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
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
adde Doctor Strang de interpretatione perfectione Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 8. Where you might have found a full account of the right means of interpreting Scripture and of the right way of useing these means and consequently of the difference betwixt them that used them rightly and others who doe not use them duely Fourthly I resolved a Querie of yours whether without the preaching of the Word the means of interpretation may be used and the true sense of Scripture attained But of all these things in your reply like a perfect Fuge bellum you take no more notice then to asperse them as long Digressions about the rules of interpreting seripture A rare and compendious confutation I confesse But if I did extravague in these discourses was it not in following such a vagrant guide as you Doe you not play the Devil first to temp me to thse D. gressions and then to accuse me for them Yea doe you not show your self a silly fool to wound your self through my sides For if it be an impertinent Digression for me to answere your Queries must you not be an impertinent fool to propound them But perhaps you thought it your wisdome rather to come off with this reflexion of folly then to adventure to graple with these things which would prove too hard for you After you had waved all these particulars lest you should seeme to say nothing at all to that Section you fall upon a word which I spake in answere to another of your judicious Queries Viz. Whether these of a false Religion might duely use al the means of interpretatioÌ„ To which I answered De jure they ought to use them though De facto and in sensu composito they did not use them which I confirmed by some Scripturs To confute this my answere What say you if they of a false Religion say as much of as And who questions but they may say it Our lips are our own say the worst of men And who is Lord over us Psal 12 verse 4. Have we not sufficient experience of the licentious tongues of your Romanists doth it therefore follow that you doe duely use the means of interpretation and not we Si accusare sufficiat quis innocens We doe not desire any man to receive our expositions because we affirme them to be true nor are we so brutish as to suffer your Romish interpretations to be obtruded upoÌ„ us on your bare affirmatioÌ„ If you would come downe out of the clouds and not insist stil on generals you should find it is upon convinceing grounds from the series of the context other Scripturs the Analogie of faith c. That we reject your Romish senses and embrace these which are approved by PROTESTANTS As for Example there is a great Controversie betwixt you and us touching the sense of these words of Christ Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body You will have them to be understood in A proper and lueral sense and by the Priests pronounceing or rather whispering them in Latine the Body of Christ to be substituted under the Accidents of bread We on the contratie affirme the sense of these words as is usual in Sacramental speaches to be Figurative the Bread being called the Body of Christ because it is a Sacramental figne and exhibitive Symbol of his Body You will find Armies of arguments brought by our Divines particularly By Whitaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. To justifie our sense and to confute yours I shall at the time give you but a hint of this one According to your received Romisn glosse these words of Christ should be inexplicable false and imply a manifest contradiction therefore you Romish glosse must surely be false The Sequel is clear The Antecedent I prove And first I say these words of Christ should be inexplicable Straine your wit and squeeze your Authors to tell me what Hoc or the pronowne This can signifie Surely it can neither signify bread nor the Accidents of bread else the Proposition were not proper For al know that one Disparat cannot be properly predicated of another Nor can it signify The Body of Christ For according to you Christs Body is not there until al the Words be finished But the pronowne This doth clearly demonstrat something then present when it was spoken What therefore remains but that with other your Authors you betake your self to the desperat refuge of your IndividunÌ„ vagum Eus in confuso Contentum sub speciebus and what is that but something you know not what Was Christs understanding clouded with such confusion that he knew not what he meant when he said This But besides when ever any thing is truely predicated of an Individuum vagum though it be disjunctivly enunciated of many things yet it is determinatly verified of some one thing and therefor suppose the pronown Hoc or This were taken as an Individuuâ—â— vagum yet it must signifie something then present identificated with The Body of Jesus But that is impossible according to you seeing Christs Body is not present untill all the words be uttered More of the Vertigo of your authors touching this particular may be seen in the forementiond writers But I not onely said that this Proposition of Christ according to your Romish glosse would be Inexplicable but also False and Imply a contradiction For it implyes a manifest contradiction that a true affirmative proposition De praesenti should produce its object But this proposition which must be true as being Christs and which all see to be affirmative De praesenti according to your Romish glosse doth produce its object For according to you it substitutes the Body of Christ under the accidents of bread either by Adduction or Reproduction Ergo this proposition according to your Romish glosse implyes a manifest Contradiction The Major is clear because if a true proposition De praesenti should produce its object then in the Iustant of nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true and not true True ex hypothesi for it is supposed to be a true proposition Not true because not conforme to its object For it affirmes its object to be De praesenti yet in that Instant of nature the object is not for it is the instant of Priority before the object And consequently if this proposition This is my Body doe substitute Christs Body under the accidents of bread His Body should be under these accidents before it be under them For it should be under them in the first Instant of nature wherein this proposition is conceived else the proposition should be false And yet it should not be under them because the proposition as the productive cause of the presence of Christ must be presupposed for One instant of nature before its effect But what speake I of Instants of nature Is it not at least requited to the truth of an Affirmative proposition de
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
then apologize for me One Objection must needs be removed It may be asked how I doe charge the Iesuit as declyning to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity seeing he profers at lest to have one Controversie examined by Scripture Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments But let any rational person though a Romanist if he can but dispossesse his own mind of prejudice cognosce whether my Charge be just How disingenuous the Iesuit was in that seeming profer concerning the number of Sacraments is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered And 1. When did the Iesuit make this profer Only in his tenth or last paper imeÌ„diatly before his getting out of the nation Why did he it not sooner especially seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before and he had been frequently appealed to a discusse of particular Controversies Did he not in former papers positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity By Scripture because as he affirmes paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture By Antiquity also because sayeth the Iesuit paper 5. page 61 This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion Yea doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries in his 9. paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming profer at such a time after so many declinaturs ingenuous Romanists may judge But secondly Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures Transubstantiation Adoration of Images Communion under one kinde Papal indulgences Apocrypha bookes the Popes Supremacie over the whole Catholick Church and his Jurisdiction over Princes Yea had it not been shewed as the breviry of missives would permit that the Church of Rome doth grosly erre in all these Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these Let Romanists therefore againe judge whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity to prove the present Romish Religion erronious in all the foresaid particulars and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments doeth shew a through willingnesse to have the Truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity Thirdly If there he any Controversie tossed betwixt Rom mists and us where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies is not this it which the Iesuit hath pitched upon coÌ„cerning the number of Sacraments Must it not be acknowledged on all hands that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense a man may affirme that ther be more or fewer Sacraments But of this you may see more at length in the Aâ—swere to the Jesuits tenth paper page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural tryal who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies and only betaks himself to this wherein the Adversarie may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies But fourthly Doth the Jesuit really profer to have that on Controversie concerning the number of Sacraments betwixt Papists and us decyded by Scripture Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor fewer which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church Nor at all What then Only that he might seeme to say something he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments or that there be no more then two which is in very deed to require me to prove the Negative while he himself declynes to prove the Affirmative viz. That there is not only more then two but compleatly seven Though the Iesuits demand be irrational I hope I have satisfied it in its own proper place But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us concerning the number of Sacraments were not decyded except it be proven that there be precisely seven neither more nor fewer If there be not a precise septenary one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground Consequently the Iesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural tryal untill he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments which as yet he hath not done nor I believe will adventure to doe He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here But neither I suppose will these serve his turne But Fifthly what are all these ensuing papers but a demonstration of the Iesuits tergiversing humor In his first paper he proposed foure postulata like so many Oracles I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogisme but could never thereafter adventure on a second which was retorted in better forme against the Popish Religion more wayes then one but these Retortions to this houre remaine unexamined I denyed the Assumption of that long studied Syllogisme but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof In that Assumption the Iesuit had said that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture To repell that bold allegeance I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture which either the True Christian Religion hath or that the Popish Religion can pretend to which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants But he could never be moved to produce any Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders or to answere Arguments against their Infallibility At length being outwearied with his tergiversing I produced positive Grounds for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures and the disconformity of theirs viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and Conformitie with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries Hereupon he positively declyned both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries as a test to find out the Truth of Religion Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any viz Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine and the sense which Romanists impose to
it or that the sense that is given to such a text of scripture were the true sense or the sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words Since then that all must agree in this conditionall proposition all the controversie must be reduced to this what partie purifies this conditionall that is to say what part hath more solide and stronger reasons that they have the assistance of the holy Ghost to give the true sense of the letter of the word of God 4. As it is impossible for one to prove himself an honest man except he can shew some distinction betwixt him and a knave and that there can be verified of him something which is not applicable nor can agree to a knave so it is as impossible for a religion to prove it self to be a true religion except it can assigne some distinction betwixt it and a false religion and that there can be verified something of it which cannot be verified nor applyed to a false religion Out of these premisses is deduced this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true religion which hath no peculiar principle or ground to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God But the Protestant religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God Ergo it cannot be a true religion May it please the answerer of this syllogisme to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion or that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor cannot be assumed to prove a false religion to be a true religion or to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God as the ground and principle that one produces to prove that he is an honest man must have this proprietie that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man or if he alleadge that the ground or principle whereof he serves himself is only misapplyed by a false religion then he is obliedged to assigne some good reason whereby he showes that it is well applyed by him and misapplyed by the other Likewise he is intreated to answere shortly to the point and lay aside all long homilies and excursions least by multiplying many words he incurre suspition that he seeks onely to obscure the matter that the weaker sort may not penetrat nor see through his weakness 20 Apryll 1666. Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Jesuits first paper An answere to a paper from an anonymous person of the Popish profession commonly supposed to be Master Francis Dempster alias Logan IT had been sufficient for me upon the first reading of your paper instantlie to have returned this or ely answere NIGO MINORIM I deny your minor For I found but a poor naked Syllogisme the assumption whereof is splendidlie false and ye have not so much as added the shaddow of a proofe to confirme it Neither can ye be exempted from being tyed to prove it because it is a Negative as shall afterwards appear Yet for the clearing of truth and also if it may please GOD for your conviction I have added these following animadversions 1. And first Ye lay down foure previous Propositions as so many oracles which might extort an assent from any Reader But you must give me leave to tell you how specious soever they seeme to you they want not their own flawes Take one instance from your third proposition wherein there is an egregious fallacie committed in your explication of that conditionall wherein ye suppose all parties to agree For it is one thing to know that the sense given to such a text of Scripture is the true sense intended by the holy Ghost when he dyted such words which is the condition at first mentioned by you and it is a quite other thing to know that he who gives the sense hath the assistance of the holy Ghost to give that true sense which ye hold out as the explication of the former This latter savors rankly of that erroneous Popish tenet concerning the necessitie of an infallible visible judge of controversies Now is it handsome under pretence of explayning a proposition wherein all agree to foyst in one of the maine points of difference as if that also were agreed upon could there be a greater cheat put upon a simple Reader 2. But secondly It had been of more use then all these your propositions to have laid down the Thesis which ye were to oppugne and to have explained the terms thereof Since therefore ye have omitted it it will be necessary for me to doe something to it least we seeme to fight Andabatarum more as Persons blindfolded The Thesis then which we defend and you oppugne is this The Protestants Religion is the True Religion Take these few hints of explication of the terms By True Religion We understand the true doctrine of salvation concerning God and the right way of serving and worshipping him By the Religion of Protestants we mean the Christian Religion contained in the holy Scripturs By Protestants these Christians who protest against and doe reject Popish-Errors and additions to Scripture truths So that Christianitie is our Religion and our Protestancie is not our Religion but our rejection of your Popish corruptions If then ye consider the importance of the Thesis which ye impugne ye will find that ye undertake a hard work nay an Infidells cause Namely that the Christian-Religion revealed in the holy Scriptures and held by these who are called PROTESTANTS because of their rejection of Popish-Errors is not the true Religion 3. Thirdly Because ye so oft make mention of some peculiar Grounds and Principles which the true Religion must have to prove it self to be the true Religion and which cannot be verified of a false Religion which ye illustrat by the similitude of an Honest-man and a Knave I desire that these two things may be noted in reference to this which may perhaps give some light to the whole matter And first these Grounds and Principles must be understood ex parte objecti on the part of the object not of the subject That is to say that the true Religion hath sufficient Grounds in it self to manifest it self to be the true Religion if it meet with a well disposed intellect For to use your own similitude an Honest-man may have Ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a Knave albeit a fool cannot discerne it So the true Religion may have Ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an Infidell or Heritick whose foolish minde is darkened Rom. 1.21 cannot take it up Secondly The prime peculiar difference of the true Religion from a false stands in its
