis nescio emere illudunt â—â—ihi sed faâ—is omnia â—t dasias Where you may see the same cavil moved against the Christian Religion by a Heathen and Chrysostome who well understond the principles of Christianity never made use of your Romish principles but still asserted the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and that a judgement of discretion was allowed to privat persons and therefore a little after concludes Itaque ne câ—villemur ne pratex us quaramus has enim facilia sunt But Thirdly you may consider this Argument if the PROTESTANTS Religion have all the solid grounds to prove its conformity with the true sense of the holy Scripture which the true Christian Religion hath then surely the PROTESTANTS Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the true sense of holy Scripture but the first is
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
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
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
expound it And so it holds universally and can be affirmed of every one who is a meer man and yet David not be guilty of actuall lying in speaking so Nay this sentence of Davids reaches a deep stroke at the pretended infallibility of your Clergie except ye can prove that they have a speciall gift of infallible assistance which I beleeve you will doe when you prove your assumption Namly Ad Graecas Calendas that is to say Never You are then so farr from having any subsidie from this saying of DAVID that while you goe about to expede your self you doe involve your self the faster But I leave you in this thicket untill I consider your other evasion For Mus miser est uno qui tantum clauditur antro You therefore except this truth Concerning the assistance of the Clergie from being in the condition of other particular truths As if the knowledge of this were to be presupposed before we can know the conformity of any other particular truth to the Scriptures But this shift yeelds you no more succour then the former Nay it leaves you likewise in a Contradiction which I thus demonstrat A Religion and the severall points thereof to be true and to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture are Synonima's according to you Therefore no point of Religion can be known to be true untill it be known to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture But that the Clergie should have such assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture is one point of Religion as you affirme Therefore it cannot be known to be true untill its conformity with the true sense of Scripture be known And yet upon the other hand you say that before the true sense of any Scripture be known we must first know that the Clergie hath such assistance to give the true sense of it Ergo that the Clergie hath such assistance must be known before the true sense can be known And consequently the assistance of the Clergie In actu primo must be known before the sense of Scripture and not before the sense of Scripture Now what need have you of Ariadnes clue to wind your self out of this labyrinth By this it is easie to consider what we are to think of your last Dilemma Either say you The PROTESTANT Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that the Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not if it hath let them be produced and examined if it hath not then the People have no ground to beleeve their Teachers Who seeth not how easily this may be retorted upon your selves For either the Romish-Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that their Clergie hath this assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of the letter of Scripture or it hath not If it hath let these grounds be produced and I doubt not but upon examination they shall be found light If it have none then the poor deluded People have no ground to beleeve their Romish Doctos Nay it were easie if I did not fear too great prolixitie to demonstrate that this falls much more heavylie on the Romish-Religion then it can doe on us For how I pray you can your Romists know that they have any Clergie at all Seeing the being of their Clergie depends upon a condition whereof they can have no infallible certainty Namely the intention of the Ordainer as is defined both in the Councill of Florence and Trent And if they cannot know who are their Clergie Men farr lesse can they know that they have this assistance so much talked of Againe If the knowledge of their Clergies assistance be such a prerequisit then it ought to be defined to which of the Clergie this assistance is entayled Whether to all or onely to some and who these some are whether the Pope or General Councill But as to this ye are not agreed among your selves Nay as I hinted in my last some of your chief Doctors mantaine both Pope and Councill may e rt Define then if you can who these are that are to give the sense of Scripture with this pretended assistance Therefore to answere directly to your Dilemma If you speake of infallible assistance I absolutly deny that the knowledge of such infallibity In actu primo in the Clergie is a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture may be known And now againe the probation of this will ly upon you Which I beleeve ye shall find as difficult as the probation of your Assumption Can I not give an assent to a Jurist explaining some of the Institutes of Justinian or receive from him satisfactory resolution of a Law-case unlesse first I know him infallible Can I not assent to him who explains or demonstrats a proposition of Euclyd unlesse first I be satisfyed as to his infallibility In actu primo I wish your Proselytes would deal with you according to your principle and beleeve nothing you say till you prove your infallibility But to