SECT. I. The true state of the Question propounded.

FOr opening the true state of the Controversie, it is first to be noted, that this Question is not entirely the same with that, Whether the Church can erre, for there be great Doctors in the Ro­man Church, who hold the Church cannot erre, and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge. There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers, and not the Collective of Pastors, far less any Representative cloa­thed with a Judiciary Authority, and least of all the Pope (whom some abusively call the Church Virtual) as shall appear in Argu­ment 2. Consequently, whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body, either of Believers or Pastors (neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion) cannot erre, are impertinently alledged.

It would secondly be observed, that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different, and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects, and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds, yet neither do pretend to Infallibility. Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit, to take a Judge, and an Infalli­ble Judge, for terms reciprocal.

Thirdly, it is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost, guiding them infallibly, bic & nunc, into the way of truth, and a quite other thing to say, that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed, so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite be­ [...] we an assent of Faith can be given to any Divine Truth. The first [Page 24]Protestants grant to Councils, whether greater or lesser, defining Divine Truths: The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often, and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved. His Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion, they all trespass ab ignora­tione elenchi.

Fourthly, It is granted on all hands, that particular Churches, and their Representatives may erre. Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate, and in her greatest Latitude, of which the Pamphleter talks, pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishop of Rome, acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy; She is but a part, yea and the lesser part of Christendom. Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church, yet the Roman Church in whatsoever ca­pacity, whether defensive or representative, can have no just Title thereunto. Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days, but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote? But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour, yea, and to total Apostacy, Rom. 11.20, 21. Be not high minded, but fear, for if God spared not the natu­ral branches, take heed lest he also sp [...]re not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God, on them which fell, severity, but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair?

Fifthly, Protestants freely grant, that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles, or to these Truths, the misbelief whereof is absolutely, and in all ca­ses, inconsistent with Salvation, were it otherwise, the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth, which cannot be, as Protestants firmly believe, according to the Scriptures. But Roma­nists not satisfied with this, plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge [...], or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion, greater and lesser. Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour, fall short of the mark. Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental, and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths, that there is not such abso­lute necessity, in order to Salvation, of immunity from the one, as from the other, there will be occasion to speak at more length, Cap. 4.

Sixthly, Therefore to wrap up all. In the Romanists Assertion of [Page 25]the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge, these five things are in­cluded. 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy, or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church, to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences, else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church. 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed, is absolute Infallibility, or immunity from all Errour, greater or lesser, in all his Doctrinal decisions. 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge, is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith. For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge, that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge. 4. That this Judge is visible, that is, a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth. There is no questi­on but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion, and that he is visible in his. Humane Nature, but he is not now visible upon Earth, as a present Member of the Church Militant; therefore it is another Judge, actually existing upon Earth, for which they plead. 5. That there is a necessity of the ex­istence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth. It is beyond doubt, that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant, when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth. Now the Jesui­ted party affirms it must be always so.

From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly, viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church, and with infallible assistance, for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion, of whose Catholick Juris­diction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded, before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth; Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative, we the negative: Where it's to be noted, that their affirmative being a copulative, consisting of many bran­ches, if any one of them fail, their whole Cause is gone. The proof of this affirmative, in all its branches, was that which the Adversary should have hammered out, had he really intended to sa­tisfie Consciences: But any intelligent Reader, upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours, but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls.

SECT. II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church.

I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self-against my Adversary, by discovering the emptiness of his Objections: yet the suppo­sed necessity of this infallible visible Judge, being the Basis of his whole discourse, and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis, I judged fit, for the satisfa­ction of those who are not in love with Errour, by a few convin­cing Arguments, to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith; viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge.

Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility, as in the state of the Question it hath been described; Ergo, it ought not to be believed. The sequel is evident, especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Ad­versary is, propositio per se nota, or carries with it an intrinsick E­vidence. Nay, Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authori­ty, where no Divine Authority is interposed, there can be no assent of Faith. The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum. Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith, according to this Pamphleter: If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge, ought he not to have confirmed it by the te­stimony of an infallible visible Judge? But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie, but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fa­thers, none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge: The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church, would it not then ap­pear, that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends, or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the te­stimony of an infallible visible Judge.

Though this Argument need no further confirmation, till I come to canvase his objections, yet, for his conviction, I will use this In­duction. If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be pro­ved, then either by Scripture, or by Reason, or by Fathers, or by [Page 27]Tradition, or by Miracle, or by Enthusiasin, or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word, but by none of these can it be proved, ergo not at all. If my enumeration be de­fective, let him, or any for him, supply it; for confirming the As­sumption, I shortly run through the particulars. 1. Not by Scrip­ture; for, according to him, I can neither know the Divine Origi­nal, nor sense of Scripture, but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge: Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does, when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge? is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius? Nor 2. By Reason; this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural as­sistance of the Holy Ghost; and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule, as shall appear Cap. [...]. Natural Reason can neither be expected, nor is it alledged by him to prove it. Nor 3. By Fathers, ought not the infallibility of the Fa­thers to be first proved, before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony? And how shall this be done, seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible, as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fa­thers? Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous, dark, and obnoxious to various constructions? Are there not in them not only seeming, but real contradictions? Is it not beyond controversie, that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated? If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture, and the genuine sense thereof, how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers, and their genuine sense? consequently, the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers: Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers, then none of the multitude should ever believe it. Are they able in such a thorny question, to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers? Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers, or this Pamphleter is most unhappy; for in all his Fartago of testimonies from Fathers, there is not one asserting this thing, as shall appear when I come to consider the objections. Nor 4. By Tradition; for, besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here de­bated by Universal Tradition; are there not as great debates con­cerning genuine Traditions, and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures? Is there not need of an infallible visible. Judge, to discri­minate [Page 28]genuine Traditions from spurious? How was the Church im­posed upon by pretended Tradition, concerning the Millennium, and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie, &c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge, then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition; or if this Position can receive s [...]fficient evidence from Traditions, why may not other Articles of Faith also, and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge. Hence the great Sticklers for the Tra­ditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge. Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles: If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists, are they not very uncharitable, who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland? Do they judge us so credulous, as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles, pretended to be wrought in the Indies, or in Ʋtopia? I sincerely profess, one real Miracle should have more weight with me, than a million of their Pamphlets. Of Miracles, I hope to speak more, Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries. 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie, that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge? or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge? instance who can. 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false? I the rather enquire this, because Bell. lib. de not. Eccles. cap. 14. positively affirms, that ge­nuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church; un­doubtedly he means, this infallible visible Judge: Then sure the in­fallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles: But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniqui­ty. Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible, because him­self says so; Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity! Ye can have no ground, according to them, to believe Scripture, or Christ, or any Article of Religion, but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge; that is, saith the Jesuited party, the Pope of Rome. But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible? Ye must, forsooth, take this upon his own word. Is not this to make Chri­stianity ridiculous? Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word, who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome? is not this prodigious impiety? The Testimo­ny of G [...]d speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self, albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility, which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had, but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare [Page 29]word. Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour, Joh. 5.43. I am come in my Father [...] Name, and me ye receive not; if another come in his own name, him ye will receive? Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences, or else be great Masters of their Reason, that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation? Now 7. I know nothing that remains, except with the Quaker, they run to Enthusiastical Revelations, for this their pretended infallibi­lity. And he may remember, how in a like case, I minded M. Dem­ster of a discourse of Cloppenburg, the Title whereof is, Papistarum & Enthusiastarum discordia concors. Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave, to desire a sight of their Credentials, else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets. This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis, and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion. Per­haps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E. W. in his vain discourse, entituled, Protestancy without Principles, against two eminently Learned Persons, D. Stillingfleet, and M. Poole, That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge; but I must advertise him, to distinguish betwixt our Faith, and the reje­ction of their Errours, as no part of our Faith. It suffices a Prote­stant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge, and to declare that to be no part of our Faith; and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument. Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry.

Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility, or this infallible visi­ble Judge, is not assignable; therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera: The sequel I prove, Had God appointed an infalli­ble visible Judge, upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Chri­stian world should be resolved, he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was, else, as M. Peole says well in his Ap­pendix against Everard, pag. 16. God should deal with the World, as Alexander the Great, who when he was asked, to which of his Captains he left his Empire, answered, the best; but not defining who was best, this became a Seminary of contention, or, as ano­ther makes the comparison, like the dying Father, who having two Sons, Leon, and Pantaleon, and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate, answered [...]; whereupon the two Bre­thren fell by the ears, the one alledging that he left [...] all, [...] to Leon; the other, that all was left [...], to Pantaleon. Were it not Blasphemy to say, that God hath dealt so with his [Page 30]Church, assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge, but not revealing who he is? if it be not known who he is, people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority, than if he were not: if therefore God had intended such a way, surely he would have determined who he is. It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent, for which I need no more, but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing: if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable, could not Romanists, at least, who talk so much of him, agree upon him? But who is such a stranger in the world, as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point? The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility: So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton, Cont. 6. q. 3. art. 5. who affirms that infallibility is, potestas & [...]ratia perso­nalis, a personal power and grace given by Christ, personae Petri & successorum ejus, to the person of Peter, and his Successors, and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope, that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council; and that it is not only false, but Heretical, to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei, in defining an Article of Faith. Yea, the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont (as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Ro­mish Treasons) emitted Theses, Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infallible Judge of Controversies, not only extra Concilium without a Council, but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact, as well as of Faith, which is more than Bell. durst aver, as shall ap­pear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less consider­able Doctors, Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei, says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope, but in the General Council only; and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors, Gerson, Al­maynus, Alphonsus à Castro, yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth. Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists, and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say, that all Romanists agree in this, that the Pope and the Council cannot err. But this is both false on the matter, and a perfect Cheat. First, I say false on the matter, for there be yet a third sort of great Au­thors among Romanists, who do affirm, that both Pope and Gene­ral Council may err in matters of Faith, and that the subject of infallibility, is multitudo fidelium, the diffusive Body of Believers. [Page 31]Of this Opinion were Oceam, Panormitan, Petrus de Alliaco, Wal­densis, Antoninus, Cardinal Cusan, Nicolaus de Clemanges: The pla­ces ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron, in Apodixi Catholica, Tract. 5. cap. 19.21. and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility, Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will on­ly cite one short sentence of famous Oceam, Part. 1. Dialog. lib. 5. cap. 29. & 31. where he lays down this conclusion, and maintains it; Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholi­cam errare & per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia qu [...] contra fidem errare non potest. That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith, and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church, which cannot err in matters of Faith. But secondly, those Romanists who say they do agree in this, that the Pope and the Council cannot err, do put a Cheat upon the world, as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron, Apo­dixi Catholica, tract. 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this insal­libility is partly seated in the Pope, and partly in the Councils, nor are they at all agreed concerning the seat of this infallibility; for the one half of them, namely the Jesuited party, hold the Pope only to be the subject of this infallibility, and not the Council at all. Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. saith expresly, Totam firmitatem Conci­liorum legitimorum esse à Pontifice, non partim à Pontifice, partim à Concilio. The other half are as peremptory by Bellarmint his own confession, that the infallibility is seated in the Council only, and not at all in the Pope. So that the Jesuited party might as well say, that the Pope and M. Con are infallible, as that the Pope and the Council are infallible; and the other party might as well say, that the Council and M. Con were infallible, as the Council and the Pope. Yea, Jesuits might say with as much candour, as D. Barron observes, cap. 20: Sect. 4. that they were agreed with Mahumetans, that the Pope and the Alcoran were infallible. By this also, I hope, it will appear how vainly they boast, as if by their infallible Judge they had an easie way to terminate Controversies, and a sure ground of Union amongst themselves; whereas the infallible Judge cannot agree them concerning this Fundamental of their Religion, nor terminate this controversie among them, whether there be an infal­lible visible Judge, or who he is. Neither can the Pamphleter make his escape by the tergiversing evasion he uses, pag. 44. That the que­stion is not, who this infallible Judge is, but whether there be one: I say, thus he cannot escape, for I argue from the one to the other. [Page 32]It cannot be shewed who is this infallible Judge, therefore there is none; both antecedent and sequel I have proved. Ought not the Pamphleter in this case, for resolving the an [...]sit, whether there be such a Judge, define thee quis sit, who he is? it's the desperate­ness of the Cause that makes him sometimes tergiverse, and shun to declare who is the infallible Judge. But I doubt other times he be guilty of a greater trespass, he seems to be of the Jesuited party, and so of that Opinion, that the Pope alone is the seat of this infalli­bility: Yet often in this Pamphlet he gives out, as if he held Pope and Council conjunctly to be the infallible Judge. Must a Jesuit have liberty to equivocate, because it is his Principle? However I shut up this argument with a Dilemma. Either there is certainty of Faith, who is this infallible Judge, or not, if there be, I ask who he is, is it the Pope alone, then the Parisian Doctors, together with a ve­ry considerable Body of Romanists, must be Hereticks, who oppose that Article of Faith; if the Council alone, then the Jesuits and Je­suited party are damnable Hereticks for oppugning that Article of Faith; if both Pope and Council conjunctly, then (beside the diffi­culty of terminating Controversies when Pope and Council are di­vided, and that this destroys the Tenet of the necessity of an infalli­ble visible Judge, for Councils seldom are) both the Parisian Do­ctors, and their party, and the Jesuits with their party, are Heretical, for they both place this infallibility either in the one or the other, but not in both conjunctly: if then they confess that there is no certain­ty of Faith, who is this infallible visible, seeing they cannot pitch upon him without charging the half of their own Church with He­resie: Then surely God hath not appointed an infallible visible Judge, in whose testimony our Faith is ultimately to be resolved. Had our gracious Lord appointed such a Judge, surely he would have told who he were, but not having defined who he is, certain­ly there is none: [...].

Argument 3. Both Popes and Councils have erred grosly in mat­ters of Faith; Ergo, both are infallibly fallible, and consequently there is no infallible visible Judge in the Church, none else pretend­ing thereto. In confirmation of the antecedent, a whole Volumn might be written of the errours of Popes and Councils, I will only glean up a few, that it may appear what kind of infallible Judges these are, upon whose testimony Romanists would have all Christi­anity to hang.

And first for Popes; doth not Gratian in the Canon Law, Dist. 40. [Page 33] cap. Si Papa, say the Pope may be judged when he is devius à fide, that is, Heretical? Did not Tertull. lib. contra Praxeam cap. 1. cha­racterize Pope Zepherin, or as other will have it, Pope Eleutherius, as a Montanist: Where also Beatus Rhenanus writes on the Margin of Tertullian, Episcopus Romanus Montanizat. Is it not acknow­ledged by Platina in Vita Marcellini, and recorded in the Ancient Martyrologies, yea in the Roman also, as is confessed by Jesuit A­zorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 5. that Pope Marcelline sacrificed to Jupiter? Doth not Athanasius in Epist. ad solit. vit. agentes, and Hierom in Catal. virorum illustrium in Fortunationo, say, that Pope Liberius subscribed to the Arrian Heresie, and to the damnation of Athanasius? Is not Felix, who possessed the Papal Chair, Liberius being expulsed, charged with the same Heresie by Hierom in Catal. in Acatio? Was not Pope Anastasius the Second a Nestorian, if we may credit Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1 contra Haeres. cap. 4. Is it not e­vident that Pope Vigilius was Anathematized by the fifth General Council? Are not the Cavils of Baronius, Binnius, and others, to vin­dicate Vigilius from Heresie, solidly disproved by Crahanthorp in a large Volumn concerning this fifth General Council; yea that Learn­ed Author, Cap. 4. Sect. 20. spares not to infer, that not only Pope Vigilius, but also Baronius, Bell. Gretser, Pighius, Valentia, and all Asser­ters of the Papal infallibility, are involved under the Anathema's pro­nounced in the fifth General Council. Was not Pope Honorius a Monothelite? Did he not teach his Heresie ex Cathedrâ, being con­sulted, as to that matter, by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople; and therefore was Anathematized by the sixth General Council, and his Heretical Epistles ordained to be burned, Act. 13. This blot of Honorius so nettles the Jesuited party, that they have forged a world of Subterfuges, but none of these Fig-tree leafs will cover the sore; as beside others, our Learned Country-man Doctor John Forbes of Corse hath demonstrated, lib. 5. instruct. Hist. Theol. à cap. 10. ad 31. What should I mention the shameful work that was betwixt Pope Formosus, Romanus, Theodorus Secundus, John 9. upon the one hand, and Stephanus the sixth, and Sergius the third, on the other; of whom saith Platina, in vita Romani, nihil aliud hi cogitabant quam & nomen & dignitatem majorum suorum extinguere. Neither were they only Controversies of Fact which were agitated betwixt them, as Bell. alledges, for Stephanus and Sergius pronounced Formosus no Pope, and his Acts and his Ordinations null, and all that were or­dained by him to be reordained. Is the question of Reordination, [Page 34]whether Ordinations made by Formosus were valid, whether all the time of Formosus there was any Pope, and consequently whether there were any infallible Judge, meer questions of fact? Are they not at least such questions of fact, that on them depend questions of Faith and Manners? Nay, this Papal rage swelled so high, that For­mosus is raised by Sergius out of his Grave, dismembred, and thrown into Tiber. What shall I say of that Brand of Hell, Gre­gory the seventh, of whom Cardinal Benno gives this character, in lib. de vita Greg. 7. that he was an Murtherer, an Adulterer, a Ne­cromancer, a Schismatick, a Heretick, and the worst of Mortals. There be black characters set upon him by many other Historians: Yet I wonder not to see Bellarmine, and the Jesuited party, to plead so hardly for him, for their Treasonable and Heretical Principles of the Popes Jurisdiction above Princes, discover them to be disposed to trace the footsteps of that perfidious Pope. Was not he the man that stirred up Rodolph of Sucvia against his Master Henry the Fourth, and wrote upon the Imperial Crown which he sent to him.

Did not Pope Celestine 3. Heretically assert, that Heresie destroys the Band of Matrimony, as testifies Alphonsus à Castro, lib. 1. cap. 4. Did not Pope John the 22. deny that Souls of Saints are admitted to the Beatifical Vision before the Day of Judgment? Yea, and im­posed it upon the University of Paris, that they should graduate none in Theology, except they did swear to maintain that Heresie all the days of their life, as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 3. de Haeres. tit. Beatitudo Haeres. 6. brings in Adrian the sixth witnessing. How piteous an evasion makes Bell. for him, as if this might have been taught by him without Heresie before the Council of Florence. Can the Church make that to be Heretical, which was not Heretical; that de fide, which was not de fide? If she may not, then Bellar­min's Apology for Pope John 22. is null: if she may, then besides, that they who affirm this, ought by solid reasons to instruct such a Power, she rather does hurt than good, for by her definitions, she makes that Sin which was not Sin, and that Heresie which was not Heresie. But there was a more grievous Monster of that name, John 23. who is said to have affirmed that the Souls of men are Mor­tal, and porish like the Souls of Bruits. The words of the Council of Constance, Sess. 11. concerning him are, Dixit & pertinaciter cre­didit animam hominis cum corpore humano mori & extingni, adinstar [Page 35]animarum brutorum. Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 14. to wipe off so foul a stain from the Papacy questions, if he were a lawful Pope. But Platina tells he was chosen at Bononia omnium consensu. It's more specious which the Cardinal adds, that though his Infidelity was Libelled against him, yet not proved, To shew that I love to do right to the worst of Popes, I do acknowledge, that in the Process I find not particular mention of the probation of this Article: Yet I must add, that the Council would never have sustained this, as a Relevant Indictment to be Libelled against a Pope, if they had not supposed that a Pope could be guilty thereof. And besides, he was really convicted by the Council of most Atrocious Crimes, insomuch that he was commonly called a Devil Incarnate. Who will say that such a man had immunity from Heresie or Infidelity, let be from all Errour. It's irksome to me to rake further in this Dunghill: Have not some Popes been gross Ignorants, adeo illiterati ut Grammaticam nescirent, said à Castro in the first Editions of his Work, de Haeres. lib. 1. [...]ap. 4. though in the subscquent impressions, as Whittaker observes, Controv. 4. q. 6. cap. 3. he suffered a Castration. Some Chil­dren, as Bennet the 9. a Boy of ten years of Age, if Glaber may be credited, a Writer of that time, to whom Bell. de Script. Eccles. gives this character that, Scripsit satis acuratè. Yet such flattering Sycophants are Jesuits, that Bell. is not ashamed to say, lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. If the Pope should command vices, and prohibit vertues, all men were bound to believe vice to be good, and vertue to be evil.

Who desire a more full Catalogue of Erronious and Heretical Popes, and a confutation of the Apologies which Jesuited Roma­nists have devised for them with more ingeniousness than ingenuity, may consult our Learned Controversists. Albertus Pighius, notwith­standing these, and many such like luculent instances of erring Popes, yet is not ashamed to mention, that the Pope cannot err in matters of Faith, no not so much as a private person: But for this he is justly chastised by his own Fellows, Melchior Canus loc. com. lib. 6. cap. ult. and Jesuit Azorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 2. Others, as is testified by Azorius, cap. cit. q. 3. have the confidence to say, that the Pope cannot err, at least in his publick definitions concerning Faith, or Manners, Etsi absque ullo consilio & diligentia rem fidei aut mo­rum definiat; that is, though he take no counsel, nor use any means to find out the truth. With these Greg. de Valentia seems to go a­long, lib. 8. de Annal. fid. cap. 10. but this also is judiciously confu­ted by Melchior Canus loc. com. lib. 5. cap. 5. who affirms they might [Page 36]as rationally expect a plenteous Harvest, though there were neither Tilling nor Sowing. Nor is their ordinary evasion less ludibrious, that though the Pope may err as a private person, yet not as a Pope; de­fining ex Cathedrâ. Well, did Whittaker cont. 4. de Pontific. q. 6. cap. 3. redargue that evasion with the saying of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, Qai ptivatim improbus est nunquam potest publice probus esse, & qui d [...]mi nequam est, ille ne in Macedonia quidem honestus & bonus fuit. If the Pope be an Heretick in his Closet, how shall he be Orthodox in his Chair? Doth the Spirit of God prompt him to define in Ca­thedrâ, contrary to his private judgment? or hath he a promise of Illumination how soon he steps up to his Chair? What needed then a Judicial Process against John the 23. for Heresie? Had there not been a more easie way to reduce him to an Orthodox mind, by set­ting him to define ex Cathedrâ? Can Romanists agree among them­selves, when he speaks ex Cathedrâ? Doth not Learned D Barron in Apodex. Cathol. tract. 5. cap. 10. rehearse a multitude of their stag­gering conjectures as to that thing? Is there not need of an infalli­ble Oracle to tell us when he speaks ex Cathedrâ, that we may know when he speaks infallibly, and when heretically? Would it not ap­pear that Honorius defined ex Cathedra for the Monothelite Heresie, when he was consulted by the Patriarch of Constantinople concerning that Controversie? Did not Pope Vigilius define ex Caihedrâ, when he declared ex Authoritate sedis Apostolicae, in his Constitutum which was exhibited to Justin. the Emperor and to the fifth General Council, the Epistle written by Ibas Bishop of Edessa against Cyril, and against the Ephesine Council, to be Orthodox, which was found by the fifth Gen. Council to contain most impious, heretical, and Nestorian Principles? Is it not a ludibrious evasion of others to say, The Pope as Pope can­not be a Heretick, because how soon he turns Heretick be ceases to be Pope. Alphonsus à Castro, says they who answer thus, Jocantur in re seria; and in effect attribute no more infallibility to the Pope, than to the meanest believing Colliar; every Believer in this sense is in fallible, namely in sensu composito, for how soon he turns Heretick, he ceases to be a true Believer; if every private Heresie degrade a Pope, how then shall we know who is Pope, or graced with infal­lible assistance, seeing we cannot be certain but he entertains some private Heresie? Among all the Subtersuges of Romanists, I know none more ludibrious than that of Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. col. 233. (wherein yet they chiefly confide) viz that the Pope may be smitten with a manifest errour, or with an errour against [Page 37]which the Church hath given a prior definition, and may endeavour to obtrude it upon others by his definitive Sentence, but that he cannot give Sentence for an errour not manifest, or for an errour against which the Church hath passed no former definition. I am sure there is no Vestige either in Scripture or Antiquity for such a distinction, nor yet is it agreeable to sound Reason, it being much more easie to fall in­to an errour not manifest, than into a manifest errour, there being more means to preserve from manifest, than from not manifest er­rours; if therefore the Popes infallibility doth not secure him a­gainst manifest errours, much less against not manifest errours: if the Scriptures alledged for infallibility prove not his immunity from manifest errours, how shall his immunity from not manifest errours from them to be concluded. The Pope, as a private person, may be smitten with a not manifest errour by the confession of Valentia; if then the exigence of the Church require a decision of that Contro­versie, must not the Pope discern according to his private errour? It's a piteous off come of the Jesuit, that God will take away the Pope by death, lest he should pass sentence for such an errour. A goodly pass indeed to which his Infallibility is brought; M. Dem­ster, and this Pamphleter, spake of Infallibility as a special assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding their Judge unto all truth, but now it's turned to an act of severity in killing the Pope, lest he should give out an erronious sentence. But seeing God in the depth of his Judg­ment hath spared. Popes to confirm manifest errours by their sen­tences, who shall assure us that he will not permit them also to con­firm not manifest errours? To this it's answered, That there is more hazard to the Church by a not manifest errour, than by a manifest one; for when the Pope defines contrary to a prior definition, then he is known to be a Wolf, and not a Pastor; but when he defines a not manifest er­rour, then there is no mean left to know him to be an Impostor, and so the Church were bound to assent to his erronious Sentence. But this Reply takes for granted two manifest untruths. First, that there is no ground by which to discern Truth from Errour, but the defini­tion of the Church, whereas, when the Church is first to define a Truth, she must have some sure ground why she gives Sentence for this rather than for the contradictory thereof, consequently there must be a ground by which to discern Truth from Errour antecedent to the Churches Sentence. Secondly, that the Church is bound to assent to the erronious Sentence of a Pope: But where ever did God so far inslave the Consciences of his people to erronious Teach­ers? [Page 38]Moreover, the hazard to the Romish Church appears to be much the same, whether the Errour for which the Pope defines be mani­fest or not, for by his definition it becomes not manifest to them, he having a multitude of Parasites to devise distinctions and glosses to elude prior definitions, as either not being definitions of the Church, or not contrary to this. As fell out when Leo the 10. passed his Sentence in the Lateran Council for the Popes Supremacy, contrary to the definitions of the Church in the Councils of Constance, and Basil, how many Advocates were set on work to maintain that these definitions of Constance, and Basil, were no definitions of the Church, or of Oecumenick Councils? In a word, so manifest it is that Popes may err in Cathedrâ concerning matters of Faith, that the same is asserted by eminent Romish Doctors, as Gerson, Almaynus, Pope A­drian 6. Alphonsus à Castro, &c. cited by Melchior Canus lib. 6. loc. com. cap. 1. and by Azorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 4. Yea the Jesuited Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is pronounced by Thomas, Ab Albiis in Sone Buecinae, tract. 2. Sect. 22. not only Haeretica, but Archibaeretica & mater spurcissimorum errorum, that is superlatively Heretical, and the source of pestilent errours: What need I more? Doth not Pope Innocent the 3. confess the fallibility of Popes, Serm. 2. de Consec. propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur, possune ab Ecclesia Judicari: if Pope Innocent truly assert the fallibility of Popes, then surely they are fallible, and if falsly by his false Asser­tion he demonstrated that Infallibility was not tyed to his Chair.

Next, as to Councils, Protestants have much more respect for real Oecumenick Synods, consisting of Pastors from all true Chur­ches of Jesus Christ, than any Jesuited Papists. Protestants acknow­ledge, that real Oecumenick Synods are the Supreme visible Ecclesi­astick Judge of Controversies of Religion; and that they have choice promises of God for their assistance, if they sincerely seek his glory, and the discovery of truth: Yet there not being promi­ses, that all the members of an Oecumenick Synod, or greater part of them, shall infallibly observe the conditions upon which that as­fistance of the Spirit may be expected. Nay, on the contrary, seeing in these Meetings much may be done through faction or interest, and those who come thither in simplicity may be byassed by the influ­ence of others, therefore we cannot assert an absolute infallibility of Councils. But Jesuited Papists are so far injurious to Councils, that they will not have Councils to be acknowledged, except they be called by the Pope, and swear subjection to him: Yea, and they su­spend [Page 39]all their infallibility upon the ratification of the Pope. Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 1. deals plainly; Conciliorum Judicium tum fir­mum & ratum est, quum accesserit summi Pontificis confirmatio, pro­inde ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis; so they esteem of Coun­cils only as they serve their interests. Upon this account, Bell. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 4. divides Councils into those that are approved, and those that are not approved; those that are partly approved, and partly disapproved, and those that are neither approved, nor disap­proved. Hence Vives in lib. 20. August. de civit. Dei cap. 28. Ita­que illa Demum iis videntur edicta & concilia quantum in rem suam faciunt, reliqua non pluris aestimant quam conventum muliercularum in textrina vel thermis. By this it may be judged whether we or Romanists defer most respect to Councils.

That Councils have erred, may be demonstrated by said instances; It were easie to shew, that late Popish Councils are patched up of as many gross errours, as there be points in difference betwixt Roma­nists and us: I only mention three of those, so luculently repugnant to clear Scriptures, and the Ancient Church, that he who runs may read. And first, What wit of men can clear from errour the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess. 13. wherein the half Com­munion was enacted, and that with a non obstante, both to Christs Institution, and to the practise of the Primitive Church. Second­ly, Is it possible for any man to reconcile the Decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. 22. Can. 9. of celebrating the Worship of God in an un­known tongue; with 1 Cor. cap. 14. v. 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he a Barbarian to me. Then sure the Council of Trent establisheth a bar­barous Worship in the Church, insomuch that their own Cajetan on 1 Cor. 14. saith, Ex hac Pauli Doctrina habetur quod melius ad aedi­ficationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur dici lingua communi & clericis & populo, quam dici Latinè. Third­ly, Doth not the Decree of the second Council of Nice, and of Trent, concerning the Religious Adoration of Images, directly con­tradict the Scripture, Exod. 20.5. yea, and the Universal practise of the Ancient Church. They may see this from their own Piche­rell. in dissert. de imag. but these, and such like instances, would in­gage me upon the prosecution of other Controversies.

I shall therefore now hint at a few other examples; and first I would have Romanists resolve, whether the General Council of Chalcedon did err when it enacted, Act. 15. Can. 28. and Act. 16. [Page 40] that the Patriarchs of Constantinople have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome. If it did err, then General Councils may err; if not, then the Supremacy of the Pope of Rome falls to the ground. I know Baronius, Binnius, and Becanus, alledge that Act to be of no force, as not being approved by the Pope of Rome, and his Legats. But it rather follows, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church were not of the present Romish Faith, concerning the Popes Supre­macy, and the dependance of the force of Decrees of General Councils upon the Popes approbation: For though the Popes Le­gats, who had withdrawn themselves from the Council at the first making of this Canon, did desire the Act to be rescinded, and re­presented the dissent of the Bishop of Rome, and spared not to suggest that it was carried on in a disorderly and factious way, the whole Council unanimously adhered to the Act, and cryed out, Haec justa sententia, hoc omnes dicimus, quae constituta sunt valeant, omnia recte Decreta sunt. Sure either this Council destroys the Popes Supremacy, or if it erred, the infallibility of Councils falls to the ground.