conformitie to the will of GOD revealed in the Scriptures and this conformitie hath a sufficient intrinseck objective evidence in it self to any who have a well disposed understanding to collate and compare these two together to observe the exact correspondence betwixt the one and the other This likewise may be illustrated by your own example of Honestie and Knaverie An Honest-man being one whose actions are squared according to the Law what ever a Knave may pretend yet when both are compared to the Law the honest-Mans conversation is found to be that which the Law enjoineth not so the Knaves So that this honestie which is the conformitie of his actions to the Law hath an intrinseck objective evidence to demonstrat it self to any discerning Person who can compare the mans actions with the Law So it is in the present case Yet besides this intrinseck objective evidence which is in true Religion I doe not deny but there are many externall and accessorie Grounds which stronglie perswade its credibilitie Having thus paved my way I come to examine your Syllogisme which runes thus That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the PROTESTANT Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Answere 1. I might here first friendly advise you to take better heed hereafter to the forme of your Syllogismes For both your Premisses are Negative and ye know the Logick rule sayeth ex ntraque premissa negativa nihil sequitur But I shall endeavour to help this by improving your medium in a better forme and I hope also to better purpose against your self and your Romanists thus The true Religion hath a peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Popish religion hath no peculiar ground and principle to prove that it is a true religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Popish Religion is not the true Religion Hade ye intended to satisfie the conscience of any Persone you would have held forth these peculiar grounds and characters of a true Religion which is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God and ye would at least have endeavoured to demonstrate that thes did exactly quadrat with your Romish Religion and not at all with the Religion of PROTESTANTS But as to this there is nothing but deep silence in your paper Before you make good your retreat from this Argument as thus inverted against your self ye may perhaps find that ye are taken in the ginne which ye designed for others Ans 2 But Secondly I wold try you with another Retersion thus If the true Religion have grounds and principles to prove its conformitie to the true sense of the letter of the Word then no article of Faith and Religion can be founded upon an unwritten Tradition But the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is clear from the Major of your Syllogisme The consequence of my Major is no lesse clear For it is impossible that an article founded meerly upon an unwritten Tradition should prove its conformitie with the letter of the written word of God else it should be written and not written Nor can ye handsomely resile by saying you did thus only argue ad hominem against PROTESTANTS For this your Syllogisme you deduce from your foure premised propositions which ye suppose ought to be agreed to by all Parties Now what thankes you are to expect for this manner of arguing from your late Pamphleters who doe so highly magnifie your unwritten Traditions ye your self may judge Ans 3. But Thirdly leaving Retorsions I Answer directly denying the Assumption viz. that the PROTESTANT Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a true Religion and conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Nay surely it hath that intrinseck objective evidence in its conformitie with the Scripturs to demonstrate it to be the true Religion of which I was speaking a little before which neither Poperie nor any other false Religion either hath or can have But now it lyes on you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption It seemed strange to me that this Proposition whereon the whole stresse of the Controversie didly was so nakedlie proposed by you without any proofe Onely it would appear because it is a Negative you would lay over upon me to prove the contrarie Are ye so soon wearie of the Opponents office who were so eager to have it Find you the burthen of impugning the Religion of Protestants so heavie that so soone ye shrink under it Are there no Negative Propositions proved in the Schools Doth not Philosophie teach us more Moods and Formes of Negative Syllogismes then of affirmatives Shall there be no way to oppugne an affirmative position but by turning the Respondent to an Opponent Yea let me put you in minde that though your assumption and conclusion be expressed Negativly yet upon the matter we doe rather mantaine the Negative and you the affirmative Which I thus make out If any consider our Religion and yours it will be found that in most of our Positives ye and we are agreed As that there is a GOD three Persons that Christ is both GOD and man c. But the difference is mostly in our Negatives As for instance Ye affirme the necessitie of a visible infallible judge of controversies we deny Ye affirme the necessitie of subjection to the Pope of Rome as head of the Catholick-Church we deny Ye affirme that there is a propper propitiatory sacrifice in the Masse we deny Ye affirme that the Apocrypha books are Canonick Scriptures we deny Ye affirme that Saincts are to be invocated that Crosses Images and your Sacramentall Hosty are to be adored we deny Ye affirme a Purgatorie we deny c. In all these and such as these we mantaine the Negative and ye the Affirmative yea and these are your Superadditions unto Scripture truths And consequently when it is demanded whether that which we or ye mantaine in these particulars be agreeable to the sense of the Scriptures The meaning is whether doth the Scripture hold these things out or not Ye affirme and we deny Therefore according to the saying that Affirmanti incumbit probatio It lyes upon you to find out the exact measures of the true Religion and the peculiar Grounds which doe evidence its conformitie to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and also to demonstrate that these Grounds cannot agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS Bellarmin Gretser Valentia and others of
their fellowes who have travelled long in this work have been able to effectuat nothing by all their vast Volumes And have ye the confidence to doe the bussinesse by this one naked Syllogisme But that I may shut up these lines remember ye cannot now call upon me to shew a peculiar ground or evidence which the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath to prove it self to be the True Religion and that it is conforme to the True sense of the Scriptures For Religion is not one individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot all be proven at once or with one breath though there be none of them but through the mercie of GOD we are able to demonstrate against any Adversarie But now it lyes upon you as the Opponent to prove your Assumption Instance therefore if ye can one Ground Necessarlie requisit for evidenceing and proving the True Religion and its conformitie to the True sense of the Scriptures which is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS which I hope I may confidently say neither you nor any of your fraternitie shall ever be able to doe Aprill 24. 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTCRIPT August lib. De unitate Ecclesia contra Epist Petiliani cap. 3. Sunt certe libri Dominici quorum authoritati utriqueue consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus Ibi quxramus Eccesiam ibi discutiamus cansam nostram Idem Patrlo infra Ergoin Scripturis sanctis Canonitis Ecclesiam requiramus It is desired that any Answere which shall be returned be subscrived as the Author would have it taken notice of Apryll 28 1666. The Jesuits second paper A Reply to an Answere made be Mr. IOHN MENZIES to a discourse of a Romane-Catholick shewing that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be a true Religion or a Religion wherein men can save their Souls I Have perused your paper and find that in writting â—â— are like to your self in conference by mouth because in both much that you may seeme to the simple sort to say something The controversies that we have in hands about the means to know a True Religion and to distinguish it from a false Religion is not of small concernment neither hath it so narrow dimensions as within the compasse of them it 〈◊〉 not able to detaine for a little while all the pith or force of 〈…〉 or be leaping out be the sides to mix it with other digressions about traditions visible judge of controversies untimely retortions of Arguments c. Which maketh nothing to the present difficultie which may be fullie â—nded without mentioning any such things Laying them closs aside and purposely â—â—ske nuing all your excursions as out of the line and swelling only of tergiversations and diffidence to answere directly I lay againe to your doore this point viz. It is impossible that the Protestant Religion can be proven to be a True Religion or the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternal life and consequently that whosoever aimeth at eternall happiness after this life or intendeth to save his Soule is oblidged to quite it and to make search to find out the True Religion Prescinding for now where this True Religion is to be found since the present difficulty is only to shew that Protestant Religion cannot be it This point I proved by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculias ground or principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD. Ergo it cannot be a True Religion To this Argument you answere first carping it that is not in forme as having two Premisses Negatives but in this you are farr mistaken for the Negation in one of the Premisses is not taken Neganter but Infinitanter and doth not affect or light upon the Copula but is a part of the subject of the Proposition Next you answere as you say directly admitting the Major and denying the Subsumption to wit that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall ground or principle to prove that it is conforme to the True sense of the letter of the Word of GOD and so denying that it hath no speciall ground or principle you consequently must affirme that it hath some speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be destinguished from a false Religion and to be conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now lay all these things together first that under your own hand writ ye have undertaken to mantain the Protestant Religion to be a True Religion Next that you grant a Religion cannot be True except it have some peculiar ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be Ture or conforme to the True sence of the letter of the word of God Thirdly that you deny that the Protestant Religion hath not thir speciall grounds and principles whereby she may prove herself to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Now let any be judge whether to weind your self out of this labyrinth and without manifestly deserting of your cause ye be not oblidged to produce these peculiar grounds or principles whereby you say that Protestant Religion is furnished to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Which likewise may be extorted by this Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion is furnished with sufficient grounds or principles to prove it self to be True and conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD or it hath no such principles if it have no sufficient principles then confess ingenuously it is a groundles Religion if it have them then let them be produced and examined And why doe you reserve keep them up since the producing of them is necessarie to mantaine and defend the truth of the Protestant Religion are they perhaps invisible or are you ashamed to bring them to light only remember that the grounds or principles that you produce to this effect to prove your Religion to be True must be speciall and have this propriety that they so prove the Protestant Religion to be True or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of God that they cannot be affirmed to prove a false Religion and which you your self holdeth for a false Religion to be a True Religion or conforme to the True sense of the letter of the word of GOD. As the ground or principle which is produced to prove Honesty or one to be an honest man must have this propriety that it cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest-man Lastly in your paper you insinuat two superficial and fleeing shifts and evasions which doth nothing help you The first is that the Protestant
the writing of this a new Edition of this your second paper was transmitted to me correcting somewhat the dresse of it but nothing the matter which therefore I judged not worthy of any further recognition Reader know That the Corrections in the second Edition of the Iesuits second paper were only of some trespasses of Orthography which are now much better corrected by the PRINTER The Jesuits third paper An Answere to a Reply of Mr. IOHN MENZEIS wherein he labours to justifie that the grounds which he produced to prove the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion were not meere shifts and evasions May 5. 1666. YOUR reply is stuffed with words wherewith ye undervalue all things that are brought against you calling them none-none-sense raw and indigested that you have a faint disputant that the matter is Recocta crambe c. But doe you not know that such tenor of words are called Sagittae parvulorum Since every one who hath a tongue and penne may say or writ what he pleases or why may not all thir things be reponed with as good reason to your self calling you a faint disputant and that your discourses are raw and indigested and so a matter of so great importance as to discerne a True Religion from a false shall be resolved in a flyting whereof you have this advantage to have the first word Laying then purposely aside all things that are out of the way I propone to you againe this point that the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion nor the Religion to the which God hath annexed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimes at eternall happines after this life or intends to save his soule is obliged in conscience to quite it and to search for the True Religion prescinding or abstracting for now where this True Religion is to be found and insisting for the present in this only point that the PROTESTANT Religion cannot be it and assure your self that this point will be a Crambe cocta et recocta and alwise set before you till by sufficient heat you disgest and make good substance of it This point we proved by this one Syllogisme which againe is repeated to you That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no peculiar ground nor principle to prove that it is a True Religion or conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Therefore the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion Here you deny the Subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove it self conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and consequently you affirmed that it hath peculiar grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a Religion grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD and being pressed to produce your grounds to prove the truth of your Religion in stead of solide grounds you produce these two sleeing shifts and evasions The first is That the Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall grounds Ex parte objecti though it have not alwise Ex parte subjecti that is if they doe not alwise prove the defect is not in the Religion or in the grounds considered in themselves but in the indisposition of the subject to the which they are applyed But it was told you that it was a meer shift and that your obscure termes being resolved in good Scots signifies onely that your Religion hath objective and intrinsecall truth or conformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD but so that it is destuute of all speciall ground or principle whereby it can prove it self to be grounded upon the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And that your answere can have no other sense but this is proven because all thir foure propositions are Synonima to wit A Religion to be a True Religion A Religion to be conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture A Religion to have objective and intrinsecall truth and evidence A Religion that is able to convince if it meet with a well disposed intellect or capacity These foure propositions being all Synonims and signifying the same thing and so all equally in controversie you cannot prove one by another but you must prove them be some extrinsecall and distinct Medium otherwise you must grant that your answere is a meer shift and which in good Scots signifyes only this That your Religion is true in it self but hath no peculiar ground whereby it can be proven to be true and so we must beleeve it to be true only because you say that it is And with this I set againe before you this Recocted Dilemma Either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds to prove that it is a True Religion that it is a Religion conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that it is a Religion that hath objective or intrinsecall truth and evidence that it is a Religion able to convince any intellect that is well disposed or else it hath no speciall ground or principles whereby all thir can be verified of it If it have speciall grounds let them be produced and examined if it have none let an ingenuous confession have place that it is groundless and destitute of all principles whereby it can prove these foure Synonime propositions to agree to it Which is confirmed because any Religion even that which is acknowledged be themselves to be false may affirme with as good reason and pretend that all these foure fore-named Synonime propositions may be verified of their Religion To wit that their Religion is a True Religion that their Religion is conforme to the will of GOD revealed in Scripture that their Religion is true Ex parte objecti and hath objective and intrinsecall grounds that their Religion is evident and true if it meet with an intellect well disposed All the answere and disparity you give is that they are fools and ye wise men that they are blind and so no wonder that they cannot see the clear beams of the truth of your Religion But may not they apply all this to you with as good reasons as you doe to them The other shift that in stead of a solide ground you brought was this that you were not obliged to give a particular ground or principle to prove in generall your Religion to be true because Religion say you is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths whereof one must be proven after another But this answere is a meer shift whereby you would decline the onely and maine difficultie by bringing in a whole body of controversies which likewise can no wayes help you Because before you can prove any one of these particular truths to
be conforme to the true sense of such a text of Scripture you must first by some speciall ground or principle prove that your Clergie Men hath In Actu Primo such assistance and habilitie as is prerequired in men who should give the true sense of particular texts of Scripture since everie false Religion may pretend that they give the true sense though contrarie to the sense that you give To this you reply that it is a contradiction to say that before other particular proofs be proved to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of God it must first be proven that their Clergie hath such abilitie and assistance in actu primo as is requisite to give the true sense of Scripture Because say you this same that the Clergie should have in actu primo such assistance is one particular truth and so if it should be proved before every particular truth it should be proved before it self And it seems you have great compleasance and are fallen in love with this answere as with a prime and unswearable subtilitie backing it both with prose and meeter and likewise advertiseing me to consider it But I likewise advertise you to consider how that in this you fight only with your own shadow For first may not a proposition be in it self one and particular and yet have an object universall in the which though it be contained yet the thing affirmed of that object doe not agree to it otherwise ye would by this prove that David contradicted himself when he pronounced this proposition All men are liars for if all men be liars and David be a man then he was a liar in saying all men are liars Next what makes it to the purpose whether the necessitie of particular assistance in actu primo in Clergy men to give the true sense in other particular truths what imports I say that this is so of an generall object that it is in it self one particular truth distinct from the rest it being sufficient that it be such a particular truh of whom other truths depends and of the which the people must first be convinced before they can be perswaded that other particular points proponed to them are revealed in such texts of Scripture Wherefore take this Recocted dilemma againe either the Protestant Religion hath speciall grounds or principles whereby mens understanding can be convinced that their Clergie is qualified In actu primo with such assistance and habilitie as is requisite to perswade the people that they give the true serse of the letter of Scripture or they have no such grounds or principles If they have then let them be produced and examined If they have no such grounds and principles they cannot exact of people to beleeve their glosse as the word of GOD since without this particular and interior assistance they can onely guesse at the true sense of the text of Scripture As to that you desire againe that I signe my answere with my name and that you require this because you would know with whome you deal and because it hath been observed to be one of the Romanists practises when they have the worst in debates to alleadge it was no Scholer that sustained such debate but some obscure person But good Sir in what Register did you find such a practique or whether they may not with greater reason be turned over upon your selves and who will not smile to hear you compare your self and your Divines with Catholick Authors Since it is known that the most part of the doctrine that you vent either in Pulpits or Schools is copied out of them The thing then desired of you is that you answere to the reasons proponed not careing by whom they be proponed Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Answere to the Iesuits third Paper An Answere to a third Paper from a traffiquing Papist commonly supposed to be Mr. Francis Dempster alias Rinne or Logan IS it not Ominous that this your third Paper beginneth with a notorious falshood in its very Inscription as if I in my second Paper had undertaken to prove the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS Whereas it is manifest that in both my former papers I only sustained the part of a Defendant And this I did of purpose that it might be seen how you would discharge the Office of an Opponent under which you now appear clearly succumbing by your nauseating repetitions If the acrimonie of my Style in my last offend you ye may blame partly your own tedious repetitions and trifling in a matter of such importance and partly some scurrilous expressions which yoused and opprobrious accusations of tergiversation and diffidence where with ye loaded me in your second paper Because forsooth I would not gratifie you so farr as to take the Opponents worke off your hand So that what of this kind hath been owes its rise to you I admire nothing in you but your confidence That ye are not ashamed to offer to me a Paper bearing the inscription of a Reply when ye seeme as affrayed to touch the chief points in my Paper as you would be to handle a Serpent Did I not charge you with grievous Omissions in my last Why doe you not clear your self of that Fallacie in the third proposition of your first Paper Why doe you not answere to the Retorsions of your argument against your self Why doe you not either prove your Assumption or else refell the arguments by which I shew that ye were tyed to prove it Did I not demonstrate the pertinencie of all these particulars and withall conjured you to speake to them as you would not incurre the heaviest characters of Ignominie What construction after all this can your deep silence bear but that you are not able to acquit your self in these points Hath there been one article of controversie in any of your Papers which I have not examined whether therefore you or I be guilty of tergiversation or diffidence the unbyassed Reader may judge I am so wearied with your Tautologies that I should not have deignied this paper with an answere but that I know the clamorous impudence of many of your Party to be such that if no answere had been returned how insignificant soever your paper be they would have insulted and sung Victoria But let me ask you seriously doth the frequent repetition of this poor naked Syllogisme either help the forme or strengthen the matter thereof of both of which have been justly questioned Are battologies so savourie and delicious to your Popish palat will the ingemination of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extort an assent from these who have the use of their reason How oft will ye constraine me to tell you that I deny your Assumption and consequently the second branch of your ragged Dilemma which is wholy coincident therewith and that I have long desiderated the probation of both But seeing ye have some fancie for Dilemma's I will repone this one to you Either you
