believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular refutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5.39 Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17.11 Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5.32 Deut. 17.18.20 Deut. 28.13.14 Josh 1.7.8 Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lib. 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6.16 Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2.16 Joh. 12.48 Jam. 2.12 Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20. malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19.7 yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved thouâ—h Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8.38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10.47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16.33 The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus ita persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3.15 There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1.2.3.4.5 Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did
an infallible visible Judge The sequel is good because that they may resolve their Faith upon the testimony of an infallible Judge it is necessary that they know him to be such and there is none pretending to be that infallible Judge but either Pope or General Council or both joyntly The antecedent is proved by a threefold medium 1. From the case of Schism 2. Of Simony 3. Of the want of due intentions in the Ministry of Sacraments I say first from the case of Schism there have been many grievous Schismes in the Romish Church notwithstanding their vain pretence of Unity Onuphrius in Chronol Pontific reckons out no less than thirty one of which lasted from Vrban the sixth to the Council of Constance no fewer than fifty years if we believe Onuphrius There have been two or three Popes at once Alter in alterum saeviebat saith Genebrard All this while Bell. confesses lib. 4. de Pontific cap. 14. that it was an hard matter to know which of them was the lawful Pope Was all Christian Faith gone from the Church because of the uncertainty of this infallible Judge 2. The same is more luculently confirmed from the case of Simony It 's acknowledged by Romanists that Simony makes void the Election of a Pope as is held out by Gratian in the Canon Law Causa 1. q. 1. cap. 2. Now that there have been many Simoniacal intrusions into the Papal Chair is as evident as that any in those late times possessed it without Simony Hence Platina in vita Sylvestri 3. eo tunc Pontificatus devener at ut qui plus largitione valeret is tantummodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis rejectis obtineret c. The Papacy in those days was come to that pass that he who by Bribery could do most alone obtained the dignity good men being oppressed and rejected which custom saith Platina would to God our times did not still retain And Spondanus ad Annum 1033. brings in Glaber thus complaining Hou sedes Apostolica Alass thou Apostolical See which in the days of old was the glory of the world art now oh shame become Simonis officina the Shop and Forge of Simon Magus and Hammers continually are beating on the Anvil to make hellish coyn You may have heard of Genebrards complaint that in the space of 150 years from John 8. to Leo the 9. the Papal Chair was possessed with Apostatick Popes who entered in non per ostium sed per posticam not by the Gate but by the Postern Once I thought upon the testimony of Cicarella in vita Sâ—xti 5. that Sixtus 5. had come to the Papal Chair with as much innocency from Sâ—moniacal Pensation as many of the late Popes but now I find that his entry also was both simoniacal and perfidious whereof the Reader may receive a full account from Henry Foulis Hist of Romish Treasons lib. 3. cap. 2. from which that Author concludes the nullity of the Elections of sundry succeeding Popes not only of Vrban 7. Greg. 14. and Innocent 9. but also of Clement 8. to all whose Elections did concur a multitude of Cardinals who had been created by Sixtus 5. a Simoniacal Pope and consequently a non habente potestatem Is any thing more evident from History than the Simoniacal intrusion of Boniface 8. Alexander 6. c. Nay seeing these Simoniacal transactions may be so secretly conveyed that it is impossible to know who enters the Papacy without them therefore it cannot be infallibly known who truly is Pope The Simoniacal entry of Sixtus Quintus probably had never been discovered had not Sixtus violated his Simoniacal contract made with Aloysius Cardinal de Este which provoked the Cardinal to transmit the original contract subscribed by Sixtus own hand to Philip the Second King of Spain who being lately disobliged by the Pope threatned to accuse him of Simony in a Council at Andalusia but the speedy death of Sixtus prevented the Process 3. The same is yet further confirmed from the Popish Doctrine of suspending the efficacy of Sacraments from the intention of the Ministers thereof according to the Decrees of the Councils of Florence in Instruct Armen and of Trent Sess 14. cap. 6. and from the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther therefore it 's impossible to know infallibly if these who pass for Popes or Bishops be Popes Bishops Priests yea or baptized 〈…〉 they cannot infallibly know whether any who were in the Counâ—â—â— of â—rent were capable to be constituent members of a Council The â—â—vils of the Adversaries against this last instance were confuted cap. 1. Arg. 6. Both Pope and Council who only are pretended to be this infallible Judge may err in questions of Fact therefore also in questions of Faith the antecedent is confessed by Romanists themselves Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. saith Conveniunt omnes Catholici posse Pontificem vel cum concilio generali errare in controversiis facti particularibus quae ex informatione testimoniisque hominum praecipue pendent that is all Romanists agree that not only the Pope as Pope but also with a General Council may err in matters of Fact If any will adopt that new notion of the Jesuits of Clermont that the Pope is infallible as to matters of Fact he must first answer the arguments brought in the contrary by those of their own party before I waste time in confuting so notorious a falshood and the rather seeing my Adversary yields pag. 43. that their infallible Judge may err in matters of fact The sequel is clear seeing the decisions of many questions of Faith with them have such dependance upon questions of Fact that if the Judge err in the question on of Fact he cannot but err in the question of Faith To prove this I shall satisfie my self with these two instances ad hominem against Romanists First all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture according to them but some are only to be fetched from Traditions When therefore this visible Judge is to determine a point not contained in Scripture to be an Article of Faith he can have no evidence thereof but from Tradition nor of the Tradition but by the testimonies of Histories and Records of Antiquity c. Now is it not a meer matter of Fact whether Records of Antiquity be genuine or corrupted whether the relation of Historians be true or false and therefore this visible Judge may be deceived as to these and consequently concerning the Article of Faith whose evidence depends thereupon But lest I should seem only to argue upon a rarely contingent supposition take a late example When the Pope and Council of Trent defined the number of the Books of holy Scripture and determined the Apocriphal Books to be Canonical they had no ground to walk on but Tradition and here undoubtedly their Errour in matter of Fact led them to an errour in matter of Faith for these Apocriphal Books were never received by Universal