Did not the second Council of Ephesus err grosly in giving sen­tence for the Eutychean Heresie? And the Councils of Sirmium, Ari­minum, Antioch, Tyre, &c. who did approve, or at least interpolate the Arrian Heresie? Nor will it salve the matter to say, that they were unlawful Councils. For what made them unlawful? Not the want of a due Authority, they being Convocated by Imperial E­dicts, as well as the four [...]mous uncontroverted General Coun­cils, and some of them were very numerous, only they were un­lawful, because they pronounced erroneous Decrees. Perhaps it will be replyed, that they were not approved by the Bishop of Rome; if that rendred them invalid, how came it that the Ancient Fathers, when they were urged with the Authority of those Coun­cils, did not cast them on that account? Can a Post-nate appro­bation of the Pope make that true which in it self was false? What a goodly infallibility of a Council is that, which arises from the Ra­tification of the Pope; as if a Council began to be infallible, after it had ceased to be? I can imagine no tolerable sense in this, but that the Council of it self is fallible, and that the whole infallibility is to be refounded on the Pope. But that Popes have erred, both in the Chair, and out of the Chair, I hope I have already proved: What need I more? Have not Councils also approved by Popes er­red? Was it not an absurd errour in the Council of Neo-Caesarea, ap­proved [Page 41]by Pope Leo the 4. as appears by Gratia dist. 20. cap. de libel­lis, to condemn Can. 7. seeond Marriages? Was it not a Cyclopick er­rour in the Roman Council, approved by Pope Nicolas the 2. to hold the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament, sensualiter tractari, frangi & dentibus atteri, to be sensually handled, broken and torn with teeth? Was it not an errour repugnant both to Scripture and Anti­quity in the Lateran Couneil, under Pope Alexander the 3. Can. 1. de conjugatis, to give leave to persons solemnly and lawfully married to recede from their Vow, so as the one, without the cousent of the other, may enter into a Monastick life, declaring thereby the Marriage to be dissolved? The evasions whereby Romanists would cloak these impi­ous errours, are judiciously refuted by the Learned Davenant, de Jud. controv. cap. 23. Was not the sixth General Council, and the Canons thereof, which by some are termed Canones Synodi quin Sex­tae, approved by Pope Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius in Act. 2. Concil. 2. Nic. Doth he not there call them Canones Jure ac Divinitus ab ipsis promulgatos, or as it is in the Greek, [...], yet it cannot be denied but several of these Canons are erroneous, as Can. 2. approving the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, which esta­blished Rebaptization, and the 72 Canon, which dissolves Marriage be­twixt persons of different perswasions. Yea Romanists now ordinarily condemn these Canons, and the rather, because some of them so lit­tle favour their interest, especially Can. 36. which equalizes the Bi­shop of Constantiuople to the Roman. Might not instances be given of Councils confirmed by Popes decreeing Contradictions? Were there not contradictory Councils at Constantinople in the ninth Cen­tury, concerning Photius and Ignatius, approved by the Legats of the Popes of Rome, and both declared Oecumenical, by no less te­stimony than the Latin or Greek Church? Did not Bell. lib. de Imag. cap. 8. Sect. ultimo probatur, say, that the Council of Trent did ad­mit the picturing of God the Father? Yet Dallaeus lib. 4. de Imag. cap. 8. hath sufficiently evicted, that it was disallowed by the se­cond Council of Nice, confirmed by Pope Adrian the 1. though o­therwise too too grosly idolatrous. The contradictions, betwixt the Councils of Constance and Basil on the one hand, defining the Coun­cil to be above the Pope, and of the Lateran under Leo the 10. on the other, defining Sess. 11. the Pope to be above the Council; are so evident, that Jesuit Azorius Part. 2. Instit. Moral lib. 4. cap. 15. cannot deny them; and thereupon he acknowledges Romanists to be divided into two contrary Factions. Yet as the Lateran Council was [Page 42]approved by Leo, so was the Council of Constance by Pope Mar­tin 5. Sess. 45. Can Popes confirm contradictions without errour, unless it be said, as the Jewish Rabbins did of the contradictions be­twixt the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. Ʋtraque sunt verba Dei viventis, both parts of the contradiction are not only true, but also the words of the living God.

Is this any new Assertion of Protestants, that Councils are falli­ble? Was not this taught by Austin in many places, particularly in that luculent testimony, lib. 2. de Baptism contra Donatist. cap. 3. which I had cited against Jesuit Demster, wherein Austin prefers the holy Scriptures to all writings of Popes and Councils, and in the end concludes, Plenaria Concilia priora à posterioribus emendari, that the former Plenary or Oecumenick Councils, may be corrected by the posteriour; therefore he supposes that Plenary Councils may be smitten with errour. To this the Pamphleter replys, pag. 43. that Austin speaks not there of decisions of Faith, which he borrows from Bell. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 7. but it hath been often-confuted; for the question which Austin is there disputing, is a question of Faith; namely, whether the Baptism of Hereticks be real Baptism, and whether they who are baptized by Hereticks should be rebaptized. The Donatists to confirm their Opinion, alledged the Authority of Cy­prian, and the Council of Carthage under him: Austin therefore to enervate the Objection, shews that Scripture is to be preferred to the writings both of Fathers and Councils, and that former Coun­cils, though Plenary and Oecumenick, may be corrected by suc­ceeding Councils. This Answer had been impertinent, had he only been speaking of questions of Fact, and not of Faith: For the Do­natists must have replyed, though Councils may err in matters of Fact, yet the present question betwixt them and him was dogmatical, yea the words of Austin, which the Pamphleter, tracing Bell footsteps, doth urge for his exposition, do make against him, for he says not only that Prior Councils are amended by Posteriour, quum aliquo recum ex­perimente operitur quod clausum est, which is done in matters of Fact, but also quum cognoscitur quod latebat, which is done in matters of Faith; which also is observed by Stapleton, controv 6. q. 3. art. 4. ad. 1. arg. And therefore he betakes himself to another evasion; namely, that subsequent. Councils are said to correct former Councils, only because they explain more dilucidly what was wrapt up more ob­scurely in formen Councils. But this surely is repugnant to the scope of Austin, who to refute the Objection of the Donatists from the the Authority of Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, holds forth [Page 43]this as the priviledge of the Scriptures above all testimonies of Fa­thers and Councils, whether National or Plenary, that of the truth of things delivered in Scripture, dubitari & disceptari non possit, it was not lawful at all to doubt: But Councils National do yield to Plenary Councils, and latter Plenary Councils do correct the for­mer, whereas if he only meant, that the latter Councils do illustrate and explain the former, no priviledge should be ascribed to the Scriptures beyond Councils, for one Scripture may likewise illu­strate another: It's beyond doubt, when he saith, that National Councils cede to those that are Plenary, he means that National Councils may err; therefore when he says, that subsequent Plenary Councils may correct former Councils, he means also, that Plenary Councils may err. Was the Pamphleter so ignorant, that he knew not that the evasion which he took from Bell. was answered by Pro­testants; or if he knew, why endeavours he not the vindication thereof. But his work appears to have been all along to pick up any thing that seemed to make for him out of other Popish Books, not once noting what had been replyed thereto.

Lastly, I cannot omit the observe of Thomas ab Albiis in sone Buccinae tract. 2. Sect. 21. that before any can be assured of the in­fallible assistance of the Spirit given to Councils in their Judicial Decisions, they cannot but be intangled with a world of perplexed debates, as to what Councils, and in what cases this infallible assi­stance is due, concerning the Convocation of Councils, the power of presiding in them, the presence of Delegates from all Churches, the manner of Conciliary procedure, the number and weight of suffrages, their confirmation, and the reception of Councils by all Churches; Do they not shut up Souls in inextricable Labyrinths, who make their Faith to hang on such thorny disputes? I shall close this discourse, concerning Councils, with three testimonies, two from Fathers, and a third from a famed modern Romanist. The first shall be from Athanasius, Epist. de Synod. Arimin. & Seleuc. pag. 873. edit. Paris. 1627. frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt ob fidem se Synodos postulare cum sit Scriptura potentior omnibus; that is, in vain do they run about, demanding Synods for establishing Faith, seeing the Scripture is more powerful than all Councils: The other is from Nazianzen, Epist. ad Procop. Si vera scribere oportet, ita ani­mo affectus sum, ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam, quoniam nullius Concilii finem laetum faustumque vidi; that is, to speak the truth, I am so disposed, that I desire to see no more Councils, for [Page 44]I never saw any of them had a good and comfortable issue. I do not mention this testimony of Nazianzen to discredit all Councils, God forbid, I impute only that whereof he complains to the ini­quity of those times; yet by this testimony it clearly appears, that the Father judged not Councils absolutely infallible. The third te­stimony from a modern Romanist, Thomas ab Albiis in Sono bucci­nae, tract. 2. Sect. 22. touches both Popes and Councils, where he compares the (supposed) corruption of the Rule of Faith made by Hereticks, (so he designs Protestants) to an Ulcer in the Skin, and outward parts of the body, which is not so very dangerous; but he resembles the ascribing of Judiciary Infallibility to Pope or Council, whereby they are exalted above all that is called God, unto an Ulcer in the bowels, which diffuses its poyson through the vitals, and kills the person: And so much of this Argument 3.

Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge, he must pro­ceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively, or by Prophe­tical inspiration, but by neither of these ways can he proceed; er­go, &c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major, it con­cerns him to assign another way of his procedure, till which, I pro­ceed to confirm the minor. And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration? Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets? Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance, Basil, Florence, La­teran, or Trent, Prophetical Inspirations? Where are their extraor­dinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations? The Apostles spake with Tongues, and wrought Miracles: Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops, such Seals of their Apostleship? Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers, as of Popes, or Papalings? Must all be believed to be divinely inspired, who say they are? Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors? And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture, Isai. 8.20. Is not this a good­ly issue of Papal infallibility? Papists and Quakers are not such E­nemies as they would make the World believe. Some may think, perhaps, I play upon Romanists, when I charge them with Enthusi­asms, but I do them no wrong; it's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors. Stapleton controv. 4. q. 2. in explicat. Art. No­tab. 4. saith, That the Doctrine of the Church, undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge, is discursiva in mediis, but Prophetica & Divina in conclusionibus, Divine and Prophetical in the conclusi­ons, [Page 45]though only discursive in the premises. I doubt if more iudi­brious non-sense, concerning Enthusiasms, ever dropt from a Qua­ker. Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog. ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons, as repugnant to it self. For to use discourse to infer a conclusion, and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation, but only be sug­gested by Enthusiasm, or Divine Inspiration, est velle & nolle argu­mentari: Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depend­ing upon the premises, nor being inferred by them, but being di­vinely inspired, according to Stapleton, they cannot properly be con­clusions, but must be Divine Oracles; is not this to establish per­fect Enthusiasm? were this a truth, ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture? Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this; as Testefort the Domini­can, cited by Rivet, cap. cit. Sect. 9. who affirmed, Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romano­rum: And Melchior Canus, lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies, that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere. May I not here use the word of the Prophet, Jer. 23.28. What is the Chaff to the Wheat, saith the Lord? it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way, that ma­ny eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it, particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract. de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert, that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelati­ons: And the University of Paris, Anno 1626. emitted a Decree, condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort, as witnesses Rivet Isagog. cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome, I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry, cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively, which was the other branch of the Assumption, I argue against them thus: 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible, yea, and a publick ground (for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm) from which he deduces his definitions; and if the Judge antecedent­ly to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define, why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds, without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge? Cer­tainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith, which himself does [Page 46]not believe, but consequently to his own definition, and because he says it himself, or if he believe it before he define it, then an in­fallible visible Judge is not necessary; For that, without which Faith may be had, is not simply necessary to Faith, but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge, as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sen­tence; therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not sim­ply necessary to Faith: or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary, it will be necessary, and not necessary, necessary ex Hypothesi, not necessary, because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence. Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm, or else involves them in a contradiction? But secondly, this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith, is fallible in the premises, ergo, he is falli­ble also in the conclusion: The sequel is clear, it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises. Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae, yet nothing can ratione materiae, seeing, as Philosophers demonstrate, assensus conclusionis attingit objectum prae­missarum, if therefore the premises be false, the conclusion must be likewise false: The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists them­selves. Hence Stapleton, controv. 4. q. 2. in explic. art. Notab. 2. Ec­clesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem & peculiarem S. San­cti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non sem­per necessaria collectione uti. Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent sci­entiae divinae plenitudinem, sic de scipso dixit August. Epist. 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt, nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima. Let me now appeal all knowing persons, if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie, that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion, and not also in the premises: Were not the Apostles infallible in both? Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises, neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the con­clusion.

Arg. 5. It's impossible for Romanists, especially the Jesuited par­ty, according to their Principle, to know infallibly who is truly Pope, or which is truly a lawful Council; ergo, it's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of 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 [Page 47]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 Ʋrban 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 S [...]xti 5. that Six­tus 5. had come to the Papal Chair with as much innocency from S [...] ­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 Ʋrban 7. [Page 48] 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 Coun [...] of [...]rent were capable to be constituent members of a Council. The [...]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 [Page 49]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 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 [Page 50]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, Ʋrsinus, 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 J [...]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 [Page 15]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 Constantin [...]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 [Page 52]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 Council, the same judgment is to be passed on them.

Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid, why the Scriptures can­not be the ground of Faith, and terminate controversies of Religi­on, then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council, whether taken separately or conjunctly: For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils, as shall, God wil­ling, appear in the next Chapter.

It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture, Rea­son, and Antiquity, against this absurd position of Romanists, con­cerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge; but, I hope, these may suffice; who desiderate more, I remit them to Whittaker, con­trov. 3. de concil. q. 6. o [...]ntrov. 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet. Isagog. cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex. cap. tract. 5. cap. 5, 6. &c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse, together with H. H. Re­view of the Apology; to D. Shirman again, F. Johnson, to D. Stil­lingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Reli­gion, Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith, cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies, Art. 9. &c. As for the arguments which the Pamphle­ter attributes to us, from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous An­swers to divers of them, yet because they are of his own framing, and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster, I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto. Infallibility is a specious notion; but under pretence of an infallible Judge, to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture, to rest on the di­ctates of fallible and fallacious men, is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion, insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall, in his No Peace with Rome, Sect. 5. on this very account asserts, Reconcilia­tion with Rome to be impossible.

I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cres­sy, a late Apostate to Popery, Exomel. cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he ac­knowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility, and pro­fesses he could find no such word in any Council, that no necessity appeared to him, that he, or any Protestant, should ever have heard [Page 53]that word named, much less pressed with so much earnestness, as of late it hath been generally in Disputations, and in Books of Con­troversie; and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success; and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that no­tion. I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offend­ed at this freedom, made a kind of Retractation for this; but how disingenuously and unfortunately, is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith, Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131.

SECT. III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible vi­sible Judge, discussed.

IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections: They may be reduced to two Heads. 1. Scripture mistaken. 2. Abused Authority of Fathers. I shall take a little notice of both.

First then from Scripture, in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes to­gether these testimonies, Deut. 17.8. Mat. 18.17. Mat. 16.19. he should have said, Mat. 18.28. 20. 1 Tim. 3.13. he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth: And to make his Progress seem compleat, Was not (saith he) the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years, before any Scriptures were written. To which I reply: 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis: Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge? Ought he not then to make use of a medium, the Faith whereof doth not de­pend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge? Is not the Faith of the Scriptures, their Divine Original, the sincerity of the Translation, and sense of the words, grounded, according to this Romanist, upon the testimony of the infallible Judge? What a jugling circulation then is this, to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture; which, according to them, I cannot believe, till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge? How have Becan, Gretser, Turnbul, &c. toiled to sweating, to extricate themselves, yet still they remain shut up in a circle, believing the Scripture for the testimony of their in­fallible Judge, and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures, as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator. But secondly, Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause? [Page 54]For pag. 39. he asserts, That the Supreme Judicatory, whose Infalli­bility is proved by these Scriptures, is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church. Now sure it is, that there is no such General Council in the Church at present, nor do Roma­nists alledge there hath been any these hundred years. How imper­tinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual exi­stence of the infallible visible Judge? or if the General Council be that Judge, then it evidently follows, that the Church may be with­out that Judge, else General Councils should sit without intermissi­on. Thirdly, The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is, that Councils have Judiciary Authority, that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of con­troversies of Religion, and have peculiar promises of Divine Assi­stance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture, especially in things that are necessary to Salvation, providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God, which Protestants do not deny. If this were all intended by these Scriptures, non infertur elenchus: For hence it does not follow, that Councils shall always be, or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth, or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth, (far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals (such as were those that assembled at Trent) are a lawful Ge­neral Council, or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church, or infallibility in their decisions. Let all the Jesuits in Eu­rope try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any, or all those Scriptures. Fourthly, Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Roma­nists? Ought not this Pamphleter, had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader, have confuted the exceptions of Protestants a­gainst their Popish glosses? But it seems our Missionaries do so bru­tifie the reason of their Profelites, that they swallow down all their Dictates, how irrational soever, as infallible and unanswerable O­racles. I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums, ri­fling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study, I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short, but judicious Tractate of the nul­lity of the Romish Faith, where he will find all those Scriptures, and many more to this purpose, solidly vindicated: Deut. 17.8. in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17. in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19. in his cap. 2. Sect. 7, 8, 9. Mat. 28.20. in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15. in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly, lest I should dismiss the [Page 55]Reader with any dissatisfaction, I will give a touch of all the parti­culars mentioned in the Objection.

I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written. But what then? is the case then and now alike? then the Church had no written Scripture. Does it therefore follow, that now it hath none either? Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion? Quid hoc ad rhombum, Is that the question, whether the Church, that is, the Rulers or Pastors con­vened in a Synod, have a Juridical power? is not the question, whe­ther these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith? is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal? Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes, because they arrogate not Infallibility? If he would have concluded any thing, he should have said, in the Church, in those days, there was a standing ordi­nary infallible visible Judge, with Jurisdiction over the whole Church. If this he go about to prove, he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended. I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series, but now, it's like, they will ascend to Adam: I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes, but there I find not the Cata­logue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes, from the Creation until Moses time; which, if the Pamphleter look over his Chrono­logick Tables again, will be found to exceed 2000 years. In these times the Church had the same Doctrine, for substance, which now is written in the Scriptures, taught by Patriarchs and Prophets, and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity: But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity, therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries: Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old, Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100, and Sem out-lived Abraham: So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands, betwixt Adam and Abraham, for the space of more than 2000 years; and withal he raised extraordinary Pro­phets, as Enoch, and others. Yet notwithstanding all these extra­ordinary Adminicles, how soon was Religion corrupted, and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism? But laying aside extraordinary Prophets, which the Lord then and in after times rai­sed up, it's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove, that in that interstice of time, there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church; which if he [Page 56]prove not, he must let me tell him, peccat ignoratione elenchi.

I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two re­marks: The first is, that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture; M. Serjeant, and those of the Traditionary way, do only conclude from it, that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity. But the Jesuited party, as appears by this Pamphleter, would conclude from it, the necessity of an infallible visible Judge: Their disagreement in this, and other matters, are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infal­lible Judge, nor yet infallible Tradition. But secondly, Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith, Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument, for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing, after that the World had experienced the un­successfulness of the former way; it seems to be a good evidence, that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure: It being the way of Divine Dispensations, to proceed from that which is less perfect, to that which is more; and he conceives the Apostles rea­soning concerning the two Covenants, Heb. 8.7. to be very applica­ble to these two methods of conveying Religion. If the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the se­cond.

But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation, from Deut. 17.8. &c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed, in matters of Law and Religion, under pain of death. Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Chri­stian? The Jewish High-Priests did marry, neither were any capa­ble of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests: Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church? Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church, such as the Jewish was, shut up in one little spot of the earth, doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth? Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim, else they should have been infallible, not only in matters of Faith, but also of Fact: For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact, v. 8. between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men; and in such, Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible. In that Commission Deut. 17.8, 9. the [Page 57]Judge, or Civil Magistrate, is joyned with the Priests, and the peo­ple are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both, un­der pain of death. I suppose he will not, because of this, grant in­fallibility to the Magistrate; how then can he infer from it the infal­libility of the Church Representative? But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible? I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry, Exod. 33.4, 5. how Ʋriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar, after the Altar of Damascus, 2 King. 16.11. or what meant these general com­plaints, Isai. 56.10. Jer. 6.13. Jer. 14.14. Hos. 9.8. Ezek. 22.25, 26. &c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists, by Learned Whittaker, de Concil. q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire, whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err, when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer? if they did, as none but Infidels can deny, then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infalli­ble; only it may be asked, how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim, under pain of death, if they were not infallible? This Query might be answered by another: Do the Penal Statutes of Princes, under pain of death, prove them to be infallible? Was it not said to Joshua, Whosoever will not hearken to thee, let him be put to death? But I answer absolutely, that the active obedience to be gi­ven to the Jewish Sanedrim, was only when they gave sentence ac­cording to the Law. This is clear from the Text, v. 9, 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they inform thee, according to the sen­tence of the Law which they shall teach thee. Learned Rivet in Cathol. Orthod. tract. 1. q. 8. observes the place to be thus sensed by famous Authors in the Romish Church; by Cajetan, the Author of the Glos­sa Ordinaria, Lyranus, and Hierom Oleastrius; and that Lyranus from the restriction, according to the Law, refutes that absurd gloss of the Jewish Rabbins, that if the Judge should say that the right hand were the left, and the left hand the right, talis sententia est tenenda; like to which is that forecited saying of Bell. lib. 4. de Pon­tif. cap. 5. If the Pope command Vice, and prohibit Vertue, the Church were bound to believe Vice to be good, and Vertue evil: But we have not so learned Christ; the Judge was to give sentence ac­cording to the Law, or as Ezek 44.24. According to the Judg­ments of the Lord. I am not ignorant of the ordinary Cavil of Ro­manists, that then the people were to judge of the sentence of the Sane­drim, whether it were according to the Law. I distinguish: They were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim by an Authoritative Judg­ment; [Page 58]it does not follow, by a judgment of discretion, in order to their own practise, I grant. This Romanists cannot deny, unless they would devest the people of Reason, and turn them into Bruits. When Romish Missionaries labour to Proselite people to the Romish perswasion, do they not labour to convince them, that it's more ra­tional to believe their Church, than to adhere to the Religion of Protestants? Is not this to grant them a judgment of discretion? How then can they condemn us for that which themselves allow? Excellently said Clemens Alex. Stromat. lib. 7. [...]. I confess the Learned Grotius in loc. will not have these words, ac­cording to the Law, to be restrictive; yet he denies that from the place the infallibility of the Sanedrim can be concluded, the scope of the Statute being not to enjoyn all to believe what the Sanedrim did Decree, but only non contra agere, non contra docere; not to act or teach contrary to the sentence of the Sanedrim. How warrant­ably he thus glosses, is not my concern now to examine, only it over­turns the notion of infallibility.

But are we not commanded to hear the Church? Mat. 18.17. Yes. But does it therefore follow that the Church, that is, her Pastors as­sembled in a General Council, cannot err in matters of Faith? who would not smile at such an inference? Are we not also commanded, to hear not only the Catholick Church in her Oecumenick Councils, but also in National or Provincial Assemblies; yea, and particular Pastors, Luke 10.17. He that heareth you, heareth me: Yet Roma­nists, I hope, will not thence conclude either Provincial or National Assemblies, let be particular Pastors, infallible, Can any Romanist prove that the Church, Mat. 18.17. is only taken for a Pope, or General Council? Is there a Text in all the Bible where the Church signifies the Pope of Rome? I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to in­stance it if they can. Doth not the word Church, in this Scripture, comprehend all those Churches which cognosce of effences? if there­fore that Scripture furnish one argument for infallibility, then the particular Churches of Scotland and England might claim infallibili­ty as well as Rome: Is it not evident from that context, Mat. 18.17. that there we are commanded to hear and obey the Church in her Censures; and yet Romanists cannot deny, but in her Censures she may err, and proceed clave errante, because in her decisions of that kind, she depends on humane testimony. See Lombard lib. 4. sent. dist. 18. it's manifest therefore nothing can be concluded thence [Page 59]as to infallibility. But how then are we commanded to hear the Church? Answ. In so far as she adheres to her Commission, the Rule of Gods Word, and thus she cannot deceive us: if she or an Angel from Heaven go beyond that Rule, they are not to be heard, Gal. 1.8. Yet lastly, Giving, and not granting, that a General Council could not err, what's that to the Pope and his Schismatical Conventicles, which have no more of a General Council, praeter nomen inane.

But Matth. 16.18. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church? I ask what Church, if the invisible of the Elect; then it touches not the question in hand, concerning a visible Judge; if the Catholick visible Church in her diffusive capacity, then it's yet from the purpose, for as such she exercises no Juridical Power; if the Catholick visible in her Representatives, then he might as well con­clude her impeccability as her inerrability, for the Devil prevails o­ver Souls by sins of practise, as well as by errours in judgment. But it's confessed by all, that impeccability of Councils cannot be con­cluded, therefore neither inerrability. I must remember him that his Fellow Jesuit Tirin, as cited by Maresius, controv. 5. num. 3. says it's uncertain, whether the [...], against which should be constru­ed with the Rock, or with the Church; if it relate to the Rock, then the words only affirm, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Rock upon which the Church is built; which as Austin, and many other Fathers expound, is Christ himself, yet granting that it were here said, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail a­gainst the Church, how can it be proved, that when the Pope, or the major part of a General Council is smitten with a lesser Doctri­nal errour, that the Gates of Hell prevails against the Church? Hath he not heard the distinction, that albeit in such a case the Gates of Hell valent, yet non prevalent, they hurt the Church, but do not wholly overthrow the Church. To conclude, all that I suppose can be inferred from that Scripture is, that the whole Catholick visible Church shall not err in Fundamentals. Indeed if the whole diffu­sive did err in Fundamentals, the Gates of Hell should prevail, then the Church should be extinguished. But to prove the inerrability of the Pope and his Council from this Scripture, the Pamphleter may improve all the assistance Rome can give him in his next Reply.

But hath not Christ promised to his Church, Mat. 28.20. Loe, I am with you to the end of the world? Answ. If every one be infallible who have a promise that God will be with them, then every Belie­ver [Page 60]may claim infallibility because of the promise, Joh. 14.23. Is the presence and assistance of Christ with every one in the same mea­sure and degree wherein it was to be with the Apostles? Is not the promise of the presence of Christ Mat. 28.20. conditionel? Doth he not say. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com­manded you; and then, Loe (in so doing) I am with you to the end of the world. Hath not then the Church of Rome forfeited her Claim to this Promise, by enjoyning many things directly contra­ry to the Command of Jesus Christ, such as the Communion under one kind, worshipping Images, invocaring Saints, &c.

Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3.15. Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth; to which, on all occasions, they flee as the chief support of their infallibility, but in vain. For first, were I disposed to Criticise, I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes, that the Greek word [...], signifies not only a Pillar, but also a writing Pensil, so as the Church may be termed, Stylus veritatis, or the Pensil of Truth, because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth, which may be done by the Ministry of the Word, though she have no infal­lible visible Judge. I might likewise advertise him, that Heinsius, as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra, affirms that [...] also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doth stand or sit; and that the other word [...], coming from [...], a Seat may be much of the same importance, and then the sense will be, the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth: So as all truths necessary to Salvation, are always to be found in her, and in no other Society. Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour, than because she is the Seat of true Ho­liness, it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin. Perhaps secondly, the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them (among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth) who joyn these words, The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church, but with that which follows; and so the meaning will be, that the great Mystery of Godliness, mentioned vers. 16. is the Pil­lar and ground of Truth, that is a chief Article of Faith and Re­ligion, as the Jews term the points of their Religion, Fundamen­ta & Radices. Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides, as Camero ob­serves, begins his Book, Fundamentum Fundamentorum & columna sapientiae est eagn secre esse primum ens, &c. Does it not appear a lit­tle harsh (to use the arguings of Mares. controv. 5. cont. Tirin num. 3) [Page 61]that the Church be called the House of God, and also a Pillar in one sentence? A House may have Pillars, but the House and the Pillar are not the same. Seems it not probable, that the Apostle having described the Church, as the House of God, should then point at these Foundation-Truths, which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pil­lar which supports the House? Some, I confess, of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero, among whom are Gul. Rivet, Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus, and Ra­vanel. But with Reverence to these Learned men, I must crave leave to say, their Arguments against it seem at best but topical. Thirdly, May not Chillingworth's notion, Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability, who by the Pillar and ground of Truth, un­derstands not the Church, but Timothy, and so there is an elepsis of the Particle [...] or [...]; which is frequent in Scripture, as if it were [...], and the meaning will be, that thou mightest beh [...]ve thy self in the Church, which is the House of God, as a Pil­lar And thus not only Apostles, as Peter, James, and John, Gal. 2.9. but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars. Naziau­zen gives the like Titles Orat. 19. to Basil, and Orat. 21. to Athana­sius. So Basil Epist. 62. honours the Bishop of Neo-Caesarea with this very Title of [...]; therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible, which I sup­pose none will affirm, or if they did not, then they did not think these words to import infallibility. But fourthly, Granting it be said of the Church, yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest, many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephe­sine Church: Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church, what is that to the Roman, she being at the best but a particular Church? But whether universal or particular Church be here meant, yet if it be not the Church Representative, it makes nothing to the pur­pose in hand concerning the visible Judge. But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing, that thou (says he to Timo­thy) mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God, which is the Church; that is, how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge. Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth, as well as now? yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem, she ne­ver assembled in a General Council; ergo, her being Pillar and [Page 62]ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility. But fifthly, Gi­ving, and not granting, that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church, yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it: Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense, because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth; as a Programme, affixed to a Pillar is exposed to pub­lick view of others, but not in an Architectonick sense, as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth; espe­cially seeing, as Irenaeus saith, lib. 3. cap. 11. eolumna & firmamen­tum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum. The written Gospel (for of that he there speaks) is the ground and Pillar of the Church; yea, and Hierom, as cited by a Lapide on the place, writeth thus; Ecclesia est columna & firmamentum veritatis, quia in ea sola stat veritas firma­ta, quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae. If the truth alone, as Hierom says, doth sustain the Church, then doth not the Church in an Archi­tectonick sense sustain the Truth: yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper, Witness, Propounder, and Defender of the Truth. Why may not this phrase, the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth, hold forth the Churches duty, what, de jure, she ought to do, and not what always, de facto, is her practise infallibly? Though Rom. 13.3. it be said, that Rulers are not a terrour to good works, but to evil; yet the Romanists will not grant, that Magistrates do al­ways and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth, because there he speaks what's their duty, not what always is their practise. Why may not the Church be called a Pillar, in regard of solidity, though not in regard of infallibility, to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth, though not the impossibility? But sixthly, as Chillingworth loc. cit. Sect. 78. does further acutely observe concern­ing this Scripture; though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth, not only because she ought, but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth, yet Romanists lose their design, unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure. That in the Catholick Church all Truths, necessary to Salvation, shall be preserved, is acknowledged by Pro­testants; but Romanists have to prove, that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point, which they will hardly evict from this place, in which the Note of Universality is wanting, however the Church be said to be the Pil­lar and ground of Truth, yet not of all Truth. Seventhly and last­ly, Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Aposto­lick [Page 63]Church, in that time when the Apostle wrote, does it there­fore follow, ergo, she is now infallible. It's confessed, that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church, endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles, the case of the Church so requi­ring, for founding the Gospel Church, and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture; but it doth not follow, that it shall be so in eve­ry Age, neither do the necessities of the Church require it. Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility: whether they prove his Thesis, let them who are not willing to be deceived, judge.