literalem sensum alicubt manifeste non tradat and Sixtus Senensis lib 6. Bibliotheca Annot. 152. Affirmes that part of Scripture apertam esse dilucidam quae complectitur summa rerum credendarum principia pracipua bene vivendi praecepta exempla So that were I not resolved to keep you at your worke as an Opponent it were easie thus to redargue all which you have said If the Scriptures be clear in all that is necessarie to Salvation then the Religion of PROTESTANTS hath a clear ground to prove it self to be a true Religion But the first is true Ergo. The Sequell of the Major is so clear that your Romanists have no other evasion but to accuse the Scriptures sometimes of obscuritie sometimes of ambiguity as being capable of divers yea of contrarie senses And in this you imitate the old Hereticks as appears by that luculent testimonie of Irenaus lib 3. cap 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum quasi variè sint dicta non possit ex bis inveniri veritas ab iis qui nesciunt traditionem The assumption is proved at length by PROTESTANTS in the controversies De Perfectione Perspicuitate Scriptura When you have tryed all the art of Iesuitical Sophistrie to disprove these popular discourses as in the height of your Spirit you are pleased to terme them I hope you shall find them both solid and impregnable This may silence your clamour that I should produce a ground by which the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion may be proved for you suppose that you are tyed to no more but to presse me to produce the grounds of the PROTESTANT Religion that you may impugne them But to silence this your vociferation you may remember first that I have demonstrated that you are tyed to doe more Had you indeed undertaken to prove the Hypothesis of the Atheist that there is no true Religion at all in this case you might have demanded of me a ground to prove a True Religion But when you affirme that there is a True Religion which hath peculiar grounds which can be verified of none else you were tyed to have produced these grounds and to have demonstrated that they could not agree to the Religion of PROTESTANTS Especiallie I having solemnlie appealed you to instance one ground requisit to prove the true Christian Religion whith is wanting in the Religion of PROTESTANTS Secondly You had not onely in the generall affirmed that the True Religion had grounds to prove it self but you had particularly condescended upon one namely the knowledge of the assistance as seems infallible of the Clergie In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture before the true sense thereof can be known Whereupon in my last I told you this was expressly denyed by us PROTESTANTS and therefore appealed you if you could to prove it But you have been so farr from doing it that you have shamefully flinched from it as shall a little after appear But thirdly I have Ex superabundanti though not tyed thereto by rules of disputing given you a Ground of the truth of the Religion of PROTESTANTS namely The Perspicuity of the Scriptures but not excluding the use of means in all things necessary to Salvation which you might have collected from that Intrinseck objective evidence of which I spoke from the beginning Onely remember that you call not upon me to prove this though it were easie to doe it and hath been done times without number by PROTESTANTS in their debates against your Romanists But now we are to keep the rules of disputing and you have acknowledged that it is your concernment As the Impugner when a ground is produced to impugne it And therefore you must either doe your worke or else become so ingenuous as to confesse that you are not able to impugne the truth of God In the mean time trouble me not with the cavils of your fellowes which have been often already refured by our Divines else I will remit you to the Authors who have examined these Sophisms before But if you have any new thing worthie of consideration you may propose it I wish you were moved by such principles as he who said 2. Cor. 13.8 We can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth Yet doe you as you will Fortis est veritas praevalebit I had shewed you in my last that your whole discourse concerning your foure Synonime propositions was both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wide from the purpose and likewise inconsistent with your Tridentine faith Yet so rare a disputant are you that you make no returne to these things what can I conclude but Qui tacet consentire videtur The reasons which I brought have so farr prevailed with you as to make you explicitly grant that of two propositions Objectivly Synonims the one may be brought to prove the other except when both are equally in controversie But this can be of no use for you in the present case untill you disprove the Perspicuity of the Scriptures in these things which are necessarie to Salvation which I beleeve you will finde beyond your reach This Hypothesis also takes off the cavill of Heretiks pretending a conformity with Scripture for these Hereticall vapours cannot stand before the radiant beams of Scripture-light You discover both your Humour and Ignorance in alleaging that it was a Shift in me to say That Religion being a complex of many truths it could not be proven at once Suppose a man had an hundred pieces to be tryed whether they be upright Gold or not Can I beseech you this be done but by bringing every one of them to the Touch-stone Suppose there were an hundred lines to be examined whether they be straight or crooked Can this be done but by applying each of them to the Rule Even so there being a multitude of points of Religion to be tryed whether they be agreeable to Scripture or not How can this be done but by comparing each of them with the Scripture I have admired nothing more since my encounter with you then your flinching toward the end of your Fourth Paper from your own Principle Viz. That the knowledge of the assistaence of the Clergie In actu primo is a necessarie prerequisite before the true sense of any Scripture can be known from which I had concluded you to be involved in an Inextricable contradiction I had besides reflected upon a Paradoxall yea and implicatorie notion of yours That something might be affirmed of an universall object distributively taken which cannot be affirmed of every particular under that universall I likewise discovered your Childish and inconsistent discourse concerning that word of David All men are liars I shew further that your last Dilemma concerning the Clergies assistance did fall so heavily on your own head that your Romists could have no infallible certaintie that they had any Clergie at all let be that they had this pretended assistance
your own Doctors then it must be a sufficient ground and Test to discerne a True Religion from a false Your cavill concerning the ambiguity of Scriptures is frivolous For if Scripture had not sufficient objective grounds means of interpretation being duely used to clear its own genuine sense in all things necessarie to Salvation then were it not Perspicuous which is against the Hyphothesis laid down against which you have not adventured to move one Objection So that still it holds that if Scripture be perspicuous in all things necessarie to Salvation it must be a sufficient ground and test to discerne a True Reilgion from a false What therefore remains but that either you show the Scriptures not to be clear in all things necessary to Salvation or else that both the Religion of PROTESTANTS and Papists be brought to this Test and examined which of them are really conforme thereunto But next as to the other ground I argue thus Either the faith of the Catholick Church in the first Three Centuries was the True Christian Religion or not If not then there was no true Christian Religion at all Absit blasphemia If it was then what accords with it in its essentials must be the True Christian Religion and on the contrary what differs from it in essentials cannot be the true Christian Religion and therefore here againe I appeal you either to show an essential difference betwixt the ancient True Christian Religion in these ages and ours or that there is an agreement in essentials betwixt the ancient Religion in these ages your Romish Religion as it is expressed in that Formula fidei of Pope Pius the fourth or else to acknowledge that the Religion of PROTESTANTS is the True Religion and that your Romish Religion is but a Farrago of falshoods and Innovations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In your penult section you whisle like a child concerning the Clergies assistance In actu primo to give the true sense of Scripture and you call upon me to prove that our Clergie hath such an assistance As if it were a point of our faith that the knowledge of the Clergies infallible assistance for of that onely you must be understood were a necessary prerequisite before the true sense of Scripture can be known But have I not often told you that this is denyed by us and also often appealed you if you could to prove it else I would hold it for confessed that you could not doe it But to call you to your duety is Surdo canere Yea from this your assertion concerning the knowledge of the Clergies assistance I have showed you to be encircled in an inextricable Contradiction from which you have never attempted to expede your self Onely in your last Paper you flinched from your own principle as if you had onely affirmed that the Actus secundus presupposes Actum primum which none denyes Know therefore againe that a Doctor may give the true sense of Scripture and we may have ground enough To beleeve that it is the true sense which he gives though neither he nor we have an anteceden knowledge of his Infallible assistance in actu primo as a civill Judge may give the true sense of a municipall Law and I may have sufficient ground to beleeve that he hath sensed it aright though neiâ—â—er he nor I have antecedent knowledge that he hath Infallible assistance in act primo Though in all these things you have bewrayed shamefull weakenesse and as a Thersires declyned to examine what was reponed to you in all my Papers yet now like a vaiue glorious Thrasâ— in the conclusion you sing a Triumph but without a Victorie Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici What means this insulting that you cry out of the poor posture out Religion is brought too Have you said ary thing that would have reduced the weakest Tyro in our Schools to a strait Have I slipped one Punctillo in any of your Papers which I have not confuted Hath not all you have writen been sitted Ad furfures Can you say the like of my Papers Yet you are bold to compare the Religion of PROTESTANTS to a Knâ—ve pretending Honestie and not able to prove it but Mutato nomine narratur fabula de iâ— He that would compare your Romish superstition with the Religion of PROTESTANTS might aswell compare Catiline with Cato the Rogue Ziba with Honest Mephibosheth or the strumper Thais with chast Lucretia But I shall propose a true Emblem of the stare of our Religion and yours from the state of the present debate betwixt you and me leaving the application to your own self Suppose that Titius and Sempronius stood at the barre and that Titius acclaimed the monopolie of Honesty to himself And withall accused his Neighbour Sempronius as a verie Knave because as Titius alleaged he could produce no grounds to prove his Harestie On the other hand Sempronius modestly shew how easie it were to recriminat and retote all these accusations upon Titius Yet though he might have desired Titius as the Accuser to prove his indytment or else to suffer Secundum Legem talionis and to be esteemed as an arrand Knave yet he would condescend so far as to give Grounds by which his Honesty might be proven But with this Proviso that both he and his Accuser Titius might be brought to the Test that the World might see who was the Rogue and who the Honest-Man The first Ground to which Sempronius appeales is the Law protesting that both he and his Accuser Titius may be judged by that Rule The other Test to which Sempronius referres himself for tryall Is the practise and example of men of untainted Honestie such as Aristides Fabricius Cato c. Protesting likewise that he be stigmatized as the Rogue whose conversation shall be found discrepant from theirs Tïtius though at first a bold Accuser yet not able to endure so accurate a tryall studies all the subterfuges his poor wit could invent And first he declines the Law alleaging it could not be the Ground of tryall because it is ambiguous and admits of diverse and contrarie senses nor can any give the sense of the Law except he be Iufallible Which gift of Infallibility Titius would have all men to beleeve though he cannot prove it to be peculiar to himself alone so as no sense of the Law may be admitted but that which he homologates And for the example of Aristides Fabricius and Cato c. They are too strict Paterns for Titius yet not dareing openly to condemne them he makes this evasion What Knave sayes he is there that may not pretend conformitie both with these and also with the Law But Sempronius gravely answers that however Knaves might pretend conformity both to the Law and Practises of Good-Men yet they had it not And againe he solemnly protests that the matter might be put to exact tryall whether the Accusers or his conversation were agreeable to the Law and these untainted
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
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.
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
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
did come to my hands the fourth of November and I doe not wonder of your long silence of near three moneths for it is patched up of so various and copious Digressions copied out as it seems of Controversie bookes that you will scarce find one of twenty that will take the paines to read only over And to make it grow you have adjoined a long and tedious discourse about Real presence which appearingly is the substance of all you taught your Scholars this last Year But all this your painful labour for so many moneths is lost since as alwayes I have protested to you that I take no notice of things out of the way Neither will begiune any other thing before we have fully ended the maine point This debate was occasioned of a continual Railing made by you in the Pulpit againes Catholick Religion but with such ingenuity out of that your Chaire of Verity that in place of Catholick Dogmes to be impugned you did often substitute and propone in a ridiculous manner to the people Problematick opinions holden by some Scholastickes and Casuists as manifestly appeared out of the conference we had by mouth Whether this did proceed out of gross Ignorance or Malice or out of both I remit to your self Seeing that you did show so great fervour in skaring your Auditors from Catholick Religion you were desired to confirme them in their own Religion by produceing some solid but special ground and principle whereby might be proven the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion And though in the beginning under the pretext that you had onely the Defenders part you stood stiffe not to be obliged to this Yet because you saw that it could not consist with the reputation of a man in your place to play altogether the Dumme in a matter of Religion of so great concernment as is the putting in question whether the PROTESTANT Religion be a True Religion or not lest this declineing should be imputed either to your ignorance or to the want of positive grounds after that with defuse digressions of all sorts you did runne your self as it were out of breath At long lang length you were forced to have your recouse to the Old jock trot that your PROTESTANT Authors teaches you to wit that your Religion is proven to be true by this Medium or principle because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture As containing perspicuously all things necessarie for mans Salvation This then being by your own confession the chief and most plausible ground for the truth of your Religion you are desired to lay asid all other things hold you at this precisly until you make it good and proportion at to confirme your own PROTESTANTS in their Religion You say â—â—en that your Religion is proven to be a True Religion because it is grounded upon Scripture and conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture But it cannot be showen that it is conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture excep first it be showen that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo to make this good you must first produce some special ground or principle whereby a judicious man may be reasonably induced to think that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture that is to say the sense intended by the holy Ghost For as it is impossible that a thing be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there be a true sense so it is impossible to show or prove a thing to be conforme to the true sense except it be first shown and proven that there is a true sense Al then that is required of you is that you produce some special ground or principle to make it appeare that you have the true sense of the letter of Scripture since all the rest depends upon this onely one thing and that the ground which you produce to prove this be such as cannot equally serve to prove a false Religion acknowledged by your self for a false Religion to have the true sense of the letter of Scripture And this incumbes upon you if you will vindicat your Religion from this foul note that there can be shown no difference betwixt it and a false Religion And consequently that it is impossible that your Religion can be shown or proven to be a True Religion And it is expected that you will performe this with a clear Substantious Laconick and School-way laying altogether aside your diffuse reviling Pulpit way It is fatal to you to close your Paper with braging and praising your self and extolling your own answeres and withall to undervailne all that is brought against you but this as other things doe not reach to the maine point Mr. IOHN MENZIES Answere to the Iesuits eight Paper Some Animadversions upon Master Dempster alias Rind or Logan the Iesuit his eight Paper wherein he so shamlesly tergiverseth that he answeres not to one word of that which was replyed to him HOW now you Thersites Have you so shamlesly deserted the Scene Is your Syllogisme which Seven times you had repeated in Folio now relinquished without proving either Major Minor or justifying the Forme thereof Had you nothing at all to say for your Cavils about Acatalogue of necessaries the Rules of interpretation of Scripture the Infallibility of your Propounders or your Motives of credibility nor yet the ingenuity to acknowledge your self to be overcome by reason Are all your whisperings why the truth of Religion may not be examined By its conformity with the faith of the most Ancient Church silenced and yet dare you not comit your cause to the tryal Is it a sufficient confutation of what was replyed to you to say that the Prolixitie of the Reply would outwearie the patience of the Reader Would such a complement have been taken from Whitaker and Chamier as a sufficient confutation of Bellarmin's Vast volumes What a lazie Drone are you who could hardly digest the paines of reading two poor sheets of Paper Had I not so far condescended to your dulnes as to give you a confutation of all your Seven Papers in two words Could I be more Laconick Did I not put it in your option either to deale with the Large Paper or with these Two Words Could you neither read nor confute Two Words Are not you fitter to be a Neat-Herd then a Disputant Doe you not deserve that very character which Melâ—hior Canus puts upon the author of your Golden Legend Lib. 11. Loc. Com. cap. 6. Where he cals him Hominem ferrei eris plumbei cerdis a man of a brasen face and a leaden heart that is both shamless and witless Doe you not nobly act the part of a Champion for your Romish Cause who in stead of a consutation of a Polemick discourse stricking at the foundation of your Papal Superstition doe substitute a calumnious reflexion upon the first occasion of the debate Who