to say that the collation of Scriptures is so far from terminating Controversies ut magis augeat that it rather encreases them Yea D. Beard relates of Pelargus the Jesuit that we read in Scripture that an Ass did speak but never that the Scripture it self speaks So that this Romanist makes the Scriptures more mute than Balaams Ass than which as saith the Doctor what could be brayed more like the Beast he spake of Seventhly They prohibit the Version of the Scriptures into Vulgar Languages and the people to read the Scripture Hence Cardinal Tolet lib. 1. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 10. Sect. 9. reckons the Bible among prohibited Books and Iâ—â—dov de Tena in Isagog sac script lib. 1. difficul 3. Sect. 1. acknowledges that in the Catalogue of prohibited Books set forth by Cardinal Quivoga Reg. 6. omnia Biblia in Lingua vulgari prohibentur all Bibles whatsoever in a Vulgar Tongue are prohibited And that they are as peremptorily prohibited in a late Catalogue published at the Command of Cardinal Bernard de Roias and Sandoval Reg. 4. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 4. de haeres cap. 13. pronounces the reading of Bibles to be the cause of Errours in Religion and therefore commends Ferdinand King of Spain for prohibiting under highest pains the Translations of Bibles into Vulgar Languages or the importing of such Bibles or having them in ones custody Sixtus Senensis is of the same Opinion lib. 6. Bib. Annot. 152 and Jesuit Azorins Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. q. 3. affirms it to be an Heresie in Lutherans and Calvinists to assert that the Scriptures ought to be translated into Vulgar Languages It 's true Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 15. speaks of a power to give Licenses to read the Scripture in Vulgar Languages granted by Pius the 4. to Bishops Inquisitors and Confessors but it is as true that that power was either given only by a Cheat or recalled by after-Popes as is evicted by Rivet in Isagog cap. 13. Sect. 14. from the Index of prohibited Books as recognized by Clement 8. in observat circa Reg. 4. The same observe of Pope Clement the 8. his annulling the power of giving Licenses is improved by Jesuit Azorius loc cit whereupon at length he concludes that the Bible or any part thereof in any Vulgar Tongue is prohibited which says he inviolate praecipitur servandum i. e. is commanded to be inviolably observed Neither do their Prohibitions reach only Versions made by Hereticks but also made by Catholicks Yea Reginald in Calvino-Turcismo lib. 4. cap. 7. is bold to conclude Translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi divina Apostelica niterentur authoritate that Translations of Scripture are utterly to be suppressed though they were warranted by Divine and Apostolick Authority is not this more like the conclusion of a Turk than of a Christian And when they grant Licenses it 's meerly out of necessity when they see people would not be restrained from reading Versions as Gretser acknowledges in defens Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. How contrary is this to the Institution of God who caused writ the Scripture in vulgar or commonly understood Tongues and commanded all to search the Scriptures neither can themselves deny but it is against the practise of the Primitive Church as may be seen in Alphonsus à Castro and Sixtus Senensis loc cit Were the people to be secluded from reading the Scripture Would the Apostle John have written one of his Epistles to a Woman Would Hierom Epist 16. or Paulinus give this advice to Celantia sint Divinae Scripturae semper in manibus tuis let the Divine Scriptures be always in thy hands Or would that same Hierom Epist 22. recommend to Eustoebium not to desist from reading the Scriptures until being overcome with sleep her head fell down as it were to salute the leafs of the Book tenenti codicem somnus obrepat cadentem faciem Pagina sancta suscipiat Do not therefore our Romish Adversaries draw on themselves the Curse Luke 11.52 Woe unto you Lawyers ye have taken away the Key of Knowledge ye enter not in your selves and them that were entering in ye hindred Eighthly and lastly Not to mention more at this time do not their Canonists give the Pope power to dispence with Scripture Commands and Prohibitions and though their Divines seem not to go the full length of the Canonists yet they can reconcile themselves by a distinction as may be seen in Azor. Part. 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 18. where he positively affirms that Canonists commonly assert Posse Romanum Pontificem jus divinum declarare interpretari restringere remittere amplificare augere mutare i. e. that the Pope of Rome may declare interpret restrict remit amplifie inlarge and change the Divine Law And though he bring in the Divines Opinion somewhat otherwise yet he grants they also maintain that the Pope may hunc vel illum a Juris Divini rigore eximere exempt this or that person from the rigour of the Divine Law And by virtue of this distinction betwixt abrogation of Divine Law and exemption of a man from the rigour of Divine Law he says Canonists and Divines may be fully reconciled I will rake no further in this Dunghill I only leave it to be considered whether that forged Coat of Arms of which the Pamphleter talks viz. a reversed Bible for it 's no wonder that Jesuits adventure on false Herauldry who are so bold in preaching Heresies would not better suit with Jesuited Romanists who are so many ways injurious to the holy Scriptures than with a Protestant SECT II. The state of the Question concerning the Rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the Rule SHould I insist to prove the absurdity of each of the indignities done by Romanists to the holy Scriptures this Tractate would swell to a nimious bigness I shall therefore at the time pitch upon that one particular mentioned in the Title of this Chapter viz. whether the Scriptures be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith Excellently did Varinus describe a Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an infallible measure which neither admits addition nor diminution And therefore by the principal and compleat Rule of Faith I understand the chief and adequate Standard or measure by which we are to judge of all the Articles of Religion or material objects of our Faith So that whatever is not warranted by and agreeable to that Standard and measure is to be rejected as no point of our Faith In this sense we affirm the Scriptures to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith and of all true Religion I call the Scripture the principal Rule of Faith to distinguish it from other subordinate Rules For Learned Protestants have granted that Tradition and the Doctrine of the Ancient Church may in a large sense be termed Rules of Faith but so as they are to be reduced to
and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15.19 the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2.2 q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in carp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb Dei cap. 10. Be an Theol. Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virt tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Christianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2. Enchirid. cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset cemmonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whâ—t Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may upon the Veracity of God
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