The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity. Pag. 39, 40, 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader, he hath gathered up from their Manuals, Pamphlets, and Controversie Books, a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, both the Cyrils, Ambrose, Eusebius, and Austin; asserting, that the Church shall not fail, or be adulterated with Heresie.

To all which I answer: First, that none of these contain the sen­tence of an infallible, visible, or living Judge; they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead; and so, ac­cording to his own Priuciples, are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for. I answer secondly, that some of these are grosly mis [...]cited, particularly the first from Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus, there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Priu­ter, for it's again cited the same way, pag. 102. But I must ex­cuse him, for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies, Art. 5. (from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies) mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner, for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Roma­nism discussed, Art. 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes: But by the words of the testimony, I per­ceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus, cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book, following there also his Guide H. T. loc. cit. but by the words, I likewise suspect, it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly, I answer, that in none of all these testimonies ci­ted by him, is there any mention of the Roman Church, of the Pope of Rome, or of Councils swearing subjection to him, but of the Catholick Church in general; so that whatever be of these te­stimonies, [Page 64]they make nothing for the Papal interest; yet, as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church, here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me, because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster, I had made mention of an eminent person, who considering the supercilious­ness of the Bishop of Rome, did break forth into these words, Odi fastum istius Ecclesiae. Now I only ask, whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great, who Epist. 10 hath a sharp reflection upon [...], the pride of the Western or Romish Church. But fourthly, not to trifle time in a particular examina­tion of these testimonies, which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers, and divers of them lately by M. Tombs, loc. cit. as Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, to which the rest seem on the mat­ter homogeneous (except it be that of Austin, Epist. 118. which speaks of the power of the Church, in reference to things indiffe­rent, and so concerns not the matter in hand) I answer to them all in cumulo, that they are wholly impertinent to the present De­bate, for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge; far less assert the necessity thereof, some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church, that she cannot be overthrown, and cease to be, as Ambrose, Chrys [...]st. Eusebius; the rest hold forth, that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church: So that their utmost significancy, is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths, which are necessary to Salvation, and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie, or perish, which Protestants do freely grant. And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand; for the question is not, whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation, but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Ju­risdiction over the whole Catholick Church, who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision, of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies. This is so evidently the meaning of them, that the Pamphleter did foresee, pag. 41. it would be replied to him, that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity; and there­upon, without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken, he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testi­monies, which he emendicates, for most part, from Bell. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church, and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand. But before I come to examine them, I must, in the fifth place, re­tort [Page 65]the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies a­gainst the Romish Church, thus; the true Catholick Church is never adul­terated with Heresie, nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints, say these testimonies of Fathers; but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith de­livered to the Saints, as appears by her gross Innovations, such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Half Communion, Invocation, and Worshipping of Saints de [...]eased, and Angels, Relicks, Images, Cros­ses, performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue, and the rest of her Errours and abuses, manifestly repugnant to Scrip­tures, and the Faith of the Primitive Church, as hereafter may be particularly cleared; ergo, the Roman is not the true Catholick Church, consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him, that they cut the throat of his own Cause.

His next bundle of testimonies, pag. 42, 43. do indeed speak of Councils, but make nothing for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge, as is largely demonstrated by Whittaker, de concil. q. 6. cap. 2. Davenant de Jud. controv. cap. 19. and Spalat. lib. 7. de Repub. Ec­cles. cap. 3. I shall give but a few brief Animadversions concerning them. And first, this bundle of testimonies speaks only of Councils, and consequently not of an infallible visible Judge, without which the Church cannot subsist, there having been whole Ages without Ge­neral Councils. Secondly, I shall not stand now to accuse the Pam­phleter of mis-citations, though the testimony which he ascribes to Basil is not to be found in Epist. 10. nor that he gives to Pope Leo in Epist. 64. And though there be not a tenth Book of Cyril de Trinitate, unless it be meant of his other work entituled Thesaurus, if either Posse­vin in apparatu, or Bell. de Scriptoribus Eccles. give a right account of his works, Yea, the whole Treatise de Trin. is concluded supposititious by Bell. de Script. Eccles. yet I confess Bell. lib. 9. de concil. cap. 3. would be making use of the same testimony from Cyril, (for it is usual with the Cardinal to make a Muster of Testimonies, which himself knew to be spurious) but he cites it not as this Pamphleter, from lib. 10. but from lib. 1. de Trin. All I say of such escapes is, that he would take better heed the next time that he transcribes his cita­tions, from Bellarmine: But I cannot let him pass with another more egregious prevarication; for what Leo, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril spake particularly of the Decrees of the Nicene and Chalcedon Councils against Nestorians, Arrians, and Eutychians, the Pamphleter cites as spoken of all Councils. We [Page 66]grant the first four General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephe­sus, and Chalcedon, did de facto define faithfully, according to the Scriptures; but doth it therefore follow, that all Councils shall not only do so, but also that they cannot do otherwise, or are infallible? Thirdly, It's true that Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 24. says, he honours the first four General Councils, as he does the four Evangelists: But it's as true he says also, he honours likewise the fifth General Council, which condemned Pope Vigilius as an Heretick: if therefore Grego­ries Authority be Authentick, the Jesuited party is deceived, who make the Papal Chair the Seat of Infallibility. He might also have remembred, that Bell. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 12. confesses, that the forecited testimony of Greg. hath need of a qualification; and there­fore says that Gregories sicut, is a note of similitude, not of equality; otherwise the Cardinal cannot deny but Greg. over reached. By this still the impertinency of the titation is obvious, for it amounts to this, Greg. said the first four General Councils defined Ortho­doxly; ergo; all Councils are infallible. Such is the ludibrious in­consequence of what he objects, concerning the esteem which Con­stantine had of the Nicene Council. Is this the question betwixt us and Romanists, whether the Decrees of the Nicene Council against Ar­rius were Orthodox? Fourthly, Austin indeed, Epist. 162. calls the Sentence of an Occumenick Council, the last Sentence that can be ex­pected on Earth. But how inconsequent is it from thence to inferre the infallibility of Councils? Is every Supreme Court infallible? Fifthly, He cites Vincentius Lyrin Commonit. cap. 4. (I suppose he should have said cap. 41.) saying, all are to be accounted Hereticks, who do not conform themselves to the Deerees of Oecumenick Councils. It were enough to referre him to D. Barrons Apod. Cathol. tract. 5. cap. 18. where at length is demonstrated, that Vincentius maintain­ed not the infallibility of Councils: Nay, Vincentius cap. 3. propo­ses two means for avoiding Heresie; the one, and the principal, is the Authority of the Sacred Scriptures; the other (which we never disclaimed in its own place) is the universal and perpetual Tradi­tion of the Catholick Church; namely, quod ab omnibus, ubique, & semper est creditum. What he speaks cap. 41. of conformity with Councils, is not for the decision of all controversies, as himself de­clares, nor is it by the sentence of a present living Judge, but of Ancient Councils, and that in so far, as they hold out what hath been the Universal Tradition of the Church: And therefore when they are found incompetent for decision of controversies, Recurren­dum [Page 67](saith he) ad Sanctorum Patrum sententias; to the unanimous suffrage of Fathers, which is far from the Tenet of the Pamphle­ter, concerning a present living infallible Judge. And though Vin­centius doth magnifie Universal Tradition, yet it is without dero­gation from the holy Scriptures; and therefore he saith in that place, cap. 41. Non quia Canon sibi solus ad universa non sufficiat, not that the Canon of Scripture is not of it self alone sufficient for all things, but only in a secondary room, as being explicative of the holy Scriptures. Sixthly, He brings Austin lib. 1. de bapt. cont. Don. cap. 7. affirming, that no doubt ought to be made of what is e­stablished by full Decree of a Council: But Austin affirms no such thing, all that Austin says is, that there have been various Decrees concerning Rebaptizing in Provincial Councils, Donec plenario to­tius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubita­tionibus firmaretur; which imports no more, but that by the Decrees of an Oecumenick Council, truth may be so cleared, as to remove all grounds of doubting: But it doth not follow, because a Council may clearly define truth, that therefore every Council shall infalli­bly define so: Nay, on the contrary, Austin in the same cap. holds all definitions beside Scripture to be but humane, Ne videar (saith he) humanis agere argumentis—ex Evangelio profero certa docu­menta; i. e. lest I should seem to deal with humane arguments,— I bring certain evidences from the Gospel; and lib. 2. cap. 3. he af­firms, that subsequent General Councils may correct the Decrees of former Plenary Councils, and that in matters of Faith, as I shew before; and therefore he supposes that General Councils themselves are fallible. Seventhly, That trivial argument which he uses, That the Fathers were wont to subscribe the Canons of General Councils, and annexed Anathema's against those who did oppose them, concludes no more for the infallibility of General Councils, then of Provincial Synods, the same also being done in them, yea in Heretical Coun­cils also: it therefore only imports, that they who pronounced A­nathema's, believed that hic & nunc, they had defined truly, but not that they judged all Councils, in all their decisions infallible.

That testimony of Austin's, contra Epist. fundi cap 5. so oft object­ed by Romanists, is also insisted upon by this Pamphleter; Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas; Knew not this Pamphleter how oft this testimony hath been canva­sed by Protestants? Ought he not therefore to have let it alone, or then to have confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish [Page 68]inferences from it? I shall say but these few things thereof; And 1. It might be enough, as to the present controversie, to tell that Austin does not say, except the Authority of a present infallible vi­sible Judge did move me. 2. It savours of deceit, that the Pam­phleter has left out the word Catholicae; it's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of, not the Roman. But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter, for he found it also so mutilated in H. T's Manual loc. cit. 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words, which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the ne­cessity of an infallible visible Judge? Whether they be expounded with Gerson, of the Apostolick Church, Eorum qui Christum viderunt & audiverunt, or with Occam, of the Universal diffusive Church: Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge. But fourthly, Melchior Canus, lib. 2. loc. com. cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin, viz. that he speaks not of the formal object in­to which his belief was resolved, or of the Primary Rule of Faith, but only of a motive, which when he was a Manichaean, first indu­ced him to credit the Scriptures; and so, according to the African Dialect, he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit, commoveret for commovisset, which Rivet in Isagog. cap. 3. confirms by many par­rallel phrases out of Austin. And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility, which Protestants do not deny. This is the more probable, because Austin tract. 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria: But sure it is, her testimony was but an introdu­ctive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens, not the formal ob­ject, or principal ground thereof. Hence, said they, Joh. 4.42. Now we believe not for thy Saying, but because we have heard him our selves. 5. Not to add more, Learned Calovius de Author. Script. Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin, that an old Copy, printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius, reads it thus: Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoneret. It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v: And this read­ing does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet, Melchior Ca­nus, and others, as if the testimony of the Church were Commoni­torium quoddam, non principium fidei, a certain Commonitory, not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith. What is said of this place, may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book, cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given; one is, that Austin uses the proeter per­fect [Page 69]time, Quia per eos illi credideram, another is, Si forte in E­vangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potue­ris; where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly, without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge. And thirdly, He clearly holds forth that the Church, of whose Authority he there speaks, is not to be restricted to any visible Judge, but to be ex­tended to the Body of sound Christians; and therefore calls it Ca­tholicorum Authoritatem. This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church, for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church, from the consent of People and Nations, from that Authority which was begun by Miracles, nourished by Hope, encreased by Cha­rity, and confirmed by continuance. Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church. By this time, I hope it appears, that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge, are either false citations, or meer Paralogisms.

To shut therefore up this discourse, I cannot but notice that or­dinary Cheat of Romanists, when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church; these they appropriate to their Roman, that is, to their infallible visible Judge, who, in the sense of the Je­suited party, is the Pope: However, to decline the odium, they seem to talk of a Council: An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites, pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin, Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes ho­nourable mention of the Catholick Church, but hath not one word through all that Sermon; of the Roman, or of an infallible visible Judge, yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scrip­ture; and therefore concludes, cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat, Scrip­tura evidens est, Authoritas fundatissima est, fides Catholicissima est, in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument, he draws a confirmation, a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism, holding Infants for Believers, and not from any definition of a visible Judge, and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church, cap. 14.18.21. which surely must be understood of that Church, from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians; but that was not from the Roman Church, nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge, but from the practise of the Catholick, and that founded in Scripture. Hence those two go together in him, Hoc ha­bet [Page 70]Authoritas matris Ecclesiae, hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon. What, I pray, is that established Canon of Truth, but the Holy Scripture? I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them, cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae, to shake the Founda­tion of the Church: Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church, whether Papists or Protestants. Two Foundations I find in holy Writ; one is Christ Jesus, according to that of the Prophet Isai. 28.16. Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation, a Stone, a tryed Stone, a precious Corner stone, a sure Foundation; which is luculently expounded of Christ, 1 Pet. 2.4, 5, 6, 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation, when he is bold Praesat. ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome, as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church? O execrable Blas­phemy! Again, the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church: Hence is that Ephes. 2.20. Built upon the Foundati­on of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone; that is, on the holy Scriptures written by them. Did not Jesuit Baylie snake this Foundation, when he was not afraid to say, that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture, than to Titus Livius, were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church. Let ne­ver my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers: Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church; but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they? Should the City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom, would it not over­turn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland, when the Roman Church, which at her best was but a member of the Catholick, does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole, and imperiously would ob­trude Heretical Doctrines, and Idolatrous Superstitions, by a pre­tended Infallible Authority; is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church? And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome, Contra hunc in­expugnabilem murum quisquis arietat, Confringetur.

SECT. I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists.

IN the first place, They are not afraid to speak most contumeli­ously of the Scriptures, calling them A Nose of Wax, a Lesbian Rule, inkie, unsensed Characters, a dead Letter, &c. It is from Mel­chior Canus, Allertus Pighius, Coster the Jesuit, and other Romanists, that the Quakers have learned these, or such like Blasphemies.

Secondly, They make the Authority of the Scriptures, as to us, to depend upon the testimony of their Church. So Gordon of Huntly, con­trov. 2. de Eccles. cap. 15. and Gretser Append ad. lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col. 39. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Her­mannus, that the Scriptures should be of no more value, than Aesops Fables, without the Churches testimony. Yet Gretser the Jesuit is dis­pleased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy; yea Cardinal Hosius in Consutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author. Sacrae Scripturae, [Page 72]pag. 148. edit. 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say, Illud pio sensie potuisse dici, that it might have been spoken in a pious sense; and withal adds this reason, Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Autho­ritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet; that is, for truly if the Authority of the Church, he means the Roman, did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture, it would have exceeding litle weight with us: From that Romish Atheistical Piety, good Lord deliver us. Learned Rivet in Isagog. ad script. cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie, Coster, Petrus Simonis de Toledo, and other Romanists.

Thirdly, Romanists have confidence to affirm, that the Original Scriptures are corrupted. So Gordon of Huntly, controv. 1. cap. 8, 9, 11, 12. Melchior Canus loc. com. lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius, Mori­nus Tirin, &c. Yea, this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove, that the Scriptures are corrupted, both in the Originals, and in the Translations. Is not this to accuse the Provi­dence of God, as suffering the Scriptures, which he had given to lead us to Salvation, to be corrupted? Is it not to charge the Catho­lick Church of unfaithfulness, that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum? How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be, when his Infallibility cannot be maintained, unless the ho­ly Scriptures be discredited as corrupt, the Catholick Church accu­sed of unfaithfulness, and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures?

Fourthly, Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures, that they preser the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine, before the Origi­nals of the Old and New Testament. Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit. What confusion and uncertainty they labour under, as to the Author of it, may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena. Isagog. Sac. script. lib. 1. difficult. 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours; and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent, was corrected by Sixtus Quintus, that of Sixtus by Cle­ment the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours; nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour: And yet the Council of Trent, passing by the Origi­nals, pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture: Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit. difficult. 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin. Such folly is wittily checked by Hicrom, Epist. 102. ad Marcelldm. Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi [...]nosos bibant rivulos.

Fifthly, Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection, as not em­taining all the material Objects of Faith. So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei, cap. 3, 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys. fidei, lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly, controv. 1. de verb. Dei, cap. 28. num. 4. says, that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture: Nay, D Beard in Retract. Mat. 6. reports, that Hosius should have dared to say, Me­lius actum fuisse cum Ecclesia si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium; it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no writ­ten Gospel. I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy. doth not the Council of Trent Sess. 4. define, that unwritten Traditions are to be received pa [...]i pietatis affectu, with the same reverence and devotion, as the Scripture it self. Yea, they magnifie Tradition above the ho­ly Scripture. Hence Spondanus, the Epitomator of Baronius, spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num. 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scrip­turas, that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures, and confirms it by this reason, Quod Scripturae non subsisterent, nisi Tra­ditionibus firmarentur, Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem.

Sixthly, Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity, with such obscurity, ambiguity, and multitude of desperate senses, that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation, but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge. Hence are many of those ignomini­ous expressions, which Coster, Melchior Canus, Pighius, and others, belch out against the Scripture, as suffering themselves to be wire­drawn by any interpretation. Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys. fidei, cap. 2. is bold 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 I [...]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 [Page 74]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 [Page 75]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 [Page 76]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, [Page 77]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. Wh [...]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: [Page 78]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 believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith. There be great [Page 79]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 [Page 81]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, thou [...]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 Mar­tyrs, of all Sexes and Ages, under most exquisite torments, whose resoluteness could not proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit, affectation of vain-glory, want of sense of their sufferings, or Philosophical fortitude, but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures? Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles, wrought not in corners, or only among Favourites, but in the open view of the world, in the face of saga­cious and desperate Enemies, who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them? Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scrip­ture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven? among whom were The [...]p [...]mpus and Theodectes, one of whom, as Eusebius lib. 8. de prae­par Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus, was smitten with Mad­ness, and the other with Blindness, for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures? Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Con­sciences, beyond all natural force, both for terrour and comfort, yea, and for sanctification also? And besides, are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures? such as [Page 82]the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts, the unfathomable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries, which though Reason could never find out, yet being once discovered, Reason it self cannot but ac­knowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls, the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile, the won­derful methods for satisfying Divine Justice, reconciling sinners to God, and pacifying afflicted Consciences. And lastly, not to men­tion more, the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness, and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness, by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable; insomuch that it's beyond controversie amongst Christi­ans, though otherwise of various perswasions, that the Scripture is the Word of God: Hence Bell, is forced to say, lib. 1. de verb. Dei, cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius, nihil est notius; and a little after, Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima, tutissimaque est, that is, the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing: Nay more, he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures, his words are, Ʋt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget.

Secondly, If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things ne­cessary to Salvation, they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them, which is Joh. 20.31. That we may believe, and believing have eternal life. If it be answered, that they accom­plish their end, in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church, or by the definitions of the infallible Judge, this is ea­sily repelled, because either the Church, and the infallible Judge, gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly pro­pound from Scripture, or not: if from Scripture, then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly, else could they not have been gathered from Scripture: if the Church, and the supposed infallible Judge, have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture, then the Scriptures does not, cannot effectuate the end for which it was made, viz. to work Faith in us, and to guide us to Eternal Life, but that end is brought about by the Church, and by other means. Romanists (to use the phrase of a late Writer) represent God speak­ing in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles, that the Pope, and his Parasites, may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world. But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers, lib. 10. de Trinit. is no less excellent than famous, Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam nocat quaestiones—In absoluto nobis & facili est aeternitas. How [Page 83]impious is it to say, that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures? Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived, to satisfie dif­ferent interests? Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof? Though Papists, and other Hereticks, do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible, yet doth not their own practice, at other times, confute them? Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions? How imper­tinent were this kind of arguing, if Scripture were not intelligible? Neither can it be said, that they argue thus only, ad hominem, against us; for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures, yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures, and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us, unless they sup­posed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true: Yea, does not this Pamphleter, pag. 106, 107, 108, 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express a­gainst the Doctrine of Protestants? These Scriptures shall be consider­ed in their own place: Now only, doth not his alledging them, sup­pose them intelligible, especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them? 'Tis true, there be obscure places in Scripture, yet as Austin lib. de util. credendi cap. 6. excellently observes, the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures, ut nemo inde haurire non pos­sit quod sibi satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devotè & piè, ut vera Re­ligio p [...]scit, accedat; i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation, providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer. And again, Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris, ibi fames pel­litur, hic sastidium; i. e. clear Scriptures feed us, obscure places ex­ercise us; by the one our hunger is satisfied, by the other our loathing is prevented. And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum, before his Commen­taries on Job, the Scripture is a River, Planus & altus, in quo & agnus ambulet, & Elephas natet, both shallow and deep, wherein a Lamb may walk, and an Elephant swim.

Thirdly, Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith? Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation? 2 Tim. 3.15. How could they accomplish this end, if they did not con­tain all that is necessary to salvation? If Romanists run to their old Evasion, that what is wanting in the Scripture, is supplied by the Church, they are readily contuted, for then the Scripture were not [Page 84]able to make us wise to salvation, but the Church by other means should do it: If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture, either they are more sublime than these in Scripture, or not: Not more sublime: Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, all which are undoubtedly in Scripture. If then they be but inferiour Truths, seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to wri­ting, how kept he up those inferiour Truths? But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in 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 [Page 85]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 [Page 86]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 [...]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, [Page 87]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 Phil [...]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 [Page 88] 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. H [...]m. 13. calls the Scriptures [...], the exact Ballance, Rule, and Canon or all things: Greg Nyssen lib. [...]. c [...]nt. Eunom. in Append. operum Basilii, [...], that is, Jesui [...] Gretser being Interpreter, In omni d [...]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 that he puts in the word sola in the Text, which was not in the Original: Car. Molinaeus says Calvin in his Harmony, makes the Text trip up and down, Castalio ac­cuses Beza 's Translation of many errours, M. Parkes taxes the Geneva Translation of many errours, and so doth M. Burges, and Hugh Brough­ton, our English Version; yea Broughton says, that it causes millions of Souls to run to eternal flames, and in the Versions made under Q. Eli­zabeth, and K. James, there be many diversities; sometimes that put in the Text which was in the Margin, and that in the Margin which was in the Text.

To this first Atheistical invective against the holy Scriptures, which for most part is stoln from Breerly, Apol. tract. 1. Sect. 10. subdivis. 4. and tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis. 2. I answer first by retortion. This Objection militates as strongly against Romanists, as against us: For after the same manner it may be enquired, whether the definiti­ons of their Church, or infallible visible Judge, namely, the Decre­tals [Page 90]of Popes, and Canons of Councils, be the ground of their Faith and Religion in the Languages wherein they were first given out, viz. in Greek, or Latin, or as Translated? Not as Translated, be­cause the Translations are not Authentical, but in so far as they agree with the Principals, and the Principals by many are not understood: But besides, what assurance can they have that those Originals are not corrupted in the conveyance by fallible men? Have not Learned Criticks discovered, that many supposititious Decretals, and Canon [...] of Councils, are obtruded on the Christian world by Romanists? Hath not Isidore Clarius, a Popish Writer, noted as many Errours in the Vulgar Latin Version, as any of those, mentioned in the Obje­ction, have alledged in the Versions of Protestants? consequently Romanists themselves must confess this Argument of the Pamphleter to be a Sophism, seeing it overturns also the ground of their Religi­on: Nay, the same Cavil might have been moved against the Ancient Christian Church, for in her also there were many who understood not the Hebrew Text; yea, some of the Fathers had little under­standing of that Language; then also there were innumerable Latin Translations, made by fallible persons, witness Austin, lib. 2. de doct. Christi. cap. 10. & 11. though he do prefer cap. 15. the Italian Tran­slation to the rest; yet so far was the Ancient Church from esteem­ing it perfect, that Hierom judged it needful to make a new Tran­slation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew, as himself re­ports, lib. de viris illustribus cap. ult. and to correct the errours of the Vulgar Version of the New Testament out of the Greek; which work he undertook and performed, at the request of Damasus Bi­shop of Rome, as appears by Hierom, Epist. 123. Praefat. ad Evang­ad Damas. and by Cassiod Instit. lib. 1. cap. 12. Doth not the Pam­phleter behave himself like an Atheist, seeing his Objections against us militate against Christianity it self? Is not this a strong demonstra­tion, that our Religion is the true Christian Religion, that the Ar­guments of Papists against us are the Cavils which Infidels might use against Christianity it self?

Secondly, Therefore leaving retorsion, I answer absolutely, that Scripture, both in the Originals, and when faithfully translated, is the Rule of Faith. If an Ambassadour deliver his mind by an Inter­preter, are not the words of the Interpreter the words of the Am­bassadour? Was not the Faith of the Ephesians built upon the Foun­dation of the Prophets and Apostles? Ephes. 2.20. But it cannot be supposed with any probability, that all the Ephesians did understand [Page 91]the Originals of the Prophets writings, for they were not Jews; therefore surely their Faith has been built on translated Scripture: Neither can Christs Command of searching the Scriptures, Joh. 5 39. be restricted to the Originals only, seeing himself, and the Apostles, did frequently cite the Scriptures according to the Version of the 70. Neither say Chamier, Featly, or D. Barron, any thing contrary to this, for they only deny Versions to be the Rule of Faith, in so far as they disagree from the Originals; yea, then to speak properly, they are not Translations at all: I notice not much the wrong Cita­tion of Chamier, in whose lib. 1. cap. 2. there is not a Sect. 15. for the Pamphleter shews himself to be as implicite in his Citations, as in his Faith.

Only it may be replied, How can illiterate persons resolve their Faith upon a translated Bible, seeing they cannot examine its conformity or disconformity with the Original, they being ignorant of the Lan­guage? But it may as easily be retorted, How can an illiterate man resolve his Faith upon the definition of the Council of Trent, or up­on the Doway or Rhemist Translations, or upon a Bull or Decretal of the Pope, seeing he cannot examine if these be faithfully transla­ted from the Latin? What answer Romanists give, we can give the same. Had not the Pamphleter been disposed to quarrel, he might have found this difficulty copiously cleared in that Cap. of D. Bar­rons Apodex. which himself cited, viz. tract. 1 cap. 2. Shortly then, for satisfaction of the Reader, I answer, that a person unskilled in the Original Language, may not only have a humane moral certain­ty of the conformity of his English Bible with the Original, upon the testimony of a Protestant Church, and Learned Pastors, but also as Camero in his excellent tractat. de notis quibus verbum Dei in specie dignoscitur Not. 3. observes, there is a special Divine Character in the Scriptures, which is not to be restricted to the Original Languages, but individually inherent to the Doctrine of Scripture in whatso­ever Language, if it be faithfully translated, which the Author doth there copiously illustrate. Among other things, he uses this example, pag. 32. Some of Averroes writings are translated into ve­ry barbarous Latin, yet there is no judicious Reader (saith he) but will discern Averroes to have been a most Eloquent man, the Tropes, Figures, and Metaphors, being kept in the Version. He compares a faithful Translation to a Picture drawn with Ink, by which we may discern the lineaments and comeliness of the person represented thereby, though not the colour. So albeit there be some things acci­dental [Page 92]in the Original Language which a Translation cannot ex­press, yet still there is as much as may manifest the Divine Original of the Scriptures. For further satisfaction in this thing, I shall com­mend to the sincere Lover of Truth, the perusal both of that Tra­ctate of Camero, and of an excellent little Treatise of D. Owen, of the Divine Original, Authority, and self-evidencing light and power of the Scriptures. Neither ought it seem strange to any, that there should be such a self-evidencing light in the Doctrines of sal­vation contained in holy Scripture, yea, there is a kind of necessity it must be so, considering the posture of humane affairs. For seeing the World is divided into so many various Languages, whether the Lord thought fit to reveal the Doctrine of salvation by a written In­strument, such as the Scriptures, or by the definition of a visible Judge, as Papists pretend, yet it behoved to be delivered in some one Language; and seeing those Truths were, by the confession of both Parties, to be conveyed to others of different Languages, by the means of fallible persons, either there behoved to be an intrinfick e­vidence in the Doctrine, to shew that it came from God, which we affirm, or the most part of the world should only have a moral and humane certainty of those Mysteries of salvation, which the plura­lity, both of Papists and Protestants, do judge insufficient to salva­tion. It's no Phanatical Enthusiasm therefore to say, that souls en­lightned by the Spirit of God, without the knowledge of Greek or Hebrew Languages, in a faithfully translated Bible, may see the won­ders of Gods Law. I say no more than Cassiod. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 16. Quid in illis literis utilitatis & suavitatis non invenies, si purissimo lumine mentis intendas; i. e. What spiritual utility or suavity will not be found in those divine writings, if thou look on them with a pure eye? Neither doth he restrict this to the Original Languages; and therefore cap. 21. speaking of Hierom, Beatus Hicronymus, saith he, Latinae Linguae dilatator eximius, qui nobis in Translatione Divi­nae Scripturae tantum praestitit, ut ad Hebraeum sontem paene non [...]gea­mus acc [...]dere. He so highly commends Hieroms Translation of Scrip­ture, as if there were not much more need of the Original; and therefore supposes that translated Scripture could be a ground of Faith. Learned Hornbeck Part. 1. Theol. pract. lib. 1. cap. 3. records many instances of holy persons, both Ancient and Modern, who felt a divine convincing and converting power in the Scriptures, such as is not to be found in any other writing: What serious Christian can but acknowledge, that there is a s [...]upendious Majesty yet tempered with [Page 93]an admirable sweet condiscention in the Scriptures? Though there be sublime Mysteries in holy Writ, which Natural Reason could ne­ver have discovered, yet all of them are wonderfully suited for car­rying on the work of a sinners salvation, the like whereof is not to be found in any other Religion whatsoever: Whereupon Learned Divines do conclude, that in the Complex of the Principal, or Fun­damental Doctrines of Christianity, is an intrinsick evidence of their Divine Original. And concerning the stile of holy Scripture, Camero hath an excellent expression, Tom. 3. pag. 138. Est divinum aliquid in Scripturae stilo quod effari non possum, persentiscitur tamen; i. e. there is some divine thing in the stile of holy Scripture which I cannot ex­press; yet it is felt which he illustrates by this simile, when an An­gel appears, though he assume an humane shape, there is ever some­thing peculiar in the Apparition, which strikes the mind of the Be­holder with an apprehension of somewhat extraordinary: Is it then any wonder there be something peculiar in the Scriptures of God, to demonstrate their Divine Original? Though I speak for the self­evidencing light of holy Scripture, I do acknowledge the great use­fulness of the Motives of Credibility in their own place, for they prepare the mind for discerning this Divine Light resplendent in the Scriptures.