that your Romish Church like an old Whoore doth still wax worse and worse How often have our Divines demonstrated that your Romish Church is much more corrupt and grosse in her Tenets since the Council of Trent then before Doe not we know how often you set at nought Old Doctors when they agree not with the principles of your Present Papal faction Hence your Jesuit Escobar Tom. 1. theol moral in praeloq cap. 2. num 8. frequenter accidit sayeth he ut quae opinio paucis ab hinc annis in â—su non erat mode communi consensu recipiatur è contra Yea though you doe vainly brage of your Unity how few points of controversie are there betwixt you and us wherein you are not sub-divyded amongst your selves You may find this learnedly made out by Doctor Morton in his Appeale for PROTESTANTS out of the confession of Roman Doctors I will give you but one Instance at the present Your Papal indulgences are one of your now received Romish articles and yet some of your Ancient Doctors mantained them to be but Pias fraudes meere impostures So our of your Aquinas testifyeth Gregorie de Valentia lib. de indulg cap. 2. It may be Objected secondly That your Jesuit Escobar hath disputed may safely goe away he is not bound to doe it but may without sinne kill the man who intends to strick him though but lightly or if the Priest be consulted by another that over-reaches in his passion he may flatter him declaring with the same Tolet. Lib. 4. cap. â—3 num 4. That if a man be in a great passion so transported that he considers not what he sayes if in that case he doth blaspheme his blasphemie is not mortal sinne So may the Priest sooth them who commit horrid crimes in their drunkenness with the foresaid Cardiual Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 10. num 3. That if a man be beastly drunk and then commit fornieation that formeation is not sinne Yea he may with the same Cardinal lib. 5. cap. 13. num 2. Declare that if a man desires carnal pollution that he may evite carnal temptations or for his health it were no sinne Time would fail me in reckoning out such Probable nay Damnable Doctrines of your Casuists according to which your Confessors can determine exceeding many cases sutable to the inclination of the party with whome they have to doe either according to their own opinion or according to the opinion of some other Grave Doctor And what ever is delivered according to a probable opinion may be warrantably practised though there be another more probable Quaelibet opinio probabilis tutam reddit conseâ—entiam in operando sayeth your Escobar Tom. 1. Theol. Moral lib. 2. Sect. 1 cap. 2. num 22. Now shall your Casuists be permitted to introduce such unheard of impieties into the World by the pretended authoritie of Out grave Doctor without check or controll Shall their Problematick decisions warrand such shavelings as you to encourage lewd persons to murther their Neighbour blaspheme GOD violat womens chastity and cut off Princes for to that purpose also they have many Problematick decisions and when we oppose these impieties shall we be rated as ridiculous Railers Doth your Church of Rome thinke to wash her hands in innocency as if she were not guilty of these impious decisions because they are not ratified by the decree of a General Council What I pray you bath she decreed against them Your Religion at least is such with which all these impieties are wel consistent There is nothing in your Religion repugnant to them But besides are not these Casuistick tractats writen by your gravest Doctors in the face of the Sun under the Popes nose Is not this pernicious doctrine of Probables publickly avouched and known among you Yea are not these bookes approven by your authorised Licencers who are intrusted to looke Ne fides Ecclesiae detrimenti aliquid patiatur Your Church therefore will never be able to vindicat her self either before GOD or rational Men from being an abettor of these impieties Nay this leaves an undenyable conviction upon the consciences of your own authors in so much that Dominicus a Soto cited by Doctor Taylor in his Dissuaesive cap. 2. sect 1. I am so fat from stealing as often times doe your Jesuits that I ingenuously tell you when I have not a booke by me sayeth Non ilico ut â—â—mo se reum sentit culpae paenitentiae lege paenitere constringitur Haec profecto conclusie more usu Ecclesiae satis videtur constabilita Where he charges your Church with this Prophans doctrinâ— which hardens men in impenitencie But of this enough for the time After your impertinent and calumnious Digression concerning the first occasion of our Debate and your Problematick points for my worke in all these eight Papers hath been to follow a roving Vagrant from one impertinencie to another you claver to as little purpose concerning the sense of holy Scripture Before say you that our Religion be proven from Scripture it must be first proven that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture But First Ought you not remember that in this writen debate you doe sustaine the part of the Opponent might it not therefore be better retorred upon you thus Before you prove that the PROTESTANTS have not the True Religion you ought first to prove that they have not the true sense of Scripture And may it not be a convinceing argument Ad Hominem against you that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and consequently the True Religion seeing in all these Eight Papers you who appeared as the Romish Champion to disprove the Religion of PROTESTANTS have not been able to produce one Medium to prove the falshood of their Religion or of their sense of holy Scripture But it seems that you would willingly forget that you are the Opponent I wonder nothing that you who turne the weighty points of the Law to Problems should make a Probleme of this matter of fact how evident so ever it be So miserably have you discharged the Opponents office that you may truely be ashamed to owne it But SecoÌ„dly Could I make fairer proffers to you then I have done Have I not offered to disput whether PROTESTANTS have the True Religion and the true sense of Scripture both by Intrinsick Arguments from the Series of the context of Scripture from parallel places and the analogie of faith as also by a more Extrinsick test namely the conformity of Religion with the faith of the most Ancient Christian Church But as a perfect Coward who distrusted your cause you durst adventure on neither of these Nay all your cavils which once you started against both these grounds such as a catalogue of necessaries rules of interpretation of Scripture c. I have so convinceingly confuted that you have not dated once to mention them againe in this your last Paper Yea Thirdly Flave I not gone a further length and
though I was onely the Defendant yet being out-wearied by your Cowardlynesse Have I not demonstrated that in sundrie chief points of controversie such as the Perspicuity and perfection of Scripture the fallibility of Popes and Councils and in the matter of transubstantiation that the PROTESTANTS had the right and true sense of Scripture and that you Romanssts were in the trespasse But you as a Catholick Doctor have one Catholicon by which you coufute all that your Adversarie objects namely by calling it a Digression for with that Reply you have satisfied your self throughout all your Papers Onely as to the last Specimen which I gave you concerning Transubstantiation you think you come off with honour by saying That it savours of what I taught my Scholars this last year Are not you a brave Champion indeed who are as afraid of an Argument that hath beene handled in the Schools as you would be of a Crocodile What sport would your men have made had our Whitaker Iunius Chamier and Danaaus declined to examine Bellarmins arguments because he had handled them before in that Colledge where he was Professor But whereas you say That the Argument which I brought against your transubstantiation seems to have beene the summe of all that I taught in the School this last year you shall know that I have not been accustomed to such laziness as to drone whole years like you upon one Syllogisme As in these forementioned particulars I have demonstrated that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and not you the same might be showen in all the rest of the points of controversie betwixt you and us and hath beene abundantly done by our Divines But to propose more Arguments to you is but Margaritas porco projicere For it would seeme you dare graple with none of them Fourthly I must advertise you of a Radical error which leades you into many more For you seeme still to suppose that who ever are a true Church must have one general ground from which the truth of all the points of Religion which such a society doe owne may be demonstrated without an examination of particulars And this if I mistake not is your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which leades you into all the rest of your errors And therefore you still wave the examination of particulars and call for such a general ground But in this you show extreame basenesse that you neither prove the necessity of such a Principle nor yet produce that Principle by which your and our Religion is to be examined Only you insist still upon one general false Hypothesis as if it were an undenyable Axiom and a Datum Whereas in very truth a true Church may mantaine the fundamentals of Christianity and yet alas have the Tares of some errors mingled with the Wheat as is largely demonstrated by our Divines in that Question Num Ecclesia possit errare And therfore there is not one General Ground to be expected proving that all the points of Religion mantained by such a society are truth without examining particulars And this may be strongly confirmed Ad Hominem against you For if there were any such Commone Ground it would be the Infallibility of your Propounders but not this as I have proven in my former Papers Nay I have so soundly cudgelled this your Romish principle in my Last that you durst not once mention it in this your Eight Paper How ever if there be any ground which you suppose to prove the truth of Religion as a Test which none can justly decline I appeale you to produce it and I undertake by the helpe of GOD to show that either it is a false ground or else that it agrees to the PROTESTANT Religion Fifthly this Assertion of yours That before we câ—in prove the truth of our Religion from Scripture we ought first to prove that we have the true sense of Scripture had need of a very favourable and benigne interpretation else it is perfect non-sense and a very contradiction For if you meane by our having the true sense of Scripture that our ReligioÌ„ is contained in Scripture as the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost then if we must prove that we have the true sense of Scripture before we prove that we have the True Religion we must prove we have the true ReligioÌ„ before we prove that we have the true Religion A noble stick of Romish non-sense Sixthly how easie were it to demonstrate against you Romanists that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture seeing in most of all the Positives of our Religion you doe agree with us as that there is a GOD that he is to be adored and that there are three Persons c. Consequently The PROTESTANTS sense of Scripture must be the true sense else your Religion cannot be true You must either acknowledge that vve have the true sense of Scripture or condemne your ovvn Religion The chief controversie that remaines betvvixt you and us is concerning your Supernumerarie Additions as vvhether not onely GOD is to be adored but also Images and Crosses and not onely GOD is to be invocated but also Saincts and Angels c. That is vvhether there be so many more Supernumerarie senses of Scripture besides those vvhich PROTESTANTS mantaine and you Papists dare not deny Whether I say besides these there be other senâ—es of Scripture mantained by you Romanists and denyed by us Ought not you then to prove these your Supernumerarie senses And are not vve sufficiently vvarranted to adhere to the Negative except there be solid grounds for these Superadded sexses vvhich I beleeve neither you nor the vvhole sâ—lb of Jesuits shall be able to shovv though you get a superaddition of all Lucifers Acumen But Seventhly and Lastly Seeing nothing will satisfie you unlesse I though onely the Defendant doe also prove against you the Negative that is that not onely Our sense of Scripture is true but also that these Your superadded and supernumerarie senses are not true therefore to draw you if it be possible our of your lurking holes I will try you by this Argument The sense of Scripture given by your present Romish Church in many things contradicts the sense given by the Ancient Romish Church Ergo the sense put upon Scripture by your Present Romish Church in many things cannot be true The Sequel is cleare because two contradictories cannot be true If therefore you confesse that the Ancient Romish Church had the true sense of Scripture which ye must doe or else destroy the great foundation of your Religion namely the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome in all ages then wherein you contradict the Ancient Romish Church therein surely you deviat from the true sense of Scripture It remaines therefore onelie that I confirme the Antecedent which I doe by a few cleare Instances Instance first Your present Romish Church mantains that Images are to be adored Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by the
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
true Ergo c. The Sequel of the Major you dare not but admit unlesse you mine Insidell and deny that the true Christian Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the Scripture And for the probation of the Assumption you cannot but allow me that measure against you which you allow your self against me and therefore I appeale you to produce any solid ground which the True Christian Religion hath which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth Yea or any solid ground which you Râ—â—anists can pretend to for confirmation of your Religion which we want You have never adventured to name any but the pretended Infallibility of your Propounders But this we have so battered to you that now you have stolen fom it not daring to mention it againe in any of these your Two last Papers Nay Fourthly I must remember you of a Dilemma ad Hominem against you Romanists which you might have gathered from my last If we deviat from the sense of holy Scripture then it must be either in our Affirmatives or in our Negatives Not in our Affirmatives you and we agreeing in most of these Therefore either in these we have the true sense else you have it not Nor in our Negatives else your contradictorie Affirmatives should be true But I proved in my Last that in many of these you doe manifestly erre as contradicting the Ancient Romish Church particularly in your Adoration of Twages Transubstansiation Communion under one kind The Poper suprexmatie the Canonicall authority of Apocry ha bookes The jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Printes your papall Indulginces at extended to Purgarotse And I am readie to prove the falshood of the rest of your Super-induced articles when ever you have the confidence to come to a particular tryall But I am utterly discouraged from multiplying more instances against a tergiversing fellow who is neither moved by credit nor conscience to examine what is replyed to him Fifthly seeing you shun to tell a ground by which the truth of Religion is to be tryed lest the Balfardie of your Religion should be proven I will give you a solid ground from a person of great fame in your Romish Gourcâ—â— though a Grecian by extract This is Goorgius Scholarius who pleaded for the interest of the Latine Church in the matter of the ProcessioÌ„ of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son at the Councell of Florence Now this Scholarius tom 4. Conciliorum in Orat. 3. ad Concil Florent proposes these rules for determining controversies in Religion Et primo quidem sayeth he non decet velle omnia disertis verbis è scriptura desumere cum multos haereticos scimus pratextu hoc usos Sed si quid verbis it a prolatis sit consequens adaeque erit honorandum similiter quod veris confessis fuerit repugnans contrarium nullo modo est admittendum deinde eorum quae obscurius dicta sunt sumendae sunt è scriptura ipsa veluti magistra explicationes per ea quae uspians clarius illa disserit Where this learned Author holds these foure choise Positions for discerning betwixt truth and error in Religion to all which we PROTESTANTS doe cordially agree The First is That all divine truth are not revealed in so many words in Scripture Secondly that some divine truths are plainly set downe Diserris verbis and what by firme consequence is deduced from these ought to be beleeved and received with the same respect as these which are delivered In terminis Thirdly whatsoever is repugnant to these truths which are plainly Diserris verbis set downe or confessed upon all hands ought to be rejected as erroneous Fourthly that these things which are more obscurely treated of in Scripture are to receive their explications from other cleare Scripture as the Mistres of our faith These grounds so laid downe he afterwards accon modaâ—s to his present Hypothesis for decyding the controversie betwixt the Latine and Greek Church concerning the procession of the holy Ghost and may by the same measure be applyed to the controversies betwixt us PROTESTANTS and You Romanists If therefore you will dire to adventure upon the tryal of particular controversies betwixt you and us according to this standard I trust you shall see if prejudice doe not blind you that all the points of the Religion of PROTESTANTS are either revealed in Scripture plainly and In terminis or the by solid consequence are deduceable from these which are revealed In terminis And on the contrary that your Supe irauce Romish article wherein we differ from you are neither In terminis in Scripture nor yet by solid consequence deduceable from these things which are clearly revealed in Scripture but on the contrarie are repugnant thereunto I hope therefore the intelligen Reader wil observe that if you descend not to a particular tryal it is not because a ground was not assigned to you from discerning truth in Religion from error but from diffidence of your desperat cause Onely that you doe not returne to your usual trifling Cavill that Hereticks and those of a false Religion may pretend the same grounds for justifying their Heresies let me tell you that Hereticks may indeed pretend a patrocinie from these grounds which upon examination will overturne their cause And therefore what I say to you I say the same of all other Hereticks Socinians Pelagians Nestorians Aâ—â—baptists Antinomians c. That if they will come to a particular discusse according to these premised rules what ever their pretences be it shall appeare that their Heresies are neither In terminis contained in Scripture nor yet are deduceable by solid reason from these things which are clearly revealed but are repugnant thereunto Sixthly I answere Directly to this your Cavill by this Distinction If you meane that PROTESTANTS or whatsoever society acclaiming the True Religion before they prove the truth of their Religion or the conformity thereof to the true sense of Scripture must first produce one ground proving all the senses which they give in Scripture In cumulo to be true without a particular examination of the several senses and points of Religion mantained by them that I say is a grosse falshood and mistake For a Society may professe the true Religion and mantaine all the essentialls the cof and yet as I told n my last have some errors mingled in with these 〈◊〉 as our Dâ—vines have demonstrated in the Question Nom Ecclesiâ— possit errare Therefore if this be your mâ—â—ning it concernes you to have proven it for I doe and in my Last I imply did deny it But if you onely meane that PROTESTANTS or others acclaiming the truth of Religion must either have the essentials and all truths in their Religion plainly and In terminis revealed in Scripture or else solidly deduceable upon a particular discusse from these things that are so plainly revealed I grant it freely that it ought and must be so And therefore it you will
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