remove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this your mistake Know that our Peoples faith is not built on our Authority We arrogat nor Dominion over their faith we are but helpers of their joy 2. Cor. 1.24 But seeing you have pitched upon the knowledge of the infallible assistance of the Clergie In actu primo for giving the true tense of Scripture as a necessarie prerequisit before the true sense of Scripture can be known which the PROTESTANTS deny I therefore appeal you to prove this to be a necessarie prerequisit if you can Ye are not a little commoved that our Divines should be compared to yours It is long indeed since the pride of the Romish Clergie made an eminent Person say Odi festum istius Ecclesiae but I may say without vainity to the praise of GOD there have been eminent Lights in the Reformed Churches such as Calvin Beza Juel Whitaker Morton Usher c. Who lake onely some years to make them be enrolled among the Fathers Neither indeed doe I desire them to be otherwayes compared with your men then as one would compare Austine Jerom or Athanasius with the Hereticks of their time Yet would I not put all the Doctors of your Church in one classe Some we know have been of a more moderate principle then the Grandees of your faction for which cause many of their writtings have suffered by your Judex Expurgatorius How are you not ashamed to say that the most we teach in Schools or Pulpits is copied out of your Authors Do we I pray you reach Popery either in Schools or Pulpit Doe we cite your Authors but to confute them Or doe we make further use of them except in common truths wherein we and ye agree as we make use of Heathen Authors and as Virgil made use of Ennius to extract Aurum ex stercore Ennii or as the skilled Surgeon can make use of Vipers
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
texts of Scripture and let thir grounds be produced and shown that they cannot be assumed with as great reason to prove that the Clergie of a false Religion hath this ability In actu primo or else you are destitute of speciall grounds and then it is impossible that your Clergie can give the true sense of Scripture because it is impossible to doe any thing In actu secundo without a speciall ability In actu primo to doe it So that all the ability that your Clergie is furnished with In actu primo is onely to guesse at the true sense of Scripture and wherefore should people pay you Stipend for guessing since they are endued with sufficient ability themselves and without you to guesse at the true sense of Scripture In this your last Paper you adde a third shift to wit that all the grounds whereby Tertullian and other Fathers proved the truth of Christian Religion against Paganes proves likewise the truth of your PROTESTANT Religion But who will not laugh at this answere as if there were no Christian Religion but your PROTESTANT Religion And what Christian Religion is so false which may not with as great reasone assume this shift of yours As to that whereby you remitt me to the grounds which Morney Grotins and others of your own Authors brings I pray you since they are your own take all the help you can of them and either be distilling or squeezing all their writs Expresse me one solid ground to prove the truth of your Religion which may not with as great reason be applied to prove a false Religion to be a true Religion Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits fourth Paper An Answere to a fourth Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan TO apologize for your long silence you alleage that my third Paper dated May ninth came not to your hands untill May twentyseventh and that it was unsubscrived and hade been first dictated to my Scholers To which it is answered that on the ninth of May I sent an authentick copie of that paper to the Gentle-man of your profession by whome the rest both of yours and mine were addressed If he hath neglected to deliver it to you untill the twentyseventh of May you may call him to an accompt and put him to Pennance at your next shriveing for being so negligent of the concernments of his Ghostly father Whereas you say it was unsubscrived I can hardly beleeve you yet if it be so it hath been a lapse of memorie But you are not In bona fide to object that omission to me who never had the confidence to signe any of your papers However Quod scripsi scripsis what I have written I have written And to give evidence that I am ready to mantaine what ever is in that Paper against all the fry of Jesuits transmit to me with a confident hand the copie which I sent and it shall be returned with my subscription manuall As to the alleagance that it was dyâ—ed to some Students before I sent it to be conveyed to you it is a grosse untruth For it was not communicated to them or to any else untill the week thereafter which I was the more easily inclined to doe hearing how busie your Romish proselyts were to disseminat your Papers and that with the addition of impudent calumnies But beleeve me I should not have accused you for your delay if at length you had supplied the omissions of your former Papers and done the work of an Opponent neatly and throughly as ye were required Sat cuò si sat benè But you must give me leave to give you a free Character of this Paper I finde it to be nothing but a Rapsodie of Railings Repetitions Tergiversations yea and shamefull flinching from your own principles So that if I mistake not it had been more for your credit utterly to have kept silence For Stultus est labor Ineptiarum By this time it appears that it is lost labour to presse you any further to make a Reply to the principall points of my former Papers For now you protest you will not doe it and you cloak your shamefull tergiversation with this pellucid excuse that these things in my Papers