If this do not satisfie pertinacious Romanists, they may at last consider what their Learned Cardinal de Lugo hath said, disp. 1. de fide Sect. 7, 8. where he maintains, at length, against his Fellow-Je­suits, that the first assent given by Christians to Scriptural Revelati­on is immediate, and not founded upon any Prior objective ground. Indeed he calls it obscure and inevident, but withal infallible, most certain, and immediate, yea, he particularly denies it to be founded on the testimony of the Church, Miracles, or constancy of Martyrs, &c. only he affirms, that a man comparing Scriptural Revelation accompanied with such Miracles, the death of Martyrs, the appro­bation of so many judicious Doctors, &c. with the Idea which he hath in his mind of a Divine Revelation, finds such a consonancy betwixt them, that without any discursive inference, he immedi­ately assents to that Revelation as Divine; which the said Author illustrates by this similitude, as when, saith he, a man receives a Letter from his Friend, or hears him speak at a distance, he com­pares the Characters of the Letter, and the Voice which he hears, with the Idea which he hath in his mind of his Friends Writing or Voice; and so, without any argumentation, concludes this is his [Page 94]Friends Writ, or Voice, and such he supposes to be our first assent to Divine Revelation. This Notion of the Cardinal, for which he disputes with much Learning and acuteness, quite overturns the whimsies of the Pamphleting Missionaries, who would have the first assent to Scriptural Revelation, to be grounded on the resti­mony of the Church, or definition of their infallible Judge.

As for the Clamours of the Adversary, that the Protestants men­tioned in the Objection, have charged the Transtations of one another with Errours and Discrepancies. Ought be not to remember, that there be as great variety and contrariety betwixt the Versions made by Popish Authors, such as Lyranus Paulus Brugensis, Valla, Cajetan, Erasmus, Pagnin, Arria [...], Montanus, &c. Had those imagined a per­fection in the Vulgar Latin, would they have dissented from it so often? Do not Vega, Andradius, Driedo, Mariana affirm, that the Council of Trent, when it declared the Vulgar Latin to be Authen­tical Scripture, never intended to assert its freedom from Errour? Doth not Isidore Clarius, a Popish Bishop aver, that he has amended 8000 places in the Vulgar Latin, and yet left many to be correct­ed; yea, so many were the Errours of the Clementine Translation, that one spared not to call it the New Transgression.

But forbearing to recriminate, I answer first, Had not this Pam­phleter resolved to abuse his Reader, by often-consuted Cavils, he might have learned from our Authors, that those Censures, for most part, are rather the supersaetation of over-reaching passion, than a rational and composed Verdict of our Translations. Might he not have found how the Learned and Modest Rivet in Isagog. ad Scrip­turam Sac. cap. 12. doth chastise both Castalio, and Hugh Broughton, for their Petulancy, upon more Judicious Translators than them­selves? May not Joseph Scaligers testimony of Beza's Translation preponderate Castalio's Censure?

When the passage of Hugh Broughton, alledged by the Pamphle­ter, had been objected by F. Johnson to D. Shirman, the Doctor in his Reply, pag. 962. spares not to call him passionate Hugh; and withal shews, that the main thing which offended Broughton at our Translation, was something concerning the question of the descent of the Soul of Christ to Hell. I cannot examine whether Zuinglius [Page 95]be faithfully cited, not having his Works: But though Gerard the Lutheran, in uberiori exeges. loc. de script. cap. 29. Sect. 122. gives an account of other of our Authors not so well sati [...]fied with Lu­thers German Translation, yet he has no word of Zuinglius: How­ever, they who know the animosities which the Sacramentarian Con­troversie did breed, will not think strange, though Zuinglius and Luther used more asperity in Censuring the Works of one another than was fitting. The Censure of Carolus Molinaeus is not much to be regarded, he being no Divine, but an unsetled, though Learned Lawyer; first a Papist, then a Protestant, and afterwards with the Dog returning to his Vomit, and re-imbracing Popery, he breathed forth invectives against worthy men, as is usual with Apostates to be haters of their own Sect. This is testified of him by Lucas Osi­ander, Epitom. Hist. Eccles. cent. 16. Anno 1566. pag. 802. As for the acknowledgment of Luther, that he added the word Sola, you may take the Answer of Gerard the Lutheran, loc. cit. Sect. 525. Non verba numeravit, sensum exprimere voluit. And indeed, though I would have Translators to be punctual in their Version of Scrip­ture, yet it's a sure truth, that we are justified by Faith alone, or as the Apostle saith, by Faith, without the works of the Law. But leaving further to canvase those unadvised expressions of some Protestants Authors, which are nothing ad summa in rei, I can press Romanists with contrary Verdicts of Popes concerning the Vulgar Latin, Six­tus Quintus, and Clement the 8. All they can object to us, are but some rash expressions of private men, who can pretend to no Au­thority.

Secondly, Therefore I answer, that we ought carefully to di­stinguish betwixt smaller Grammatical Escapes, and substantial Er­rours, overturning Articles of Faith. It's not denied, but the first may be incident to any Version made by humane industry: but I ap­peal all the Romish Party, to try if they can charge the English Translation, which is made use of in this Church, with any sub­stantial Errour and Article of Faith; that had been the most solid way of arguing against us. As for the diversities betwixt the English Translation under Q. Elizabeth, and K. James 6. I suppose it will be found, that both the reading laid aside, and that which is substitu­ted, are conform to the Analogy of Faith, though the one may be more agreeable to the Original and Series of the Context, and so is preferrable to the other; by which the ingenuity of Protestant Chur­ches may appear, they being willing to correct the least failure. [Page 96]It were easie to demonstrate, that the Papists vulgar Version is often guilty of ill Latin, and worse Divinity: Who desire an account of the varieties, contradictions, errours, and barbarisms of the Vulgar Latin, I refer them to D. James bellum Papale, Calov. Crit. Sac, de Vers. Vulg. Chamier Panstrat. Tom. 1. lib. 14. cap. 11, 12, 13. and to Sixtinus Amama, in Anti barbaro Biblic. lib. 1. cap. 9, 10, 11. who also shews, cap. 12, 13. that Jesuit Serrarius, Bellarmine, Baptista Baudinus, the Reviser of the Vatican Press, Lucas Brugensis, yea, and the Prefacer to the Clementine Version, do acknowledge that the Latin Version, as lastly corrected by Clement 8. hath yet its own trespasses, and deserves further emendation. But this is the mis­chief of Rome's pretended Infallibility, that she will rather justly know faults, than by amending them, humbly confess her self falli­ble. In a word, except Romanists can prove that in our Translations there be such [...] rours, as destroy the substantials of Christianity, (which though the Conclaves of Rome and Hell do joyn forces, cannot be done) it cannot be concluded that our Bibles are not a sufficient Ground and Rule of Faith.

To shut up the Answer to this Objection, Richard Cappell in his Remains, pag. 30, 31. presents this Notion to the consideration of the Godly Learned, that seeing the Lord hath commanded his peo­ple to hear, read and search the Scriptares, which the multitude cannot do but in some Translation or other, and God being in his Providence very careful that his Church shall not want sufficient pro­vision for their Souls, therefore he, the said M. Cappell, supposes, that God ever hath, doth, and will so assist Translators, that, for the main, they shall not err. And indeed, though the Vulgar Latin be but too faulty, as I have already shewed, yet we deny not, but it is a Bible, and contains the substantials of Religion: Neither have I any doubt, but many have been converted by it; such as Peter Mar­tyr, Zanchius, Luther, Oec [...]lampadius, &c, I am not to adopt M. Cap­pell's Notion, yet should it hold, far less could there be ground to Cavil against our Translations, as not being a sufficient ground of Faith, they being much more pure and agreeable to the Originals than the Vulgar Latin, as cannot but be clear to those who have any measure of skill to compare them.

Objection 2. The Pamphleter, pag. 54, 55, 56. accuses the Original Texts of Scripture as corrupted; in comfirmation whereof he alledges, that it's doubted, in what Language some parts of Scripture were writ­ten; that Calvin and Luther questioned the purity of the Originals; [Page 97]that there be various Lections in the Hebrew; that the Jews, Christs professed Enemies, five hundred [...]ears after Christ, iavented the Hebrew Points, or Vowels, and corrupted the Text, but that before this a [...]r [...]up­tion their Vulgar Latin was made; that Hereticks also, particularly Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, &c. had their hand in adulterating Scripture, for which he alledges Irenaeus, Tertull, and Eusebius, but cites no place in any of them, that we have not the Autographies written by Prophets or Apostles, and all Copies are subject to faults. In the end he concludes, that there is no remedy for these evils, with­out an infallible visible Judge.

In all this he doth still behave himself like an Atheist. Doth he not by concluding the Original Scriptures to be all corrupted, raze with one stroak the Foundation of the Christian Religion? Is not this a pregnant evidence of the impiety of the Romish Interest, and truth of the Protestant Religion, that Romanists cannot fight against us; but with the Weapons of Infidels? for supporting their Babel, they will venture the ruine of all Religion, ridente Turca, nee dolen­te Judaeo.

For answer therefore to this Blasphemous Cavil, let first the Pam­phleters inconsistency with himself be noticed. In his former Section he brought Scriptures to prove the necessity of an infallible visible Judge; yet here he affirms, we cannot know a line of pure Scripture, that is not vitiated, but by the sentence of this infallible Judge. Is not this to intangle himself into a manifest Circle, or contradiction? Secondly, Was this man compos mentis, when he brings in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, testifying that the Scriptures were corrupted by Arrians, Macedonians, and Nestorians; whereas these Heresies were not broached in the times of most of those Authors? Yea further he affirms, that 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, testifi [...] 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 [Page 98]of D [...]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 [Page 99]things belonging to the integrity of the written Law If Divi [...] 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 [Page 100]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, Cae [...]erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem & bonos mores 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 [Page 102] 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, Calovi [...]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 to which one word is written in the Line, and another in the Margin, the Vowels whereof are attributed to the word in the Line, this can be of no advantage to him, unless he could make out, that these various Lections were introduced since Jerom's time. But all the Hebrew Doctors, saith the Learned Buxtorf Antierit. [Page 103]Part. 2. cap. 4. affirm them to be of no latter date than the days of Ezra. I know Lud. Capell, Crit. sac. lib. 3. cap. 15. maintains them to be introduced by the Post-Talmudique Masorites after Hierom: But Buxtorf loc. cit. is at great pains to consute them. And among other reasons, he useth this as one to prove the great Antiquity of those various Lections, that not only the Chaldee Paraphrasts, but also because the Septuagints in their Version sometime follow the Keri, rendring according to the word in the Margin. Indeed Buxtorf doth not affirm all the various Lections, which go under the name of Keri, to be of equal Antiquity; but that Learned Author lays down Rules how the latter may be discerned from the more Ancient. For answer therefore, I shall remit this Pamphleter to Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 2. who says, that tota discrepantia variarum Lectionum in dictionibus quibusdam posita est, quae sensum aut parum aut nihil mutant; or if he will take it in the words of Learned D. Owen, in his Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture, cap. 6. Sect. 4. The difference in the sense, ta­king in the whole Context, is, upon the matter, very little, or none at all; at least each word, both that in the Line, and that in the Mar­gin, yield a sense agreeable to the Analogy of Faith, which that Judicious Author illustrates by examples, where there would appear the greatest dissonancy; whether, as some Hebrew Doctors con­ceives, the Scripture was at first delivered with that variety of reading, or as others rather judge, that they came from the men of the great Congregation, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechary, Haggai, all persons acted by Divine Inspiration, they argue no depravation in the Original. Hence it is, that in our last Translation of the Bible, the word in the Margin is often used; yet so, as that the word in the Line is also noted, where there appears any considerable diffe­rence, which the Translators would not have done (as D. Owen Ju­diciously observes) had they not conceived, that both the word in the Margin, and in the Line, had an Authoritative Original, beyond the impeachment of any man in these days.

The Pamphleter fourthly alledges the differences of reading by Rab­bi Jacob, and Rabbi Aaron, and their respective Followers. These appear to be the differences betwixt the two Famed Rabbins Ben-Asher, and Ben. Naphtali: For Cappellus in his Critica Sac. lib. 3. cap. 18. Sect. 1. thus describes their names from Elias Levita, that the name of the one was Jacob the Son of Naphtali, the name of the other Aaron the Son of Asher. Who please may find a large discourse [Page 104]of them in Buxtorf Fol. de punct. Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 15. It may be enough for my purpose to note, that these two Rabbins are said to have been the Heads of the two Famous Schools of the Masorites, the one in Palestine, and the other in Babylon, and to have spent their whole time in the exact consideration of every Letter, Point and Accent of the Bible; nor is it denied, but that they found out some varieties. The Occidental Jews in Palestina and Europe follow­ing Rabbi Aaron, Ben-Asher, the Oriental, or Babylonian Jews, fol­lowing Rabbi Jacob, Ben-Naphtali. I find indeed debates among the Learned, concerning the time when those Rabbi's flourished, Bu [...] ­torf de punct. Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 2. from some Jewish Authors af­firms them to have lived in the eleventh Century, and thereupon accuses Genebrard of a great Errour in Chronology, for saying they flourished in the fifth Century; yet Calovius de Lingua Originali, veteris Testamenti Sect. 56. contends earnestly, that they lived before the time of Post-Talmudique Masorites, by whom this Pamphleter fancies the Bible to have been corrupted. This I must say, if Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali lived so timely as Genebrard and Calovius af­firm, and if they found the Bible corrupted to their hands, it will be an hard task for Romanists to clear how their Vulgar Version e­scaped the Contagion. But the truth is, whatever were the time wherein those Rabbins lived, it is a manifest falshood which this Pamphleter says, that they did put in Vowels into the Text, which made most different readings: For, as is observed not only by Buxtorf Anticrit. Part. 2. cap. 5. but also acknowledged by Capell, Crit. sac. lib 3. cap. 8. Sect. 4. (who yet has scrued the various Lections of the Bible to as great an height as any.) These differences of Ben-Asher, and Ben-Naphtali, are of no moment, being all about Accents and Points, whereby significatio vocis ne vel hilum mutatur, the sig­nification of the word is no whit altered: And the same Author, cap. 17. Sect. 18. after he had given a large account of the different readings betwixt the Oriental and Occidental Jews, concludes thus, Ex quibus videre est quam nullius momenti sit omnis illa varietas, per­inde enim omnino. est utram libet sequaris Lectionem. Yea Buxtorf loc. cit. from those differences draws, as he phrases it, Argumentum for­tissimum, an invincible Argument for the purity of the Hebrew Text. For by the Collection of those various readings of Ben-Asher, and Ben-Naphtali, it appears how studious, religious, yea and superstiti­ous, the Jewish Doctors were in observing the least varieties which did steal into the Copies of the Holy Bible: if therefore there had [Page 105]been any material differences, they had undoubtedly been Recorded by them, consequently those of Ben-Asher, and Ben-Naphtali, being rather scrupulosities about Orthography than Orthodoxy, it appears evident they found the Scriptures entire and incorrupt, as to the matter. Thus the Pamphleters Objection has furnished us with an Argument against himself.

It's fifthly alledged by the Pamphleter, that the Hebrew Vowels were added to the Text 500 years after Christ, by his professed Enemies the Jews. Answer. This story, of the late invention of the Hebrew Vowels, is not so certain and uncontroverted, that we must believe it upon this Pamphleters naked Assertion. It is too daring boldness in Jesuits to push at the Authority of the holy Scriptures upon meer conjectures, It's true, Elias Levita, a Jewish Rabbin, and skilled Grammarian, who lived in Germany about the time of the Refor­mation, affirmed, that the Hebrew Vowels were invented by some Rabbins at Tiberias, after the perfecting of the Talmud, some 500 years after Christ. Hereupon Morinus, Gordon of Huntly, and other Jesuits, whom this Pamphleter implicitly follows, took occasion to bark against the holy Scriptures, as being corrupted by that Novel Punctation, though in this they go contrary to Elias, who affirms, that the Masorites at Tiberias in adding the Vowels, adhered faithfully to the true reading of the Scriptures, as they were first given out by Moses, and the Prophets. But this whole story of Elias Levita is contradicted by the generality of the Jews, who maintain, that if the Hebrew Vowels were not given by the Lord to Moses on Mount Sinai, with the Letters, yet at least they were added by Ezra, and the men of the great Synagogue, who were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God. The Learned Buxtorf the Father, in his Tiberias, and the Son de antiq. punct. have brought many Arguments to confute that Report of Elias Levita. It hath also been opposed by Marcus Marinus, a Romanist, to whom Pridiaux Lect. de punct. Orig. adds Hierom ab Oleastro, and Joannes Picus M [...]randula. D. Lightfoot, an Author well versed in Rabbinical Learning, looks upon this story of Elias Levita as so incredible, that he spares not to say (as he is cited by D. Owen) Si punctata fuisse Biblia in istiusmodi Schola potes crede­re, crede & omnia Talmudica; he that can believe that Fiction, may believe all the Fables of the Talmud; nay, the very story, in the judgment of Learned men, convicts it self of falshood: For great Authors, as the two Buxtorfs, Calovius, &c. have endeavoured to e­vict, that the Famous School of Jewish Rabbins at Tiberias, was ex­tinct [Page 106]before the 500 year of Christ; which so far perturbed Lud. Capellus, de punct. antiquitate cap. 15. that he leaves his Patron E­lias, as to this circumstance, to shift for himself, Falsus fortusse fue­rit (saith Capell) hac in parte (hoc est in loci designatione) Elias Le­vita. Had such a great work been performed by the Doctors of Ti­berias, it's hardly credible that the world would have taken no no­tice of it? We have an account by History of the composing of both the Talmuds, but no History, Jewish or Christian, for many hundred years after the time assigned by Elias Levita, making men­tion of the punctation of the Hebrew Bible by those Post Talmudick Masorites at Tiberias. The testimonies alledged by Elias, and his Ad­herents, from Aben-Ezra, and some other Rabbins, are learnedly canvased by Buxtorf. de punct antiq. Part. 1. cap. 3. And besides the great Patrons of that Novel invention of the Points, Elias Levita, Ludovicus Capellus, and Morinus, are divided among themselves, as to the time when it was done? Had those Enemies of Christ ad­ded the Vowels to corrupt the Text, would they not have d [...] ­ned these Scriptures, Isai. 53. Dan. 9. which speak so luculently of him, and of his sufferings? Many iustances are brought by Buxtorf de punct. antiq. Part. 1. cap. 11. from Hierom, of Hebrew words wherein the Consonants would admit of various readings and signi­fications, yet Jerom presers the reading which is according to the present punctation, and that upon this reason, Quia sic habetur in Hebraeo. that is, because that reading only is agreeable to the He­brew Text; which that Learned Author conceives to be a strong presumption, that Hierom had seen the Bible in his time pointed with Vowels. Who would see Arguments for the Ancient Puncta­tion of the Hebrew Text, from the Masorak, the Talmud, the Anti- Talmudick Rabbins from Grammar and Divinity, I remit them to those Learned Tractates of the Buxtorfs, Calovius de linguâ orig. ve­teus testamenti, from Sect. 56. and D. Owens forecited Tractate, cap. 4, 5. But I am not to concern my self in that Debate, and there­fore must mind this Pamphleter, that there be Learned men, both Papists and Protestants, who will not yield that the Hebrew Text is corrupted, though it were granted that the Vowels were a late invention. Hence Sixtus Senensis in Bib. lib. 8. haeres. 2. Neque voca­liu [...]n punctorum additio facta à Judaeis quicquam derogat perpetuae di­vinorum voluminum sinceritati. Learned Capellus, who hath pleaded more for the Novel Invention of the Points than any, yet in his Tractate de arcano punctationis revelato, set forth by Thomas Erpe­nius, [Page 107]cap. 27. maintains, Haberi posse [...]erto verum & Germanum Tex­tus Hebraici sensum sine punctorum subsidio; and Genebrard, other­wise a most spleenish Writer, yet in his Isagoge ad legenda scripta Rabbinica (as cited by Rivet in Isagog. ad sac. script. cap. 8. Sect. 15.) peremptorily denies lectionem sine punctis esse arbitrariam mancam aut imminutam; and lately D. Meric Casaubon has given some pretty touches to this purpose in his Tractate of Credulity and Incredulity, from pag. 92. to 104. where to shew how facile it is to read, and to attain to the distinct meaning of the Hebrew without Vowels, he observes, that the Jews who are well educated in the knowledge of the Hebrew, do not use Vowels in their ordinary Missives, yea nor in their Contracts, which all know have need to be clear; and a­mong other reasons, gives this with Capell, that in the Hebrew, there is no word nor syllable without a Consonant; it is not so ei­ther in the Greek, Latin, or English, as may appear by these words, [...], I, y u, eye, &c. If then Scriptures may be perfectly read and understood without Points, it doth not follow, that the late inven­tion of points would destroy the integrity of the Scriptures. To shut up this discourse about the Hebrew Points, I ask how the Vul­gar Latin Version can be pure, if the Originals be corrupted by ad­dition of the Points. The Pamphleter answers in the words of his Master, Gordon of Huntly, That their Vulgar Translation was made before the Original was corrupted. Whereupon I argue, either the Translator made use of a Bible with Points, or without them, if with Points, then the punctation of the Bible is Anteriour to their Translation; and if the Copy from which their Translation was ta­ken was sincere, the punctation does not corrupt the Text: if without Points, then the Translator, though pretending to no in­fallible assistance of the Spirit, could attain to the certain meaning of the Text without Points, and consequently, as long as the Hebrew Letters do remain, we are in no worse case than Jerom, and the An­cient Church, before the pretended depravation of the Original Text.

It's fifthly alledged by him, that Irenaeus, Tertull. Origen, did remark, as says Eus [...]b. that the Greek Text of the New Testament was corrupted by Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, &c. Hereticks. Who would not blush at the shameful ignorance which here is bewrayed; it being evident, that none of those Hereticks had arisen in the days of Irenaeus, Tertullian or Origen, yea, nor some of them in the days o [...] Eusebius himself? Upon the noising abroad of this absurd Er­rour, [Page 108]I hear Jesuit Con, with the rest of our Missionaries, has been devising a Parenthesis to palliate their shameful ignorance: But Learned men, no wise concerned in this Debate, upon a narrow in­spection of the place, have observed, that the words will not admit such a Parenthesis without manifest non-sense: Yet least I should seem to 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 Hun [...]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 [Page 109]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 nev [...]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. à 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 [Page 110]various Lections in the Originals, which are but Errata scribae [...]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 ass [...]rts Grae­cum codicem qui nunc in Ecclesia legitur, [...]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 ten [...]re legentibus Dionysio, Justino, Irenaeo, Melitone, Origene, Afric [...]no, Apollinario, Athana­sio, Eusebio, Basilio, Chrysostomo, Theophilacto, atque aliis. [...]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 of the Apostles, pure and without corruption.

Having discussed all those things which he brought to confirm his second Objection, I now only take notice of his ludibrious Con­clusion, that seeing the Scriptures, as he falsly alledges, are corrupt, therefore we have a necessity of an infallible visible Judge. A goodly inference? Is there no way to shoulder up a Pope, but by treading down the Scriptures? But supposing the Scriptures to be corrupted, what benefit, as to this, can we reap by their infallible visible Judge? Can he dictate to us new pure Original Scriptures? When he could [Page 111]not preserve them in their Purity, how shall he restore them to it? If he declare which is pure Scriptures, will he do it by a Prophetical Revelation? Then he would look that his Enthusiasms be instructed by better Credentials than the Quakers, or if he do it by other so­lid and convincing Evidences, then it's not the infallibility of the Judge, but the evidence of his grounds that will warrant his defini­tions, consequently his pretended Infallibility, as to this thing, is wholly insignificant.

Objection [...]. Pag. 57. The Pamphleter enquires what infallible mo­tive can prudently perswade Protestants, that the Word of God they relye on was ever set down in writing, or is extant at this day? Is it the testi­mony of the Scripture, calling it self Gods Word, or the innate light of the same Scripture shewing it self to be such to a well disp [...]sed [...]i [...]d? If t [...]e first, do not Nicodemus and Thomas Gospels carry the same Ti­this of Matthew and Mark? If the second, then the Fathers of the first three Age [...]we [...] not well disposed persons, who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council of C [...]rthage had declared them Canonical, and much less Luther who rejects James E­pistle, with some others.

Answer 1 Doth not this Atheistical Cavil of Jesuits, which hath often been confuted by Protestants, fall as heavily upon themselves, as upon us? May not this same Query be made concerning the infal­lible motive, which can prudently perswade Romanists to believe the infallibility of their visible Judge? Is it his own testimony, call­ing himself infallible, or the innate light of his definitions shewing themselves to be divine? If the first, do not Quakers assert their own infallibility as well as he? Doth not the Turks Alcoran affirm, that it is of Divine Original, as well as Popes ascribe their definitions to the Holy Ghost? If the second, how shall an innate light be grant­ed to the definitions of their infallible Judge, seeing it's denied to the holy Scriptures of God? It might be sufficient here to leave him only to grapple with his own Cavil.

But I secondly answer, that a well disposed mind may be con­vinced of the Divine Original of the holy Scriptures, both by ex­trinsick motives of Credibility, and by the Intrinseca Criteria, or the innate light of the holy Scriptures? I say, first by extrinsick mo­tives, such as the stupendious Miracles whereby it was confirmed, (which this calumniating Pamphleter would insinuate, pag. 59. but with Jesuitical ingenuity) that I did undervalue the Universal Tradi­tion of the Catholick Church, the signal Judgments of God upon [Page 112]Enemies, the invincible constancy of Martyrs, &c. Doth not Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2. by these, and such arguments, prove the Scriptures certissimas esse & verissimas, nec humana inventa, sed oracula divina continere. But besides these extrinsick motives of Credibility, the holy Scriptures of God have intrinsick evidences of their Divine O­riginals, as from the sublimity of the Mysteries which yet are won­derfully suited for bringing about the Salvation of Souls, the un­tainted and unparallelled Sanctity of the Doctrine, the plenitude of the Scriptures for instruction of the Judgment, Reformation of the Life, Consolation of the heart in all cases, the admirable tempera­ture of Simplicity and Majesty in the stile of holy Scriptures, the great variety of Scripture purposes, and the wonderful harmony thereof, though Scriptures were written in different Ages, Places, and Tongues: So that Bell. says of the Pen men of Scripture, they would appear non tam diversi Scriptores, quam unius Scriptoris diversi calami. This self-evidencing light of the Scriptures Jesuits them­selves are constrained toa cknowledge in their lucid intervals. Hence Greg. de Valentia lib. 1. de Analys. fidei cap. 1. Deus ipse (saith he) imprimis est, qui Christianam Doctrinam, atque à Deo Scripturam sacram veram esse, voce Revelationis suae, & interno quodam instructu, at (que) impulsu humanis mentibus c [...]ntestatur, at (que) persuadet: And cap. 15. Cum multa sint in ipsa Doctrina Christiana, quae ipsa per se illi fidem atque authori­tatem conciliare possunt, tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur, ut est à Clemente Alexandrino observatum, quod sua nescio qua admirabili vi divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit, atque ad virtutem impellit. It's not simply, because the Gospels of Matthew and Mark carry their names prefixed, that we believe them to be of a Divine Original, but as we are strongly induced thereto by the extrinsick motives of Credibility, so our Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God, speaking in the Scriptures with an admirable Soul convincing evidence. The Pseudevangels of Thomas and Nicodemus, and all Books, without the Canon of holy Scripture, are destitute both of these motives of Credibility, and of that self evidencing light of their Divine Original. Nor should it seem strange to any, that I say Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures: For all Faculties and Sciences must have first principles into which our assent must be terminated, else we should run in infinitum. I appeal to any that is not willing to be deceived, whe­ther it be not more congruou, that Faith be resolved into that wri­ting which God himself immediately did dictate, by the acknowledg­ment [Page 113]of the Catholick Church, then either into a Papal, or into a Quaker Enthusiasm, that have no other Credentials, but because they say they are infallibly moved by the Spirit of God.

As for the Pamphleters allegtioan, that the Fathers of the first Cen­turies did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture until the Council of Carthage, it is manifest untruth: Look to Melito, his Catalogue of the Books of holy Scripture, recorded by Eusebius lib. 4. Hist. Ec­cles. cap. 25. and Origen's recorded by the same Eusebius, lib. 6. cap. 24. or of the Author of the Book de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3. whom Papists hold for Denis the Areopagite, or of Athanasius in Sy­nopsi S. Script. or of the Council of Laodicea, Can. 59. if they were not conform to the Canon of Scripture received by the Protestant Churches. Any little seeming differences in the way of their and our Enumeration, ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical Hi­story of the Canon of Scripture, cap. 4, 5, 6. Is not Jerom so expli­cite for us in this matter in Prol. Galeat. ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom. in Praefat. ad Danielem & in Epist. ad Paulinum, that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us. It's true indeed, the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized, were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical: And this was one of the seven instances of the con­tradiction betwixt the present Romish Church, and the Ancient Christian, yea the Ancient Romish Church, in my Answer to M. Dem­sters eighth Paper, pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adven­tured to examine. One thing I must confess, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be tru­ly Canonical, was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome, if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist. Eccles. cap. 3. or Jerom Epist. 129. ad Dardanum, who expresly says, that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebrae [...]s non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas. Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Hierom, &c. held it for Canonical, which is a pregnant Evidence, that the Authority of the Books of Scripture, in those days, depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome.

But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage, as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical: I suppose he means Con­cil. Carthag. 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Anti­quity, being celebrated either in the close of the fourth, or begin­ning of the fifth Century: And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council, the Supremacy of the Pope is gone. For Can. 26. it's [Page 114]expresly prohibited, that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sa­cerdos, princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi. Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code, nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius, is there mention of the Books of Maccabees, neither are the rest of the Apo­cryphal Books, which are there mentioned, spoken of as strictly Ca­nonical for proving Articles of Faith. Is it probable that the Fa­thers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea, and Jerom, who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical? Yea, did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage. lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. ex­clude the Books of Maccabees from the Cauon of Scripture; there­fore these Books are only termed Canonical, as Books which may be read in the Church: For in no other sense did the Council of Car­thage own them, as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it's added, that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books: But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture. The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea, which ex­cludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon, and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical; therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Lao­dicca, else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons. This same also may be confirmed from Austin, who was a prime Member of that Council, for lib. 2. de doct. Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books, he says they were not all of equal Authority, but all Books of Scripture are of equal Au­thority. What need I more? Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing, in fin. Comment. ad Hist. lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitic, si alicubi rep [...]reris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos, vel in sacris Concilii, vel in sacris doctoribus — libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei. Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedifica­tionem fidelium, utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti & autonisati. Cum haec distinctione discernere potenis scripta Augustini, & scripta in Provin­cialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi & Laodiceno; and this distinction Ca­jetan took from Hierom, Praesat. in Proverb. and Ruffin in exp [...]s. Symb.

What he adds concerning Luther, does not concern the Cause: Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James, it would only conclude, that he knew but in part; and what then? Non emnia vidit Bernardus. Though the Scriptures be a Prin­ciple in Divinity, yet some holy men may question the Divine Ori­ginal [Page 115]of some Books of holy Scripture: For there is need of spiri­tual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God; and as the Spi­rit breaths where he lists, so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another? Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Ca­tholick? who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epi­stle to the Hebrews, and of James. Yea, have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers, which are admitted by others? Is it not a principle of Mathematicks, that a quovis pun­cto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam? Yet is it not questi­oned by Learned Basso, if there be a right line in the world? But concerning Luther, in this matter, I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges. loc. de script. cap. 10. Sect. 279, 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther, and evicts, that Luther did not persevere in that mistake; and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle.