with the sense that the fathers gives And you are to be praised for the recanting of your former confining of this to the Fathers of the first three Centuries but withall you should have showne how farre and to how many more ages you doe now extend your former confining And who would not smyle to hear you recur to the Fathers who takes all authority from them holding them for men as obnoxious to errors as your selves are And when you are pressed with their authorities against you you run back to Scripture alone saying that you will admit them only in so farre as they agree to scripture that is to say to the arbitrarie glosses that you give to the letter of Scripture At length you have taken a compendious way to end all Controversie and to take away all doubt concerning the truth of your Religion makeing this offer that you will be content to disclaime PROTESTANT Religion if there can be brought any one article of it which you will not show to be contained either clearlie and in termes in some place of Scripture or else by a solid consequence that it is deduceable out of verities clearlie in termes revealed in Scripture This is your offer and I hope you meane that faling you will make this recantation publicklie and with some solemnitie Now I out of the love I carrie to this your conversion accepts your offer and not to burthen you with manie things I propone for the present this one article whereby you hold that there are onely Two Sacraments desiring you to assigne either a place of Scripture where this is clearly and in termes revealed or assigne some verity clearly and in termes revealed out of the which this article by a solid consequence may be deduced But remember that the question is not Whether there be two Sacraments but all the question is about this exclusive particle only two Sacraments Likwise be pleased to remember that the deductioÌ„ must besolid according to your own word that you use and it is not sufficiently proven to be solid because you call it solid or because you say it will appeare solid to all those Whose eyes the God of this World hath not blinded which is your ordinar expression in such like matters Master IOHN MENZEIS Answere to the Iesuits tenth Paper Some Observes upon Master Dempster the Jesuit his tenth Paper wherein he vainly imagines that he hath confuted the conformity of the Religion of PROTESTANTS with the Scriptures and yet hath said nothing either to weaken the Religion of PROTESTANTS or to establish the ruining Religion of Papists I Know not if ye doe blush but I am truly ashamed in your behalf that so much of my worke should have stood rather in discovering and confuting your Calumnies and Prevarications in matter of Fact then in examining your Arguments This your Tenth Paper comes short of none of the former as to this kind of stâ—ffe For in it I desiderat nothing of a Iesuit but the Acumen whereof these Children of Pride doe arrogantly boast though often times on very slender grounds whereof your Emptie Papers may be a luculent demonstration Towards the close of your Tenth Paper you at length seeme to agree but with how little ingennity may hereafter appear to have one Particular controversie betwixt us and you examined namely concerning the Number of Sacraments I have such an appetite once to try your behaviour on a Particular Controversie that I shall not insist in ripping up all the Trespasses of your Tenth Paper Yet some Specimen of them I must give least you should say that I doe charge you unjustly or least the credulity of a simple Reader should be abused by your bold Asseverations Should I but give a complete Index of your shamelesse Omissions it might satisfie the Reader that your Pasquil deserves nor the name of an Answere to my ninth Paper I shall hint only at a few whereof I doubt if a Person of ingenuity would have been guilty As First I shew from Chrysostome that your Objection concerning the sense of holy Scripture which hath been the substance of your two former Papers was an old rotten Cavil of Heathens against the Christian Religion and that Chrysostome of old did answere thereunto as we PROTESTANTS doe now a dayes to you Jesuits But this you say You purposlie omit as a Digression making nothing to our present purpose Is it nothing to our present purpose that you have nothing to object against our Religion but Heathnish cavils against the Christian Religion Is it nothing to the purpose that Chrysostome answered these Cavils as we PROTESTANTS doe you Jesuits Doeth not this demonstrat a consonancy betwixt Our Religion and the Old Christian Religion betwixt our principles and the principles of Chrysostome and consequently of other Ancient Fathers But to salve this your absurd omission you exercise your calumniating veine saying That I misapply Chrsostome and what I cite from him may be assumed by any Sectarie Is it enough for you to say that I misapplyed him Ought you not to have discovered my Trespasse Did I not give you the Formalia verba of the Father Should I regard your revileings who spare not to say that Chrysoslomes answere to the Paganes Objection may be assumed by any Sectarie Is not this an evidence that Chrysostome were he alive to day should be a Sectarie with you and of the Religion of PROTESTANTS But Secondly because you still clamoured though without cause That there is no assignable ground of the conformity of the Religio◠〈◊〉 PROTESTANTS had solid grounds to prove its conformity 〈◊〉 the Scripture One argument was proposed in a Syllogisticke frame the Medium whereof was that the Religion of PROTESTANTS had all the solid grounds which the True Christian Religion hath The other Argument was drawn up by way of Dâ—lemma because if our Religion deviat from the sense of Scripture then must it either be in our Positives or in our Negatives but in neither as I did demonstrate Yet neither of these Arguments doe you once touch Had you intended a Paper correspondent to your Inscription To prove the conformity of our Religion with scripture to be imaginary groundles ought you not to have examined and discussed these Arguments How would your men laugh at one who would set down a magnificke title promising a confutation of all Bellarmins arguments and yet in the body of the discourse touch none of them Is the strength of imagination so strong with you as to imagine that you have proven the conformity of the Protestant Religion with Scripture to be imaginarie and groundlesse when you dare not once touch the Arguments which are brought to prove the conformity of the PROTESTANT Religion with the Scriptures to be reall Have you not need to be sent to Pythagoras School to be taught to be mute untill you learne to speake to purpose But Thirdly I did not only prove that the Religion of PROTESTANTS had
your councill of Trent and your Pope Pius the fourth in his formula fidei have declared to be necessary to Salvation If she did then you may be pleased to produce evidences hereof wherein you may perhaps finde more difficulty then you are awarre of If she did not then is your present Romish Church a new upstart and Schismatical Church of a distinct faith from the Catholick Church in all ages You may notice how Doctor Field in the Appendix to his fifth booke part 2. cap. 2. goes about to prove that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was before Luthers appearance Things being now defined as Articles of faith necessarie to Salvation which were not so before I sincerely professe the Noveltie of your Romish Faith and the Schismaticall constitution of your Church are not the least grounds of my disatisfaction with your Religion You may desire your Masters to calculate to you the Antiquity of the Romish Canons establshing the points following as Articles of faith viz First The equality of unwriten traditions with the holy scriptures of GOD. 2. That concupiscence in the regenerat is not properly sinne 3. The desinit number of seven properly so called Sacraments neither more nor fewer 4. The Popes supreamacie above general Councils 5. Your Indulgences and Purgatorie 6. The abstraction of the Cup from the people 7. Your Transubstantiation 8. The infallibility of the Church of Rome 9. The adoration of Images 10. The Popes jurisdiction over secular Princes Not to mention more at the time I believe you will find some of these latter then Luthers appearance Others but a little before and all of them not only short of Primitive and Aprstolick antiquity but notone of them within the Verge of the Three first Centuries You may if you will take a briefe hint of the novel dates of most of these Romish Canons from Drelincourt in his PROTESTANTS Triumph Discourse 2. from page 39. to page 52. As also of sundry of your ritualls such as the Procession of the Sacrament the feast of the Sacrament your Jubilees the Canonizing of Saints nay of your present Romish Missal and how lately it was received both in the Gallican and Spanish Churches c. Is it safe to venture the eternall Salvation of Soules upon a Religion so Novel both in its Articles of Faith and Rituals You have one Trifle more which I cannot let slip Because I have required you to prove the Assumptiō of that goodly Syllogism which ye proposed in your first Paper wherein you said That the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the sense of Scripture and to this day you have been able to bring nothing in Confirmation of it Now therefore when Arguments fail you you would try if you could bring your self off or creat Odium to your Adversary with a popular but reallie impertinent Example You say That I have behaved my self as if one should come as sent from the Council to require the Provest of Aberdene to apprehend a person suspect of Disloyaltie but when the Provest did demand his commission he should answere that he was not bound to show his Commission but his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no Commission Is this the Scholastick method which you call for in stead of Arguments to substitute popular declamatorie Scenick examples which by a person of any Acuteness may be transformed into a thousand various shapes But seeing you will have the matter managed by Examples I must Examplisie time-about Suppose therefore First that a man were reallie Commissionated by the Secret Council to require the Magistrats of such a City to apprehend a disloyal person and for this effect did produce his Commission but the Magistrates did cavil at the sense of the Commission how luculent soever in it self alleaging that they could doe nothing upon that Commission untill the sense of it were cleared and that the sense of it could not be cleared without an infallible Expounder Would not the Secret Council have just cause to be moved with indignation against these Magistrates who had so ludified their Order And is not this the very case betwixt us and you Doe not PROTESTANTS still produce the Tables wherein the Ground of our Faith is contained Viz the Holy Scriptures Doe not we tell you if all our Religion be not found luculently there we shall disclaime it Is not this your verie Cavil that the Sense of Scripture is so obscure that without an Infallible Bropounder it cannot be understood Have you not cause then to feare the indignation of the Almighty who doe thus reproach the Scriptures of GOD and goe about to subvert the faith of his people suspending it till they get Propounders of whose Infallibility they must have an Antecedent and previous assurance whereas there are none such now on Earth The Fallibity of your Popes and Councils we did before demonstrat and you like a mute Advocat had not a word to mutter for them But Secondly in the case which you propose of a man pretending a Commission and having none and requiring the Magistrats to prove that he had none therefore the Rogue is justly blameable because he refuseth to prove the Affirmative which was incumbent to him and requires the Magistrats to prove the Negative But betwixt you and us the case is quite contrary For though you framed the Assumption of your first Syllogisme in Negative Termes yet upon the matter you refused to prove the Affirmative and required us to prove the Negative For what is it for us to prove the Truth of our Religion in points controverted betwixt you and us but to prove that there i◠no Purgatorie no Transubstantiation no Proper sacrifice in the Masse that your Pope hath no supreamacie over the Catholick Church that there Are not seven Sacraments that Saincts are not to be invocated nor Images adored c. All which are meet Negatives and so are the most of the points controverted betwixt us and you Now suppose that there were no Revelation from Heaven for Purgatorie Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Masse the Popes supreamacie c. Will not you confess in that Case that it were not duety to believe any of them and that then it were a sufficient Argument against them there is no Divine revelation produceable for these things therefore they are not to be believed and if any would obtrude the belief of them upon others that he were bound to produce a Divine revelation for them Now we PROTESTANTS mantaine De facto this to be the Case I would therefore demand of any rational man if there be a possibility to confute us but by produceing a Ground or Divine revelation for these things Are not you then guilty of the same Absurditie with the Knave in your own Example who refuse to prove the Affirmative and require us to prove the Negative But yet further
Religion hath ex parte objecti intrinseck grounds and principles whereby it is constitute a True Religion though it hath not ex parte subjecti But this onely is to bring new obscure termes which put in good SCOTS signify onely the same which hath been said hitherto to wit that Protestant Religion hath intrinsecall and objective truths and conformitie with the true sense of the letter of the word of GO'D but is destitute of all speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to have such intrinsecall and objective truth and conformity But I pray you what false Religion is there that may not with as good reason apply the same termes to themselves and say that their Religion is true ex parte objecti and hath intrinsecall and objective evidence truth and conformity with Scripture though they cannot shew this ex parte subjecti Likewise they have as great Reason as you to say that their Religion and the truth of it may be made evident if it encounter with an understanding well disposed though it cannot be made evident to fools So you are pleased civilly to call all those who have their understanding of such temper that they cannot see the truth of your Religion The other shife and evasion is that Religion is not one individual truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven at once or in one breath But what makes this to your purpose since that before you can prove any one of those particular truths to be conforme to the true sense of the text of such a Scripture you must first produce some speciall ground or principle to prove that your Clergie-men in Actu primo hath such assistance or hability as is prerequired in men that should give out to People the true sense of particular texts of Scriptures or else how can men be induced to beleeve that the sense which you give is the true sense since every false Religion might pretend with as great reason as you doe that they give the true sense though plaine contrane to the sense that you give In the end of your paper you desire me to subscrive and to put my name to the answere that I make as you have put to your name to yours but this your demand doth not seem rationall since your condition and mine are not alike for you are at home and as a Cock on your own midden and there must lurke some other thing under this demand since it can make nothing to your cause who proponeth the reasons against if they be pertinent and to the purpose Mr. IOHN MENZEIS his Reply to the Iesuits second paper May 2. 1666. An Answere to a second paper from the traffiquing Romanist who commonly passeth under the name of Mr. Francis Dempster alias Logan YOur consident undertaking to impugne the Religion of PROTESTANTS made me once to expect great things But for what I can yet discerne Parturiunt montes c. I did truely nauseat to read this your raw and indigested paper in which you wholly passe by the most materiall points in my Answere and are pleased to reflect on them as unnecessarie excursions that so your Omissions might seeme lesse criminall A very easie subterfuge by which any faint disputant may decline to meddle with these difficulties which he sees would nettle him But that I may keep you closse to your work I must crave leave to reminde you of some of these omissions and yet to desire that first ye would cleare your self of that fallacie wherewith I charged the third proposition of your first paper Whether it were an impertinent excursion to discover an egregious fallacie in one of these propositions which ye laid down as a foundation of all your ensuing superflâ—â—cture the indifferent Reader may judge Secondly I desire you to answere directly to the retorsions whereby I inverted your Syllogisme against your self and your Romanists Is there any thing more ordinary in School debates then retorsion of Arguments or when the grand debate betwixt you and me is whether the PROTESTANT RELIGION or Popery be the True Religion was it untimely or impropper for me to shew that the weapons which ye bring against the Religion of PROTESTANTS doe strick at the very foundations of Popery And thirdly I desire you to prove the assumption of your Syllogisme denyed by me or else to refell the Arguments whereby I shew that though it be a Negative yet this is no sufficient ground to turne over the opponents office upon me If you doe not performe these things to all which ye are tyed by the rules of disputing I beleeve ye shall hardly escape from being censured by judicious Readers as an Ignoramus I shall not insist upon the evasion which ye have devised to cloak the informalitie of your Syllogisme ex omnibus negativis pretending that in one of the propositions you take the Negative Infinitanter not neganter Although you have not been pleased to tell in which of the propositions it is so taken and though there be no indifferent Reader but would look upon all the Propositions as simple Negatives neither could you in our Language expresse them more Negatively if you intended to affect the Copula with the Negation Yet I shall passe this seeing I have onely used this transient insinuation to admonish you to look better to the forme of your Syllogismes and withall did shew you a clear way how to have corrected your error without â—unning to these Termini infinitantes Onely you must remember that if your Nâ—gatio infinitans fall in the Minor then it becomes an Affirmative and so your pretence of liberating your self from being tyed to prove it doth wholly evanish There be diverse other things in your paper deserving severe castigation but they are truely so Iudibrious that it is irksome to me once to mention them Nay hardly shall any thing materiall be found in the whole paper beside the repetitions of what ye had said in your first Yet lest the wrapping up of all these in generall should give you occasion to say that my complaint were groundles I shall therefore branch forth two or three of the particulars And first Ye seeme to strengthen your Syllogisme with a Dilemma which yet upon the matter is nothing but Recocta crambe the same thing in a new dresse And thereupon you insult not without petulancie as if you hade nothing to doe but to triumph saying Hath the Religion of PROTESTANTS no principles whereby to prove it self Are they invisible or are you ashamed to produce them Soft I beseech you Is the Sun invisible because the blind Mole doth not see it Did I not tell you that the Religion of PROTESTANTS hade peculiar grounds and principles to prove it self to be a True Religion Did I not likewise declare wherein this chief Ground and Principle consisted Namely in its conformity to the Will of God revealed in the holy Scriptures Which neither Popery nor any false Religion hath or can