injure him I here exhibit the formalia verba of the Pamphleter pag. 55. Protestants saith he take in also with those the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by S. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and others says Eusebius when the Ancient Hereticks the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God to support their Errours Let the ingenuous Reader judge if I have not exhibited the genuine sense of those words I know not whether to ascribe it to his ignorance or disingenuity that he charges Protestants as taking in or owning the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian corruptions of the Bible A Calumny so far from truth that to mention it is enough to refute it it may suffice to discover the occasion of so gross a mistake The Pamphleter steals this Objection in a Plagiary way from Jesuit Gordon of Hunâ—ly controv de verb. Dei cap. 12. but had no wit to do it handsomely What Jesuit Gordon had branched forth in divers Arguments against the purity of the Greek Text of the New Testament this Pamphleter confuses together Jesuit Gordon in his first Argument said that Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and others in Eusebius did complain that Hereticks did corrupt the Scriptures and in another argument affirms that Arrians Macedonians Nestorians did pervert Scriptures Now the Pamphleter seems to have taken those Hereticks last named to be them of whom Irenaeus Tertull. and Origen did complain not considering that the. Ages in which those Fathers wrote and wherein those Hereticks did arise would discover his Errour But against Jesuit Gordon and him I argue thus if the Scriptures were corrupted by Hereticks in the days of those Fathers then continued they not pure unto Hieroms time as Gordon the Jesuit alledges and consequently their own Vulgar Latin must be corrupted also as taken from a corrupted Original But because it 's not enough to retort an Argument let them take an absolute Answer from Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. Et si multa saith he depravare conati sunt Haeretici tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici qui corum corruptelas detexerunt non permiserunt libros Sacros corrumpi That Hereticks attempted the depravation of the Scripture is granted but that either the Providence of God or vigilancy of the Catholick Church suffered them universally to corrupt the Scriptures so that the Text of Scripture is not fit ad gignendam fidem as Gordon the Jesuit blasphemously writes is simply denied That Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and other Fathers discovered the practises of Hereticks against the Scriptures is a sufficient Evidence that those Hereticks were not able to accomplish their designs His sixth allegation is that Protestants nevâ—r saw the Original Scriptures penned by Prophets Apostles and Copies are subject to faults Did never this Scribler reflect that it would be retorted upon him that they can no more produce the Translators Autograph of the Vulgar Latin than we of the Originals Neither have they the Autographs of the old Decretals or of the Ancient Councils and the Copies of these Books are doubtless subject also to faults I confess we pretend not to have the Autographs nor judge we it necessary yea it was naturally impossible that Paper or Parchment could have continued so long without corruption What Baronius relates of Marks Autographs at Venice may have place among their other Legends yet Cornel. Ã Lapide who says it is in Greek confesses that through Antiquity it is become illegible and consequently useless But does it follow that because we have not the Autographs therefore our Originals are corrupt if it be said that Transcribers are fallible are not the Transcribers of the Canons of the Council of Trent fallible also if notwithstanding they bear Faith shall not the Copy of Original Scriptures much more make Faith Cannot the Providence of God preserve the Original Scriptures Will not the fear of God make men more tender and circumspect in transcribing the holy Scriptures than in transcribing other Books Is not the Catholick Church engaged to be watchful lest the Scriptures of God should be corrupted If Universal Tradition make Faith in any matter doth it not concerning the depositum of the Scriptures His seventh and last allegation is of the various Lections of the New Testament attested by the Prefacer to the Biblia Polyglotta Should he not first have remembred how many various Lections are in the Vulgar Latin let him compare the Bibles of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. and read D. James Bellum Papale and then tell if there be not both various Lections and contradictions betwixt them The different readings betwixt the Clementine Bible and Hentenius Edition of the Vulgar Latin which the Divines of Lovain so highly esteemed would fill a Volum alone Secondly therefore it 's absolutely answered that many things are reckoned up as various Lections in the Originals which are but Errata scribae â—ut Typographi i. e. escapes of the Press and all I believe are sensible that it is morally impossible that there should be various Editions of any Book without various readings of that nature yet may not Judicious persons comparing those Copies together discern their Errata's Are there not special helps in these cases for finding out the true reading in the New Testament such as the consideration of the Context the Analogy of Faith the more ancient and approved Copies Citations and Expositions of Fathers ancient Translations particularly the Syriack Neither do Protestants deny but use may be made of Latin Versions especially of more ancient Editions as was done by Erasmus in his Annotations yet not as a Rule but as a mean to be made use of in conjunction with the rest Who would be more fully satisfied as to these various Lections in the New Testament I remit them to Cal vius de puritate fontium in Novo Testamento Sect. 134. c. and to D Owens Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture with his considerations on the Appendix and Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta Now only I add a luculent testimony from Sixtus Senensis lib. 7. Bib. S. haeres 1. where pondering the like Objection from the various Lections of the New Testament he positively assâ—rts Graecum codicem qui nunc in Ecclesia legitur â—undem illum esse quo Ecclesia Graeca temporibus Hieronomi longe antea usque ad tempora Apostolorum usa est verum si cerum fidelem nullo falsitatis vitio contaminatum sicut continuata omnium Graec rum Patrum lectio lucidissime ostendit uno semper atque codem Scripturae tenâ—re legentibus Dionysio Justino Irenaeo Melitone Origene Africâ—no Apollinario Athanasio Eusebio Basilio Chrysostomo Theophilacto atque aliis â—nte post tempora Hieronimi Patribus i. e. that the New Testament which to day is read in the Church is the same which the Greek Church read before and after Hieroms days from the time
she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquinas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2.13 which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articles of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alioujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians concluding that the Humane Nature of Christ is changed into the Divine because as it s said Joh. 1. the Word was made Flesh so it s said Joh. 2. that the Water was turned into Wine If there were any strength in that Argument would it not rather follow that the Divine Nâ—tâ—re was changed into the Humane but the truth is that neither follows For after that the Water was made Wine it retained no more the
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if be did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2. Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scriptutis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesis sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4.4 verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does bewray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catich 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity
defined denyed either all or some of them to be Canonical such as Lyranus Antoninus Abulensis Cajetan c. When Melchior Canus had objected these Authors to himself lib. 2. cap. 10. he Answers cap. 11. ad tertium illos ignorantiâ Laboâ—âsse Where Melchior Canus brings on himself the suspicion of dis-ingenuity and of desperateness on his cause when he hath no other evasion but to say that the most eminent Doctors in the Church of Rome understand not what was defined to be Canonical Scripture by the Church By all which it may appear that justly Learned Protestants have concluded that the present Romish Canon was so far from being acknowledged by the Ancient Church that it was never defined as an Article of Faith until the late Trent Coâ—venticle Here it might make a good Problem why they of the Roman Church who so much undervalue the Scripture are so vâ—â—ement to have the Apocrypha Books enrolled in the Scripture-Canon But judicious Dr. Don Serm. 73. hath disclosed the Mystery viz. the design of Romanists being to undervalue Scripture that they may overvalue their Traditions and sentences of their visible judge therefore they put the name of Scripture upon Books of a lower value that the unworthiness of these additional Books may cast a diminution upon the Books which truely are Canonical when all are made alike A Stratagem forsooth well becoming the man of sin Instance second the Council of Trent sess 4. decret 2. hath Authorized the vulgar Latin version of the Bible to the authentique rule of Faith passing by the Originalls of the Hebrew and Greek the like cannot be pretended to be done by the Church in the first three Centuries Romanists will have much a do to prove that the vulgar Latin as now set forth by Clement the eighth was extant in these three Centuries Sure I am that the Ancient Fathers even they who flourished after the third Century were so far from teaching that the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek of the New were to be corrected by this Latin version that-they held all versions were to be corrected by the Original Take for all Hierom Epist. ad Suniam Fretelam and August lib. 2. de Doctrin Christ cap. 15. Instance third the Council of Trent sess 22. cap. 8. and Can. 9. declares it not to be expedient that the publick worship of God should be performed in a Language known to the multitude and anathematizes them who teach otherwise So taught not the Christian Church of the first three ages as hath oft been demonstrated by our Divines from Orig. lib. 8. Cont. Celsum Justin apol 2. Tertul. Apol. 39. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Chrys Basil Austin At present let that of Origen suffice lib. 8. contra Celsum every Nation saith he Prays to God in their own proper Language Yea the more ingenuous among Romanists confess so much Hence Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones caetera omnia fiebant in Lingua vulgari So also Cassander in Liturg. cap. 28. Yea Bell. himself lib. 2 de verb dei cap. 16. from Juâ—tin Martyr Chrysost Cyp. and Hierom acknowledges that in the primitive Church the whole multitude joyned in the puâ—lick services saying Amen which supposes they understood what was said And a little after he saith that in process of time that custom was changed and a Clerk was substituted to say Amen in name of the People Consequently by Bellarmins confession the Roman Church in this particular hath innovated And of that Clerk also Suarez in 3. part tom 3. q. 83. art 4. disp 83. sect 1. Is not ashamed to say nunc non est necesse ut minister linguam intelligâ—t in qua missa dicitur that now it is not necessary that the Minister understand the Language wherein Mase is said Cajetan is better advised who in 1 Cor. 14. confesses it were for more edification that the worship were performed in a known tongue So doth Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. and Cassander in defens offic pii viri Pag. 141. wishes that according to the Apostles command and practice of the Ancient Church Gods worship were performed in a known tongue So far is this worshipping of God without understanding now practised and taught by the Romish Church from that reasonable service which God requires Rom. 12.1 that Austin exposit 2. in Psal 18. compares it to the chattering of Parrots and Crows and lib. 4 de Doct. Christi cap. 10. quid prodest saith he locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis yea in decret Greg. 9. lib. 1. tit 31. de offlic jud orb cap. 14. It s ordained that Cities where are people of different Languages men be provided to celebrate Divine service according to the diversity of Languages and Justini an in Novel 123. Statutes that holy things be celebrated with a loud and distinct voice that the hearts of the hearers may be raised up to the greater devotion which could not be if then the worship had not been performed in an intelligible Language In the Roman Pontifical Readers are commanded lectiones sacras distincte aperte ad intelligentiam aedificationem fidelium proferre It is as easie therefore to reconcile Adultery with the Seventh Commandement as the present way of the Romish Church either with Scripture or Antiquity It s true in many places of the West publick worship was performed in Latin but it s as true that the Latin Tongue was then generally understood by reason of the Roman Colonies Yet Romanists want not some presidents for their barbarous worship such as the Hereticks called Osseni in Epiphanius haeres 19. and the Hieraclionitae in Austin haeres 16. who taught to pray with obscure word Neither do we envy them the example of Turks who Read their service in the Arabick of which the people understand nothing or of the modern Jews who Read Hebrew in their Synagogues which also the multitude do but rarely understand Instance fourth the Romish Church in the publick and Ordinary administration of the Eucharist do with draw the Cup from the people so the Council of Trent sess 22. can 1.2 and the Council of Constance sess 13. in Caranza's epitome praecip mus sub paena Excommunicationis quod nullus Presbiter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini that is we command under pain of Excommunication that no presbiter give the Communion to the people under both kinds This is certainly repugnant to the practice of the Ancient Church for the Sanctified Bread and Wine was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every one who was present saith Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Cyp. Epist 63. expresly makes mention of the Sanctifying of the Cup and giving it to the people plebi ministrando Chrysost homil 18. in 2. Epist ad Cor. Saith there is no difference betwixt pastor and people as to communicating seeing the same body and the same cup is given to both Yea Pope Gelasius in
But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some acconnt was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to until the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the
Vulgar Latin Version was made before the Scriptures were corrupted where he infinuates that the Bible was not corrupted till after Hierom's time Hierom being the Author of the greater part at least of the Vulgar Latin by the acknowledgment of most Judicious Romanists as is shewed by Ludov. de Tena Isagog ad script lib. 1. diff 6. Sect. 2. How then could Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and Eusebius testifiâ— of the corruption of Scripture seeing all those were dead before the time wherein Hicrom did flourish It 's just with God that they who oppugne the Scriptures should not understand their own selves I answer secondly by retorsion Is there not more cause to question the Originals of that which they make the Rule of Faith I mean of Dâ—cretals of Popes and Canons of Councils how many supposititious Decretals have they obtruded as of Clemens Anacletus Euaristus Alex. Sixtus Telesphorus c. which though Gratian dist 19. cap. in Canonicis says that they should be reckoned inter Canonicas Scripturas yet our Learned Criticks have proved them to be suppostitious as Cocus in Censura Scripterum veterum pag. 20. to 24. Rivet in Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 8. and others Yea is not the Faith of the Canons and Constitutions passing under the names of the Apostles justly questioned as may be seen in the same Cocus pag. 3. and 15. Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 2.4 and Dallaeus de Pseudopigraphis how many supposititious Canons of Councils have Romanists obtruded Were not Popes of Rome long ago convicted by the African Fathers of pretending a suppositious Canon of the Council of Nice for Appeals to Rome yea do they do not daily obtrude the definitions of the Conventicles at Florence and Trent as definitions of Oecumenick Councils whereas it hath been often demonstrated that these Councils were neither free nor Oecumeniek If the Transcribers of the Scriptures be obnoxious to mistakes how can the Transcribers of the Canons of Councils be infallible If transcribing of Bibles be obnoxious to errours is not the conveyance of Oral Traditions liable to as many nay to more mistakes Is it not more easie to guard against vitiating of written Books then the unfaithful conveyance of Tradition Are not Hereticks and men of unfound minds as much inclined to vitiate Traditions as the written Word By these it may appear that this Weapon of the Romanist wounds himself as much as us I answer thirdly It 's a blasphemous falshood to say the Scriptures in their Original are corrupted Hath God promised Mat. 5.18 that one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the Law and yet hath he suffered the whole Original Scriptures which were given by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost to be corrupted I will not here enquire whether our Saviour meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one tittle The Hebrew Vowels and Accents as Piscator conceives or stroaks in the head of the Letters like horns which the Jews used in those Copies of the Bible which were kept in Synagogues as Capellus de punct Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 14. affirms or whether a part of a Letter as Lud. de Dieu and Jesuit Maldonat on the place suppose or whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be taken us terms Synonimous as they are said to be by the Ethiopick Interpreter only it appears by the Series of the context that Christ understood some of the least things belonging to the integrity of the written Law If Diviâ—â— Providence be so careful to preserve the least of these shall we imagine the whole Body of the Original Scriptures to be vitiated Hath the whole Catholick Church been so unfaithful to suffer such a precious depositum as the Original Scriptures to be lost Do not Romanists say that we have received the Original Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek from them Hath the Roman Church cheated us in this to give us vitiated Transcripts in place of the Originals should we then believe her fidelity or infallibility in other things if the whole Original Scriptures are corrupted I pray by whom or when was it done surely not by Jews as is proved by Jerom in Cap. 6. of Isai where also he cites Origen for the same thing with them accords Austin lib. 15. de civ Dei cap. 13. for either they corrupted them before the coming of Christ or after if before how is it that they were never reproved for so heynous a trespass by Christ or his Disciples He condemns them for corrupt glosses put on Scripture but never for vitiating the Letter of Scripture Nay does he not command his hearers to search the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 Does he not still Appeal to Scripture for decision of all Controversies Would he ever have remitted them thereto had he known them generally to be corrupted if after Christ how then comes it that the testimonies of the Old Testament cited by Christ and the Apostles are to this day found in the Originals did Christ and the Apostles cite them as they were to be vitiated by the Jews if Jews had corrupted Scriptures would they not have chiefly corrupted those which spake of the Messias but those remain entire to this day yea as Bell. acknowledges lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. The Hebrew Text affords more clear and pregnant testimonies for the Messias than either the Greek of the 70 or the Vulgar Latin and produces instances to this purpose as Psal 2. where the Hebrew hath it Kiss the Son the 70 and the Vulgar Latin have Appraehendite disciplinam Joannes Isaac a Popish Author spares not to affirm as he is cited by Calov de puritate fontium Sect. 93. pag. 414. ducenta amplius argumenta quae Judaicas impietates refellunt in Hebraico textu quam in Latino planius contineri i. e. that the Hebrew Text affords 200 Arguments and upward against Jewish impieties more clearly than the Vulgar Latin How Religiously yea superstitiously careful have the Jews been of the Scriptures both of old and to this day Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evangel cap. 6. out of Philo de Judaeorum ex Aegypto profectione testifie that to his time not one word was altered in the Original If the Bible do but casually fall to the ground do they not endite a solemn Fast Have they not numbred all the words and Letters in the Bible so that a Letter cannot be lost without observation How putid is the Calumny of Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap 9. that this diligence of the Jews is only to perpetuate the corruption of the Hebrew Text made by the Masorites for which he is sufficiently chastised by Palovius Had the Masorites so corrupted the Bible would it not have been observed by the Karaits who because in all things they adhered to the Scriptures are hated by the Traditionary Jews more than Christians At least how could it have escaped the observation of Christians Were there not Hebrew Bibles
in the custody of Christian Churches How could Jews corrupt all these Is not this Cavil of the general corruption of the Original Scriptures so impious that many Learned Romanists have appeared against it such as Joannes Isaacus Professor of the Hebrew Language at Colen in his Book entituled Defensio veritatis Hebraicae Sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum Ludovicus Vives in lib. 15. August de civ Dei Arrias Montanus in Praesat ad Bibl. interlin Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth Sanct. Haeres 2. where he expresly says Dici non potest divinas scripturas veteris Testamenti aut Judaeorum aut Christianorum malignitate falsificatas yea he reckons the contrary Opinion as a pestilent Errour and Heresie Not to mention Pagnin Vatablus Marcus Marinus besides many others cited and followed by Lud. de Tena Isagog Sac. Script lib. 1. diff 3. Sect. 2 3. Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. charged Jacobus Chrysopolitanus and Melchior Canus for maintaining as this Pamphleter does that the Jews had corrupted many things in the Original Bible as men not having knowledge proportioned to their zeal However Bell. affirm that some few places in the Hebrew be corrupted wherein also Learned Protestants have laboured to shew his mistake yet he concludes Caeâ—erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent Scripturae Sacrae integritas desideretur They who would see the purity of Original Scriptures asserted at length against Romanists I remit them to Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 12. Rivet in Isagog ad sac script cap. 8. Gerard in uberiori explicatione loc de scriptura cap. 14. Calov Crit. sac de puritate fontium Sect. 93. where the last Author musters up seventeen Arguments for the purity of them to which only I add D. Owens Judicious Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture But against this it is first alledged by the Pamphleter that it 's doubted in what Language same parts of Scripture were written Answer Some question indeed hath been made concerning the Language wherein the Gospels of Mat. and Mark and the Epistle to the Heb. were written but of none else I confess Ancients generally have supposed that Matth. Gospel was first written in Hebrew not only Jerom Praefat. Evang. ad Damas Epist 123. but also Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphan Chrys August c. yet this their Opinion seems to have been founded upon the Tradition of Papias a man of more Antiquity than Judgment says Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. ult And there are Eminently Learned men of Opinion that it was first written in Greek with whom Cardinal Cajetan does joyn neither are the Arguments contemptible by which they are thereunto induced But however even those who maintain that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew do yet acknowledge that it was translated into Greek by a person infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost some by John the Apostle some by James and generally others by an Apostle or Apostolick person and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was always used in the Christian Primitive Church as Authentick Barradius the Jesuit as is testified by Lud. de Tena in Isagog lib. 3. diff 2. Sect. 1. thinks that Matthew himself wrote this Gospel both in Hebrew and Greek I know Baronius prefers the Authority of Matthew in Hebrew to the Greek Dico saith he quod Graecus textus cujus fidei sit nisi collatus cum Hebraeo originali affirmare minime possumus but learnedly is that impious errour of the Cardinal continued by Casaubon in apparat exercit 16. cap. 115. pag. 678. The like I say as to the Epistle to the Hebrews that many have judged that it also