The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms, that this is common to Protestants, with all Hereticks, to la yelaim to Scriptures. To this common [...]avil of Romanists, as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys. fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract. 1. Sect. 10 subd. 2. and tract. 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest false­hood, that all hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as the adequate Rule of Faith, as do the Prote­stant Churches. What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis, when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scripturarum? what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum? Doth not Euseb. lib. 5. Hist. cap. ult. te­stifie, that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition, pretending that his Heresie, viz. that Christ was [...] a meer man, had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles, and that in the Church of Rome also, until Pope Victors time, inclusivè? Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against B [...]eerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew, that Learned Romanists, Aquinas, Bell. Sixtus Senensis, Justus, Barronius, Delrio, Rhenanus, and M. Weston do con­fess, that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks, such as the Valen­tinians, Gnosticks, Marcionites, Basilidians, Encratits, Severians, mani­chees, Arrians, Carpocratians, Montanists, Donatists, Anabaptists, &c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture, and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles, or feigned Gospels, Traditions, or fancied Revelations. The testimonies of Authors for proving this, I remit to be gathered from D. Mor­ton. [Page 116]Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture, whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. & 6. yea doth not Bell. loc. cit. charge the Ma­nichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testa­ment; did ever Protestant Churches so? Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius, and the Libertines, as de­clining the Scriptures, and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit? Were there ingenuity among Romanists, would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants? In appealing to Scrip­ture, we imitate the ancient Fathers. Hence Austin de Gra. & lib. arb. cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex, Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt. & concupisc. cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit, judicet ergo Christus judicet & cum illo Apostolus, quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus. And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont. Parmen. de cae­lo quaerendus est judex, sed quid pulsamus caelum qu [...]m habemus in E­vangeli [...] testamentum. I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours: But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this, Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam. constringi, tum Scripturae recusant scopum & usum, srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum ali­quod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie, ad suum prop [...]situm ac­commodant suis confirmandis. And this is all which Vincentius, Gen­nadius, and Austin, in the places cited by the Pamphleter, and other Romanists, do insinuate. Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins, In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis, invenis quo­que medicamentum in latere ejus.

2. Therefore I deny the sequel: Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture, yet it doth not follow, that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith, and Ground of the Religion of Protestants. Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems? Shall therefore Princi­ples of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy? Will not a Litigious Caviller ap­peal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions? shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust? This Pamphleter argues against us, as if I should argue thus against him, Jansenists, whom he holds for Hereticks, appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge, as well as Jesuits; therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith: Or thus, Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the [Page 117]Spirit, as well as the Pope or General Council; therefore they are de­ceivers, as well as those. To shut up this Answer, it's not the claim­ing of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion, but the having of it; and in evidence that we do not barely claim it, but have it, we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny. The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years, the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth.

SECT. IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Dis­course concerning the Rule of Faith.

FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapso­dick and incoherent Discourse, wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions, empty Rhetorications, and mis­stating of Questions: Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an ac­curate way of arguing, they would vanish into smoak, and non­sence, yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein.

First then he brings me in asserting, that Scriptures are either clear­in terminis, or are made clear by conferring of places: But he cites no place where I affirm this, nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers, against M Demster. However, I acknowledge I have said, that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture, or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed: Nor do I deny but Protestants hold, that conferring of Scripture with Scrip­ture, is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scrip­ture. I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring a­gainst it.

And first he says, Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self, yet when divers Sects take it diversly, a man may justly suspect his own judgment, seeing so many of a contrary mind. I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion, but either Scepticism in Religion, or down-right Atheism: For when a Scripture is clear in it self; it carries with it sufficient evidence, that this is the Mind of God therein. If then, notwithstanding this clearness, one may just­ly suspect that this is not the Mind of God, then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly: And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected, may not the sense of [Page 118]the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more? I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seri­ously consider what Scripture says, but if it speak clearly, no con­tradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof: Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradict­ed by a World of Arrians, though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him? Doth not the Apostle teach, that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contra­dict it, we should not believe him, Gal. 1.8.

Next he objects, That Hereticks for their Her [...]sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear, as Marcion justified his despising Mo­ses by these words, Joh. 10.8. All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers: The Manichees, they fancy that Christ is the Sun, by that Joh. 8.12. I am the Light of the World: The Walden­ses, that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death, because its said, Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill. Yea, says he, the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ, and the Jews against his Death. Did e­ver Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit? if the Devil cited clear Scripture, why did not Christ hearken to him? Do not their own Interpreters, Jansen. in concord. Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat, and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6. shew, that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture? Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal. 91.11. leaving out, In all thy ways; as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat. Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis? Nunquid in praecipitiis? Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum? Non est via haec, sed ruina. & si via tua est, non illius. Did not Christ, by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil, with a­nother, Deut. 6.16. demonstrate, that the Devil did pervert the Scripture, contrary to its sense, and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes; viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture, is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scrip­ture? What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear? Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear, and really clear, as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism, and a real demonstration? May not all those perverfions of Scripture by Marcion tes, Manichees, &c. be sufficiently cleared without the sen­tence of an infallible visible Judge? Is it not apparent, that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10.8. that Moses was a Thief or Rob­ber? seeing he was faithful in all the House of God, as a servant, [Page 119] Heb. 3.6. That place Joh. 10.8. pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers, who run without a Mission from God, as Austin ex­pounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias, such as Judas of Galilee, and Theudas, &c. So Chrysost. Cyril, Theophil. Enthym, cited by à Lapide on the place, none of which did Moses. Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8.12. as impious and ludibrious? Is not Christ God over all, blessed for ever. Rom. 9.5. therefore as Austin said excellently, Tract. 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem, he is not the Sun, but the Light which made the Sun. As for that Tenet he charges upon the Wal­denses, they are vindicated from it by Learned Ʋsher, de Christian. Eccles. success. & stat. cap. 6. Edit. 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist. of Walden. lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea, Alphonsus à Castro, albeit he following the Drove, accuse them of it; yet confesses, that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig. Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses, charges them with no such thing. However, surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20.13. For the Ma­gistrate, Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain, and Scripture ex­presly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally, particu­larly Murtherers, Numb. 35.31. So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture, may be clearly confuted by Scrip­ture; if it were not so, what could the Romish infallible Judge do? What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place, and not that which Hereticks pretend? if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks, why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture? As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture, may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils? They can bring no Objection against us, which recoils not upon their own head.

He clamours, pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture: What then? Ergo, all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture, or by firm consequence deducible from it. Non sequitur. There are not only seeming, but real contra­dictions, betwixt the definitions of their Popes, and Canons of their Councils, one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope, another decreeing, that the Pope is above the Council, and both approved by Popes; for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope, was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance, which subjected the Pope to the [Page 120]Council, approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess. 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay.

He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all, as Persons in the Trinity, Sacraments in the Church, the Command of keeping the Sunday. Answ. I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's di­stinction, Orat. 37. that quedam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur, quadam & sunt & dicuntur: There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture, though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found. Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture, and lucu­lently demonstrated thence against the Socinian, though those words be not found in Scripture. Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, al­though the word [...] was not in Scripture? It's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons, and Sacraments, and a suffi­cient Warrant to keep the Lords day, be found there: Yea, have we not the word Person, Heb. 1.3. Who is the express Image of his Per­son, [...]. Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logoma­chies which were among Ancients concerning the words [...] and [...]. As for the Command concerning the Lords Day, besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture, such as the practice of the Apostles, the title of [...], Revel. 1.10. the Apo­stolick Injunction, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it, from the fourth Com­mand, in his Sabbatum Redivivum, Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments, I hope the Inssitution of Bap­tism, and the Lords Supper, is clear in Scripture; and other Sacra­ments we know none. As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster, at which here he snarles, when he gets confidence to examine it, he shall find it will abide the Test. In fine, could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Ar­ticles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture, I should ingenu­ously disown them.

It's further objected, pag. 6 [...]. that many places of Scripture are flat­ly against Protestants, and for Papists; as Matth. 26.26. Jam. 2.24. 2. Thes. 2.13. yea he is bold to say, that Protestants can never be a­ble to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets. These be big words, but splendid untruths. Can we bring no clear Scripture a­gainst any Tenet of Popery? Is not that Scripture clear against their [Page 121]Dry Communions, Matth. 26.27. Drink ye all of it? Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory, Revel. 14.13. Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord; from henceforth, yea saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. If they rest from their labours, then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory. Is not that a clear Scrip­ture against Image-worship, Exod. 20.4, 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing: Thou shalt not bow down to them, &c. I know the Pamphleter says, that this is a corrupt Version, and that it should be rendred Idol, not Image, it be­ing Pesel in the Hebrew: But that is a corrupt evasion, say I; doth not the root Pasal signifie, dolare, sculpere: Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma, an Image. Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus ren­der it sculptile? But whatever be of that, is it not added in the He­brew, Ve celtemuna, or any likeness of any thing? Are not here then all Images, in so far as they are made objects of Adoration, pro­hibited? But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol, yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol? Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol, which before was not one? Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria, cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est I­dololatria, and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similaehrum, quod [...]humana effigie factum & consecratum est, according to the known Distich.

Yea, so evident is this, that their great School-man Vasq. Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp. 104. cap. 2. confesses, that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews: whence I con­clude; therefore also to Christians, the Moral Law standing still in force. Rom. 3.31. Do we by Faith make void the Law, nay rather we establish it. I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us, for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures.

Whereas he says these three Scriptures, Mat. 26.26. Jam. 2.24. 2 Thes. 2.13. are flatly against Protestants, he too flatly discovers ei­ther his own ignorance, or impudency; the harmony betwixt these, and the Doctrine of Protestants, hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors, who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, Justification and Traditions.

Now shortly, I say first, that these words, This is my Body, make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ [Page 122]than these, 1 Cor. 10.4. the Book was Christ, for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ: Yea, their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted, without falsifying the words of Christ; as I demonstra­ted against M. Demster, and shall shew in its own place, that my Ar­gument stands yet in force, notwithstanding the Pamphleters insig­nificant attempts to the contrary. In evidence hereof, after Conse­cration, it's frequently called Bread, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27.

I proceed therefore to the second Scripture, Jam. 2.24. Ye see that a man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only. That this place is not so clear for them, may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul, Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law: Rom. 4.5, 6. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, is Faith counted for righteousness, even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righte­ousness without works, Gal. 2.16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ; [...], nisi per fidem; which Esthius, upon the place, acknow­ledges to be equivalent to, sed tantum per fidem, but only by Faith: And he affirms, that the most Learned, both of Greek and Latin In­terpreters, do agree in that Exposition. These, and other Texts of the Apostle Paul, seem to stand in so full contradiction to the fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James, that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude those luculent testimo­nies of the Apostle S. Paul: Some affirming, that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law, not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel; as is clear, comparing Rom. 3.28. with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law. Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law, yet say, that only these works, as done before Conversion and without Grace, are excluded. Others say, that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justificati­on, but not of the second. But the Apostle S. Paul, Rom. 4. to con­firm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law, brings in the instances of David and Abraham, long after their Conversion; and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion, neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justification. I shall not digress, to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification; but surely, in the Romish sense, it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness, or by works, and [Page 123]so is a begging of the question: Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words, it would be considered, that the chief que­stion betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is, concerning the me­ritorious cause of Justification; what it is that purchases to us Re­mission of sin, and right to Eternal Life. Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons, what else can do this, but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can our good works, either before or after Conversion, satisfie Divine Justice, or merit to us re­mission of sins, and a right to eternal life? Is there any proportion betwixt our works, and that Eternal, and far more exceeding weight of Glory, or the wrath, to the uttermost, due to us for our sins? Are we not bound, Luke 17.10. When we have done all that we are commanded, to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants? for we have but done that which was our duty to do. Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects? Eccles. 7.20. Esay 64.6. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Is not that saying of S. Greg. known, lib. 9. Moral. in Job cap, 11. Omnis humana justitia, inju­stitia esseconvincitur, si districtè judicetur: prece ergo post justitiam in­diget, ut quae succumbere discussa poterat, ex sola judicis pietate con­valescat. Does any man love God so well as he ought? says not S. Austin Epist. 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine. Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet, in vitio est? Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works? Neh. 13.22. Are they not made accepta­ble to God through Jesus Christ? 1 Pet. 2.5. Can we then be pro­nounced by God perfectly just on the account of these? or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ, for which these are accepted, and we our selves also? E­phes. 1.6. He hath made us accepted in the beloved. Is not that Scrip­ture luculent, Rom. 5.19. By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous? If any might have placed confidence on their works, to be justified thereby, then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it, but he durst not adventure on it: 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified.

It remains then to be expounded, in what sense a man is said Jam. 2.24. to be justified by works, and not by Faith only. Far be it from us to impose, with Romanists, a gloss upon S. James; which, upon the matter, would make him contradict S. Paul. The word of the Lord is not yea and nay, many have taken excellent pains to clear the harmony of these two Apostles, and to vindicate this place of S. James from the Cavils of Romanists. I will not here digress, to [Page 124]examine the new notions of some late Learned Writers touching this matter, whose way should I imbrace, I might perhaps easily expede my self from Romish Cavils, and leave also some considera­ble differences betwixt the Romish Party and Protestants in this mat­ter: But I confess I am afraid of new Methods, especially in a mat­ter of so great importance, as the point of Justification: And there­fore holding to the more received grounds, I shall remit the Reader to Reverend Bishop Downam, his learned Treatise of Justification, lib. 7. cap. 8. where he both discusses Bellarmine's Quibbles. as also illustrates that place in S. James, by an Elegant Analytick Exposition, from ver. 14. to the end of the Chapter. Let it suffice at present to advertise the Reader, that S. James uses neither the word Faith, nor the word Justifie, in the same sense with S. Paul; nor does he debate the question which S. Paul handled, or which is at this day tossed betwixt Romanists and us. For clearing these things, briefly I say first, when S. James says, we are not justified by Faith only, he takes not Faith for a saving Grace of the Spirit, receiving whole Christ, John 1.12. purifying the heart, Act. 15.9. and working by love, Gal. 5.6. which is the only true Faith by which we are justifi­ed, according to the Doctrine of S. Paul, and the Reformed Chur­ches: But S. James takes Faith for a dogmatical assent to Divine Truths, joyned with an outward profession, but such as may be se­parated from good works, as is evident from the series of his whole discourse, particularly from ver. 14. where the state of the question which S. James handles is propounded, What doth it profit, my Bre­thren, though a man say he hath Faith, and have not works? [...]. Can that Faith save him, by which it ap­pears S. James whole discourse is, concerning that Faith which a man saith he hath, but may be void of good works: Now that is not the Faith, by which we, according to the Apostle S. Paul's Doctrine, affirm a man to be justified without the works of the Law; for true justifying Faith, is a living and working Faith. But Jam. 2.17. Faith, if it have no works, is dead, being alone. I add secondly, that when S. James says, that a man is justified by works, he does not speak as S. Paul, of the true proper Act of Justification, which is a Judicial Act of God, really acquitting the sinner of guiltiness, and from the wrath of God, to which he was lyable, but of a declara­tive Justification, or of that which evidences a man to be in a justi­fied estate, or to be acquitted from guilt and wrath: Nor needs this seem strange to any, it being a Rule among Interpreters of [Page 125]Scripture; quandoque tunc dicitur aliquid esse, aut fieri, quum esse in­telligitur, aut declaratur: A thing is said to be done, when it becomes manifest that it is done: So Levit. 13.3.13. The Priest is said to pol­lute, or cleanse the Leper, because he declared him clean, or un­clean: So Act. 10.15. What God hath cleansed, defile thou not, [...], declare thou not common, or unclean. And this word Justificati­on is frequently taken in a like sense, as Luk. 7.24.35. Rom. 3.4. 1 Tim. 3.16. &c. That so it is taken here, Learned Protestants have evicted from the Context: I only desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon verse 18. A man may say, thou hast Faith, and I have Works, shew me thy Faith without Works, and I will shew thee my Faith by my Works: Where it's apparent, that the Apostle is enquiring after the Evidences of a Justified Estate, which he concludes to be good works. The chief difficulty which here seems to arise is, that if the Apostle James did here speak only of a declarative Justification, then he would have ascribed this Justification only to good works, and not at all to Faith; whereas the Apostle gives good works, and Faith, a conjunct interest in the Justification whereof he treats; you see then, how by Works a man is justified, and not by Faith. Answ. This in­ference would perhaps have some strength, had the Apostle been speaking only of the internal act of Faith; but not at all, when, as hath been shewed, the Faith spoken of, is a professed Faith; for the profession of Faith may concur with good works, to declare and e­vidence a person to be in a Justified Estate. Thirdly therefore, and lastly, for the full illustration of this whole matter, we would care­fully notice the different questions handled by the two Apostles, S. Paul, and S. James. The Apostle S. Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, having to do with persons who Pharisaical­ly boasted of their good works, and presumed, as our Romanists do to this day, to be justified thereby, or at least joyned their good works, with Faith in Christ, as the ground of their Justification before God: Therefore he disputes at length the same question, which now is a­gitated betwixt Romanists and us, what is the true ground upon which a sinner is accepted of God, and pronounced by him Just, as if he had perfectly kept the whole Law in his own person; and to hammer down these proud Justitiaries, he concludes, that the only ground of this Justification of a sinner before God, is the obedience of Christ laid hold upon by Faith, and totally secludes good works from having any causal influence upon Justification, which he proves, besides many other Arguments, by the most apposite examples of A­braham [Page 126]and David. For if any could have been justified by works, then surely Abraham and David, persons of so Eminent Holiness, had been justified thereby, but not they, as he shews, Rom. 4. Ergo, none at all. But S. James, on the other hand, had to do with a kind of Epicures, who abusing S. Paul's Doctrine of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law, maintained there was no necessity of good works, but only to profess Faith in Christ. This is S. Austin's observe, and not mine, in Psal. 31. Jacobus vult corrigere eos qui Pau­lum male intelligendo, nolebant bene operari, de sola fide praesumentes. So that the question which S. James agitates is, whether there be a necessity of good works; which he resolves affirmatively, and with­al attests, that though they be not the causes of our Justification be­fore God, yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith, and the Evidences of a Justified Estate. For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham, but also of Rahab, who of an Infi­del had been proselyted to the Faith, yet 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 [Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 its said, Joh. 1. the Word was made Flesh: so its 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 N [...]t [...]re was changed into the Hu­mane? but the truth is, that neither follows: For after that the [Page 129]Water was made Wine, it retained no more the reciprocal proper­ties of Water; but after that the Word was made Flesh, the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word, as being immutable; and the Flesh, or his Humane Nature, remained Flesh: And there­fore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him, that he had flesh and bonet, Luke 24.39. Were it proper here for me to digress to a con­futation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter, it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious, and inconse­quential, without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge, which the Pamphleter, and all the Romish Party, will not be able to do, concerning the Protestant Religion. Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy, or cauterized Conscience, who is bold to say, that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, (he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence) as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnati­on of Christ: Nay, he shall find in its proper place, that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted, not only by other luculent Scriptures, but also by these words of Christ, This is my Body (which they apprehend do most favour their Cause, and which the Pam­phleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists, and by the Apostle S. Paul: but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book, than with the four Evangelists; for one of them, namely S. John, has not those words) where also my argument against M. Demster, to this purpose, shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils: I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites, from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament; for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types, Symbols, and Figures of his Body and Blood, as they are termed by Fathers, then surely he had a real Body, and real Blood: But does it from this follow, that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence? Nay, on the contrary, in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types, Figures, and Symbols of his Body and Blood, it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood. And here, by the way, I must advise him, not to expose his ignorance to such publick view, as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost. Hom. 6. as if Chrysost. had writ­ten Homilies but upon one place of Scripture, such Lax Citation; will make people suspect, that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers, as they would make the world believe.

From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 4. and he [Page 130]joyns with him Osiander against Melancton: It might be enough to tell him, that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology; it was as fitly entituled, A liberty of Prophecying, as the Pamphleters Book, Scolding without Scholarship: As the one disco­vered more scolding, than either sobriety or Scholarship, so the o­ther took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow. Quisque suos patimur manes. It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks, that in the mentioned Treatise, he disputed the more sceptically, to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions, and consequently more tender to himself, and others of his perswasion. Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean, Casuists may determine. A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony, I leave to be got from D. Shirman; for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was ob­jected by F. Johnson, cap. 4. num. 23. only I add, that D. Taylor, notwithstanding all his sceptical discourse in that Treatise, demon­strates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals, which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed; and he brings Sect. 6, 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council: How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament, by conferring of Scriptures, confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament? What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives, I am little con­cerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton, for it's but too well known, that Andreas Osiander, of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks, did unhappily ingage himself in some Para­doxal D [...]bates with his own Brethren: Neither can his own Son, Lucas Osiander, in Epit. Hist. Eccles. Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it: And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions, concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures? can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party? I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us, concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves, how then can he rati­onally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran, whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party? Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper a­gainst M. Demster, pag. 218, 219. that it's the Reformed Religion, a­greed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their con­ressions, which I defend, and hope to make good, not only against [Page 131]such a Scribler as this Pamphleter, but also against the whole Con­clave of Rome.

His digression concerning a private spirit, from pag. 69. to 72. be­ing wholly impertinent, I judge unworthy of an Answer: How oft have Protestants declared to the world, they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms, or secret objective Revelations? This they leave to Quakers, and to the Romish infallible visible Judge, who having no external infallible Rule to walk by, must proceed up­on these: But the Rule of our Faith, is the publick external testi­mony of the Spirit in the Scriptures. If under a pretence of exclu­ding a private spirit, he excludes a discretive judgment, he excludes the use of Reason, which Faith always presupposes; or if he ex­clude the necessity of the Spirits assistance, by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture, he turns Pelagian, and contradicts his own Authors, who are constrained to acknowledge it. As for any further use of a private spirit, I had almost said of a Familiar: when he hath cleared his Popes, and infal­lible Judges of it, we shall be near a settlement, as to that thing. An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit, what it is, and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures, as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures, is given by the Learn­ed Amyrald in Thes. Salmur. loc. de testimonio Spiritus Sancti. See al­so loc. de Author. Script.

From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Contro­versies, wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work, as he is pleased to object to me, pag. 14. the Reader may judge: First then he says, Scripture cannot be the Judge of C [...]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, [Page 132]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 clea [...] 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 m [...]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 its 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 [Page 133]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 well­disposed 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 well­disposed 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. [Page 134] 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 t [...] be a Judge. Hence was that of Aristotle Polit. lib. 4. cap. 4. [...], the Scripture is only termed Judge, because its the Law of the Supreme Judge, having an Authoritative Power binding upon the Conscience, and it's honoured with the Ti­tle of a Judge, both in Scripture and in the writings of Fathers. Joh. 8.48. The word that I have spoken shall judge him. Joh. 7.59. Doth our Law judge any man, said Nicodemus, before it hear him? Hence S. Basil Epist. 80. ad Eustach. [...], and S. Austin de gr. & lib. arb. cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos Ju­dex Apostolus Joannes. But all this is only so to be understood, that it's the Law and sentence of the Supreme Judge. I answer secondly by retorfion: As many Hereticks put divers senses upon Scripture, neither will they acknowledge themselves to be condemned thereby; so are there divers and contrary senses put by Romanists upon the de­finitions of their pretended infallible Judge; neither will any of them acknowledg, that their sentiments are condemned by the Pope or Council: I could make a Volum of instances of this nature, I only pitch on two. And first the Council of Trent has defined, Sess. 4. cap. 2. that the Vulgar Latin Version of the Bible be held as Authen­tick, and that none presume to reject it upon whatsoever pretext. Habeatur pro Authentica & qu [...]d eam nemo rejicere quovis praetextu au­deat vel praesumat. Is this definition of the Council clear either to learned or unlearned? Knows he not the interminable debates of Roman [...]sts concerning the sense of this definition? Doth not Azo­rius the Jesuit Tom. 1. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 3. testifie, that Andreas Ve­ga, Andradius. Sixtus Senensis, Melchior Canus, and Lindanus main­tain, that the Council of Trent intended not to vindicate the Vulgar [Page 135]Version from all errours, either of Transcribers, or of the Interpre­ter himself, but only from gross errours relating to Faith and Man­ners. To these Calovius crit. sac. de Vulgatae Versionis Authoritate mi­nime Authentica. Sect. 143. adds Driedo, Mariana, Isidore Clarius, Brugensis, Jodocus, Ravenstein, but others as Azorius himself loc. cit. Lud de Tena in Isagog. ad script. l [...]b. 1. Difficul. 6. cap. 1. & 3. Pine ad praefat. in Ecclesiast. cap. 13. Sect. 2. Greiser defens. Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 11. and many others hold, that the Vulgar Version is not tainted with the least errour; and this Debate was prosecuted with such animosity, that as Calovius reports Sect. 143. out of Ma­riana, they impeached one another before Judicatories with mutu­al Criminations, and a Congregation of Cardinals was delegated to explain the sense of the Council, yet neither to this day is that De­bate finished. Take another instance from the Bull of Pope Innocent the Tenth, against the five Propositions of Jansenius, which the Je­suits apprehend to be wholly in their favours; and yet what various senses are imposed thereon by the Jansenists, may appear from the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus, subjoyned to the Notes of Wendro­kius upon the Provincial Letters at Helm [...]stad, Anno 1664. Hence it follows, that if various senses imposed upon the sentence of a Judge, conclude that the giver of those sentences is not the Judge of Con­troversies, then both Pope and Council are alike to be degraded from being Judges. I answer therefore thirdly, That its enough that the Supreme Judge give out Law so clear, that all Subjects might understand his sentences, if the disability be not from themselves: And such are the Scriptures of God, though the prejudices of In­fidel Jews will not let them understand that Jesus is the Messiah, doth it therefore follow, that the Scriptures have not clearly declared him to be the Messiah? or if Ebionites and Arrians will not ac­knowledge Christ to be God, doth it follow he is not there re­vealed to be the true God? or if Socinians will not acknowledge him to have satisfied Divine Justice, is it not therefore clearly enough re­vealed in Scripture? The Pamphleter spends Paper in vain, to prove the consistency of the Law with a Judge; for that is not denied by Pro­testants, we acknowledge that Councils have a Judiciary Power, and that the general sentences of Scripture may be applyed by them for determining particular Controversies: But that which is in question is, whether Pope or Council have an infallible assistance, whereof we must antecedently be ascertained, before we believe any Divine Truth. This the Pamphleter should have proved, but that here he doth not once touch.

Page 77. The Pamphleter raises no little dust with some Citations of D. Field, especially in his lib. 4. cap. 14, 18, 19. as if he asserted the consenting judgment of them that went before us to be the Rule of Faith, and not the conferring of places, nor looking to the Originals, and that never any Protestant taught otherwise; for which the Pamphle­ter would excommunicate me from the Protestant Churches. But who authorized him to declare who be Protestants, and who not, Ne su­tor ultra crepidam: Is there a syllable in all my Papers derogating from the due esteem of Fathers? Did I not still offer to debate the truth of our Religion from Antiquity, as well as Scripture? Did I not conclude their Religion spurious, because it differs in its Essenti­als from the Ancient Church? I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to let me have an account of Universal Tradition for Adoration of Ima­ges, half Communions, Apocryphal Scriptures, the Popes Supremacy, the necessity of an infallible visible Judge, &c. How scurvily is D. Field dealt with by these men? Does not the Doctor complain, Append. ad lib. 5. Part. 2. Sect. 5. that for what he had written con­cerning the Rule of Faith, he was censured by Romanists as framing a new Religion for Sir Thomas Mores Ʋtopia; yet this Pamphleter, on the other hand, makes these Assertions of D. Field to be the Standard of the Protestant Religion: It is a falshood, that D. Field makes consent with those who went before us to be the only Rule of Faith, or the sine quo non for interpreting of Scripture: for lib. 4. cap. 14. he reck­ons forth seven Rules of Faith, and that comes but in towards the Rear. Again, in cap. 19. he enumerates seven means for finding out the sense of Scripture; among which, the knowledge of Original Tongues, and conferring Texts, are not omitted. Yea, cap. 17. he positively asserts with Cajetan, Andradius, Jansenius, Maldonat, that in interpretation of Scripture, we may go contrary to the torrent of Antiquity; and he concludes them highly unthankful to God, who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out. It's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader, wherewith the passages cited concern­ing the Rule of Faith, the conferring of Scripture, and consulting the Originals, he adds these words, that never did any Protestant teach otherwise; whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus. But let him make what he will of D. Field's testimony, dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson, Cajetan, Cassander, Clemanges, Picherell, Espencaeus, &c. who were famous men in the Latin Church; if they dare, they must condemn the present [Page 137]System of the Romish Faith; if they dare not, why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field, or D. Taylor; ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with?

Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo, that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule, yet parted without concordance. Answ. If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat. he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia, to be a malevolous person, and consequently not worthy of credit: But though the truth of the re­lation were admitted, yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith; it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments, or the strength of their passions. Does not Nazi­anzen complain, that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod? yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith, but of material objects of Faith. Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge, yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia, or of Franciscans and Domi­nicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary, or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists: How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things, and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever. Themselves therefore must confess, that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith, but often flow from mens interests, or prejudicate Opinions.

Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian, lib. de praescript. which sounds very harshly, That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got, but either to make a man sick, or mad. What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Ter­tullians testimony, when it makes against him, as of an Heretick and Montanist? yet I will not be so brisk. That Golden Book of Pre­scriptions was written by him, before he turned Montanist: And as Davenant says, de Jud. controvers. cap. 8. totus noster est, is wholly for us; for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Tra­ditions; namely, that though the Apostles preached unto all, things that are necessary to be believed, yet there were some secret myste­ries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect. This Tenet now owned by Papists: Tertullian charges upon Here­ticks, cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse, nec diversa inter se praedicasse, sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse, quaedam palam [Page 138]& universis, quaedam secreto & paucis demandasse: And in confutati­on of them; cap. 27. he subjoyns, Incredibile est vel ignorasse Aposto­los plenitudinem praedicationis, vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse. If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection: Answ. He is speaking of Hereticks, who either did reject the Scriptures, or did mutilate and corrupt them, or did re­cur to unwritten Traditions; and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter, Tertullian adds, cap. 17. Ista Hae­resis non recipit quasdam Scripturas, & si quas recipit adjectionibus & detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit. I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture: We do not ar­gue from Scripture against Infidels, who deny Scripture. Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks, who are not to be admitted to Disputation, which lib. 1. cont. Marcion. cap. 1. he calls Retracta­tur, but with whom prescription is to be used: Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception, whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation. Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing a­gainst Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness, he had con­victed himself of this evil, who argues so frequently from Scripture: Yea, lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say, Non re­cipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers; and lib. de Resur. car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant & stare non possunt. Well might Tertullian, who lived a little after the Apostles, Appeal to the Doctrine of Apo­stolick Churches, the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them: But now the case is greatly altered, after the succes­sion of so many Ages, all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours, by the acknowledgment of the Roman, except her self, and others are ready to affirm no less of her, and perhaps up­on as solid ground: Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Chur­ches, he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, Thes­salonica and Ephesus, no less than the Roman; so that he attributes no more Authority to her, than to others.