flesh to compound a soveraigne Triacle I am sorrie that as your Paper began with a falshood in matter of fact you must excuse my plainnesse so it should be shut up with another Sic respondent Ultima Primis You may not expect that I will trifle away more time in answering your frivolous unsubscrived Tautologies Either therefore leave your repetitions and doe the worke of an Opponent seriously or else you will constraine me to give a publick account to the World of your trifling and tergiversation Turpe est difficiles habere nugas Aberdene May 9. 1666. John Menzeis The Iesuits fourth Paper Answere to a third Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS whereby he labours of new to perswade that the Grounds which he produces for the truth of the Protestant Religion were not meere shifts and evasions 28. of May 1666. This Paper was not delivered to Mr. IOHN MENZEIS till Iune 2. YOVR third Paper bearing the date of the ninth of May Did not come to my hands before the twenty seventh of May. Neither know I wherefore it hath been so long keept up Since as I am informed you did first dyt it to your Scholers who out of zeal to the reputation of their Master did use all diligence to disperse many copies of it and although it be not authentick and subscrived with your hand with the solemuities used in your former paper yet for the ordinarie straine of digressions not making to the purpose I doe acknowledge it for yours And it is pleasant that you say that you marvell that I passe over in silence and does not answere But how can you marvell at this since I have alwayes protested to you and protest to you againe that I would closse misken and take no notice of any thing that is out of the way and which does not concern the decision of the present controversie to wit Whether the Protestant Religion can be shown to be a True Religion by any ground or principle which may not serve with as great Reason to prove any false Religion to be a True Religion And so soone as you who hath bragingly undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion shall produce any such ground whereby it may appear that you put your self at least in the way either to give some satisfactory answere or at least to confesse ingenuously that you have no such ground for your Religion I oblige my self and shall finde you Surtie that I shall answere at length to all your Digressions to all your Retorsions and likewise shall disput with you at great leasure about the rules of Logick and shew how groslie you are mistaken in confounding Objective negations with formall negations as if a formall affirmation might not fall upon objective negations united be an objective affirming Copula As for your injurious and undervaluing words both in Greek and Latine wherewith your paper is stuffed calling all things brought against you Tantologies Battologies Insipid and Childish things and Non-sense c. I told you before that any man that hath a tongue may heap up and utter injurious words even against GOD himself And this way of proceeding would be thought by the judicious to be a clear testimony of a deserted cause and that since by sufficient reason you cannot propt the tottering truth of your Religion at least by Digressions Injurious words and other practises you will shoulder and hold up your reputation before simple people who adjudges the Victorie to him who rails most As if the means to try a True Religion from a false were not of such high concernment it self alone as did deserve to confine both your thoughts and penne within the gyre of it So that without wrouging the weightines of the matter ye cannot decline to squable about other things before it be fully ended Laying then aside as before all other things as out of the rod this is laid againe before you that the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion nor the Religion to which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever armes at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his Soul is obliged in conscience to quit it and betake himself to a diligent search for the True Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting for the present is this that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This point is proven at before by this Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall Ground or Principle whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the Letter of the Word of God Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a true Religion Though you leave off to call this Syllogisme a Crambe recocta being conscious to your self not to be able to produce sufficient heat to dissolve and digest it yet you call it a poor and naked Syllogisme which if it be as you say it beggs this favour of you that you will cloath and cover the nakednesse of it with some fitting answere Only be pleased to remember that since you deny the subsumption and so puts your self in obligation to produce grounds for the proofe of your Religion that the grounds you produce must have this propertie that they cannot serve with as great reason to prove a false Religion to be a True Religion As the grounds which serves to prove one to be an honest man must have this propertie that they cannot serve to prove a knave to be an honest man Neither doe you satisfie in saying that Honestie consists in a conformity of actions with the Law as Knaverie in a deformity of actions to the Law this I say does not help you because this is onely to explicat the terms and to draw the lineaments not filling up the fields and vacuities For the present controversie is not wherein consists objective Honestie or objective Knaverie nor wherein consists objective truth of Religion or objective falshood of Religion but suppoining the one to consist in a conformity or difformity of actions to the Law and the other to consist in a conformity or difformity with the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD it remains to shew by some speciall ground wherefore of one man is verified this objective Honestie and not of the other and wherefore of one Religion is affirmed this obiective truth and not of the other To this you answere that this is easily known be applying and comparing onely the actions of both with the Law and the tenets of both with the word of GOD as the obliquity and crookednesse of a rule is presently known by applying it to a straight and even rule and with this popular discourse you think to have cleared and exhausted
all the difficulty But good Sir give me leave to discover the shallownesse and superficialnesse of this answere You say objective Honestie is proven to agree to such a man because his actions are conforme to the Law But I ask you what if the letter of the Law with the which you compare the actions be capable of divers yea contrarie senses and the knave pretend that the actions of his Knaverie are conforme to the Law taking the letter of the Law in the sense that he give it In this case can one be proven to be an Honest man unlesse there be produced some speciall ground to show that his actions are conforme to the true sense of the letter of the Law and which cannot favour the Knave nor his actions Likewise since the letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrarie senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture taken up in the sense that they give it there rests no remedie to prove a Religion to be true or to be distinct from a false but by producing some speciall ground which is not applicable to a false Religion And hereby the way appears how easily simple people are gulled and at how easie a rate their favour and suffrages are obtained be a discourse smoothly and plausibly proponed and attempered to their capacity though in the mean time it be dest-tute-of all truth and soliditie Out of this you may see that since you have undertaken to prove the truth of your Religion and grants that the truth of a Religion cannot subsist without some speciall ground denying the subsumption that affirms the want of all grounds there results out of all these a necessity and obligation upon your part to produce some speciall grounds for the truth of your Religion whereby you may make appear that the objective truth or the objective grounds of a true Religion doth agree to your Religion and which cannot serve to prove that the objective truth or objective grounds of a true Religion agreeth to a false Religion Neither doth it exempt you from satisfying this obligation the pretext that you are the Defender and I the Impugner because to me as the Impugner belongs onely to presse you either to grant that you have no grounds or to produce them to be impugned Now let us come to the shifts and evasions which ye have produced in place of solid grounds The first was that your Religion hath objective truths or objective grounds of evidence though they be not alwise convincent by reason of the indisposition of the subject to whome they are proponed But it hath been told you that all thir are Synonims A Religion to be a true Religion A Religion to have objective grounds of truth and evidence A Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD A Religion that is convincent if it encounter with an intellect well disposed And so thir being all Synonims and all equally in controversie one cannot be ground to prove one another but they must all be proven by some other thing And this was told you and is now repeated againe Neither doth it help you the answere that you insinuat in this paper that although they be all Synonims yet one of them may serve to prove another as it is lawfull to argue A Definitione ad Definitum though there be an objective identitie betwixt them as likewise betwixt objective premisses and the conclusion But in this as before you discover your shallownesse in touching onely the screofe not going deeper Because this way of arguing doth not hold when both the Definition and Definitum are in controversie whether they doe agree in such a thing for then they must be proven by some other ground Moreover may not all this with as great reason be assumed of a false Religion and which you your self acknowledge for a false Religion and why may they not say that their Religion hath objective grounds of truth and evidence and prove this be this other Synonime that their Religion is conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD Now all the answere that you alwayes give is that those that sees not the truth of your Religion have an intellect ill disposed and tempered are Fools Blinded and now you adde that they are to be esteemed for Hypochondriack persons But all this is as easily turned over upon your self since men that denyes and professes that they can see no truth in your Religion are in all other things as discursive and as sharp sighted as your self The other shift that you bring when you are pressed to produce some speciall ground whereby may be made manifest the truth of your Religion is That Relgion is not an individuall truth but a complex of many truths which cannot be proven altogether but successively one after another But who sees not this to be a meer shift in place of a difficulty to substitute a whole body of particular controversies which though they may now be begun yet requires years to bring them to an end And doth not Aristotle teah us that we should alwise begin Ab universalioribus before we descend to particulars least doing otherwise we be forced to repeat often the same things Likewise remember that the same shift with as great reason may be alleaged by any false Religion to decline the necessity that they have to give grounds to prove the truth of their Religion As for that in which you enlarge your self to shew an Contradiction in my discourse whereby I told you that before you can induce the people to beleeve that you propone the true sense of particular texts of Scripture you must first produce solid grounds that you are qualified with such assistance and such directions In actu primo to give out this true sense In this I told you before that you are fighting with your own shadow and putting up a faigned adversary to your self that afterward you may have a faigned pleasure in puting of him down For what contradiction can it be to say that the actuall operation or Actus secundus doth necessarly suppone Actum primum and if In actu secundo you give the true sense of the letter of Scripture then necessarly you must be furnished In actu primo with sufficient ability to give this true sense Or how can any exerce operations of Seeing Hearing Speakeing In actu secundo except he be supported to have In actu primo sufficient ability to doe thir operations And you must have great dominion over your intellect if you can perswade your self that this discourse involves a contradiction Now I request you to cloath this ragged Dilemma as you call it Either you can produce some speciall grounds whereby can be made manifest that your Clergie men are qualified In actu primo with sufficient ability and assistance to give the true sense of particular
meer shifts and evasions June 13. 1666. THIS your fourth Paper carying the date of the ninth of June came to my hands the twelth of June and in it you make a more ample muster of your ordinar digressions contumelies and misapplyed Eruditions though you know that the better sort esteems this weak-mens weapons and clear testimonies of a deserted cause but it seems all one to you if by this means you can uphold your reputation with the Vulgar sort who seeing you blot so much Paper remains in conceit that you retaine still your post If I had the qualities to render me worthie of your friendship I would in a homelie and friendly manner suggest to you a compendious way to spare Paper observing onely thir three omissions First that you omit all exeursions out of the way that is to say that you omit all these things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully deeyded Secondly that you omit all contumelies and undervalueing words as more besetting a scolding Wife then a Scholer Thirdly that you omit all these things which cannot favour your Religion but with this inconvenient that in the same degree in the which it favours you it must favour and shelter a false Religion and which is holden by your selves for a false Religion And I hope that you will grant thir things to be very rationallie demanded of you since it is known that there is a great difference to be put betwixt the handling of a controversie in a Pulpit where one railes at randome having none to contradict him and the handling of it in a School way where you must foot your bowle and hold you within the score under the paine to be exploded Now if you will be pleased to observe thir three things which are so rationally demanded I oblige my self to make it good that you will not be able to put ten lines in Paper which shall be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie And for proofe hereof you may be pleased to take all your foure Papers misaplyed as they are squeeze them and see if you expresse out of them thir ten lines taking first away thir three things to wit Digressions about other matters Contumelies and base flyting words and things that cannot favour your cause without favouring in the like degree a false Religion And since it is to be presumed that none can expresse more substance out of your own Papers nor your self it is expected of you that after you have taken the pains to blow away all this chaffe you will show that there remains greater quantity of solid corne upon the floore then can be contained in ten lines of Paper That it may appeare how farr you wander out of the way you must be content to have patience that the maine point be laid alway againe and againe before you which is the Protestant Religion cannot be the True Religion or the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whosoever aimeâ— at eternall happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is obliged to quit it and to betake himselfe to a diligent search for the true Religion prescinding for now where it is to be found and insisting only for the present that the Protestant Religion is it not This is both a substantiall point and proponed in so clear terms that none can but understand it And it is proven by this one Syllogisme That Religion cannot be a True Religion which hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be a True Religion or a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles whereby it can prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be a True Religion To this Syllogisme you answered first cavilling the forme of it as componed of two premisses negatives and so concluding nothing But in this you discover grosse ignorance confounding and calling negative propositions affirmative premisses of objective negations Next you come to deny the subsumption that is you deny that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds to prove it self to be a True Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And you adde that since the subsumption is denyed by you it is my part who is the Opponent to prove it Let it be so But hath it not been sufficiently proven first Because if it have any good grounds they are produceable but they are not produceable or else produce them Next hath it not been often inculcat and is now of new inculcat that the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds or principles to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture but such that with as great reason may serve to prove a false Religion to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of Scripture Ergo it hath no true principles or grounds because a true principle is not of an indifferent nature but is so determinat to truth that it cannot protect nor shelter any error Now that it may appear that all the principles or grounds which you bring to prove the truth of your Religion are indifferent and consequently cannot be true principles we shall runne them over and lay them open to the view of all The first ground you produced is that your Religion hath objective truth and objective ground or evidence and can sufficiently show and prove it self to have this truth upon condition that it encounter with a well disposed intellect But all this may be assumed and is assumed by a false Religion or assigne some reason wherefore you have right to assume it and they not The second is that your Religion is easily known to be a true Religion by applying and confronting the tenets of it with the Word of God as a man is easily known to be an honest man be confronting his actions with the Law as likewise a line is easily known to be straight and not crooked by the conformity it is seen to have with a right rule But what false Religion is there that doth not apply all this to themselves with as great reason as you doe And though the letter of Scripture is of it self capable onely of one genuine sense to wit which was intended by the holy Ghost which is all the shift which you adde now in this last Paper But what makes this for you since you bring no reason whereby may appeare that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is that one genuine sense intended be the holy Ghost or that the sense which you give is that right rule by the which all crookednesse is to be known You think it is enough to say thir things without
Paterns of Honesty and withall added that it was an intolerable reproach thrown both upon the Law and the Lawgivers that a Law was given to people to walk by which no man except Titius with his pretended infallibilitie could understand Is it not strange said Sempronius that my Accuser Titius can speake his accusation so intelligibly that a Child can understand the sense thereof and yet that our Lawgivers had not so much wit as to expresse the Laws which they would have to be the Rule of our lives in intelligible language What prudent Senators would suffer themselves and Lawgivers thou to be reflected upon by Titius and would not for his pleading after this manner condemne him as a petulant Rogue The application af this Embleme is left to you and to the judicious Reader I have made so many experiments upon you that if there had been any Mercurie in you in all probabilitie before this time it had been extracted but the longer I deal with you the greater Dounce doe you appear I am both wearied and ashamed to graple further with one who multiplies such Childish impertinencies and notorious falshoods Least therefore I should seeme Cum Cretensi Cretizare I discharge any further exchange of Papers with you except you change your straine Yet because I know the Genius of many of your Party to be such that if you transmitted to me a Rapsody of perfect Non-sense to which no answere were returned you would glory as if you had approven your self as a Doctor Irrefragabilis Therefore to put a check to this insolencie and withall to satisfie the judicious I adde two things And first you are required though an Adversarie to doe me so much Iustice as when you communicate to others any of your Papers that you doe likewise communicate my Answere and then I shall decline no rationall Person either of your or of our profession who is not either Ignorant or Blinded with prejudice tosiâ— as Umpyre or Arbiter betwixt you and me If you doe otherwise after so solemne admonition it will be an evidence that you are conscious that your Papers are naught and not able to abide the Test But next if you find an abler Person then your self that can manage this debate to better purpose then you have done he shall not GOD-willing lake an answere so far as the interest of truth doeth require it In the mean time I say to you as Cyprian did to Demetrian Oblatrantem te are Sacrilego verbis impiis obstrepentâ—â— frequenter Demetriane contempseram melius existimans errantis imperitiam silentio spernere quam loquende dementis insaniam provecare Nec hoc sine â—agisterii divini Numinis authoritate faciebam quum scriptum sit noli respondere imprudenti ad imprudentiam ejus ne similis flas illi Cyp. lib. ad Demet. Aberdene 28. of June 1666. Iohn Menzeis POSTSCRIPT This Paper was written on Iune 18. but I being called to the Countrey on Iune 19. and not returning untill June 26 it could not be transcribed untill this 28. of June 1666. The Iesuits sixth Paper Answere to a fifth Paper of Mr. JOHN MENZEIS wherein he brings a new Shift and Evasion for a Ground of the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion disowneing all thinges for to be grounds which he hath brought hitherto July 6. 1666. YOV was disired to give a proofe of your abilitie to put onely ten lines in Paper which could be judged to make to the purpose in the present controversie observing three things first to â—â—it all exâ—â—sions out of the way that is to say to omit all things without naming of the which the present controversie may be fully decyded Secondly to omit all hase undervalucing words as more besetting an flyting Wife then an Scholler Thirdly to omit all things which cannot serve to prove the truth of your Religion but with this inconvenient that it equally serves to prove an false Religion to be true But in this Paper deboarding mor then ever you give cleir testimony that all your strength consists in thir things So that the confyning of you within thir limits wer to disarme you altogether and to bind up all the fecundity which you have to blot Paper and multiply words for hyding your weakenesse Laying asid then all things of whatsoewer sort that ar out of the line I lay befor you againe the maine point to wit the Protestant Religion cannot be the true religion nor the Religion to the which GOD hath tyed the promise of eternall life and consequently whoseever aims at eternal happinesse after this life or intends to save his soul is oblidged in conscience to quit it and to betake himself to a diligent search for the truth prescinding for now whair it is to be found insisting for the present in this only that the Protestant Religion cannot be it This cannot be called a nonsense since its both an most substantial point and likewise proponed to you in such cleir terms It is proven by this one Sylogisme That Religion cannot be a true Religion which hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be a true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. But the Protestant Religion hath no speciall grounds whereby it can prove it self to be the true Religion or to be a Religion conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion To this Syllogisme yow answered first carping the forme of it as if it wer of tuo premisses negatives and though it was showen yow yowr gross ignorance in this calling affirmative propositions negations becaus they ar of objective negations yet now yow add with alse gryt ignorance that the conclusion is negative Is it possible that an Rabbi in Israel is so ignorant that there most be made to him a lesson of Summules to make him capable to discerne betwixt affirmative and negative propositions Here indeed would come in season a way for sham and such hissing and histrionicall expressions as yow use now and then in yowr Papers Next yow say that though hithertoo yow have onlie denyed the subsumption yet yow have acquired by the benefit of so long a time a new light which discovers a defect also in the Major But this argues that the Sylogisme is not of so obvious a nakednes as yow stylled it since a man of yowr capacity hath need of so long tyme to acquire light for the discoverte of the defects of it But giving and not granting that there wer defects in the Major yet since yow have ingaged yowr self in denying the subsumption long agoe and so incurred an obligation to produce grounds for the truth of yowr Religion yow must first end this before yow begin the other either confessing that yow have no grounds or else producing them that they may be examined whether they subsist or not And here I cannot