was written in the Hebrew Tongue yet there be not only Learned Protestants but also Romanists in the contrary Opinion The Apostles Argument cap. 9. from the nature of a Testament is a strong presumption that it was written in the Greek the Argument concluding forcibly from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so from the Hebrew Berith yet it 's also agreed that at least it was transcribed into the Greek Tongue by an Apostolick person whether Luke or Clement I am not to dispute As for Mark it 's true Baronius and Bellarmine affirm it was first written in Latin if so how then was the Latin Church so unfaithful as to lose that Original Latin written by Mark that being the only Book in Scripture that can be alledged to have been written in Latin For the present Latin Version of the Gospel of Mark is surely translated from the Greek as Cornel. à Lapide in his Preface to his Comment on that Gospel does not only confess but demonstrate by several passages of Mark 's Gospel That fancy of Baronius as if Mark 's Gospel had been first written in Latin is expresly contradicted by Jerom Praefat. Evang. Austin lib. 1. Concordiae Evangelist and Isidore Hispal Praefat. lib. Test Novi who affirm that all the Evangels except that of Matthew were first written in Greek yea the Cardinal is solidly confuted by a Popish Bishop Lud. de Tena Isagog lib. 3. diff 6. Sect. 2. who says its certum apud omnes that Marks Gospel was written in Greek What need I more as to this seeing Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. confesses Quod Graeca editio Novi Testamenti universa Apostolos Evangelistas Authores habeat since therefore we have the Greek Edition of all the Books of the New Testament we have the Scriptures in those Languages wherein holy men infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost did write them The second allegation of the Pamphleter is that Calvin and Luther do sometimes call in question the purity of the Originals What then Are Calvin or Luther with us infallible Judges of Articles of Faith as Jesuits make the Pope May not this allegation be compensed in regard Eminent Popish Authors asserted the purity of the Originals I have looked that place of Calvin lib. 1. Instit cap. 13. cited by this Pamphleter and can assert that Calvin has nothing to that purpose throughout all that Cap. for in it he only disputes concerning the Trinity Nay I find the very contrary in that Book cap. 8. Sect. 10. yea and Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. censures Calvin as preferring too great purity to the Hebrew Text and calling it Purissimum Fontem Luther likewise and his Followers as Chemnitius Gerard Caloviâ—s c. are most zealous Assertors of the purity of the Originals If any thing any where have dropt from those men derogating from the purity of Originals it would but argue a piece of humane frailty in them and of as gross inconsistencies I can convict both Cardinals and Popes It is alledged thirdly that there be to the member of 800 various Lections in the Hebrow Text if he speak of the Keri and Kethib according
as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
Vertues surely if he in this were Heretical Gerson was Heretical also who both asserts and proves it by many arguments much less can either Wedlock or Virginity merit Heaven as Soto is brought in by Gerard de Eccles cap. 11. Sect. 6. Sect. 2 18. impiously saying Quod Virginitas fit satisfactio peccatorum maxima meritum Regni Coeâ—â—um Have not Popish Authors particularly Espencaeus noted that Hierom was pâ—rum aequas less favourable than in reason he ought to Chaste Matrimony How grosly did Pope Syricius deprave that Scripture Rom. 8 7. to disgrace lawful Marriage If therefore Jovinian ran upon the other extreme to affirm as Bell. de notis Eccles cap. 9. Sect. 13. says of Vigilantius Ecclesiasticos debere esseâ—uxoratos in that he was never allowed by the Reformed Churches they are for a licere not an oportere for the lawfulness of Marriage not for the necessity of it Excellently said S. Hierom lib. 1. cont Jovinianum where he is most in the praises of Virginity Circumcisio nihil est praeputium nihil est sed observatio mandatorum Dei nihil proded absque operibus caelibatus nuptiae As Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing without the keeping of the Commandments so neither Virginity nor Wedlock do profit to salvation without works of holiness But as persons in a married estate are saved if they continue in the Faith so also it is by the same Faith that they which live in a state of Virginity are to be saved To this I only add that of Nazianzen Orat. 11. Cum in haec duo vita divisa sit in matrimonium caelibatum atque hic quidem sublimior divinior sit verum laboriosior periculosior illud humilius tutius neutrum horum Deo nos omnino astringit aut ab eo dirimit Where comparing these two Estates he concludes Caelibat to be more sublime but Matrimony more humble and more safe and that neither of them does either joyn us to God or seclude from him The sixth objected Heresie is that with Pelagians we say the Children of Faithful Parents need not Baptism Had a Jesuit a Forehead capable of blushing he would never have upbraided us with Pelagianism for the World knows that they have indeed licked up the very Excrements of Pelagius as Jansenius hath demonstrated in his Augustinus But as to the Objection we are so from denying the need of Baptism to Infants that we say it 's necessary necessitate praecepti Indeed we dare not be so cruel as to condemn all Infants that die in the Womb and were never in a capacity to be baptized if we be stigmatized for Hereticks upon this account then the Ancient Fathers who by their long delay of Baptism shew themselves to be of the same Opinion must also be Heretical Doth not D. Morton Appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. cite a multitude of Romanists as Cajetan Gerson Catharine Cighius Tilmannus c. as being of the same judgment with us as to these things Are all these Hereticks and Pelagians also If it be said that Pelagians deny the necessity of Baptism also true but on other accounts then Protestants I elagians as supposing Infants guilty of no sin Protestants because Pardoning Mercy is not chained up and limited to means As Blastus the Heretick observed Easter at the time of the Jews Passover so did Polyerates and the holy Martyrs of the Greek Church but the different accounts on which they did it made the one to be held an Heretick and not the other So that the same sentiment held upon different accounts may be heretical in the one and not in the other The seventh and last Heresie is that with the Arrians condemned by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. we do not receive Tradition O stupendious impudency Did ever S. Austin condemn Arrians for not receiving Articles of Faith upon the sole Warrant of unwritten Traditions Doth he not expresly lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. appeal to the Scriptures for decision of Controversies betwixt him and Arrians Nec-ego Nicenum nec tu debes Arimineuse tanquam praejudicaturus praeferre Concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius deteneris Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utrisque communibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio câ—m ratiâ—ne concertet Could not the Deity of Jesus Christ which was the Article for which Arrians were condemned be proved by holy Scripture that Fathers behoved to flee to unwritten Traditions Are Romanists so miscarried with their hatred against us that they will shake the Foundations of Christianity to reach us a blow Doth not Bell. confess lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Divinity of Christ which is opposite to the Arrian Heresie habet expressa in Scripturis testimonia Shortly then to rectifie the mistake of this Pamphleter the thing which Austin blamed in Maximinus the Arrian was that Arrians would not admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not found in Scripture and therefore lib. 1. cont Maxim he brings in Maximinus saying Haeâ—voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à rnobis suscipiuntur This Austin solidly consutes lib. 3. cap. 14. shewing that the thing