were out of the way That is if you may be beleeved impertinent But who beside you will say that it was impertinent for me to discover a fallacious Sophistication in the ground of all your discourse What ingenuous person would not have judged himself concerned to clear himself of such an imputation Yet though this hath been now foure times charged on you ye think it not pertinent to vindicat your self Who besides you but will acknowledge that it was pertinent for me to demonstrate that by your own discourse you had ensnared your self in Contradictions and had cut the sinews of your Romish and Tridentine faith What a poor Advocat then are you for the Romish cause and an unworthy Stipendiarie to your Master the Pope who have no more to say but that it is not pertinent for you now to speake to these things But what need I wonder at this Seeing you judge it impertinent to prove the Assumption of your own syllogisme which I had not onely requited you to doe but also condescended to demonstrate by many Mediums that you were tyed to doe it And yet it seems not pertinent to you either to prove it or to refell these my arguments Shall onely impertinencie be pertinent with you I doubt if that cowardly boast shall raise up your falling reputation that if I should answere according to the method which you prescribe that is if I would liberat you of the burthen of proving your Assumption then you would answere not only to all these my Digressions as for the salving of your credit you are pleased to terme them but also dispute at leasure with me about Logicall Rules and I know not what notionall whimsies concerning Formall and objective negations Quid dignum tante feret hic promissor hiatu When I compare your bigg but conditionall braging with your lean performances at present I remember of him in Plutarch who was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Semper dicebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunquam dabat He was liberall in promises but nothing at all in performances If you be so able to expede your self in these particulars what mean you by all these shifts and dilatours Quinon est hodie cras minus aptus erit If you were once become so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you cannot prove your Assumption I would so farr commiserat you as to grant you an exemption But till then how can you expect courtesie at my hands Might not a man of your years have learned so much discretion as not to prescribe methods of answereing to his Adversarie Vaine debates for victorie and not for truth doe not become grave persons Yet I purpose never to decline to exchange a
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
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
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
the scop of your first Paper and Syllogisme was to hold out That the true Religion hath grounds to prove it self to be conformâ— to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But this were impossible if all Religion and consequently what ever is necessarie to Salvation were not contained in the writen Word of God And therefor in my answere to your First Paper I concluded from that Syllogisme that you had overturned your Vnwriten traditions So that now you are not in Bonâ fide to object against the Perfection of Scriptures as containing all things necessary to Salvation without contradicting your self But this hath been a fatalitie which hath attended you throughout all this debate Secondly this your demand Of drawing up a Lift and Catalogue of necessaries is an old cavill of your Romanists which our Divines have often canvased and therefore â—s I told you that you would be served when you renewed old Refuâ—ed Cavills Itemit you to see what hath been said to this purpose By Master Chillingwerth in his Defence of Petter part 1. capp 3.4 And by Stilling-sleet In his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. part 1. cap. 4. And Crakantliorp in his ' Defens Ecclesia Anglicana cap. 47. Thirdly you falslie affirme that the Scripture doth pur no distinction betwixt divine truthes of absolute necessitie to Salvation and others the beleef whereof is not so indispensably necessarie Sayeth not the Scriptore Heb. 11.6 He that cometh unto GOD must beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Is the like Character of necessitie put upon everie truth Is there I pray as great necssiâ—tie to beleeve that Paul left a Clok at Treat 2. Tim. 4.13 As to beleeve there is a GOD Know you not that of Austin lib. 1. Contra Iulianum cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquande etiam doctissimi atê™ optimi regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius hoc autens unde nunc agimus ad ipsa pertinet sidei fundamenta Where the Father acknowledges there are some Foundation truths in Christianitie absolutly necessarie and others not so You may see this larglie proven by Master Baxter in his Key for Catholiks part 1. cap. 16. And Crakanthorp loco citato no to mention others Fourthly I absolutlie denie that it was incumbent to me at this time to draw up a Lift of truths simply necessarie to Salvation and it was a tergiversing Shift in you to demand it that so you might keep off the eximination of that which is mainlie in controversie betwixt us For though I with reformed Divines doe affirme that all things necessarie to Salvation are contained in Scripture Yet neither they nor I affirme that it is necessary to Salvation to have a precise Catalogue of things necessarie containing neither more not lesse Did I pray you Chryfostome draw up a Catalogue of necessaries when he said Hom. 3. In epist 2. Ad Thess That all things necessarie are clear and manifest in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Augustin when he said