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
praesenti that the object thereof doe exist in that article of time wherein the Copula of the proposition is pronounced But according to you Christ Body is not under the accidents of bread when the Copula of the proposition is pronounced for according to you Christs Body is not in the Sacrament till all the Words be ended Therefore the proposition according to your Glosse cannot be true And yet it must be true as being the word of him who is truth it self And consequently it must be Ture and Not True Your Schoolmen have perplexed themselves with these Aenigma's but could never extricat themselves out of this labyrinth in so much that what one of them affirmes the other confutes As these hints prove the falshood of your Romish glosse so the truth of the sense given by PROTESTANTS is manifest from the Series of the context For if by the pronowne Hoc or This Christ meaned the bread then the sense of the proposition must be figurative But by the pronowne This he surely understood the bread Ergo c. The Major is clear because disparats cannot be predicated of one another but Figuratively The Minor is easily proven Because what he tooke blessed and did breake of that he said This is my Body as is clear from the Series of the context But undoubtedly he tooke blessed and brake the bread therefore it was the bread which he did demonstrate by the pronowne This. And consequently the sense must be Figurative Neither is this a late invention of PROTESTANTS Said not Austin Contra Adimantum cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui That is when he gave the signe and figura of his Body And long before him Tertullian Lib. 4. Adversus Martionem cap. 40. Acceptum panem distributum Corpus suum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo ad est figura Corporis mei Could Calvin or Beza have more luculently affirmed the meaning of Christs proposition to be Figurative I know your two Cardinals Bellarmin and Perron have scrued up a multitude of wrested testimonies of Antiquity as if the Ancient Church had favoured your monstrous sigment of Transubstantiation But Spalatensis Lib. 5. De Rep. Eccles cap. 6. à num 22. Ad numerum 164. not to mention other Authors hath copiously examined and fully vindicated all these testimonies and clearly demonstrated that the Church in the first Eight Centuries was in the same judgement as to the Sacrament of the Eucharist with the Reformed Churches By this touch the judicious Reader may discerne whether our exposition of that rext be not built upon solid grounds The like might be shewed if our expositions and yours were compared of other much tossed Scripturs such as Luke 22.32 I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Matth. 16.18 Upon this rock I will build my Church 1. Tim. 3.15 The pillar and ground of truth Iob. 21.16 Feed my sheep c. And this were the most compendions way to try whether your expositioÌ„ or ours were the more genuine This also was the advice of Augustine of old Lib. 3. Contra Maximin Arianum cap. 14. Nec ego Nicaenum nec tu debes Arâ—minense tanquam prajudisaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illus detineris Seripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque proprys sed utrisque communâ—bus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratic cum ratione concertes It is true throogh prejudice interest or blindnes men may oppose the most luculent truth after all these meanes But then the whole defect is as we have often advertised you Ex parts subjecti on the part of the subject And so much of your three frivolous cavils against the Scripturs perspicuity in al things necessarie to Salvation In your next section as you declined a tryal by Scripture so likewise you shun to have your Religion tryed by Antiquity and you pretend two noble shifts The first is that according to us al these in the first three Centuries were fallible and therefore though our Religion were conforme to theirs it will not follow that it is the True Religion I doubt if ever any had to doe with such a shamelesse tergiversing fellow For First suppose it were true that our Divines did say that all these of the three first Centuries were Fallible yet if you grant their Religion to be the True Religion and I admit their Religion as to all essentials to be a Test whether ours be true or not with what face can you decline it Know you not that Maxim of Law Testem quem quis inducit pre se tenetur recipere contrase Secondly how could you say That we affirme that all these of the first three Centuries were fallible seeing in these centuries were the Apostles whome we acknowledge to have been Infallible in their Doctrine But Thirdly by saying That we mantains that all in these ages even excepting the Apostles and pen-men of holy writ were fallible and subject to errors you discover your self to be either grosly ignorant of the judgement of PROTESTANTS or to be a base scurvie sophister which will appeare by distinguishing two words in your assertion For First the particle All may be taken either Collectively or Distributively And Secondly Errors of Religion are of two sorts Some in points fundamental and essential some in points which are not of such indispensable necessity This being premised I propose this Distinction If you meane that we mantaine that All in these ages Collectively taken that is the whole Catholick Church may erre in Fundamentals and Essentials it is a most absurd falshood for PROTESTANTS mantaine no such thing We acknowledge the promises for the perpetuity of the Church Isa 59. ver 21. Matth. 28 ver 20. c. But if the whole Catholick Church collectively taken did err in Fundamentals in any age then the Church for that time should utterly cease to be upon earth It is True sundrie of your Writers either through Ignorance or through their calumniating Genius have charged this on PROTESTANTS that they mantaine that the Church may utterly fail But this is so impudent a slander that Bellarmin himself is ashamed of it Lib. 3. De Ecclesia Militants cap. 13. Notandum sayeth he Multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse desicere nam Calvinus cateri Heretici id concedunt If therefore this be your meaning you charge PROTESTANTS falsly But if you onely meane that All in these ages taken Distributively remember that now we speake not of Apostles or of pen-meÌ„ of holy writ or of these who had an extraordinatie Prophetick spirit might erre in things not Fundamental this is granted Yet this hinders not but that the truth of our Religion may be proven by its conformity with the faith of the Ancient Church For though every one Distributively taken may erre in Integrals yet seeing Al
touch of their contrary opinions in your Cardinal De Lugo tract De fide Disp 5 Sect. 1.2.3 But at this time also I have purposly waved the absurdities which our Divines have deduced from your Romish Doctrine concerning these Motives of credibility Because I would keepe you closse to the point And therefore I shall demand no more of you but that you demonstrate the Infallibility of your Propounders from these Motives of credibility which till you doe you remaine shut up within the lines of that objected Contradiction I Now proceed to the other difficulty objected to you in expeding your self from which you are as unhappie For evidenceing whereof there needs no more be said but to propose the Aenigma which you pretended to enervat for you craftily wrap it up in silence The Argument did runne thus If our faith must be built upon the Precognition of the Infallible assistance of your Propounders the either this their pretended Infallibility can be proven or not If not then the whole Romish Faith is built upon a Fancy which cannot be proven If it can then First you were required to produce your Arguments for proving it And Secondly you were persued by this Dilemma If the Infallibility of your Propounders can be proven then either by a Writen or Unwriten Word Not by a Writen Word seeing the sense of it cannot be known according to you untill first the Infallibility of the Propounder and Interpreter be known but now that is supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very point in controversie Not can it be proven by an Unwriten Word Both because you had asserted before That a point of Religion to be True and to be conforme to the writen word are Synomma's And because there is as much need of an Infallible Propounder that we may be assured of the truth and true meaning of an Unwriten word as of that which is writen If therefore we cannot know the sense of the Writen word till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility neither can the truth or the true sense of the Vnwriten word be known till first we be assured of the Propounders infallibility and consequently when the thing to be proven is his Infallibility it cannot be proven at all either by a writen or an unwriten word This Argument you dared not to propound and make a formal answere thereunto But all you say to this Suppressed Argument is that when you affirmed That a point of Religion to be true and to be conforme to the writen word of GOD were Synonima's you spake it onely Ad Hominem This is all your Reply and suppose it were true let any who hath sense judge whether you have evacuated the Argument For you touch but one part of the confirmation of one branch of the Dilemma which is abundantly proveÌ„ by another reason which might suffice suppose that which you touch were wholly laid aside You are far from the gallant resolution of Alexander who said Nola furari Victoriam Nay you are so base that when you cannot solve an Argument you wrape it up from the knowledge of the Reader and having given a touch of that without which the Argument abydes in its entire force you have the confidence to give out that you have confuted the whole Argument This is not the first experience I have of your Iesuitical ingenuitie But I must adde that even that which you have said cannot be admitted as if the Equipollencie of the two forementioned Propositions had onely been asserted by you Ad Hominem And the rather because what you say in this is agreeable to the grounds which you lay downe in your First Paper which there Interminis you affirme should be agreeed unto by all Now the chief scope of the First Paper and Syllogisme is to hold out that the True Religion hath grounds to prove it self to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of the word of GOD. And therfore both in my answere to your First Paper and in my Answere to your Third wherein you had asserted the Equipollencie of these Propositions â— drew an Argument against your Romish unwriten Traditions to which then you durst make no Reply albeit now as if what you had then writen had been forgoten you would flinsh from what you had formerly said upon this pretext as if it had been spoken Ad Hominem If you had said that you had spoken that onely Pro tempore from your Iesuitical principle of equivecation when you meaned nothing so I could indeed have beleeved you Though you have bewrayed as much basenes as I beleeve ever man did in so much writing yet you have the boldnesse to traduce some of our Divines not telling whome as citeing the Objections of your Authors for their Assertions But Turpe est Doctori cum Culpa redarguit ipsum Hath not the strength of your Romish Writers lyen in misrepresenting both the lives and writings of Reformed Divines Yea. your baseness in this hath stretched it self beyond them How grosly have you corrupted and falsifyed the writings both of Ancient and Moderne Authors as hath been demonstrated by Doctor Iames In his Treatise of the corruptions of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Pastors Prelats and Pillars of the Church of Româ— and by Cocus in his Censura veterum Scriptorum Beside many others You close all with a Tale of an Old wife And I confesse all you have said may well be reckoned Inter Aniles fabulas Yet you have the boldnesse againe to accuse me of Ignorance because I cannot homologat your absurd assertion That before we beleeve a Divine truth there must preceed a knowledge that God speakes by the Propounders Had you so often charged another with Ignorance you might perhaps have heard from him or now Sus Minervam I doubt truely if ever your dsperat Romish cause met with a more Blocksh Advecat then your self If I know that GOD speakes by such â— man must I not Simul semel beleeve it to be truth which he speakes How then were you so stupide as to affirme that the knowledge that GOD speakes by a man must preceed the beâ—â—â—f of the truth spoken Were you not more cautions before â—hen you onely required the previous knowledge of the Propounders assistance In actu primo But now your words would seeme to require the previous knowledge of GODS assistance In actu secundo For in propriety of speach GOD speakes not by a man but when he assists him In actu secundo Is this the nature of mans intellect to assent to a proposition which hath no evidence in it self without any reason Why then demand you an assent from me to your proposition concerning this Infallible assistance which I am sure is not Per se nota when neither can a reason be extorted from you to prove it not can you solve the objections brought against it Is there no ground upon which a Hearer may be convinced that this
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
nothing that is sufficient to distinguish your Religion from a false religion it remaines alwise in that state as hath been often told you that a man is in who is affirmed indeed to be an honest man but such an honest man that there is no difference betwixt him and a knave Likewise I omit here that long discourse whereby you disclaime Calvine as the author of your Religion and claimes to Iohn Hus and the Albigenses at last to be upon your side though the world knowes that theyâ— were not of your Religion Likewise I slight your long patrocinie that you make to defend your patriarch Luther that he did not leap out of the Catholick Church but only out of the Romish Church though if you had done compleatly this defence you should have shown what Visible Church was then in the World to the which he did adhâ—â—e and with which he did keep externall communion when he left the Roman Church Good Sir leaving all your Paterga's remember that the occasion of this debate was your continual railing in Pulpit against Catholick Dectrines and being desired to give some good solid ground for the truth of your own religion whereby both your own might be confirmed and others induced to imbrace it You did very stoutly undertake the bussines did bragingly protest that ye would mantaine the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion against whomsoever before whomesoever or in whatsoever place or time but when it came to the purpose and you were desired to produce your grounds and reasons whereby it might be mantained to be a true religion Your first refuge was that you as the Defendant was not obliged to produce any ground but all the burthen incumbed on me as the Opponent to prove that you had no grounds And in this you behaved your self just as if one should come as sent from the Council to impone upon the L. Provest and venerable Councill of Aberdene a charge to apprehend a persone as suspect of Disloyalty to his Prince and the L. Provest desiring to see his Commission he should reply that he was not obliged to show his Commission but that the Provest would prove that he had no Commission and that his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no commission So you have undertaken to mantain the truth of the PROTESTANT Religion and being demanded that you show your grounds whereby the truth of it may be mantained you reply that you are not obliged to produce grounds but that another should prove that you have no grounds not considering that religion is a positive thing and a complex of positive dogm's and so cannot be mantained to be true but by producing of positive grounds and the shifting to produce them will make all to give sentence that it is destitute of solid grounds Your next refuge was that your Religion was proven to be true because it was conforme to Scripture that is to say to the true sense of the letter of Seripture Now this pretended conformity was proven to be meerly imaginary and groundlesse because as it is impossible that a thing can be conforme to a true sense except it be supponed that there is existent a true sense so it is impossible that a thing can be proven to be conforme to a true sense exceept it be proven that there is a true sense Now you were desired to lay aside your diffused Pulpit railing style and by a judicious and school way to produce some soild ground whereby mens understanding might be convinced that PROTESTANT Religion hath the true sense of the letter by the holy Ghost of the letter of Scripture To this you answered first that it makes a Non-sense to say that a Religion cannot be proven to be conforme to the true sense of the letter of scripture except it be proven that there is a true sense Now I ask you where lyes here a nonserse or point me out any thing here that is not most cleare Indeed you in place of this my proposition did substitute one of your own and with your own words and I willingly grant to you that yours makes a Non-sense Next you seeme to chasse because I taxt your discourse to be founded upon grosse ignorance both about the nature of Formall Precisions and about the nature of True Religion and to this you reply first that to speake to you of Formall Precisions is a Pedantick thing But is it possible that you who professeth your self to be a Divine should so slight Precisions since they are the very quintessence of all superiour sciences and Aristotle might teach you that there is no science of particulars but in so far as the are reduced to some commone abstraction or Precision and that every science hath his own particular abstraction whereby it is both constitute and distinguished from all other sciences Next you remit me to your School-Boyes who will teach me the nature of Formall Precisions I am glade that Scholers are so learned but if it be so they out-shut their Master and knowes more nor their Master at least showes to know as appeares in this same answere that you make here For I telling you That the objective grounds of precisions is separability and that this is to be sound betwixt truths revealed in Scripture and True Religion and that on both parts because True Religion is separable from conformity with Scripture Since there was true religion in the World before there was any Scripture writen And on the other part All the truths revealed in Scripture might be though they componed no Religion to wit If GOD had so revealed them that he had not imposed an Obligation upon us to beleeve them as he might have done or wherefore might he not have done it Now to impugne this you bring texts of Scripture to prove that De Facto this obligation to beleeve is not seperat I speake of Separability and what GOD might have done and you argue against Actuall separation as if I had said that De Facto there is no obligation to beleeve things revealed in Scripture Are you not ashamed of such ignorant mistaking Or were not well applyed to you those civill termes that your self use in this Paper to wit that you behoved to be drunke or dreaming when thir things escaped your penne Likewise how grosse mistaking is it to say That I granted that a Religion to be true and to be conforme to Scripture are Synonima's whereas I said only this Ad Hominem and to argue you out of your own principles who admits no rule of divine truth but the writen word And in this you imitat many other of your Champions who as I told you else where did cite for positive doctrine of Fathers and Scholasticks the objections they made against themselves Your second answere is that the sense which you give to the letter of Scripture is proven to be a true sense because it coincids