signified by the word was in Scripture Quid est homousion nisi miaus ejusdemque substantiae quid est homousiâ—n nisi ego Pater unum sumus and then appeals to the Scripture for the decision of the whole Controversie with the Arrians Nee ego Nicenum c. Thus have I shewed that the Pamphleters Objection is false in all its grounds as if either all the errours mentioned by Fathers were Heresies against Fundamental truths or that we owned all the errours enumerated in the Objection It 's further objected pag. 89. that Scripture would make a man think that one thing or at most two were necessary to salvation as sometimes the believing one point sometimes the doing of another Heaven is promised to Prayer in one place to Alms deeds in another and Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments teaches a Fundamental which Protestants say is impossible Is not this a daring impiety in a lafcivious Jesuit so to sport with the Scriptures of the Living God as if sometimes they made one thing only necessary to salvation sometime another For answer therefore he would first remember that our present question is concerning the Credenda things to be believed but most of these instances are of the Agenda things to be done by us Whether this proceeded from his inadvertency or were done purposely to cast a blind before an unwary Reader is remitted to his second thoughts Secondly it is a falsehood that Scripture makes sometimes only Prayer at other times only Alms-deeds at one time only Faith in the Son of God at another time only the fear of the Lord a Fundamental as the Pamphleter insinuates For no where is the promise of Salvation restricted to any
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
14. who may not here see this Pamphleter Scratches up his Citations implicitly from others for Euseb neither does nor could relate such a thing of Julian being dead before Julian came to the Empire Yea Julian was so far from being an enemy to Image worship that Spondan ad annum 362. n. 6. shews how Julian endeavoured to engage Christians to worship the Images of his Heathenish Idols And Nazianz. orat 3. calls him Idolianum As for us we do not simply condemn the use of Images and Crosses but adoration of them as hath been cleared up cap. 7. Instance 7. But of adoration of Images ther 's not a vestige in these places cited only Sozomen relates that Julian pulled down that statue at Caesarea which was said to be Christs and set up his own in place of it which was stricken from Heaven with Thunder The Apostat having erected his own statue in spite against Christ and cap. 5. when Julian had commanded to reedify the Temple of Jerusalem there came fire out of the Earth and consumed the Builders and it s said the figurs of Crosses and Stars appeared upon their Cloaths But of adoration of Images or of Crosses nothing is said Nay it s insinuated that some in those times doubted the truth of the Relation What eightly is objected to us from Hierome concerning the Heresies of Jovinian and Vigilantius was objected before Sect. 5. pag. 100. and discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Ninthly he says that with Pelagians we brag of assurance of Salvation apud Hierom. lib. 3. cont Pelag. We do not brag of it we only say through grace it may be attained yet make it not absolutely necessary to Salvation neither was this ever condemned as a Pelagian error That which St. Hierom. refutes in the place cited as Chamier shews lib. 3. cap. 20. Sect. 4. Is the sinless perfection in time which Papists and Quakers following Pelagians do maintain yea not only Ancient Fathers but also diverse Popish Authors assent to us in the matter of assurance as St. Ambrose Catharinus Marcus Marinarius c. Tenthly he says with Jovinians we maintain that they who have received grace in Baptism cannot finally fall away apud August But the Heresy where with St. August in haeres 82. which I think the Pamphleter would have cited charges Jovinian was that he affirmed that after Baptism men could not sin Which none of us affirm an immunity from final Apostacy and a total immunity from sin are very different things Eleventhly he says that with Vigilantius we hold Church men ought to marry apud Hierom. cont Vigil we say no such thing we only say its lawful for them but not that they are bound to do it is there not a difference betwixt Licere and Oportere Twelfthly He charges us with the madness of the Anthropemorphits saying that the body of Christ remaines not in the Eucharist if it be keept till the morrow apud Cyrill ad Collosyrium To this objection of Breerlys it was long ago replyed by Dr. Marten appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. and lib. 2. cap. 3. that Romanists do more resemble the madness of the Anthropomcrphits by picturing and worshiping God the Father in the likeness of an old man and that Protestants do not altogether condemn all reservations of the Eucharist especially these in the Ancient Church in order to eating and participation in case of absence from the congregation thorow sickness and persecution and in such reservations for Sacramental use the consecrated elements remaine to be the body and blood of Christ Symbolically which is all that Cyril intended for then the Sacramental action is continued But the Popish reservations for circumgestation procession and adoration is a manifest innovation without any vestige of Antiquity Ancients were wont to give the remainders of the Eucharist to Children or School Boys to be eaten says Niceph. Hist. lib. 17. cap. 25. and Euag. Hist lib. 4. cap. 35. which was an evidence they looked not on them as a Sacrament when the Sacramental use ceased else they would not have given these elements to Children who could not discern the Lords body I only add that these reservations used by Ancients are now abrogated in the Romish Church as is acknowledged by Durant de ritibus lib. 1. cap. 16. Thirtenthly What he objects of Pelagians concerning Baptism of Eunomians concerning justification by Faith alone and of Arrians concerning Tradition was objected Pag. 100. and was accordingly discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Fourtenthly He shuts us all with three testimonies concerning the infallibility of the Church of Rome The two first are from St. Cyprian and St. Iren. which he oft repeats in his Pamphlet That of Iren. I examined cap. 7. Instance 1. I shall now therefore only take notice of that from Cyp. and of the other from the Council of Chalcedon Who would not admire the impudency of this Pamphleter there being no more luculent witnesses against the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope then St. Cyp. and the Council of Chalcedon He represents Cyprians testimony thus Epist 55. to Peters Chaire and the principal Church infidelity or false Doctrine cannot have access To which it s answered 1. That if an argument hold from that testimony of St. Cyp. for papal infallibility it will likewise conclude all the beleeving Romans to be infallible for their Cyprian says ad Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante landara est perfidia non potest habere accessum that perfidy can have no access to beleeving Romans But secondly who warranted the Pamphleter to render perfidia by infidelity or false Doctrine As of St. Cyprian were only speaking of errors in dogmatical points where as certainly Cyprians words relate also if not principally to questions of fact for he subjoyns aequum justum est ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen admissum est It s just that every mans cause be heard in that place where the crime was committed so that the perfidy of which Cyprian speaks may be expounded of unfaithfulness in judging of crimes and in examining of such questions of Fact I suppose Romanists will grant Popes may erre yea Cyprian a little after pleads the Authority of the African Bishops to be no less then of the Italian Bishops for judging in such cases Thirdly does not Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeium accuse Pope Stephanus not only of error but as mantaining causam haereticorum the cause of Hereticks against the Church Unless therefore St. Cyprian be made to contradict himself he cannot here assert the infallibility of the Romish Church Fourthly and lastly these words non potest haebere accessum cannot have access must not be strained as excluding a possibility of erring Non potest being frequently taken for that which could not readily or easily be as matters then stood Examples might be brought from Sacred and prophane Writings yea and from Cyprian himself Luk. 11.7 when the man said I cannot rise he meant not impossibility of