Lastly, pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section, that Religion was before Scripture: He asks, if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe, why may not Romanists also, seeing they likewise read Scripture, pray, and confer places; are more numerous, acute, learned, want Wives, work Miracles, and convert Nations. Here be very big words, Sesqui-pedalia verba: But may not I first use retorsion thus; Are Romanists perswaded [Page 139]from Fathers, Councils, or Traditions, of what they believe? Why then may not Protestants, who read Fathers and Councils as well as they, and search after those things which are conveyed by Univer­sal Tradition; and I hope Protestants are not contemptible, either for number or learning (though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants) and besides, our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness. May not Jansenists and Dominicans say, they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge, as well as Jesuits; that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits? why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits? Yea, might not Heathens have used this Argu­ment against the Ancient Apostolick Churches, for the number of Henthens were greater, and their Learning not inferiour, nor want­ed they pretended Miracles? Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications? But secondly, these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Savi­our, Maith. 11.25. and that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1.20. Where is the Wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the Disputer of this World? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World? And ver. 26, 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren, how that not many wise men, &c. Is there any Society in the World, among whom there be more politick carnal interests to byass the judgments of men, than in the Romish Church? Are there not many secular advantages to entice men of acute parts to improve their faculties to support the Papacy? Are not Romanists also armed with Power to terrifie and affright those that would whisper against them? What severities have been exerci­sed by their Inquisition to keep up their interest? Hath not Popish Rome exceeded Heathenish Rome in her Cruelty.

Are they not addebted to Protestants for much of their Learning? What gross ignorance did cover the World till the Reformation? Though Romish Priests have not Wives, yet want they Concubines, Nephews, or Nieces? What differ their pretended Miracles from the lying Signs and Wonders spoken of 2 Thes. 2.9. Are they at pains [Page 140]to Proselyte others? Did not the Pharisees so? Yet I should be loath to blame their Zeal in that, if they were not more zealous for the Romish Interest, than for the common concerns of Christianity. But is it not evident that they have abused the World by Romantick Ficti­ons, as Histories of real Conversions? At this time, that one instance may suffice of the marvellous History of the Capucin Lesly, which I had in French from an excellent and learned person, D. Ludovick Gordon, M. D. a Son of the Renowned Family of Stralough, who al­so in regard of my unskilfulness in the French Tongue, was at the pains to draw up an Epitome of the said History in English out of the French. This History passes so current in Italy and France, that it is translated from the Italian Tongue to the French by the Prince de Ferme, and is approved by Doctors of the Faculty of Paris; F. Ives Pinford, and F. Charles Thebault: And the wonderful Conversions by the Capucin have been objected to Protestant Gentlemen travelling in Italy, as some of themselves have related, not only to me, but also to others. I shall not trouble the Reader with all the ludibrious Fictions concerning that Capuoin, as that he was the Son of Count Lesly, Baron of Torrie and Monimusk, or concerning the description of Monimusk, as a great City, &c. I only notice that there its rela­ted, that this Capucin should have converted 4000 to the Romish Faith, betwixt Monimusk and Aberdene: If their 100000 converted in China, and the Indies, be like the 4000 converted at Aberdene and Monimusk, they may be Inhabitants for Sir Thomas More's Ʋtopia: Let the Inhabitants of Aberdene judge by this notorious untruth what Faith is to be given to Romish Legends. This brings to my mind a passage of the Author of the History of Cardinals, Part. 1. lib. 2. pag. 61. Ʋpon the day (saith he) that is dedicated to S. Francis Xaverius, in the presence of four or five Cardinals, and in Rome it self, I heard a Jesuit preach in the praise of that Saint; among the rest of his Elogies, this was one, that he had baptized a million, and a hundred and eight thousand Souls in the Indies: But, saith the Author, I am of opinion he scarce baptized any; and my reason is, because at this time there is not one hundred thousand Christians in all the Indies: So that had it been true that Xaverius had baptized so many, the num­ber would have been encreased, especially the way having been open, since that time, to the Spaniard, Portugal, English, Hollander, and all Christians whatsoever: By which it may be evident, that the more prudent among themselves are sensible how they cheat the World with Romances. But to shut up this Chapter, if Romanists have [Page 141]more knowledge of the Scriptures than we, why are they so afraid to have Controversies decided by Scripture? Why suffer they not their people to use the Scripture? Were it but for the indignities which they put upon the holy Scripture, and for setting up a Pope as Head of the Catholick Church, and his Definitions as the Rule of Faith, is it not just with God to give them up to strong delusions to believe lyes?

SECT. I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals, or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion.

THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute, I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion, than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is, saith he, either that which makes us believe all the rest, or with­out the express knowledge and beliefe thereof, none can be saved. Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth, I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally, that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fun­damental. If by Fundamental be understood, that for which other Articles are to be believed, then sure we must suppose, there be other particulars which are believed for that. As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith, so there are distinct material Objects of Faith. If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith, which is the reason for which the rest are believed, be one and the same, then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity, there be as many Non-Fundamentals. If you take a Fundamental for that, without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved, I am sure likewise, there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion. Else the Romish implicite Colliar, and all who walk in his Footsteps, as do the plurality of their Communion, must be damned eternally. If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation, and Fundamentals, what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.11, 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation, and Gold, Silver, and Preci­ous Stones built thereupon? There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation, which yet are not the Foundation. Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation [Page 144]of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith toward God, when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths? If all Arti­cles of Faith be Fundamental, and the explicite belief thereof abso­lutely necessary to Salvation, than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally. What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont. Epist. Fundam. cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simpli­citas tutissimam facit, and so may be obnexious to many [...]ours in Religion. But what speak I of the Multitude? What did become of all the Fathers, who were leavened with the Millenary error, of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot. 233. and lib. 6. annot. 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vission be­fore the day of Judgement, of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian, Cyprian, Firmilian, Deny's of Alsxandria, who maintained rebaptization? What became of Austine, Innocent the 1. and others, who, as Mal­donat witnesses in John 6.53. affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants? Were all these Fathers damned eternally? Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamen­tal, or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternal­ly. Do we not know but in part, 1 Cor. 13.9. Who can understand his Errors, Psal. 19.12. If every Error did plunge men into Dam­nation, who then could be saved.

I know the ordinary reply, That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors, and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium, the exclusion of Saints from the Beatifique Vision, Rebap­tization, the necessity of the Eucharist, be Heresies now, in regard of of the declaration of the Church, yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers. This supposes another absurd Error, which I hope Sect. 3. to con­fute, viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Funda­mental, and consequently, the basis falling, the Superstructure can­not stand. At present I onely argue thus, if these points be Funda­mental now, which were not in the dayes of the Fathers, than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was, nor make we up one Catholick Church with them. Their Religion and ours differing in Essentials. If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental, did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization? It should therefore follow that St. [Page 145] Cyprian, and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamen­tally. Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints, for Firmi­lian is Sainted in the Calendary of the Greek Church, and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church: And therefore these errours, notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration, were not Fundamental. It's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say, that Pope Stephen though he wit­nessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization, yet ne­ver declared it an errour contrary to Faith: How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication, 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 & c [...]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, b [...]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 [Page 146]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 G [...]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 [Page 147]Church: yet in enpounding these terms, they go by the [...] among themselves. Thirdly, there is more requisite to the Unity of Religi­on, th [...]n a meer agreement in the formali [...] 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 its not a sufficient reason to say, such held one ratio formalis credendi, therefore were of the same Religion, especially when its 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 pag. 92, 93. many Fathers, S. A­thanasius in his Creed, S. Hierome lib. 3. cont. Russiu, Nazianzen tract. de fide, S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist. cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de prae­script. as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul, and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental. He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter, for Theod. lib. 4. hist. cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil, but only re­lates the Ordination of S. Ambrose. But to pass this escape, I answer, that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn [Page 148]a Soul, but not one in integrals, especially when it's maintained without pertinacy: That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith, may be apparent, because they did accuse one auo­ther, sometimes of errours in Religion, as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome, for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion, and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr. S. Austin lib. 3. de orig. animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith, yet had so much charity to him, that he said, Absit ut arbitreris te haec opi­nando à Catholica fide recessisse, quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catho­lica; therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental. The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed (which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter; to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius) is only against those who deny any. Article of that Creed. Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are sup­posed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals, as contra-di­stinguished from integrals: That of Nazianzen tract. de fide O­rat. 49. relates to Arrians, against whom he there disputes, who certainly erred fundamentally, at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. con­tra Ruffinum, seems to hint for their denying the [...]; and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valenti­nus, whom all know to have erred fundamentally: so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this di­stinction; yet I freely grant, that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul, namely, when it is joyned with per­tinacy; but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man, but his pertinacy.

But, says the Pamphleter, the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles; ergo, they hold all the 39. Articles to be Fundamentals.

Answ. Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church, concerning the 39 Articles, by the writings of eminent Di­vines in that Church approved by the Church of England, then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist. Now Learned Stil­ling fleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says, that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles, as being all Fundamentals of Faith; and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall, Pri­mate of Ireland: She excommunicates them for their pertinacy, and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church, not that she supposes them [Page 149]all Essentials of Religion. To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny; We acknowledge (saith he) that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church, in points of less moment, may deserve to be Anathemati­zed, or put out of the Church; for such a one, though he deny not the Faith, yet makes a breach of Charity, whereby he goes out of the Church, against which he so sets himself. What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws, savours of Draco's severity, who wrote all his Sanctions in blood, and made every trespass Capital, a fit Presi­dent for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition. Je­sephus lib. 2. cont. Appion. doth only say, that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law, for most part, was death. If this Romanist be so bloody, that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize, his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Sa­maritans, Luke 9.54.55, As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he call [...]d Sacramentarians; it's true of him, what was said of Elias, Jam. 5.17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others: Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament. Boxhornlius lib. 3. de harm. Eucharist. proves by many testimonies from Melancihon, Cruciger, Alefius, yea, and out of Luthers own writings. As for that heavy sentence, Revel. 22.19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture. And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought there­to, v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists, who have ad­ded all the Apocryphal Books: But it doth not say, that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scrip­ture, shall de facto be damned, if otherwise pious and penitent, and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof, were they sa­tisfied in their Consciences thereannent. Do Romanists conclude their samous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick, who questioned the Ca­nonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture?

To conclude this Section, E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles, that is Edward Worsley, an English Jesuit at Antwerp, dis­course 3. cap. 4. &c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Prote­stants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals, as unrea­sonable, and false. I should but beat the Air to examine all. Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument; Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity; but an Infinite [Page 150]Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty; Ergo, all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance, consequently, one is as ponderous as another, and equally Fundamental. To this I briefly answer (forbearing to reflect again upon the forma­lity of a Jesuits Syllogism) granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism, viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all di­vinely revealed Articles, in a compounded sense, with divine Reve­lation, it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false; but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary which he infer [...] from his Syllogism, viz. that therefore all Articles of Faith are equally ponderous and Fundamental, that is, (unless he intend to e­quivocate) that there is an equal necessity of the explicit belief of every one of them to the eternal salvation of souls. This consequent I deny, because though all revealed Articles be revealed by an infi­nite Verity, and with an infinite certainty, yet not with equal per­spicuity, and so are not with equal facility penetrable by our weak understandings, nor is the explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions, nor put under the same inseparable connexi­on with the salvation of souls. That it is so, may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason: For it cannot be denied, that there be some Articles of Religion, without the explicite belief whereof, no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason (for I abstract from the cases of Infants, deaf, and mad-men) can be saved, as that there is a God, or immortal Soul, at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental, of believing what the Church believes, which according to them, is also a revealed Verity. But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles, without the explicit belief where­of adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved: Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be sa­ved without the explicit belief of the Trinity, and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie, as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man, that God the Father is greater in power, and more Ancient than God the Son: And he brings in Panormitan, and others of their great Doctors, affirming, that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Here­sie, but also without sin, providing their Darling Principle of be­lieving what their Church believes be acquiesced unto: Ergo, the ex­plicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction, nor put under the same inseparable connexion with [Page 151]the eternal salvation of Souls, consequently, all are not equally fun­damental. I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material ob­jects of Faith, as in themselves considered, yet if a man know them to be revealed by God, he is bound to believe them all, with the most firm adhesion of mind, the meanest no less than the highest; and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them, he would err fundamentally, because he would explicitly deny the in­finite Divine Verity. And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove, which is not the thing controverted concerning Funda­mentals. That which we affirm is, that some Truths are so pro­pounded by the infinite Verity, that men are bound to believe them; yet if either through the weakness of their understandings, prejudices of education, or other such like impediments, they do not discern them to be revealed, they may through mercy be saved, provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity, and do unfeignedly re­pent, not only of their known sins, but also de occultis of their se­cret and unknown errours: Excellently said said S. Austin, Epist. 162. Qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertina­ci animositate defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt, sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus ac­ceperunt, quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati quum invenerint, nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi. I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Serene, Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle, That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great, and that there was no mors expedite way to peace, then diligently to separate necessa­ries from not necessaries, and that it's the duty of all, who are studious of peace, for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate, urge, and teach this distinction.

SECT. II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamen­tals of Faith.

PRotestants maintain the affirmative, The Pamphleter, pag. 99, and 100. with his Complices, deny that Scriptures contain all, far tiss that they do it clearly: So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3, 4. Gordon of Huntly, controv. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. &c. Valentia lib. 5. de A­nalys. [Page 152]fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg. exa­min. princip. 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. &c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly, we mean not, that they are there in so many words, but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture, they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it. If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation, and that clearly, then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be gi­ven, which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ, and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation? I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind, hic Rhodus, hic saltus. The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists, have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker, Chamier, D. Strange, &c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation, 2 Tim. 3.15. Were they not written for this end, Joh. 20.3. that we might believe, and believing have everlasting life? How could this be, if they did not contain all that's necessary to salvation? Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith, besides what is in the Scriptures, Gal. 1.8. not [...], but [...]? Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures? Did he not thunder out a woe against Herinoge­nes? Si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicieutibus aut ditrahen­tibus destinatum. Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths, and as S. Irenaeus witnesses, lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it, they did commit it to writing; where also he calls the Scripture, Fundamentum & columnam fidei: And lib. 4. cap. 66. read (says he) the Prophets and Apostles, and ye shall find, Ʋniversam actionem, omnem Doctrinam, & omnem Passionem Domini. How pe­remptory is S. Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi edit. Paris. Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia, [...] ut lequamini quae scripta [...]n sunt? He holds it not only af­frontedness, but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture. What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist. Paschali in B [...]b. pat. Tom 3. Edit. 3. Paris. 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne, Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem, di­vinum aliquid putare. And S. Chrysost. in Serm de Pseudo Prophetis, en calce Ephrae [...]ni Syri edit. 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scrip­tura reticuit. Hierom. in Micab cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis; i. e. de Scripturis—vos vero Haeretici, aedisicastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis, sed in viciuia Scripturarum; where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church, beyond which [Page 153]she may not pass; and dogmatizing without Scripture, is given as a character of Hereticks: And on Hag. cap. 1. vers. 11. 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 [Page 154]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. [Page 155]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 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, [Page 156]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 [Page 157] 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. [Page 158]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 confuted these old raucid Calumnies, yet a touch I give of them.

And first, we maintain not with Eunomians, that if a man had Faith, and retained his Profession, how impiously soever be lived, he might be saved. D. Field, when he is repelling this calumny of Ro­manists, lib. 3. cap. 22. breaks forth in these words: If (saith he) any of us ever wrote, spake, or thought any such thing, let God forget e­ver to do good unto us, and let our prayers be rejected from his pre­sence; but if this be as vile a slander as ever Satanist devised, the Lord reward them that have been the Authors and devisers of it. Who would not have thought that this serious protestation would have stopped the mouths of Romanists for ever? Yet this impudent Calumniator has the confidence to come over with it again: If our Protestation be not sufficient to clear us, yet, I hope, Bellarmines confession may be heard. Now he declares, lib. 1. de justif. cap. 3. and lib. 3. de ju­stif. cap. 6. that we acknowledge that true Faith cannot be without good works: I know that Bell. notwithstanding all this, endeavours lib. 4. de justif. cap. 1. to fix the same Calumny on Protestants, as if they denied the necessity of good works, by misconstruing some words which dropt from Luther, Calvin, and some others: But these are not only fully vindicated by Davenant de justitiâ habit. & actual. cap. 30. but also the Cardinal palpably bewrays the violence he used to his own Conscience in this Crimination; for in the beginning of that very Chapter, he confesses that Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Brentius, and the Augustan Confession, had asserted the necessity of good works. All who know our doctrine, know that we subscribe to that of the Apostle, Heb. 12.14. Without holiness none can see the Lord.

As to that which is charged upon the Aerians concerning Fasts, not to insist that it is questioned by Learned Authors, particularly by Da­naeus [Page 159]in his Commentaries upon S. Austin's book, de Haeres. cap. 53. whether there were sufficient ground to charge all that is alledged by Epiphanius, and out of him by Austin, upon the Aerians; and the ra­ther, seeing there is no mention of the Aerians as Hereticks, either in Theodorees four Books, Haeret. Fab. or in the Church Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, or Evagrius, but only in Epiphanius (which might have been occasioned by his freedom in testifying against some misde­meanours of Eustathius.) He might have known that D. Morton's Ap­peal, lib. 5. cap. 1. in confutation of this same Calumny in Breerly's mouth, had shewed from Luther and Calvin, that publick Fasts en­joyned by the Church, are not disallowed by Protestants: The like might be shewed from the confession of Protestant Churches, parti­cularly by the Helvetian art. 24. the Bohemian art. 18. Argentin cap. 8. and that of Wittenberg tit. de jejunio, and Cassander Consult art. 15. reporteth this to be the judgment of Protestants in the Saxonick con­fession; yet I must put him in mind, that their own Cardinal, Jesuit Tolet, in Luke 5. Annot. 70. confesses, that the present set Fasts of their Church, such as the Vigils, four Embers, and Lent-Fast, were not instituted by Jesus Christ.

The third Heresie that he mentions, is the denying of Free-will, which he saith is condemned by Epiphanius, Haeres. 64. In that Chap. Epiphanius disputes against Origen, to whom he ascribes sundry o­ther gross errours, all I find said in reference to Free-will is, that Adam by his Fall lost the Image of God, whereby if Origen had on­ly meant, that he lost the habits of grace and holiness, wherewith in the state of Innocency he was adorned, he had been guilty of no er­rour. This being a truth clear from Scriptures, and acknowledged by Learned Romanists, as well as by Fathers and Protestants, as is evi­dent from the debates de statu primi hominis. But if Origen meant by the Image of God, the Natural Faculties of the Rational Soul, sure it was an errour, and disallowed by Protestants, to say, that the Image of God was lost; for faln man, in so far as he has a Rational Nature, is said Gen. 9.6. to bear the Image of God. The same distinction is given in behalf of Origen by Alphonsus à Castro de Haeres. lib. 2. tit. Adam. Haeres. 2. where also he suspects that Epiphanius zeal did over­reach in charging this errour upon Origen; I might far rather charge Jesuits with Pelagianism in the matter of Free-will. But of this hereafter; only now, he who would be satisfied, may see Jansenius parallel betwixt Pelagians, and Molinists, or Jesuits.

The fourth Heresie he mentions, is that of Vigilantius condemned [Page 160]by Hierome, for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reve­renced: Need I tell him, that Erasmus wished that Hierome had u­sed more Reasoning, and less Railing in his debates with Vigilantius. Learned Fulk against the Rhemists, art. 19.12. doubts whether Hie­rome, in that heat of dispute, might not represent Vigilantius Opini­on more grosly than it was; and the rather, seeing by none of those who of old wrote the Catalogues of Hereticks, is he condemned for this thing, except only by Hierom: But if Vigilantius indeed asserted as Hierom saith, that the bodies of Saints should be thrown ad sterqui­linium, to a dunghil, and trod upon, we do abominate such thoughts; the memory of Saints with us is precious: We judge a decent Chri­stian Burial to be a honour due to their bodies; and therefore Fo­manists are highly injurious to them, who dig them up out of their Graves, and adore sometimes the Bones of a Robber, instead of a Saint; as testifieth Cassander in Consult. art. 21. de veneratione [...] quiarum; the true Veneration of the Relicks of Saints (saith the same Cassander) is to imitate the examples of Vertue and P [...] ac­corded of them; all other oftentation of Relicks, for avoiding Su­perstition, he wishes to be abandoned: How far Hierom, [...] the Catholick Church, in his time, were from giving Religious Worship to the Relicks of Martyrs, Hierom himself testifies, adversus Vigi­lant. Quis (saith he) O insanum caput aliquando Martyres adoravit, quis hominem putavit Deum. Where Hierom rates it as such an im­piety, as if one should Deifie a poor Creature.

The fifth Heresie objected to us, is that of Jovinian, condemned by Austin Haeres. 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginiiy. Seeing this Pamphleter is pleased to resume this long-ago confuted Calumny, together with the rest out. of Breerly, should he not have considered how D. Morton in his Reply to Breerly, lib. 5. cap. 9. shews various cases wherein there is a mutual preference and equali­ty betwixt Wedlock and Virginity. What impiety the Romish pro­fession of Virginity without Chastity hath introduced into the Church, their own Authors have declared. So that Nicolaus Cle­manges testifies their Nunneries are no better than Stews: I am sure, without Heresie it may he said, that Chaste Matrimony is better than impure Caelibat. If Jovinian intended no more, than that neither Wedlock nor Virginity are proper 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. [Page 161] Sect. 6. Sect. 2 18. impiously saying, Quod Virginitas fit satisfactio peccatorum maxima & meritum Regni Coe [...]um. Have not Popish Au­thors, particularly Espencaeus noted, that Hierom was p [...]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 esse [...]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 [Page 162]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 c [...]m rati [...]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, Hae [...]voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu àrnobis 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 homousi [...]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 [Page 163]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 [Page 164]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 R [...]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 [Page 165]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 wha [...] (saith the Pamphleter) if one should receive the New Testament, a [...] 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 [Page 166]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 there; and therefore I say, all those errors mentioned in the Objection, may be, upon the mat­ter, confuted by Scripture, as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest, if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies.

Before I leave this question, I must yet take notice of three te­stimonies objected by the Pamphleter, pag. 103. from Chrysost. Epi­phan. and Austin: For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei. cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier, Whittaker, Davenant, Strange &c. yet they are here propounded, as if nothing had been replyed to them: I begin with the last from Austin, lib. 5. de bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pam­phleter says, that Austin affirms a Fundamental; namely, Infant bap­tism not to be contained in Scripture. This citation demonstrates, that the Pamphleter has never read Austin; for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants, but only says, that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks, was received by Tradition: Neither is this a Fundamental, else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally, who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebapti­zation, though as Austin in that same cap. says, he were pressed, both with the custom of the Church, and Pope Stephens Authority, to the contrary: Nor could Austin mean, that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority, for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture, as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24. lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. &c. consequently Austin only meant, that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis, or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church, who had been baptized by a He­retick, without Rebaptization: Both which we grant; and yet af­firm with Austin, and the Catholick Church, that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization.

His other testimony is from Epiphan. Haeces. 61. we must use Tra­ditions, for the Scriptures have not all. To this it's answered, that E­piph. doth not there speak of Fundamentals. The point which he is as­serting is, that it's a sin, after Vowed Virginity, to Marry, which is a truth; for either there is sin in vowing rashly, not considering [Page 167]what strength there is to perform, or by breaking the Vow unne­cessarily, if there be strength to abstain. Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms, that in the case of Vowed Virginity, it's better to Marry, than secretly to Fornicate, or as he expresses it, occultis ja­culis sauciari, the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster, and other Romanists: However, I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals, as to make that one. But secondly, it's an­swered by D. Strang, lib. 2. de script. cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epi­phanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions, for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage, after a Vow of Virginity, he there confirms from that Scripture, 1 Tim. 5.11. and therefore he must call it unwritten, only [...], because it's not set down expresly, and in terminis in Scripture, albeit it may conse­quentially be deduced from it. I add thirdly and lastly, though Scripture contain all Fundamentals, yet there may be much use of Traditions, as a motive of credibility, to introduce Faith, or to clear the meaning of Scriptures, or about historical things, &c.

In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrys [...]st. in 2 Thes. 2. where he says, that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing. Is this the present question, whether the Apostles did deli­ver all things in writing? No surely, but whether all Fundamentals, or all things necessary to salvation, be committed to writing. Now Chrysost. in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that, nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist. to Thess. cap. 2. he expresly affirms, that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture, consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scrip­ture, unless he did contradict himself. This is enough to discover, that the testimony of Chrysost, does not militate against our present Assertion, whether Chrysost. mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not, only Rituals, as Chamier conceives, Panstrat. Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pi­ous lives of Apostolick persons, which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition, as Rivet supposes in Cathol. Orthodox. tract. 1. quest. 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures, O­rally delivered by the Apostles, as Chillingworth insinuates in his de­fence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire. As Christ did many things which are not written, so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally, and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings. But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Savi­our [Page 168]is quite lost, so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago, insomuch that the Ancient Fa­thers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures: By which it appears, that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports. Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour, or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures, given by the Apostles, been preserved, they ought to have been firmly be­lieved but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost, he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them. And so much of the second question; I now proceed to

SECT. III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental.

ANswer negatively: But the Pamphleter, pag. 91, and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm. Where it must be obser­ved how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question, pag. 90, 91. as if the question betwixt us were, Whether a man may either suspend his assent, or positively dissent from lesser things, when they are revealed by God, and propounded to him by the same Authority, with the most necessary Articles of Faith. And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the questi­on, as thus stated. But this is a notorious prevarication: For all Protestants do acknowledge, that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us; yea, not to assent to the least mate­rial object of Faith, when it is known that God has revealed it, were an impeaching of the Veracity of God, and so hainous a tre­spass, that if continued in, should assuredly damn eternally. Nay further, as acute M. Chillingworth observes, Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes, though erroniously, any thing to be revealed by God, and yet will contradict it, is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God. The most that Protestants affirm (to which all solid Christians ever assented) is, that through the weak­ness of our understanding, we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed, we may sometimes suppose that not to be re­vealed by God, which is revealed by him, or that to be revealed by him, which is not revealed. In this case (which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization) if a man believe firmly, not only the Ve­racity [Page 169]of God, and be ready to assent to the particular truth where­of now he doubts, if he knew it were revealed by God, but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith; we say, in that case, our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smal­ler material objects of Faith, which through infirmity are misbe­lieved. This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiqui­ty, Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question, the true state of the question is, whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation, and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental, so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had; in this indeed we maintain the Ne­gative, and my Adversary, and Jesuited Romanists, the Affirmative. That this is the true state of the question, may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself: For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question, at length he comes above board, pag. 92. thus: The Church (saith he) in her publick Decrees of General Councils, strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication, all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith, which she could not justly do, if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believ­ed, when known to be decided by her: It's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls. Yet it would be fur­ther noted, that by the Church, Romanists understand the Roman Church, or Church in Communion with the Pope, acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy: And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controver­sies of Religion, ther for it must be understood of her representatives, & seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare, and the sense of their Ca­nons are obnoxious to various debates; therefore this power of deter­mining and imposing Fundamentals, (though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils) must at length be re­solved into the Pope. I wrong them not. Here Jesuit Gretser, speak­ing in name of the rest, in defens. Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm (saith he) the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith, by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome, who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church. The question is then, whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns, ex Cathedra, and as matters of Faith, must be believed, because he in­joyns it, and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation, the Jesui­ted Party affirm, we deny: It's not the misbelieving what Scripture says, but what the Roman Church or Pope saith, that according to these men, does condemn Souls.

I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine, which cannot but ruine with its own weight, not being supported with any solid ground; only take these brief hints. 1. The Catho­lick Church, in all her Representatives, since the Apostolick Age, is fallible, as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith; Ergo, all that the Repre­sentatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith, are not to be held as Fundamentals. This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure. But 2. It's an intollerable Cata­chresis to affirm the Romish Church, much more the Pope, to be the Catholick Church, or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman, or to the Pope; by as good reason they might affirm Italy, or Rome, to be the whole World; and pre­dicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World, Ergo, though it were granted that the Catholick Church, or her Represen­tatives, had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith, it does not follow, that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church, or Pope of Rome, as our Adversaries affirm. 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith, Ergo, far less every thing that the Church proposes: The sequel is evident; for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental, this must needs be it, because as Romanists affirm, what the Church says, God himself says: But this reason cannot be cogent, for beyond all peradventure, what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself; and yet both Pro­testants and Papists acknowledge, that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental, therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental. This argument concludes, that though she were in­fallible, as Scripture truly is, yet would it not follow, that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith. It may be here objected, that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture, and yet misbelieves it, erres Fundamentally; therefore also if the Church be infallible, he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be pro­pounded by her, erreth likewise Fundamentally. Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church, the falshood whereof, I hope, has already been evict­ed. I answer, that he indeed erreth Fundamentally, who misbe­lieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture, provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture; yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth (for in other circumstan­ces [Page 171]it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour) as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God, which renders the man an Infidel. But, I hope, Romanists themselves will not say, that if Cardinal Cajetan, who questioned the Divine Authority of the E­pistle to the Hebrews, had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle, had erred Fundamentally; and consequently, though the Church were infallible, as she is not, yet if he who questioned her Insallibi­lity should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her, he should not err Fundamentally: For in so doing, he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God, as in the first case. 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental; ergo, after the Churches definition, the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before, contrary to Ephes. 4. there is but one Faith: The sequel is evident, because after that definition of the Church, there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before. And from this it follows, the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion: For by the new definitions of their Church, they have made many Es­sentials which the Ancient Church never knew, as I demonstrated against M. Demster, Paper 4.5. I argue with Learned M. Stilling­fleet thus: The Church is a Church before she past out her definiti­on, ergo, by her definition she makes no Fundamentals: The sequel is proved, because the Church cannot be a Church without the be­lief of all Fundamentals; ergo, whatever definition she passes poste­riour to her being a Church, is none of the Fundamentals. E.W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles, Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stilling­fleet, supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile: As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth, after the settlement of some great matters (I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws) they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws; so he conceives it to be in the Church. But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence. Two things (if I mistake not) may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile: And first it's beyond doubt, that after the settlement of the Funda­mental Laws of a Kingdom, the King and Parliament have a Le­gislative Power to create new Laws, not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being, but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none. But the more Judicious Romanists deny, that [Page 172]the Representatives of the Catholick Church, far less of the Roman, or a Pope, have power to make Articles of Faith which were not, but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were. So Alphonsut à Castro de haeres. lib. 1. cap. 8. Valen­tia in Part. 3. disp. 1. quest. 1. punct. 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 3. quest. 2. yea, so much is acknowledged by E. W. him­self, Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive, cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion, because it did attribute to the Romish Church, i. e. the Pope, power to make Articles of Faith, contrary both to Scripture, Gal. 1.8. and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus: It was replyed to him by a Romanist, that they only give to the Church a declarative power, to declare what be Articles of Faith. If the Church have only a decla­rative power, then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith, as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the King­dom: or if she have power to make Articles of Faith, then D. Tay­lor's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists. They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon. But second­ly, if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom, when addition were made to them, thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered; and different from what it was, consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith, the Christian Religion should essenti­ally vary from what it was before: Nay, if the Church may add to Fundamentals, and make that Fundamental which was not Funda­mental, why might she not pair from them also, and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals, and so overturn all Christianity, and make it a quite different thing from what it was. But the Unity of the Christian Religion, and of the Catholick Church, prove convincingly, that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same, and unalterable. Sixthly and lastly, The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impious consequences which flow from it: As 1. The imperious Usurpation of one part of the Catholick Church, namely, of the Church of Rome, her Popes or Councils, over the whole Catho­lick, by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World, to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith, which Christ never authorized her to do. 2. It establishes a most griev­ous Schism: thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church, as Hereticks or persens erring fundamentally, all who cannot submit to her he­retical [Page 173]Decrees. 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable, and to conclude, that all shall be damned, which do not with Issa­char couch down under the burdens which she imposeth. 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith, if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church, it's e­nough, though they know little in particular what she has impo­sed; yea, some say, though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct. Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man, saith he, be­lieve his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith, he meriteth by believing, though it be an errour; because he is bound to believe, until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church. O dreadful impiety! Shall it be not only not sinful, but meritorious to believe Lyes, when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church?