there any word either in the Hebrew or Greek exactly correspondent to the strict notion of a Sacrament which is not extended to other things which neither you nor we hold for Sacraments as Chamter bath demonstrated Lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere capp 3.4 And besides Ancient Fathers have used the word Sacrament in so large a sense that they have designed many things by this name which on all sides are acknowledged to be no proper Sacraments As Austine gives the name of a Sacrament lib. 2. de peccatorum merit is remissione cap. 26. to the meat given to Catechumens and lib. 4. de Symâ—olo cap. 1. to Exercismes lib. 19. contra Faustum cap. 14. to the signe of the cross yea lib de bono conjugali cap. 18. to Polygamie none of which you Romanists will acknowledge as Sacraments So that according as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense PROTESTANTS doe not deny but there may be said to be more or fewer Sacraments Yea if the word be taken largely Doctor Featly in his Stricturae in Lindo-Mastigem pag. 90. will grant that it may be said that there be not only seven but seventeen Sacraments And Doctor Whitaker praelect de Sacramentis quaest 6. cap. 1. will admit that seven times seven may be found in Ancient Fathers and Doctor Morton in his Appeale lib 2 cap. 26. Sect. 5. ascends to seventy seven And Crakanthorp in defensione Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalat cap. 30. § 1. spares not to affirme that you may aswell number seventie times seven as seven And Hierom as cited by Gerard de Sacramentis cap. 1. § 6 sayes Sacramenta Dei sunt praedicare benedicere confirmare communionem reddere visitare infirmos orare And Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 2. calls all Christianitie a Sacrament Religionis Christianae Sacramentum How little weight some of our great ' Divines have laid on this Controversie you may see in learned Whitaker loco citato where he spares not to say that barely to extend the name of a Sacrament to other things which are not so properly called Sacraments Error est non admodum periculosus is not an error of dangerous consequence provyding there be not Ordinances brought into the Church which are not of divine institution And learned Master Baxter in his Treatise of Confirmation pag. 88. 89. propos 10. grants that there are more then seven Sacraments in the largest sense that there be five in a large sense but only two Baptisme and the Lords Supper in the strictest sense Is this the Characteristick for distinguishing a True Religion from a False where a Caviller may wrap himself up in such Logomachies Have not some of your Divines affirmed that a Sacrament cannot be defyned as Occam Major and Richardus cited by your own Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere cap. 10 But one thing is remarkable that among all the various acceptions of the word Sacrament in Ancient writers there was never one of them who determined the number of proper Sacraments to be seven neither more nor lesse as you Romanists doe to day How unhappie then were you to pitch on this particular Controversie seeing the precise septenarie number of Sacraments can never be proven either from Scripture or Antiquity You may consider what a low ebbe in this matter you are at when your Bellarmine lib. de effect sacram cap. 24. is put to that shift Non debere adversarios petere à nobis ut ostendamus in Scripturis vel Patribus nomen septeuarii numeri Sacramentorum Scripturae enim Patres non scripserunt Gatechismum That is Our Adversaries he means PROTESTANTS should not demaund of us to shew either from Scripture or Fathers the name of the number of seven Sacraments For the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms Yet we shall hear the same Cardinal a little after rendring this as the reason why Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem did not reckon our seven Sacraments because they did write to Catechumens Is this the pregnancie of your Jesuits Acumen to use contradictorie Mediums to prove the same Conclusion Sometime thus the Fathers wrote not Cathechisms therefore they did not expresse the desinit number of seven Sacraments And at another time inferre the same Conclusion because they did write Catechisms May not such Sophisters inferr Quidlibet ex quolibet But sure it is Cyril of Jerusalem did write Catechisms why then did not he at least mention your Septenarie of Sacraments I suppose your Council of Florence and Trent were not writing Cathechisms when they targht a Septenarie of them But our Divines deale liberally with you in this matter They stand nor upon words They demand not the name of the number of seven They only ask a real demonstration of a precise septenarie though not in so many words Hence Doctor Mortone in the place last quoted We exact not sayeth he the name of the number of seven but only as two and three make five so would we have demonstrated that any of the Fathers in any place of their writings of the Sacraments of the New-Testament did give any certaine intimation of the number of seven Can PROTESTANTS be more condescending in their demands Yet this could never be performed by any of you A cleare evidence that all your Popish Party cannot Proselyte me to you in this point For they cannot shew that either Scripture or Fathers did approve the pretent Romish faith concerning a precise Septenarâ—e of properly so called Sacraments of the New-Testament Thirdly had you been a persone of ingenuity would you not first have cleared these articles of your Religion which I have impugned in my former Papers before you had started a new Question But by your deepe silence as to these it is easie to guesle what satisfaction is to be expected from you as to this Nay Fourthly is it not a meer Negative whereof you demand the Probation from me That there be only two Sacraments For you say It is not the probation of two but that there are no more then two which you desire so that it is a meer Negative you would have me proving Now would not all the reason of the World say that ye who mantaine the Affirmative viz that there be more then two properly so called Gospel Sacraments and that there be precisely seven Ought to prove this your Assertion and that we are sufficiently warranted to mantaine the Negative untill you prove the Affirmative for Ab authoritate negativa in rebus fidei optima est consequentia You must also know our Positives are the articles of our faith and by the Negatives which we mantaine in opposition to you we declare that your errors are no part of our faith so that when you lay the whole stresse upon your proving this Negative that there are no more then two Sacraments you doe not require us to prove an Article of our faith nor should we succumb in proving an article of
by one of the Parties and the forme the like expression as afterwards given by the other Partie for then sayeth Vasquez if both should signify their consent at once there should be a Sacrament without either matter or forme The other notion of making the Bodies of the Parties the materia ex qua is zealously confuted by Coninck dub cit num 31. as repugnant to the nature of all contracts and he showes that the Bodies of the Parties may well be the materia circa quam but cannot be the materia ex qua or that which constitutes the contract Yea as he goes on to confute this Whimsy he distroyes the foundation of all Bellarmines discourse concerning the two states of Matrimonie as being repugnant to the commone opinione of your own Divines qui communiter docent omnia sacramenta excepta Eucharistia consistere in actione transeunte That all sacraments except the eucharist doe consist in a transient action and that they doe not endure but in the time of the celebration Beside these impugnations from his own fellow Jesuits let me but desire sober Persons to consider if it be probable that in a Sacrament the visible signe the Persons receiving and the Minister of the Sacrament shall be one and the same thing Yet this must be it the Persons married be both the matter of the Sacrament and also the minister as Bellarmine affirmes Or can their be a parallel found where that which was both the matter and forme of a Sacrament in one instant becomes only the forme in the next The words of the Parties according to Bellarmine are both matter and forme when it is in fieri and only the forme in facto Doth not Bellarmins dreames make of Marriage two Sacraments the one in fieri and the other in facto differing specifically in their essentials For the Bodies of the Parties which are made the matter in facto are specifically distinct from the words which were the matter in fieri Is there not here a Mysterie feigned in Marriage beyond what you Romanists fancie in the Eucharist For though you imagine the Sacrament of the Eucharist to continue extra usum yet you doe not diversifie the matter and the forme of the Sacrament But here Bellarmine would make a new transmutation I had almost said Transubstantiation of that which was both Matter and Forme into the Forme alone and of that which was only materia circa quam into the materia ex qua I am irked to insist further in the refutation of this reasonlesse Romantick fancie Yet I cannot let passe Aegidius Coninck's notion whereby he thinks to escape the rocks upon which other of his fellowes have split He therefore asserts that the words or signes whereby the Parties doe expresse their mutuall consent to be both Matter and Forme yet not as Victorellus expounded Bellarmins meaning But sayeth he the words of the Parties may be conceived either as a mutual tradition of the Parties to one another thus they are the matter of the Sacrament or as they are a mutual acceptation of the tradition made one by another and thus they are the forme This notion I finde likewise improven by divers others Becan Bonae Spei c. And perhaps some favorite of Bellarmins would in this sense expound his affirming the words of the Parties whereby they expresse their mutual consent to be the matter of the Sacrament in fieri But grant he had meant so yet it would advantage him nothing for this likewise is another cobweb of a Jesuits braine For a proper Sacrament as I held out before must be a substantial signe instituted by GOD since the Incarnation and recorded in the Gospel c. Now can words of the Parties in what ever notion they be taken be visible signes Or are they substantial signes Or such signes as may be fitly termed Elements Were the words of the Parties instituted by GOD in the Gospel and recorded there to be both Matter and Forme of this Sacrament Let all your Jesuits try there Acumen in produceing such an Institution from the Gospell If they cannot then sure Matrimony is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the LORDS-Supper whose matter and forme can be shewed from the Gospell which is all that PTOTESTANTS doe affirme Had there been any solid stuffe among you would we not have found it in these your chief Champions But the man I find among you dealing most ingenuously is your great School-man Durand in 4. sent dist 26. quaest 3. num 15. where he positively sayes Matrimonium non esse Sacramentum stricte proprie dictum sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis or That Marriage is not a Sacrament strictly and properly so called as other Sacraments of the Gospel are This was plaine truth but because it savoured so much of that which you call PROTESTANCY or Calvinisme therefore your Cardinal Tolet lib. 7. de Instruct. Sacerdot cap. 5. num 1. stigmatizeth this ductrine of Durand as hereticall Is this the best entertainment of plaine truth among you Iesuits when it doth not sute with your Romish interest But Thirdly Sacraments are peculiar to the Church and these of which we debate are peculiar to the Gospel-Church But Marriâ—ge is among Heathens and was of old in the Iewish Church If you say that Marriage in the Gospel-Church is only a Sacrament and not without it It will concerne you to prove that assertion and particularly to shew how Marriage in the Gospel-Church is a Sacrament and yet was not one in the Iewish Church Are you not here againe piteously broken among your selves Some as Alphonsus à Castro adversus haeres lib. 11. lit nuptiae hares 3. and others mantaining that Marriage was instituted as a Sacrament from the beginning of the World and if so then it is no proper Gospel-Sacrament others againe affirming that Marriage was only instituted as a Sacrament under the Gospell But they could never produce to this day a solid ground for that Sacramental institution under the Gospel But of this and many other consideraâ—â—e breaches among your selves concerning your pretended Sacrament of Marriage I leave you to receive information from our learned Country man Doctor IOHN FORBES in his Instruct. historico-theol lib. 9. cap. 8. § 30. c. But 〈◊〉 oâ— but take some notice of the absurd and impious differences which your Authors make betwixt Marriage as in the Gospel-Church and Marriage not only as among Heathens and Infidels but also as it was of old in the Iewish Church thereby to advance Marriage now under the Gospel to the dignity of a Sacrament Cardinal Tolet lib. 7. de instruct Sacerdot cap. 5. num 2. mentions three differences betwixt them viz First That Marriage in the Christian Church is a Sacrament not so among either Iewes or Heathens But all see that to be a begging of the question therefore I let it goe Secondly That Marriage in the Gospel Church conferrs grace ex opere operato And Thirdly That in
for that purpose Iansenius Gandavensis in Concord Evang. cap. 55 is of the same judgement as also Aegidius Coninck tom 2. de sacram disp 19. dub 1. num 3. so likewise Suarez Cornelius a Lapide Carleton c. As for the other place your great Cardinal Cajetan is as expresse in denying that any solid ground for your Sacrament of Extreme Vnction can be drawn from the words of the Apostle Iames. Hear himself on the chap. 5. of Iames Nec ex verbis sayeth he nec ex effectu verba hac loquuntur de Sacramentali Vnctione sed magis de Vnctione quam instituit Dominus in Evangelio à Discipulis exercendam in agros And thereafter the Cardinal brings diverse Arguments to prove this his Assertion If it be true as certaine it is which Bellarmine and many other Romish Doctors have affirmed that the Vnction spoken of by Marke is not a proper Sacrament then neither is the Vnction spoken of by Iames a proper Sacrament For both are one as not only our Divines have proven by comparing the places and answering the Arguments brought by Bellarmine to diversifie them but also the same is acknowledged both by Beda Theophylact O Ecumenius as testifyeth your Iesuit Becan part 4. theol scholast tract de sacram cap. 27. quast 1. num 2. likewise by many Romish Doctors cited by a Lapide CoÌ„menton Marke 6.13 I shall only mention your famous Iesuit Maldonat on that same place who falls very sharplie upon them who would understand them of different Vnctions I adde fifthly that learned PROTESTANTS have demonstrated that the Vnction spoken of by Marke and Iames were in order to a miraculous healing of diseased persons On this account learned Chamier lib. 4. de sacram cap. 18. § 8. spared not to call it miraculosum extraordinarium Sacramentum A kinde of miraculous and extraordinarie Sacrament And Calvine comment in Iacob cap. 5. calls it Symbolum temporable a temporarie Symbole which was made use of in the Primitive Church so long as these gifts of healing continued But these having long agoe ceased by the confession of all Recedente gratia recedit disciplina The grace departing there is no more use of the ceremony I know your Romanists have some cavills by which they labour at least to pervert that place of James in favour of your pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Should I now insist in examining them this Paper would swell to a nimious bigness and I confesse it hath already grown beyond my expectation Let it therefore suffice to advertise you that all these your Cavills are abundantly confuted to my hand by Chamier lib. 4. de sacram N. T. capp 18.19 By Doctor Fulk in his confutation of the Rhemists notes on James 5.14 and by other PROTESTANT Authours So that if in your Reply you repeat to me these old cavils and doe not confute the answeres given to them by our Authors you will discover your self to be a superficiary Theologue and unable to dive to the bottome of the Controversy To summe up all therefore this your greasy Vnction as now it is gone about in your Church hath no Scriptural foundation but it seemes to have too great resemblance to the practise of the Heracleonita a kind of Hereticks sprung from the Valentinians of whome Austine writes in his Booke ad Quod vult Deum cap. 16. Something also not unlike to this Irenaus testifies concerning the Valentinians themselves lib. 1. con hares cap. 18. And so much of your Extreme Unction Now it remaines that I take some notice Lastly of your pretended Sacrament of Ordination Know therefore that we PROTESTANTS doe cordially acknowledge that Ordination ought to be observed in the Church Yea learned Calvin lib. 4. Instit cap. 14. § 20. admits that in a large sense it may be termed a Sacrament So likewise have other our Divines as did Austin of old lib. 2. contra Epist Parmeniani cap. 13. and other Ancients Yet Calvin in the place quoted justly denyes as doe other reformed Divines that it ought to be reckoned among ordinarie and properly so called Sacraments Inter ordinaria sacramenta sayeth Calvin nou numero I shall desire you but to take notice of the ensuing Considerations And First how piteously are your Authours broken among themselves concerning the matter or visible signe of this pretended Sacrament You may take an account of this from your Jesuit Becan part 4. the dischol tract de sacram cap. 26. quaest 4. Where first he brings in Dominicus à Soto and Valentia affirming that the porrection of the instruments as of a Plater with Bread and Cup with Wine in the ordination of a Presbyter to be the only essential matter of ordination Then Petrus à Soto Ledesma Bellarmine Henriquez asserting both the Porrection of instruments and also Imposition of hands to be the essential parts of ordination But lastly Becan himself affirmes only Imposition of hands to be the essential matter of this pretended Sacrament and that the Porrection of the instruments is accidental thereto This is another specimen of your Papal Unity Doe you not perceive this fatâ—lity attending you that where you divide from us there you also divide among your selves Secondly therefore I would ask what you really make the visible signe in this Sacrament Is it only the Porrection of the instruments of which alone your Pope Eugenius the fourth speakes in that pretended Decree of the Council of Florence Or is it only the Imposition of hands or both Not the first for there can be no evidence of a divine institution thereof nor doth Scripture make mention of any such Porrection of instruments as is well observed by your own Jesuit Becan Nor the second for Imposition of hands is a ritâ— and action of the ordainer but no substantiall Element such as is requisite to the nature of a Sacrament And besides according to your Authours it is commone to other Sacraments such as Corfirmation and Extreme Unction How then can it be the sole and peculiar signe in this Sacrament Neither the third for the arguments which prove that the matter of this pretended Sacrament can be neither of these separately prove also that it cannot consist in both conjunctly The porrection of the instruments cannot be the matter of this Sacrament either in part or whole as not being of a divine institution neither Imposition of hands as being no substantial Element Thirdly that which your Pope Eugenius the fourth gives out as the forme of this Sacrament or words to be pronounced were never of divine institution The words he speakes of at the ordaining of Presbyters are these Accipite potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesia pro Vivis Mortuis Where have you a divine institution for these words Nay they are manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures of GOD for they suppose Ministers to be Sacrificers of a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of Living and Dead The absurdity whereof and repugnancy