not that it was not soo eâ— ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters napsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish figment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1. The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz. the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist
Tradition sure not by Melito Justin Martyr Athanasius Hierom the Council of Laodicea yea nor by Greg. 1. as D. Cosins hath fully demonstrated in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Occumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15 until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Latcran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Occumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Occumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jâ—nsenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinâ—ple Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostolot aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D. Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be nated saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of
denied to other Scriptures containing as necessary truths Seventhly What is that square of Ecclesiastick sense whereto the Pamphleter would level all Scriptural interpretations Is it Tradition Though Protestants with Vincent Lirinensis do grant to Tradition its due place among the means of interpretation of Scripture yet now I must enquire what if a question arise about Tradition it self Has not this Pamphleter told pag. 75. that then all must be referred to the definition of the present Catholick Church that is to their infallible visible Judge and so the result of all these Cob-web distinctions is this They can grant that Scripture is clear in Fundamentals provided nothing be taken as the sense of Scripture but what their Pope or Infallible Judge pleases And consequently when Chrysost Austin c. say that Scripture contains clearly all that is necessary the meaning is that Scripture contains not the Articles of Religion clearly but points to one who can unfold them Are not these goodly glosses which Jesuits put upon Fathers Must the World be cheated with such ludicrous non-sense as if the end of Scripture were to point out their infallible Judge and yet it cannot be known what is Scripture or the true sense thereof but by the sentences of that pretended infallible Judge Are all things in Scripture clear and yet nothing at all clear but to receive its clearness from the Romish Judge who is alledged to be pointed out in Scripture and yet there is not one word of him in all Scripture I pray in what Text of Scripture is the Pope of Rome his Triple Crown and Infallible Chair together with the enthusiastick square of Ecclesiastick sense treasured up in his breast I ingenuously profess I cannot find the place unless it be 2 Thes 2.3 4. or Revel 17.4 5. It 's objected by the Pamphleter pag. 99. that the Fathers who writ Catalogues of Heresies Ireuaeus Tertull. Philastrius Epiphanius Austin c. did not distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and integrals among Divine Truths for they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently as damnable errours The Aerians are condemned as Hereticks by Epiphanius Haeres 75. And Austin Haeres 33. he should have said 53. for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church The Eunomians by Austin Haeres 54. for teaching that no sin could hurt a man if so be he had Faith The deniers of Free-will by Epiphanius Haeres 64. Vigilantius by Hierom for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Jovinian by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginity Pelagians by Austin lib. cont Julian cap. 2. for teaching that the children of faithful Parents need not Baptism as being born holy and the Arrians by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. for not receiving Tradition All which says the Pamphleter is the Doctrine of Protestants Whatever shew this Objection may have with ignorant persons yet I must advertise them it 's but a crambe recocta These Heresies have been often objected by calumniating Romanists Bellar. Breerly c. and as often confuted by Learned Protestants D. Field D. Morton Gerard Whittaker Rivet c. yea and many more Heresies have been retorted cum faenore out of the same Catalogues upon the Church of Rome Briefly therefore I answer two things and first that neither Papist nor Protestant can admit that all the Errours mentioned in the Catalogues of Epiphanius Philastrius Austin c. are Fundamental Are there not many condemned in them for Opinions in matters disputable undetermined and of small consequence and which respectively are acquitted in both sides Hence Alphousus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresiee And Bellar. himself de script Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastrius as Heresies which are not Heresies D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for stigmatizing persons so liberally with Heresie conceives that they used the word Heresie in a more gentle notion than now it is with us and in divers Paragraphs he endeavours to prove that all Errours mentioned in the Fathers Catalogues were not Fundamental yea he questions also whether the Fathers had sufficient Evidence in the matter of Fact to fix every one of these errours upon these persons It will not be amiss here to remember that D. Hackwell in his Apology lib. 3. cap. 8 § 1. records out of Aventinus his Historia Boiorum Anno 745. that Pope Zacharias and Boniface Bishop of Mentz condemned one Virgilius Bishop of Salsburg as an Heretick for holding that there were Antipodes and perhaps were induced hereto by the Authority of Austin lib. 16. de civit Dei cap. 9. and of Lactautius instit lib. 3. cap. 24. If he say that Learned Bishop was guilty of a Fundamental Errour and damned eternally for holding there were Antipodes he will expose himself to the ludibry of any ordinary Mathematician Besides if all be Fundamental Errours which are recorded in the Catalogues of Heresies I am sure Romanists do err Fundamentally Were not the Collyridians condemned as Hereticks by Epiphan Haeres 79. for worshipping the Virgin Mary The Carpocratians by Epiphanius Haeres 27. and by S. Austin Haeres 7. for adoring the Images of Christ and Paul the Angelici by Austin Haeres 39. by Theod. in Epist ad Coloss cap. 2. and by the Council of Laodicea Can. 35. for worshipping of Angels Manichees by Austin Epist 74. for granting Marriage to their Plebeians and persons of less perfection and prohibiting it to those that were more perfect and yet like Romish Monks and Priests they could dally with Concubines Hence Austin lib. 2. de morib Eccles Manich. cap. 3. said of them Quod non Concubitum sed nuptias prohiberent Were not the same Manichees condemned by Leo the first Serm. 4. Quadrages for abstracting the Cup in the Sacrament the Basilidians by Eusebius Hist Eccles cap. 7. and the Helcefaitae for teaching the lawfulness of equivocation and dissembling Religion in time of persecution Is not the Doctrine of Implicite Faith noted as a pernicious Heresie by the Author of the Sermon contradiversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Eusebius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the Nudi-pedales yea Rivet Cathol Orthod Proaem de Haeres reckons forth a Catalogue of fifty Ancient Heresies ingrossed in the Romish Religion When Romanists have considered the affinity of their Tenets with the errours of those Hereticks they may tell us whether they hold all for Fundamental Errours which are reckoned forth in the Catalogues of Heresies I answer secondly that it 's a notorious falshood that the Protestant Churches do own all the particulars mentioned in the Pamphleters Objection I might remit him to the Authors who have long ago