Lib. 2. De doct Christ cap. 9. that In â—is quae aperte posita sunt in these things which are plainly laid down in the Scripturs Inveniuntur amnia are found all which belong to faith or maners Or Tertullian when he said Scripturae plenitudinem adero Cannot this generall be proven that all things necessarie are contained in the Scriptures unlesse a precise Catalogue be drawne Is there no way to prove an Universall conclusion but by an induction and enumeration of all particulars Cannot I conclude that all the dead shall rise at the last day unlesse I can draw up a list of all the race of Mankind Or that all the Reprobat shall be eternally shut up in hell unlesse I can give you a catalogue and definit number of that generation of GODS wrath Can I not conclude that all Jesuits are devoted Slaves to the Pope unlesse I can give a catalogue and a definit number of these locusts Is not the generall which we affirme abundantly proven by these Scriptures in which the sufficiencie of the Scripture to bring men to Salvation is held forth As 2. Tim. 3.15.16.17 John 20.31 Gal. 1.8.9 c. In so much that Tertullian was bold to say Contra Hermogenens cap. 22. Doceat Hermogenes Scriptures esse si non est Scriptum timeat illud vae adjicientibus ant detrahentibus destinatum Yea what if it should be added that the explicite beleef of more truths may be necessarie to the Salvation of one then of another Said nor the Lord Christ Luke 12.48 Unto whome much is given much shall be required Whereupon a great Divine spared not to say That to call for a precise catalogue of necessarie truths is as unreasonable as if one should desire us to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her Changes or a garment to fit all statures or a dyall to serve all Meridians or to designe particularly what provision may serve aâ— Army for a year whereas there may be an Arâ—â—ie of a thousand and an Army of an hundreth thousand whose provision therefore cannot be alike But what ever be of this let it suffice to have given you this generall character of necessarie truths that no truth of Religion is further to be accounted necessary then Scripture puts a character of necessity upon it And here by the way I might let you see what a fool you wer in medling with my example Of trying pieces of gold severally by the Tonchstone For in the present case it can import no more but that before any truth be concluded necessarie it must first be found that the Scriptures hath put a character of necessity upon it and consequently all necessarie truths must be contained in Scripture Quod erat demonstrandum You would therefore not medle with my weapons lest they cut your hands But Fifthly and lastly I adde that you Romanists are as much concerned to draw up a list and catalogue of necessaries as we and I am sure in so doing you shall find greater difficulty especially if with your late Champions you say that all that and onely that is necessarie which your Church hath defined For first can ye agree among your selves to tell me what you mean by the Church Or secondly can you enumerat a precise catalogue of all that the Church hath defined Or how can you ascertaine any of the true sense of these Definitions Or Thirdly can you show me who hath impowered the Church since the dayes of the Apostles to put a Character of necessity to Salvation upon a truth which had it not before And Fourthly did not I from this demonstrate your Religion to be a false Religion because it differs in its essentials and in these things which to you are necessary 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.
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
have a new Specimen of your Iesuiticall Candor for First there was no mention of the Translation in your first proposall of this Objection But Secondly to let this Peccadillo passe how are you so impudent as to say that I had given no other Answere but remitted you to our PROTESTANT Authors Looke backe on my Paper and blush for your lying Had I not first inverted the Objection against your self and then did I not Answere directly that this Objection might have had some colour of reason had I sustained the part of an Oppouent but none at all I being the Defendant or Respondent Did I not shew you that it concerned you to prove that we PROTESTANTS had not the true sense of Scripture and that all incumbent to me at present was to answere your arguments And the same now I desire to be accoÌ„modated to the True letter and translation of Scripture Prove if you can that we are either destitute of the true letter translation or sense of the Scripture What I said of PROTESTANT Writers that they have shewed our Religion to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture which indeed they have done as with a Sun beame was not that they in that had performed what now I was tyed to doe but as then I told you that it were no impossible taske but had often been performed though at present I resolved to keep you to the Rules of argueing Yea did I not deal more liberally with you and require you to pitch on some chief points in controversie betwixt you and us and for your encouragement promised that I should not onely hold the Defendants part But you cannot be drawne out of your lurkeing holes and thereby you discover both your desperat cause and cowardly Spirit Nay more have I not in my last Paper proven sundrie points of controversie against you Such as the Perfection of Scripture the perspicuity of Scripture the falliblity both of Popes and Councils c. Yet have you nto once had the boldnesse to canvase these my arguments Should I have passed through other Controversies is it not like that you would have waved all under your common pretence that they were but impertinent Digressions But though you had keeped silence at