The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently e­victed, our Doctrine, upon the other hand, may be clear; viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals, on which Scrip­ture hath put a character of necessity: for the appointment of Fun­damental Articles, or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life, dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God; and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture, which are the compleat Rule of Faith, and deliver to us the whole Coun­sel of God, concerning our Salvation. But this Jesuit must needs be still prevaricating; and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a cha­racter given by me of a Fundamental, if it be commanded to be be­lieved by all. But never did I assert any such thing, nor did I ever think, that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fun­damental; we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith, whether integral or Fundamental: But in this is the difference, that Funda­mentals are also necessary, necessitate medii & finis, by necessity of the means, and of the end: so as Salvation cannot be attained with­out the belief thereof, neither is any thing to be held as such, unless the Scripture, which is the adequate Rule of Faith, put a character of necessity thereupon.

From what has been said I deduce this Corollary, that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals, and consequently though there be diversity of integrals betwixt Churches, yet if the Fundamentals be preserved, they all make up one Catholick Church; the Greek Church, Waldenses, Wicklevists, and Hussites may differ from us in integrals, yet if the Fundamen­tals [Page 174]be held by all, we make up one Catholick Church. Hence also it may be judged, whether Romanists, or we be the true Catholick Church. We own all for Members of the Catholick Church, who own the Fundamentals, and superadd nothing destructive thereunto: But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith, ex­pressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth, or in that English confession of Faith annexed to H. T. his Manual of Controversies, reprinted at Doway 1671, many copies whereof were lately appre­hended at Leith, and consequently they rend themselves from the greater part of the Christian Church.

SECT. IV. Whether was it necessary for the decision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster, and the Author, to determine the precise number of Fun­damentals.

ANswer negatively: for 1. the particular question betwixt him and me, when he turned to that usual to pick and subter­fuge of Romanists concerning the precise number of Fundamentals, was whether the Scriptures do clearly contain all things necessary to Salvation. But this general, as I told in my sixth paper, pag. 92. may be proved without an induction and precise enumeration of all Fundamentals, and this I made out by clear Scriptures which he never once examined. But 2. take the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and me in the greatest latitude, It was concerning the religion of Protestants, and not of the particular sentiments of this or that Protestant Author, seeing therefore as I told in my tenth Paper pag. 219. that the Reformed Churches in their harmo­ny of Confessions had not determined that precise Catalogue, should I have pitched upon it, I had left my work to follow a tergiver­sing Vagrant. 3. As it was not necessary, so neither was it ex­pedient, that I being a private person, should take on me to define the precise Catalogue of Fundamentals, and the rather seeing the Romish Church extending the number of Fundamentals too farr hath Schismatically separated her self from the body of the Ca­tholick Church, Nor do I know any thing more destructive to the publick peace of the Church, then the rash and unadvised de­termination of Fundamentals, for by that means who ever acknow­ledge not all these, are in the judgement of such persons ex­cluded [Page 175]from the Catholick Church and Salvation, excellently said, Luther, as cited by Mr. Baxter Saints rest, part. 1. pag. 138. Edit. 4. nihil pestilentius in ecclesia doceri potest, quam siea que necessaria non sunt, necessaria fiant, hac enim tirannide conscientiae illaqueantnr & libertas fidei extinguitur. 4. If a man believe all Fundamentals though he cannot precisely distinguish them from integrals he may be saved. Can Romanists for all the noise they make about Fundamentals define the precise number of them, why then being so often requir­ed, particularly by learned Chillingworth and Tillotson as I instanced paper. 7. pag. 122. have they never done it? yea Dr. Holden in A­nal. fid. lib. 1. cap. 4. affirms it to be unreasonable to demand it, and impossible to perform it, But 5. Its an impudent fals-hood which this Pamphleter often repeats in his 5. Section, that I had affirmed that the number of Fundamentals cannot be determined, let him instance the place without varying my words, when I did affirm this, Nay I was so far from it that I challenged Mr. Dempster of the same untruth paper. 7. pag. 122. But Jesuits will not blush, though deprehended in such Peccadillo's. All his pretext for this, is from a testimony of Mr. Chillingworth part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 13. cited by me, wherein that Author affirms, that more may be necessary to the Salvation of some then of others, and therefore to call for a precise Cata­logue of points necessary to the Salvation of every one, were as if one should call for a diall to serve all meridians, or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes. Concerning which testimony I desire these things to be noted. 1. This Pamphleter, as if he had been left to divine concerning the Author of that testimony, speakes as one that gave a specimen of his great reading, saying Mr, Chilling­worth, is the Man, as I conceive, and yet I had in my tenth paper pag. 219. not only named Chillingworth, but pointed at Cap and Sect where this testimony was to be found. 2. This was Mr. Chillingworths assertion not mine, The most I said of it, was paper. 6. pag. 92. What if it should be added, that more is re­quisite to the Salvation of one then another, whereupon a great Divine, whom I by name expressed paper. 10. pag. 219. spared not to say, &c. But I did not positivly own his assertion. Yet 3. it may safely be said that more may be required to the Sal­vation of one then of another, and that its as impossible to de­termine a Catalogue of truths necessary to the Salvation of e­very one, as to find out a dial to serve all Meridians, or a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes, and yet not be impossible to [Page 176]determine Fundamentals properly and strictly so called. For clearing of this, it would be considered that there be two kinds of truths necessary to Salvation, some primarly, simply, and absolutely, with­out the explicite belief whereof no adult person can be saved, and these are strictly taken Fundamentals, others are onely necessa­ry secundum quid, and Secundarily, as when a point of truth is dis­covered to be revealed by God, though in it self it be not ab­solutely necessary, yet in these circumstances a man cannot disbelieve it, or impugn it, and continue therein, without throwing him­self upon damnation. For to oppugn known truth is a sin, which without repentance necessarily infers damnation. On this account Mr. Chillingworth said that the precise number of necessa­ry truths could not be determined; because one may see more of the material objects of Faith to be revealed than another, and so more may be necessary to the Salvation of one than of another, and consequently its impossible that a certain number for all should be determined, and so much also is acknowledged by Dr. Vane, Lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 88. Yet this concludes no impossibility of deter­mining the number of the first kind of necessary truths, without the explicite belief whereof no adult person may be saved, though I neither judge it necessary nor expedient to be done by me a­the present, perhaps also an Article of religion may be more clearly revealed then the Fundamentaly of it, for though it be absolut­ly necessary to Salvation that Fundamentals be believed, yet its not absolutely necessary, that every Fundamental be believed, under this reduplication, as a Fundamental. Among other reasons, why it hath pleased the Lord not to reveal the Fundamentality of all Fundamentals as clearly, as the Articles themselves, this may be one, lest people resting on the knowledg of Fundamentals, should be less solicitous in searching after other divine truths; which though not of absolute necessity, yet are very precious. It will be time to answer his squibs and raillery, from the changes of the Moon, when he has vindicated not only their own Missionaries who are known for most part to be a company of Apostate Runnagado's, but also the body of their religion and missal from multifarious changes, which some have not unfitly resembled to a beggars coat patched, up, at sundry times of clouts of many colours.

But how shall it be known (saith the Pamphleter pag 85.) that Protestants do a gree in Fundamentals, if the precise number thereof cannot be known? It might be reply sufficient to appeal the ad­versary [Page 177]to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree? Sure there is no Fundamental, which is not owned by some Society of Christians, else there should be no true Chri­stian Church in the World, but let the dogmaticalls of all the Chri­stian Churches in the world be searched, there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed. but upon accurat triall, it may be made appear that its either false, or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation. Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them. Nay the violent opposition made to the Re­formed Churches by Papists and other adversaries, are no small con­firmation that we hold all the Fundamentals, for surely if we did deny any Fundamental, our enemies, who wait for our halting, and love to grate upon our sores, would have laid it forth convincingly before the World, which none of them having been able to do, it is more then pro­bable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals. But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched up­on? Surely never I, learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp, Stilling­fleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed; they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds, the Apo­stolick, Nicene, Athanasian, and that of Constantinople, If it be so, then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protest­ant; do subscribe and that in the very sense, wherein the ancient, Church took them. But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds, and altogether unknown to the ancient Church, therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fun­damentals, yea and among themselves also. Can they so much as agree, what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved? I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he be­lieved all Fundamentals, who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him, that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast, that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures, to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul, and the direction of his life and actions. I say, if this be a solid rule, then, certainly, we hold all fundamentals of religion, there being, thorow mercy, many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches, who have such a testimony in their consciences. Yet, I deny not, [Page 178]but this rule has need to be well cautioned, else I am afraid that Arrians, Socinians, and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals, and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before. To shut up all in a word, let all the solid rules Ima­ginable be taken for trying, who have all the Fundamentals of Faith, and we decline to be tried by none of them. Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule, the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved, and is mani­festly partial. viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental, which she defines to be such.

SECT. V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Chri­stianity.

ANswer Affirmatively, and that many wayes, for. 1. If a Fun­damental be taken for the rule of Faith, or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured, which is the Holy Scripture, as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally, for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith, viz. the sen­tence of their infallible visible Judge, or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits, the sentence of the Pope, hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur, Petrus, & quilibet ejus successor est Petra & fundamentum ecclesiae, i. e. Peter and any suc­ceeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church, and a­gain, a little after ejus praedicatio & confessio est radix mundi, si ille erra­ret totus mundus erraret, and Grezter defens. lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei. pag, 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur & suscipimus, quod nobis ponti­fex ex Cathedra Petri, tanquam supremus Christianorum magister, omni­umque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God, what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians, and Judge of all con­troversies. Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed, which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion, yet they pervert the sense thereof, as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church, as if there were held out the Catholicism, Infallibility, and supre­macy [Page 179] &c. of the Roman Church, none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church, so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid & Symb. cap. 1. sub. ipsis paucis in Symbolo con­stitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt. 3. Roma­nists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scrip­ture, nor in the ancient Creeds, by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion; and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all, who would have communion with the Roman Church, whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs, are constrained to separate from them. Many of these superinduced Fundamen­tals might be enumerated. Its indeed a fundamental, that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church, but who warranted to add the Pope as another head? Its a Fundamental, that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross, but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass? Its a Fundamental, that God is Religiously to be adored, but who war­ranted them to add that Images also are religiously to be adored? Its a Fundamental, that God is to be invocated, but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints? Its a Fundamen­tal that there is an Hell and Heaven, but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins, and the temporal punish­ment due to mortals sins? Its a Fundamental, that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life, but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life? Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals. As for Instance, if there be a daily pro­priatory sacrifice in the Mass, if there be a Purgatory for expiating sins of just men, if there be merit of good works then Christ has not fully satisfied for all the fins of the elect, nor fully merited eter­nal life to us. Thus as Romanists do in directly overturn the soveraig­nity of princes by ascribing to the Pope a dominion over them, in ordine ad spiritualia, so also they overturn indirectly the Funda­mentals of Religion, by a super-addition of new Fundamentals.

SECT. VI. Were the Waldenses, Wicklevists and Hussits of the same religion as to Fundamentals and Essentials with Protestants.

BEcause I maintained the affirmative, the Pamphleter pag. 94.95. &c. writs one invective against me. But he might have known that this is no singular notion of mine, the same being asser­ted by the learned Ʋsser de success. eccles. Cap. 6. Voet. desper. caus. Pap. lib. 3. Sect, 2. Cap. 9. Morney myster. iniqui. pag. 730. edit. 2. Flaccus Illiric. catal. test. Verit. col. 1498. &c. edit Salmurien. anno. 1608 Dr. Francis Whyt in his reply to Jesuit Fisher pag. 105.130.139. Prideaux, praelect. de visib. eccles. Sect. 11. printed. anno. 1624. Hottin­ger hist. eccles. saeculo. 12, Sect. 5. Cade. Justif. of Church of England lib. 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 3. Birbeck Protestants evidence Cent. 12. Paul Per­rin in his History of the Waldenses, Samuel Morland in his history of the evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont, and by many others which were here tedious to relate. The harmony as to substantials of Religion betwixt these witnesses of truth, and the Protestant Churches, the author mentioned have copiously confirm­ed both by the confessions, and by the Apologies of the Walden­ses and Bohemians, and by the testimonies of learned Romanists, particularly of Thuan, Guicciardin, Surius, yea of Cochlaeus, Bell. Gretser &c. Hath not Voetius loc. cit. Sect. 4. shewed that the con­fession of Faith set forth by the Bohemians and Hussits was ap­proved by Luther, Melanchton, Bucer, Musculus and the Universi­ty of Wittenberg, that Wendelstin one of Luthers first adversaries pronounced the Lutherans, novos & Germanos Waldenses and that Jesuit Gretser called the Waldenses And Albigenses. Calviniano­rum atavos, the Calvinists Progenitors. Yea Pope Leo. 10. in his letter to Frederick Duke of Saxony recorded by Sleidan. Comment. lib. 2. sayes expresly of Luther, quod Wickleffi, Hussi & Bohemorum haereses antea damnatas resuscitet. That he revived the old con­demned heresies of Whickleff, Huss and of the Bohemians. Certain it is that the remains of the Waldenses in France are incorporated to the protestant Churches. But why should I resume what the forcited Authors have so largely demonstrated, viz. that Luther­ans derived their doctrin from Hussits, and Hussits, from Wickle­vists, and Wicklevists from Waldenses? Mr. Perrin and Morland [Page 181]make mention of many of the ancient writings of the Wal­denses, which hold forth the conformity of their Doctrins with the Doctrins of Protestants, particularly one written anno. 1120. entituled, What thing is Antichrist, another a­bout the same time, entituled The dream of Purgatory, and a third as ancient as the other two entituled. The cause of our separation from the Church of Rome. I shall only desire thee Reader to ponder the Articles of doctrine which were charg­ed on the Waldenses, either as related by the Magdeburgians cent. 12. Cap. 8. Col. 1206.1207. or by Reginaldus in Calvino Turcismo lib. 2. Cap. 5. So virulent an adversary that modest Ʋsher calls him Turco-papista, or as they are rehersed out of Aeneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius 2. by Bishop Ʋsser and Voetius, and than Judge whether in substantialls they agree with Protestants. I exhibit only a few of them 1. That the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith. 2. That the reading of the holy Scriptures ought to be granted to all ranks of persons. 3. That there is no purgatory, but that departed Souls go imm [...]diately either to Eternal torments, or Eternal joyes. 4. That its in vain to pray for the dead, that being but one artifice to satisfie the avarice of Priests. 5. That the Pope of Rome hath no supremacy over the Churches of Christ. 6. That Messes are impious, yea that its a fury to celebrate them for the dead. 7. That the Sacrament of the supper ought to be given in both kinds. 8. That its Idolatry to invo­cate, and religiously adore departed Saints. 9. That the Images of God and Saints ought to be destroyed. 10. That confir­mation and extream unction are not to be held among the Sacraments of the Church 11. That auricular confession is not necessary 12. That oyle ought not to be mingled with water in the administration of Baptism 13. That the consecration of holy water and palm crosses are ludibrous. 14. That its impro­fitable to implore the necessity and suffrages of departed Saints. 15. That saying of Canonick hours is but a trifling of time 16. That the order of begging Friers were invented by the devil. 17. That the Romish Synagogue is the whore of Babylon, these and diverse other Articles of their doctrin are collected out of the forcited authors by Ʋsser Cap. 6. Sect. 17.18. Now whether they who believed the ancient Creeds and assented to the decrees of the first. 4. general Councils, and maintained [Page 182]these particulars did not agree with Protestants in the substa [...]tials of Faith. Let those judge who know the doctrine of Protestants.

But sayes the Pamphleter pag. 94. If I look upon them as be­ing of the same religion as to substantials with us, then I should ju­stifie the erroneous and unchristian epinions which the Authentick records of those times testifie they did maintain, Answer, the con­tradictions of those records to one another in the particulars charged on the Waldenses, have given just occasion to learned Pro­testants to convict those records of falshood and to vindicate the Innocency of the Waldenses, see this prolixly done by Ʋsher-lib. cit. cap. 6. from [...] 19. to the end, Voet. disp. causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 9. at also Hottinger and Birbeek in the places forcited, did I not in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 130. bring in Paradius in hi [...] Annals of Burgundy, and Gerrard in his french Histo­ry testifying that impious opinions were maliciously imposed on them, quod vitia & corruptelas principum liberius repraehenderent, should I then justifie what themselves did not justifie. Nei­ther does my assertion oblige me to maintain any of their real errors, Is it any wonder that they living in so dark a time, did not discover so clearly as we, all the errors of Popery? Have I not often told there may be unity in fundamentals, where there are differences as to integrals?

But sayes the Pamphleter, I should prove that those Sects, were the Catholick Church spread through the whole World, and that their doctrine had succession from the Apostles times. It may be answer sufficient to remember my adversary, that Protestants ne­ver affirmed that they who went under the name of the Walden­ses, were the whole Catholick Church, yet seeing a testimony which I cited from Frier Reyner in confutation of that same ob­jection, is so grosly represented by the Pamphleter, I must re­sume it again, and a little more largely then before. Reyner there­fore professes there was never a more dangerous Sect, then that of the Waldenses, and that for three Causes. 1. quia dinturnior, because its of longer continuance, some saying that it hath continued from the time of Sylvester, others from the time of the Apostles. 2. quia ge­neralior, its more universal, for there is hardly any countrey into which this Sect doth not spread. 3. because, other Sects are joyned with atrocious blasphemies, but this of Leonists or Waldenses hath a great shew of piety, they live justly before men, they believe all things well concerning God, and all the articles of the Creed. Onely the [Page 183]Roman Church they hate and blaspheme, and the mul [...]itude are easily indueed to believe them. This testimony to the Antiquity, uni­versality and sanctifie of the religion of the Waldenses is given by a Romish inquisitour.

Hereupon saith the Pamphleter pag. 94. Mr. Menzies with his ordi­nary ingenuity, will have Fryer Reyner to say absolutely the Waldenses were from the Apostles days, Reader, behold the ingenuity of a Jesuit! When I read this bold accusation, I thought perhaps my pen had given me the slip, for I do abhor it as diabolical and Jesuitical to prevaricate purposely, but when I turned over to my ninth paper pag. 194. where the testimony is cited, I found the Jesuit to be as voyd of shame, as of honesty, for thus I cite that part of Rey­ners words, yea some say (saith Reyner) from the Apostles dayes. Is this to cite Reyner, as affirming absolutely that the Waldenses continued from the dayes of the Apostles, if this person dare so prevaricate in a matter of fact, where there be so many standing witnesses against him, as there be printed copies of my papers A­gainst Mr. Dempster, what Faith is to be given to his other crimi­nations, let those who have not forfeited their own honesty, judge. But what advantage have Romanists by that, some say of Reyners? O sayes the Pamphleter, those who said, were Leonists, or Waldenses themselves as witnesses Pilichdorphius, this same evasion was used long ago by Jesuit Gre [...]ser, and solidly answered by the learned Ʋsher de success. cap. 8. [...]s. 1. for Frier Reyner affirmes himself that the Sect of the Waldenses was of longer continuance then any o­ther sect which could not be, unless it had continued from the days of the Apostles, Surely he could not think that it had its rise from Poter Waldns auno 1160. For Reyner himself lived, as is testified by Jusuit Possevin in appar. Sac. aune 1254. so that there should only have interveened. 94. years betwixt the rise of this Sect and Reyner. But many sects were of greater antiquity and duration then that, therefore that cannot be the Friers meaning, Mr. Mer­land in his forcited hist. lib. 1. cap. 3. proves that the inhabitants of the vallies of Piemont professed the same doctrine sunday ages before Peter Waldus, among the rest he pitches upon Claudius Archbishop of Turin who about the year 820. ceased not to teach his people in this place, (as his adversary Jonas Aurelianen­sis confesses) that they ought not to run to Rome for the pardon of their sins, nor have recourse to Saints or their relicks, that the Church is not founded on Saint Peter, much less upon the Pope, [Page 184]but upon the doctrine of the Apostles, and that they ought not to worship Images.

Pag. 95. The pamphleter is so civil as to say, that I have a more justclaim to John Huss name, then to his religion. I am not of such anserin stupidity, but that I could make as ignominions at reorsion upon my adversary. But I choose to walk in the footsteps of holy Jesus, who when he was reviled, reviled not again. Did not John Huss before the Council of Constance maintain that there is one one­head of the Catholick Church, the Lord Jesus Christ? Did he not ly oppugne the supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the Catholick Church? Did he not maintain that the Sacrament of the Supper ought to be celebrated under both kinds? Do not Protestants a­gree with Hussits in many articles charged upon them, by Aeneas Sylvius in hist. Bohem. cap. 35. how then sayes the pamphleter, I may lay more claim to his name then to his Religion? May not Roma nists be ashamed to make mention of this Martyr John Huss, whom their fathers at the council of Constance murdered perfidiously, contrary to the letters of safe conduct? am I not ho­noured with a peece of further conformity with John Huss then in name onely, viz. to be an object of Romanists malice, and that it has not proceeded further, I owe to the mercy of God, not to their good will.

But sayes he, John Huss was for invocation of saints, prayer for the dead seven Sacraments, transubstantiation, yea and the Popes suprema­cy, and this he would confirm, as from others, so from holy Mr. John Fox, who according to his usual modesty pag. 69. He terms a fiery protestant, because in his Acts and monuments he records the fiery and bloody persecution of that scarlet coloured whore of Rome. The like he affirms of Herome of Prague. But besides that all these are fetched from Breerlies Apology tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 5. and that when I mentioned John Huss, it was not so much his particular sentments that I meant, as the doctrine of those people, who were termed Hussits. I ask the Pampheleter whether he gives most credit to the Counsell of Constance, and Pope pius the 2. or to Mr. Fox, John Huss, and Hierome of Pragne? now surely the Coun­cil of Constance chargeth John Huss as maintaining that after the consecration the bread remains. And whatever Apologies, he made for himself in this matter this is sustained by the Council as an article of his enditement, so also Mr. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments pag. 1799. Edit. Lond. anno. 1632 testifies. Is [Page 185]he not accused as maintaining the errors of Wickleff. And is not this the first error condemned by the Council in Wickleff ses [...]. 8. substantia panis materialis, & vini materialis manet in Sacramente. Is not this one of the Interrogatures pre­scribed by the Council at Constance sess. 45. as Caranza re­lates in Summa Concil; for discovery of Wicklevists and Hussits utrum credat quod post consecrationem sacerdotis, in Sacra­mento altaris, sub velamento panis & vini, non sit panis materialis, & vinum materiale, sed idem per omnia Christus qui fuit in earne passus? Doth not Aeneas Sylvius, or Pope Pius the 2d. charge the Hussits as affirming the equality of the Bishop of Rome with other Bishops, as disallowing prayers to, and invoca­tion of Saints departed, as condemning the necessity of atri­cular confession, and excluding confirmation from the num­ber of Sacraments? either then the Pamphleter must derogate Faith from his Pope and Council, or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us. Do Romanists hold that if a man believe, as the Church believes, he cannot be Heretick, though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith? have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague; who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed, but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith, and were in a readiness to believe any point, when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out, as John Huss did often profess before the Council, and the rather he living in a time of much darkness? What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague, yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ, which he could not have done, if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals. Its not enough with me [...]r any Protestant, as this Pamphleter slanders us, pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do. Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels, and brothell whores, then for Protestants. They can indulge the one at Rome, but not the other. Are the Wal­denses, John Huss, Hierome of Prague, who miantained the Apo­stolick Creed, held the scripture for the rule of Faith, and abjur­ed many Papal errors and Superstitions, and had eminent testi­monies of their Holiness from very enemies, to be laid in [Page 186]the ballance with Turkes or Tartars? Protestants have need to look to themselves. It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists, If their Power were answereable to their desires, then Turks and Tartars.

SECT. VII. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals.

THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias. But takes no leafure to examine, what I said to the contrary, Paper 10. pag. 226, 227, 228, 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further re­ply, yet now I add these two things. 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter, with others, charges on them, of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, by learned Romanists, particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent. dist. 11. lit. D. Azorius the Jesuit, par. 1. instit. Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit. de convers. gentium lib. 6. part. 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church, rather in the manner of expression, then on the matter, As for the Pamphleters Inference thence, that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction, sayes B [...]nae Spei. tom. 1. Theol. Scholast. tract. 2. disp. 4. dub. 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists, but whatever the consequence be, the consequent is most falsely im­puted to the Grecians, for they maintain no such thing. I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles, agreed upon by the first four general Councils, but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists, and therefore though they have their blemishes, I dare not say they err Fundamentally, and so ex­clude them from the Catholick Church. If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their fa­mous Patriarch and Martyr, which Rev [...]rend and worthy Mr. P [...]ait hath reprinted before his late book, what the consonancy b [...]t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is, may be apparent. [Page 187] Ephraim Pagit, Christi [...]nog. part. 1. Cap. 4. reckons out, 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church, wherein we differ from the Papists, They deny the Popes su­premacy and infallibility, they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith, deny Apocryphal books to be Cano­nick Scripture, celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds, allow no private mass, no Image of God, they deny Purgatory fire, admit laicks to read the Scriptures, &c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies, whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass, hold Transubstantiation, Seven Sacraments, prayer to the Saints, and for the dead, it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the con [...]utor of that Manual of Controversies, John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art. 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish tran­substantiation, whereby the Elements cease to be, but where­by they become what they were not, the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ, so [...] to be partaker of his divine nature, as the A­postle means when he sayes, they are the Body of Christ. These things are to be understood, cum grano salis, and in a my­stical s [...]se. But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants, or Rats do eat the true and pro­per Body of Christ. 2dly. that the Greek Church hold no o­ther sacuisice in the Mass, then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Nor 3dly, do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem, for less as if they did help them by their merits, only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints. Non 4thly, do they pray for departed Saints, to obtain to them libe­ [...]tion from the pains of Purgatory. If we may credit Roffens. cent. Luth. art. 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres. lib. 12. tit. Purgatorum haeres. 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire, only in their publick offices, they commemorate the dead, even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors (whom all confess not to be in torments) and pray for their resurrecti­on and solemn acquital at the last Judgment. Nor 5thly, do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so cal­led neither more nor fewer. How much of a Logomachy [Page 188]is in that question I shew in my 10th. Paper against Mr. Demp­ster pag. 238.239. Sure I am Ephraim pagit. loc. tit. recites the denying of Extream Unc [...]ion, as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us, So that if the state of the questions were well cleared, and all circum­stances duly pondered, the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear. Who desiderate a more prolix vindication, I remit them to D. Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will serious­ly consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Otto­man empire, and their want of means of Instruction which o­ther Christians enjoy, together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them, may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church, and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire. Learned Voetius in desper. Causa Pap. lib. 3. Sect. 2. Cap. 8. observes that the more knowledge the Oriental Churches, and those in the We­stern part of Europe have of the estate of one anosher, the more the alienation of the Greek Church from the Roman, and their affection to Protestants doth appear, and particu­larly in that they do yearly excommunicate the Roman Church, but not the Protestant Churches, D. Hornbeck in­summa contrev. lib. 11. de Graecis pag. 977. regates passionately that there is no more correspondence betwixt Protestant Churches, and the Greek Church, by which these afflicted Christians might be strengthened under their tentations, and we better understand the state of the Oriental Churches. But this I hope at the time shall suffice for the agreement of our Church with the Grecian in substantials of Religion.

SECT. VIII. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controverste be openly against God and his written word (as the Pamph­leter affirms) and so contrary to the Fundamentals of Reli­gion.

THis the Pamphleter boldly asserts and undertakes to prove pag. 106. but his bold undertaking is seconded with weak and Childish performances. If Scripture be so clear to de­termine all points of controversie betwixt us, to what pur­pose were all his Cavills Concerning an infallible visible Judge, the corruption of originals, the unfaithfulness of tran­slations, the obscurity and ambignity of the sense of Scrip­ture, the insufficiency of means of interpretation &c. Is a Jesuit so nimble that he can transform himself into all shapes, that he can fight against Scripture at his pleasure? Is not this an usual fate that attends error, to be inconsistent with it own self. Sorex suo Judicio. In the general, I say, as to all the Scriptures he perverts, there is not one of them but Protestants have a thousand times vindicated from the detorsion of Ro­manists. Many of them are most foolishly applyed, and que­stions betwixt Papists and us, are either perversly or ignorantly misrepresented, I Nauseat to examine such childish stuff, yet lest I should only confute him with contempt, I overly touch particulars.

1. Then he sayes pag 106. we protest against the goodness of God, in saying God created some for Hell, independently from their works, contrary to 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3. If he mean that Prote­stants do say that God appointed to Damn any to Hell though they should never be guilty of sin, he calumniates us egregiously. Never Protestant taught that any should be damned to Hell, but for sin. Did not the Council of Dort art. 1. can. 7. make the object of predestination hominem lap­sum. [Page 190]i. e. Man in his fallen estate? How then could he say that Protestants affirm that God creats men for Hell indepen­dently from sin? Did ever Protestants say more then that Scrip­ture Prov. 16.4. God has Created the Wicked for the day of evil. As for that text, 1 Tim. 2. knew he not that Austin in Enchirid Cap. 103. expounded it de generibus singulorum of men of all ranks; not of all individuals of mankind? And the other place 2 Pet. 3.9. not willing that any should perish is restricted in the very Text, to the Elect, the [...] having a reference to the [...], thus he is long suffering towards us, not willing that any, namely of us, the Elect, should perish. But do not Jesuits Pelagianize, while they make the decree of Election to be founded on the prescience of our good works, which Scripture makes a fruit of Electing love, Ephes. 1.4. Do they not overthrow the omnipotency of God by attributing to him inefficacious wills? How is it that all are not saved, if he willed all to be saved? Does he not in Heaven and Earth whatever pleases him, Psal 135.3.