other points I think not so strange as that you could hear your Popes in cathedra and extra cathedram charged with errour and yet not awake out of your Lethargie I will minde you of a testimony of your Alphonsus à Castro concerning your Popes to see if it can alarme you In lib. 1. Adversus Haereses cap. 4. Thus he writes Omnis homo errare potest in side etiamsi Papa sit Nam de Liberio Papa refert Platina illum sensisse cum Arianis Anastasium secundum hujus nominis Pontificem favisse Nestorianis qui historias legerit non dubitat Caelestinum Papam etiam erresse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in Haeresin Res est omnibus manifesta Neque hic Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam qui in qualibet re seriâ definienda consulere debet viros doctos quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini Definitio habebatâ—r in antiquis Decretalibus in cap. LaudabtleÌ„ titulo De Conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi So your A Castre In your second Cavill you alledge for it seemes you dare adventure upon no more Syllogisms That before I affirme so boldly that all things necessarie to Salvation are contained in Scripture I ought first to have drawne a catalogue of all these necessarie points and now you foyst in a word againe which was not in the first proposal of this cavil Or rather say you a list would be drawne of all these points which the PROTESTANT Religion holds as necessarie All the ansvere you bring me in makeing to this is That a proposition in general may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of all the particulars contained in it Are you become so shamelesse that in every step you must deal unfaithfully Who may not see that ye Romanists are moved by the same Genius with the old Hereticks of whome Austine observed Hareticorum frontem non esse frontem Did I not make Five Replyes to this your Second Cavil And you pitch but upon one branch of one of them and that also you misrepresent I must therefore pull you by the eare and remember you that First I shew that you were not In bonâ fide to object against the Perfection of Scripturs as containing all things necessarie to Salvation neither could you doe it without contradicting the grounds which you had laid downe in your First Paper Secondly I shew that this demand of A catalogue of necessaries was an old cavil of your fellows confuted by many particularly by Chillingworth Crakanthorp Stillingfleet c. to whome indeed I remitted you To these now I adde a verie late but learned Author Master Tillotson part 2. Sect. 3. § 15. In his confutation of a much eryed up Romish pamphlet entituled Sure footing where he calls This canting demand of a Catalogue of necessaries one of the expletive topicks which Popish writers of the lower forme doe generally make use of to sil up a booke And withall brings in Doctor Holden in his Analysis fidei lib. 1. cap. 4. One of the great Patrons of your traditionarie way shewing that this demand of a catalogue of necessaries is unreasonable and mantaining it to be not onely Impossible but also if it could be had Uselesse and Perniâ—ions Thirdly I shew from Scripture and Augustine that you falsly affirmed that the Scripture did put no difference betwixt necessarie truths and others Fourthly I shew it was unreasonable in you to demand of me a precise Catalogue of necessarie truths for proving whereof I did coacervat a heap of arguments And Fifthly I shew that it concerned you Romanists no lesse then us to draw a Catalogue of necessarie truths and that it would prove a more difficle taske for you then for us Yea from your putting a character of necessitie upon mary articles which sometimes had it not I demonstrated your Religion to be a false Religion and your Church notwithstanding all her great pretences to Catholicisme to be the most schismatical societie under Heaven and remitted you to Doctor Morton Voetius and Stillingfleet who had demonstrated this at large Wherupon now I must minde you how Master Chillingworth urged his adversarie Master Knot to produce a Romish catalogue of necessaries assureing him when ever he received that with the one hand he should deliver his catalogue with the other but this could never be obtained from Master Knot The like offer is lately made by Master Tillotson to Master Serjeant the Author of Surefooting but though Master Serjeant have made the fashion of a Reply yet hath he not adventured upon such a Catalogue
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
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
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
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
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
the Gospel Church actus conjugalis est meritorius the conjugal act They who are acquaint with your Iesuit Dialect will understand his meaning I am ashamed to make it plainer Is meritorious not so among Heathens or ancient Iewes These things the Iesuit boldly asserts but doth not once offer a probation for them They might be solidly confuted but that I doubt I be alreadie guilty of too too much prolixity by all the Arguments which our Divines bring against your opus operatum in the general and against your doctrine of Merite all which hold a Fortiori in this particular Hither if in any case I may apply that saying O Spes fallaces Meritis confidere vanis I shall only desire you if you dare owne these impious positions of your fellow Iesuit to try how you can bring any shadow of reason why Marriage doth conferre grace ex opere operato Or why conjugal acts are meritorious now among Christians and not of old among believing Iewes Are Christians now in a state of Grace so were believing Iewes Have Christians now a respect to the ends why Marriage was instituted so had believing Iewes Where then is the difference as to the specifick nature of the ordinance then now But Fourthly If Marriage be a proper Gospel Sacrament how are your Priests interdyted from it Doth one Sarcrament render persons incapable of another How did Siricius and Innocent the first Bishops of Rome passe such an impious glosse if the Deeretals ascribed to them be genuin upon that text Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot please GOD As if persons in a married estate could not please GOD because they are in the flesh If this glosse were true marriage were so farre from confering grace Ex opere operato and conjugall acts so farre from being meritorious that they should rather put a person in a state of enmity against GOD which to affirme sayes the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.1.3 Were a doctrine of Devils Fifthly how can it be made out that Marriage is appointed of GOD as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace or promises of Salvation Doth not your own Cassander assirme that your Master of sentences Lombard denyeth Marriage to conferre Grace which you Romanists require as necessary to the nature of a proper Gospell Sacrament Sixthly and Lastly doth not your great Cajetan teach that from Eph. 5.32 Which yet is the only Scripture that can be pretended to favour your Sacrament of Marriage It cannot be solidly concluded that Marriage is a propper Sacrament Non habes sayeth Caâ—etan on the place ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo conjugium esse Sacramentum But of this point I suppose enough Shall I here give you a touch of your extreme Unction And First though your Councill of Trent have defined Sess 7. can 1. That every Sacrament of the New Testament was instituted by Christ himself yet many of your chief Doctors have denyed that extreme Unction was instituted by Christ such as Hugo de sancto victore Lombard Bonaventure Alensis Altâ—siodorensis as is restified by your Jesuit Suarez tom 4. in 3 part disp 39. sect 2. num 1. Consequently if that opinion of these your great Doctors hold Extreme unction can be no proper Sacrâ—ment of the New Testament But Secondly where have you warrant from the Scripture that the matter of this Sacrament must be Oyle Oâ—ive conâ—ecrated by a Bishop Or that seven parts of the body should be anointed therewith viz. Eyes Ears Nose Mouth Hands Feet and Reins Or that the Forme of this Sacrament should be these words which you use viz. Per istam unctionem suum piissimâ—m misericordâ—â—m indulgeat tibi Dominus quicquid deliquishiâ—per visium c. All which are determined by your Pope Eugeniâ—â—s the fourth in that alleged Decret of the Councill of Florence for the instruction of the Armenians Or that this Unction as so administrated is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and perpetually to endure in the Christian Church If you essay to prove all these you may find it a difficult work Thirdly might I not here give an account of your altercations among your selves concerning this pretended Sacrament as whether it be necessary to this Sacrament that the Oyle be consecrated by a Bishop or that the body be anoynted in all the forementioned parts which your Pope Eugenius the fourth hath specifyed Whether the words must be pronounced Deprecatively or whether they might be used Indicatively according to that which your Authours call the Ambrosian Forme Ungo te oleo in nomine Patris c. Yea is it not debated among you whether there be any command at all for receiving this pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction Are not the greatest part of your Doctors for the Negative Hear your own Suarez tem 4. in 3. part disp 44. sect 1. num 2. Communis sayeth he opinio est nullum esse affirmativum praeceptum de suscipiendo hoc sacramento etiam in extremo vitae discrimine That is It is the commone opinion of the Romish Divines that there is no positive precept obliging persons to receive this sacrament of extreme unction even when they are in the most extreme hazard of death A noble Sacrament indeed which by the confession of your own Romanists ye are tyed by no command of GOD to receive The same is granted by your Romish Doctors concerning all your five controverted Sacraments except Pennance That there is no positive command of GOD to receive any of them Whence I argue thus There are positive precepts in the holy Scripture for receiving Baptism and the LORDS-Supper but there is no positive precept of GOD either in or our of Scripture for receiving foure at least of your Sacraments viz. Confirmation Marriage extreme Unction and Ordination as is confessed by your own Romanists Therefore these foure at least are no such Sacraments as Baptism and the Lords-Supper And though your interest and Commodum Curiae induces you to assert a necessity of Pennance for thereby you make your selves Masters both of Purses and Consciences and privie to all Secrets yet try when you will you will be as little able solidly to prove a positive command of GOD for Pennance in your Romish sense and as it is practised among you as for any of the other foure And consequently none of these your five Sacraments is sub pracepto and therefore none of them are such Sacraments as are BAPTISME and the LORDS SUPPER which is that which PROTESTANTS meane when they affirme that there be only two properly so called Sacraments of the New Testament Fourthly not only have our Divines proven that the two places of Scripture which Romanists deprave for this pretended Sacrament viz Marke 6.13 and Iames 5.14.15 make nothing for you But also eminent Authours among your selves have done the same The first place your great Champion Bellarmine lib. de Extrem Vnct. cap 2. denyes to hold out any Sacrament and urges no few Arguments