2. He sayes ibid, we protest against the mercy of God, saying Christ dyed not for all, contrary to 1 Cor. 13. He should have said, 15. The Pamphleter might have known that Prote­stants do not exclude from the Reformed Churches, the learned Camero, Amyrald, Capellus, Dallaeus who with many others, es­pecially in the French Church assert universal redemption. But if it were fair to load an adversary with all the consequents which follow from his principles, though he do not see the connexion betwixt them, It might perhaps with more reason be said, that Jesuited Romanists do impeach both the Justice and mercy of God, affirming the most of them to be damned Eternally, for whom Christ dyed, contrary to luc [...]lent Scripture, Rom 8.34. who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed. Is it not the work of Jansenius lib. 3. de, gr. Chr. serv. cap. 20. to evict the opinion of universal Redemption to be repugnant to the doctrine of the Ancient Church, particularly of St. Augustin? will it not be hard to reconcile the opinion of Univer [...]alists with that saying of S. Austin. epist. 102, ad Evod. Non perit [...] ­nus ex illis pro quibus Christus est mortuus. i. e. Not one doth perish for whom Christ dyed. The Scripture cited by the Pamphleter is most impertinently alledged 1 Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all dyed, so in Christ shall all be made alive. If the all [Page 191]there were universally to be understood for every one of man­kind, it would follow that all mankind should have eternal Life, and be saved eternally, which none but an Origenist can affirm. Therefore that all is to be understood only of all them whom Christ the second Adam did represent viz. the elect, not of all mankind.

3. pag. 107. he sayes we protest against the Justice of God, saying that God punishes us for what me cannot do, contrary to Heb. 6.10. God is not unrighteous to forget their work. A perti­nent disputant indeed. That Scripture speaks of Gods re­warding good works, which Protestants deny not, but of Gods punishing the want of good works, which we could not do, it speakes not at all. A Sophister ought at least to have a shew of pertinency. As to the thing it self, never Protestant affirmed that God damned any for meer inability, but such is the pravity of our Nature, that with our ina­bility to do good, oftentimes we joyn a voluntary neglect of good works Joh. 5.40. ye will not come to me that ye may have Life, and for this it is, that the sinner is damned, ought he not to know what his adversary maintaines who under­takes so confidently to oppugne him?

4. Ibid. He sayes, we protest against the wisdome of God, saying that God obliges us to things impossible, whereas 1 Joh. 5.3. his commands are not heavy. We do not say that God commands any things simply impossible. Any impossibility that is, we have contracted it sinfully in the loyns of our first Parents, and so God is not to be blamed for it. This accidental impossibility to keep the Law perfectly, Scripture frequently holds out Rom. 8.3. that which the Law could not doe, in that it was weak through the flesh ver. 8. they that are in the flesh cannot please God Joh. 12.39. they could not believe Matth. 7.8. a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit, see Eccles. [...].20. this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute, as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly, by ordina­ry measures of Grace given to them in time, revived by Pa­pists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1.8.10. blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state, as for that 1 Joh. 5.3. his comm [...]nds are not grie­vous, [Page 192]It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place, for, saith he, to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous, but also quodammodo impossibilia, in some kind impossible. But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God, yea and to delight in them Rom. 7.22. I delight in the Law of God after the inward man, yet alas Jam. 3.2 in many things we offend all, but these offences the Lord graciously par­dons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous. Dum quicquid non sit ign [...]sciture.

5. Ibid. He sayes, we protest against Gods Veracity, saying that the Church can err, contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay in this they contradict the varacity of God, and not we, saith not the Apostle, Rom. 3.4. let God be true and every man a lyar, and is not their Church made up of men, who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches? As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity, they have been considered before. But the truth is, its not the infalibility of the Catholick Church, Romanists plead for, but of the Syna­gogue of Rome, and the head thereof the Pope, as if to que­stion the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, and of a Cabal of his Trustees, were to question the varacity of the God of Heaven, and if they be found lyars, the most high God should be concluded a lyar. Be astonished O heavens at so a­trocious a blasphemy.

6. Ibid. He saith, we protest against the Providence of God, saying, that God has not given an infallible Judge. Whereas Pe­ter sayes, no Scripture is of private interpretation. Nay Sir, we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope, God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule, there is no necessity of an infallible Judge, because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation, therefore the glosses impos­ed either by Quaker, or Papal Enthusiasins ought to be explo­ed, as flowing from a private spirit. We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we de­sire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth.

7. Ibid. sayes he, we protest against the efficacy of Christs [Page 193]death, saying, that he hath freed us from the pain, but not from the guilt of sin. contrary to 1 Joh. 1.7. O the impudency of a Je­suits forehead [...] let the World judge whether they, or we op­pose the efficacy of Christs death, for. 1. They say he died for many who are, or shall be damned, But himself will acknow­ledge, that we say, for whomsoever Christ died, they are, or shall be saved. 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved, not for these they call ve­nial, nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins, but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remi [...]titur paena, that the sin may be re­mitted and not the punishment, that a proper punishment to be undergone here, or in Purgatory, may be kept over the head of a Creature, after pardon. But we affirm, that when sin is forgiven, the punishment is discharged, what else is re­mission, but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Pu­nishment? May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit te­nets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1.7. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin; how then charges he us, as say­ing that Christs blood trees us from the pain, but not from the guilt of sin? Nay on the contrary, we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin. We judge it impossible, that the one can be with­out the other, what is guilt but the obligation to punishment? Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment, and yet lie under the obligation to punishment? But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at, is that o­riginal corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ, and yet sinful concupiscence remain in believers, and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt. & concupis. Cap. 25. Non ut non sit, sed ut non imputetur? Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence, Rom. 7.24? Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free, though here while we are In agone, it be left for exercise. Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology. Rom. 7.25. thanks be to God through Jesus Christ.

8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order, tying sanctification to Paith only ( I believe he would have said Justi­fication) [Page 194] contrary to Jam. 2.24. Its not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner. Doth not the Apostle conclude, Rom. 3.28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justifica­tion, as some use the phrase, yet it is not solitaria, being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works. For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works, which is that which James affirms. I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter, that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification, and there­fore they still confound it with Sanctification.

9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God, saying that good works done by grace do not merit, contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one ac­cording to his works. It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as well as the Fathers, for in all the tenth of Mathew that testimony is not to be found. There is indeed mention of the reward of a righteous man, but that reward and me­rit are reciprocal correlats, is more then all the Jesuits in Europe will prove. Doth not the Apostle Rom. 4.4. distinguish betwixt a reward of Grace and of debt? Is not the reward of the righteous the free gift of God, [...], Rom. 6.21. and therefore doth not presuppose merit, how piteously do our missionaries cheat their proselites in this matter: When we charge on them the proud and supercilions doctrine of merit, they ordinarly alledge it to be but a calumny of Protestants, yet here the denial of merits is charged on us as a fundamental error. Is not Bell. in the end constrained to take him to his tutissimum? Do we contradict the appointment of God, when we take the surest way? What more ordinary for Romansts on dying beds then to renounce their merits, I could give an instance of a near friend of mine, whose memory I honour, the most moral person I ever knew of that Religion, who about half an hour be­fore his death, did solemnly renounce all his own merits and professed he had nothing to lean to, but the merits of Je­sus Christ alone. It can be no good point of Religion that the best of them must renounce at death.

10. Ibid. Sayes he, We protest against Gods divine authority [Page 195]in denying the real presence, contrary to the Scripture, saying, clearly, this is my Body. We deny not a real presence, but a corporal and Capernai [...]ical presence under accidents of bread and wine, which Scripture no where asserts. As Scripture says This is my Body, so as expresly after consecration, its called bread 1 Cor. 11. and the heaven is said to contain his real Body, nay as we shall prove cap. 5. If these words were not taken in a Figurative sense, they should imply a manifest contradi­ction. Knows he not S. Austins rule, that when the pro­per sense of words does impart a flagitious crime, then the ge­nuine sense of Scripture is figurative? now what a crime is this, that the living body of Christ should be devoured by men? nor can this be avoided, but by taking the words in a Fi­gurative sense.

11. Ibid. We protest, saith he, against Gods command, in forbid­ing Images as Idols, he having ordered two Cherubims to be set on the ark of the Covenant, Exod. 25. O daring impudency! Is I­mage worship commanded by God? Sure then the 2d. com­mand Exod. 20.4, 5. must be none of Gods commands, as in­deed Papists have rased it out of some of their Catechisms, yet we forbid not all Images, but Images of God and the Trinity, or Images of any thing for adoration. Produce, who can, institution or approbation for that in all Scripture. The Che­rubims were indeed set above the ark, but no command for their adoration.

12. Sayes he, We protest against Gods practice in denying ho­nour to Saints, contrary to 1 Sam. 2.30. them that hon [...]ur me, I will honour. Who does not see this whole discourse to be a Rapsody, either of calumnies, or impertinent allegations? Did ever Protestant deny honor to Saints? We only deny that they are religiously to be adored. Are honour and religious adoration terms reciprocal? The civil Magistrate and living Saints ought to be honoured: Yet I suppose this Pampheleter will not say they should be religiously adored. And would he also infer from 1 Sam. 2.30. that God adores Saints, the Creator his own creatures? Might not such foolries have been rather expected from a child, then from one who would be reputed a Rabbi.

13. Ibid. he sayes, we protest against Gods dispensation by de­nying the Power given to Apostles and their Successors to for [Page 196]give sins) contrary to Joh. 20.23. whose sins ye forgive they are for­given. We do not protest against Gods dispensation, we but protest against your imposing on consciences a necessity of auricular confession of all sins, how secret so ever, to your Priests, which God never enjoyned. We protest against your papal usurped power of indulgences, which neither the Apostles, not the Pastors of the ancient Church ever assumed. We protest against an absolute authoritative power of forgiving sin by men, who cannot infallibly know who are truly penitent, and who not. We grant to Pastors of the Church a ministerial and conditional power of absolution. To them is committed the word of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.19. and no more is granted Joh. 2.23. The soveraign absolute power of forgiving sin is claimed by God, as his Perogative royal Isai. 43.25. Micah. 7.18. Nor can it be ascribed to any creature without blasphemy. For who can forgive sin but God Luk 5.21? yet a ministerial power of absolution is exercis­ed by Pastours. 1 by the ministery of the word. 2. by the administration of the Sacraments. 3. by prayer. 4. by the relaxation of the censures of the Church, as is Judiciously expounded by the Reverend Bishop of Armagh, in his answer to the Irish Jesuits challenge, cap. 5. and the sober and Judi­cious among Romanists themselves are forced to acknowledg, that no more was given by Christ to the Apostles. So Ferns annot. In Joh. 20. and comment. on Matth. cap. 16. though sayes he, as he is cited by the said Bishop of Armigh it be the proper work of God to remit sins, yet are the Apostles said to remit also, not simply, but because they apply these means whereby God doth remit sins, which means are the word and Sacraments, to which we add the relaxations of the censures of the Church and prayer.

14. Pag. 109. He sayes, we protest against the Satisfaction which Justice requires for our Sins, even after the guilt is forgiven, by denying Purgatory; contrary to 1 Cor. 3. himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. O the seared Consciences of Jesuits who are not afraid to write at this rate! Know there­fore that our protestation is against the injury, which Roma­nists do both to the Justice of God, and to the compleat satisfaction of Jesus Christ, by asserting Purgatory. If Christ have Satisfied justice fully, then Humane Satisfactions in Pur­gatory [Page 197]are forged in their mint house at Rome, If not bor­rowed from the old Platonists and Pythagorians. If Justice were compleatly satisfied by Christ, how can justice demand new satisfaction from the delinquent? If the guilt be forgi­ven, then all the obligation to punishment is dissolved, so Justice can demand no further satisfactions. We deny not, but pardoned Saints, such as David, may be exercised with Pa­ternal chastisements, that they may be the more sensible how bitter and evil a thing it is, that they have sinned against the Lord; but proper satisfaction to Justice by departed Saints in a place you call Purgatory, Scripture no where affirms. Your eyes must be anoynted with papal Chrism, that you see so clearly your Purgatory in that place 1 Cor. 3. I suppose Augustine was as clear sighted an interpreter as you, yet to him it seemed not so clear, yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood, lib. de, fid. & oper. cap. 15. and quest. 1. ad Dulcit. It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory, when as Thuan records lib. 13 2. he would en­quire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Pur­gatory: The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the per­plexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concern­ing it, in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de, purg. cap. 5. confesses it to be, unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae, one of the hardest places in all the Bible. Before he can make use of it for his Purgatory, he must fight not only with Protestants, but also with Fathers, yea and with others Popish authors. But it seems this No­ble disputant, who snatches up any thing that came next to hand, hath never examined what is brought by learned Protestants, to enervate all inferences from it for the Popish Purgatory, as first, that the Apostle doesnot say, he shall be saved by fire, but as it were by fire; now though the particle [...], as, be not alwayes a Note of similitude, yet surely its most frequently so taken, and that is its most proper signification, who then can infer, that a real fire is here meant, 2. the gold, hay and stuble, of which the Apostle speakes in that context are metaphorical, must not then likewise the fire be metaphorical. 3dly, of the word fire be taken in that same sense vers. 15. in which its used vers. 13. when it is said that the fire shall try every mans work, (as it ought saith Esthius in 1 Cor. 3.13. Yea Chamier Panstrat. tom. 3. lib. 26. [Page 198] Cap. 14. Sect. 6. sayes that this was never questioned before Bellar­mines, time) then sure this fire cannot be the Popish Purgatory fire for that fire vers. 13. Is not Purgatory fire as Bellarmine himself proves by many arguments cap. 5. Sect. alii intelligunt, the fire vers. 13. tryes every mans work, but Papists do not say that e­very mans work is tryed by Purgatory fire. And therefore Bell. to inforce this Scripture to speak for Purgatory, kin­dles in it three fires, two in vers. 13. and a third distinct from both in vers. 15. First a fire of conflagration of the world. 2dly. the fire of Gods severe judgment, and 3dly. their imaginary fire of Purgatory in vers. 15. But this groundless fancy of Bellarmines triple fire is confuted to our hand by Esthi­us. loc. cit. though he suppress the Cardinals name. I appeal all Bellarmines favorites to produce me one testimony of a Fa­ther, or one solid reason for this triple fire in that Scrip­ture. Leaving therefore for Brevity other arguments, and the different opinions of Fathers, and latter interpreters con­cerning that difficult place, albeit their exposition, who by the day vers. 13. understand a time in this Life, and by the fire, the word, and spirit, of the Lord, which are compared to fire Jer. 23.29. Matth. 3.11. by which all doctrines, yea and works also shall be examined, albeit I say this exposition might be maintained against all the cavils of Romanists and is maintained by Chamier-lib. 26. cap. 11, 12, 13, 14. yet I shall choose with learned Dallaeus lib. 1. de paenis & satisfact. cap 16. to come a little nearer to the Cardinal. I grant there­fore, Not only that by the builders the Apostle understands the teachers of the Church, and by the Hay and Stuble, su­perfluous and unedifying doctrine, But also that by the day may be understood the day of the great and general Judge­ment, which Bellarmine confirms by sundry probable argu­ments, and sayes that it was the sense of all the Fathers, of many I confess, but I will not say all, and therefore Esthi­us shews more ingenuity with his Fere, almost, then the Cardinal with his omnes, all, Nay I further grant to him, that by the fire trying every mans work, may well be un­deestood, the severe Judgement of God at the Great day. Hitherto Bellarmine, and I have gone along in expounding this Scripture, but now when it comes to the push, we di­vide, [Page 199]at the last. For Bellarmine, that he may say something for the Papal interest would have these words vers. 15. he shall be saved as by fire understood, thus, he shall be saved having passed thorow the fire of Pur­gatory. But this is repugnant to Bellarmines former concessions, for this saving as by fire, falls out the day when the fire shall try every mans work, as is clear from the context, but that is by Bellarmines confes­sion, at the day of Judgement, consequently this cannot be by the fire of Purgatory, for then the fire of Purgatory according to Romanists, will be ex­tinct. I suppose therefore the learned Dallaeus has hit upon the right sense of the words, thus, he shall be saved, yet with loss; he shall loose the comfort of his work, and the additional reward of grace, which he might have expected, had he been more faithful. Nay it will be a miracle of mercy that himself is saved, he shall be saved with difficulty. So strict and sever will the Judgment be that he must undergoe, that he shall be according to the phrase Amos. 4.11. as a fire brand pluckt out of the burning, By this time I hope it will appear that Romanists travel in vain, when they would beat some sparks out of this Scripture, to kindle their Imaginary fire of Purgatory.

15. Ibid. He sayes, We protest against the e­ternal Priest-ho [...]d of Jesus Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck, by rejecting the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, contrary to Mal. 1.16. We most firmly believe Christs eternal Priest-hood according to the order of Melchisedeck. But the abomination of an unbloody and propitiatory sacrifice in the mass; as derogato­ry and repugnant to the perfect sacrifice offered on the cross, we justly reject. Can there be a propiti­atory sacrifice without shedding of Blood Heb. 9.22? Can there be a proper sacrifice without the destruction [Page 200]of the thing sacrificed? if the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was perfect, why then must it be re­peated? if it was especially in regard of the Mass-sacrifice that Melchisedeck did prefigure Christ, why did not the author to the Hebrews, who is so punctu­all in enumerating the resemblances betwixt Melchise­deck and Christ, once mention that? yea doth he not purposely as seems exclude it, when he affirms, if he be often offered, then must he often suffer? Will the ob­lation of the Mass be eternal? Do not Popish au­thors acknowledge, that it will be interrupted, when their supposed Antichrist shall come? And will Christ then cease to be a Priest after the order of Melchi­sedeck? Can their authors agree upon a proper sa­crificing act in the mass? what one sayes, does not another confute? ye may try, if ye can condescend to me on that sacrificing act, and the thing sacrificed, that can expiate the sins of living and dead. If you pon­der these hints, I suppose you may find ground to look upon your Idol sacrifice of the Mass as an abomination of desolation set up in the holy place. But how then is Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchise­deck, if he but once offered himself? I wonder that Je­suits who pretend to so much acuteness, do not advert that there are more Sacerdotal acts then the actual ob­lation of the sacrifice. Was not the high Priests inter­cession in the holy of holies a sacerdotal act? does not our Lord Christ live for ever to make intercession Heb. 7.25? In the perrennant virtue of that one bloody sa­crifice once offered on the cross, by which he has for ever perfected them that are sanctified Heb. 10.14. as for that place in Mal. 1. ye will say more then all the Jesuits that have gone before you, if you prove that it speaks of your sacrifice of the Mass; What is more usual for prophets of the Old Testament, then to [Page 201]predict New Testament duties under an allusion to Old Testament rites? Have not our Divines brought very considerable arguments, to prove that Malachy does not speak of any proper propitiatory sacrifice, but of the spiritual sacrifices of Prayer, Thanksgiving, and o­ther holy actions, which Rom. [...]2.1. are called a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God. Does not Malachy in that same verse predict that incense shall be offered up, although your corrupt vulgar version hath omitted it: yet Bell. lib. 1. de. miss. cap. 10. acknowledges that it is so, both in the Hebrew, and in the translation of the severny. But the incense is without doubt to be understood Me­taphorically, of the incense of Prayer, as Psal. 141.1. Why then ought not the sacrifice also be taken in a spiritual sense? Doth not the same prophet Malachy speak of Levites also cap. 3. vers. 3. and he shall purifie the Sons of Levi. — that they may offer unto the Lord an offering of Righteousness, and this also in reference to Gospel times, as Bellarmine acknowledges cap. cit. yet I hope they will not say a proper Levitical Priest­hood is to be set up under the Gospel, why then a pro­per sacrifice? Hence Mares. against Tirin controv. 22. N. 5. says that not only the Chaldee Paraphrasts and other Jews, but also among Romanists, Isidor Clarius, and Vatablus did expound the place of spiritual ob­litions so also did Tertul. lib. contro. Iudaeos, as is ac­knowledged by A lapide. Nor are we against the ac­commodation which Fathers have made of it to the Eu­charist, as to a commemorative eucharistick or sig­nificative facrifice. As for the Cavil, of Bellarmine, Gordon of Huntly, Alapide and other popish controversists, to pervert this testimony of Malachy to a propitia­tory sacrifice of the Mass, they are learnedly con [...]ured by D. Morton in his treatise of the Sacrament lib. 6 [Page 202] Cap. 4. and Mares. in the place cited, not to mention o­thers at the time.

16. And lastly, Ibid, He sayes, We protest against all Gods commands, and word, by taking away free-will in o­beying him. Does their whole strength consist in ly­ing representations? Let the world therefore know, we deny not free-will to man, we freely assent to Austin. Epist. 46. ad Valentinum, if there be not grace, how shall God save the world? if there be not free­will, how shall he judge it? and with Bernard de gra. & lib. arb. take away free will, there shall be nothing to be saved, Take away grace there shall not be a mean, whereby any can be saved. I freely grant that all the exhortations, promises, and threatnings of the word prove that God deals with men, as ratio­nal and free Agents. Only we protest against two sacrilegious crimes of Jesuited Papists in reference to this matter. 1. That under a pretence of exalting mans free-will, they overturn the absolute Necessity of the free grace of God, as if an unregenerate man could do things truely acceptable to God; contrary to luculent Scripture Rom. 8.7.8. Joh. 15.3. Matth. 7.12. Heb. 11.6. Hence Vincent. Lirinensis in commonit, cap. 34, quis ante profanum Pelagium, who ever before that profane Pelagius did so presume upon the strength of free-will, as to Imagine that grace was not neces­sary to every good work. And Concil. Aurans. 2. cap. 7. If any say that by the strength of Nature, bonum aliquod quod ad salutem vitae eternae pertinet, yea co­gitare ut expedit, aut eligere, too think or choose any thing as we ought— Haeretico fallitur spiritu. 2. We protest against them, for overthrowing the efficacy of the grace of God, to exalt the Diana of free Will, as if both Elect and Reprobate had a sufficient grace. And [Page 203]the reason why one is converted, not another were not the predetermining power and influence of grace, but because the one by his free-will improves his fuf­ficient grace better then the other. Yea the Jesuit Molina spares not to fay, that the mea­sure of Grace may be in him, who is not con­verted entitatively, more then in him who is converted, and yet through the mal-improvment of free-will may miscarry, should not this man make himself to differ from another, and have where­in to glory, contrary to the Apostle. 1. Cor. 4.7. how then should God be said to work both to will and to do of his own good plea­sure, Phil. 2.13? How should these high epi­thers, and elogies be made of the efficacy of Gods working on believers Ephes. 1.19. the exceeding greatness of his power toward them that believe. What meant Austin when he said that God wrought in us, indeclinabiliter. I Know it would require something of a Scholastick debate to clear the consistency of free-will, with the efficacy of free­grace to which I will not at present digress. Only to cut off all the Cavils of litigious Jesuits, I lay no more necessity upon the will of man, then do Thomists and Dominicans, if Jesuits dare not pronounce them Hereticks, neither can they us, upon this account.

By this time I hope it may appear, that in all these particulars, the doctrine of Protestants is conform to the Scriptures, and the doctrine of Romanists repugnant thereunto. And so it hath befaln this Sophister, as did the army of Eu­genius the Tyrant, the darts which they threw [Page 204]against Theodosius and his imperial Army, were driven back by the wind into the faces of them that threw th [...]m

I had almost forgot that the Pamphleter, pag. 104. remits me to the touch-stone of the reformed Gospel, and to the Manuel of Controversies, I believe in­deed he is better versed in these trifling Pamphlers, then either in the Scriptures, or writings of Fa­thers. He will not offend, I hope, that I commend to his perusal the replyes made to these, par­ticularly to Mr Tombs Romanism— discus­sed against H. Turbe [...]vile his Manuul of Contro­versies.

SECT. I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted, and the Authors argument against it, vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter.

PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words, I first take notice that p. 112. he says, I bring only a Philosophical Argument; to prove that these words, This is my Body, are to be taken in a Figurative sense: But if he be pleased to review what I said, he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium, and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum, cap. 12. and [Page 434] Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine.

I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine, that I adver­tised Mr. Dempster, Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker, Chamier, Morton, Nethenus, &c. to prove the same conclusion. Doth not the senses of all men in the world, find real bread after consecration? Did ever God deceive the senses of all men, through so many ages? If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed, and the object within co [...] ­venient distance; how did Christ use it, Luk. 24.38, 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts, behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my self, handle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Doth not conse­crated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine? Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept? Have not persons been poysoned thereby? Will either meer accidents, or the true glorified body of Jesus do so? Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it? What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine? The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, I hope is above their consecration, and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be? Doth not two things, verbum, and elementum, as Austin well observed Trac. 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word, concur to make up a Sacrament? If the substance of Bread and Wine cease, where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Ana­logy with the Body and Blood of Jesus? Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance? Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible my steries? Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason, that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it; is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body, that the Disci­ples who were scrupulous about far less matters, would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious myste­rie? Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramen­tal purposes, as Gen. 17.10. Circumcision is my Covenant, [Page 435]Exod. 12.11. The Lamb is the Passcover, 1 Cor. 10.3. the Rock is Christ? Doth not Romanists acknowledge multi­tude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Sup­per? As when the said, 1 Cor. 11.24. This is my Body which is broken, was it then broken? Was there not there, Enallage temporis? So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testa­ment in my Blood; are there not more figures than one? Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup? Can either the cup, or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope? Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution; This is my body figuratively? Is it not often called bread after the consecration, as 1 Cor. 10.16. 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. Let a man Examine himself, and so let him Eat of this Bread? Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation, without making all these figu­rative? Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man; much more of their Sa­viour? Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again, Act. 3.21. Are we not prohibited to believe these, who say, loe here is Christ, or there, or in secret Chambers, Math. 24.23.25. Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing, expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry, not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention, upon which, according to them, depends the consecration; but also through many other contingencies, such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words, whereof the people can never have certainty, they being but secretly whispered, and though heard, doth every one understand Latin? Heard he never of the Priest, who having many Wafers to consecrate, said, Haec sunt corpora mea? What should I blot Paper with the absurdities, which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places, the pe­netration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point, and the existence of accidents without a subject. Doth not Renatus Des Cartes, and many great Philosophers, question if there be such accidents in the world, as the Schools did com­monly teach about the time of the Lateran Council? Is it not a goodly article of Faith, which is calculated to the va­riable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers, which [Page 436]may have the vogue in one age, and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another. Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks? Is it not the height of Impu­dence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence, seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses, that had nor the Church interposed her definition, no man could have from them concluded Transub­stantiation? It's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear, but the Lateran definition; and yet its questioned also, if in that Lateran Council it were defined. Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative? Did not Austin po­sitively say as much, contra Adimant. cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express, Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corperis. And a little after, our Saviour, saith he, exchanged names, corpori suo imposuit nomen signi, & signo imposuit nomen corporis sui, & ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit, vocabit signum sanguinem suum; and again he honoured, saith he, visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood, Non naturam mutando, sed gra­tiam naturae adjiciendo, not by changing their Nature or sub­stance, but by adding grace thereto. What need I more, may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths, dist. 2. de conse­crat. Can. hoc est, and the gloss thereupon, where it is expresly declared, that the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ, non proprie & in rei veritate, not properly, sed significante myste­rio, but by a mystical signification, because the Sacramental bread doth truly represent the body of Christ. Yea, have not Spalat. lib. 5. cap. 6. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 9, 10, 11. &c. And Moulin de Novitate Papismi, demonstrated, that the current of Antiquity is for us in this matter, what a world of interminable debates hath this figment of Transub­stantiation raised among their own men: So that hither may the lines be applyed,

But leaving these and such like grounds of Arguments, against this bloody Doctrine of Transubstantiation, for which Papists have shed the blood of many thousands of Protestants. I come to examine the Argument which this Pamphleter so much undervalues.

And first, I must remember him of one branch of the Argu­ment which he hath not touched, which he will find in pag. 129. what Christ took in his hands, what he did break and bless, that he gave to his Disciples, and affirm'd to be his body; but it was bread which he took into his hands, which he did break and bless; Ergo, It was bread which he gave and affirmed to be his body: Now all know, and Bell. doth acknowledge it, that the body of Christ cannot be pre­dicated of bread. Consequently the proposition must be figurative; both the premises are clear in the Series of the context; ought not this Jesuit either to have been more sparing in boasting, or else more through in examining the Argument?

Next I come to try how solidly he hath behaved himself in what he hath touched. I assetted indeed pap. 7. p. 127. that these words of Christ, This is my body, according to the Romish gloss, would be inexplicable, false, and imply a contradiction, and consequently their gloss could not be genuine: I am so far from being removed from my judgment, by reading this Pamphlet, that the shallowness of his Answers do the more confirm me. And first I said it was inexplicable, and there­fore desired Mr. Demster to let me know what Christ meant by hoc, this; for if he meant either the bread or the accidents of bread, the sence must be figurative; for these are not in a proper sence the body of Christ. And by hoc, this, Christ could not mean his own body, it not being yet present when hoc this, was pronounced; Nor could he mean, Eus in confuso, indi­viduum vagum, or contentum sub speciebus; that is, something under the accidents of bread, Christ himself knew not what, which are the desperate shifts of Schoolmen. This I say, cannot be the meaning, unless they come to that height of Blasphemy, to affirm that Christ's understanding was clouded with confusions, so that he knew not himself what he meant by hoc, this; To all this he answers, pag. 112, 113. That hoc, this, signifyed nothing determinately until the last word, or predicate [my Body] was pronounced. A noble Solution for sooth, and worthy of the acumen of a Jesuit! Doth he not by saying that when Christ pronounced this, it signifyed nothing at all determinately, confirm what I say, that their gloss renders the proposition of Christ inexplicable; for I can put no other [Page 438]gloss upon the words of this Pamphleter, but that neither the Apostles, nor yet Christ himself understood what hoc signi­fied, when it was first uttered; it signifyed nothing deter­minately, then it would appear it signifyed something, but indeterminately, what can this be, but the individuum vagum, that others talk of; that is, in plain Scots, something, but Christ himself knew not what. Was the mind of our Saviour, in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so clouded? Though it were granted, that the hearer could not understand so distinctly, what were meant by hoc, this, until the predicate & whole proposition were uttered, yet sure at the 1st utering of the subject hoc, the speaker himself knows as perfect­ly what he means by it, as when the whole proposition is uttered. Now the question betwixt Romanists and us, is, what Christ who was the speaker, understood by this, when he uttered it; Sure it could be nothing, but that which he had in his hand, at the present, but at the present he had nothing in his hand but real bread, for the body of Christ was not substituted in the place of bread, according to the principles of Transub­stantiators, ergo, hoc, this, could signifie nothing but bread, and that determinately, and consequently the proposition must be figurative. Suppose a man holding out a piece of Gold to another, should say, this is a Jacobus, who could deny, but by this at the first pronunciation thereof, he did understand the piece of Gold? whether he or I do quibble con­cerning this matter, others may judge.

I added Secondly, pag. 128. that according to the Popish gloss, this proposition of Christ's were both false, and should imply a manifest contradiction. This I confirmed two wayes; First, because a true affirmative proposition de pra­senti cannot produce its own object, else in that instant of Nature, wherein the proposition is conceived before its ob­ject, as the cause before its effect; the proposition should be true, as is supposed, and not true, because the object in that instant is not. Secondly, because at least in that instant of time, wherein the copula of an affirmative proposition de praesenti is enunciated, the object ought to exist. But according to Transubstantiators in that instant of time wherein Christ pronounced the copula of this proposition, This is my body, Christ's body was not in the Sacrament, and [Page 439]therefore the proposition in the sense of Transubstantiators must be false. This Argument he first retorts, pag. 113. Alleadging that this other affirmative proposition of Christ de prae­senti, Joh. 15. This is my command, that ye love one another, doth produce its own object; and pag. 115. he adds many more, viz. let the light be made, let the firmament be made, young man I say unto thee, arise, I will, be thou healed. I wonder that with these words of God, fiat coelum, he did not joyn these of the Pope, Esto Cardinalis, whereby his Holiness, like another Deity, by two words, of a kind of non ens, creates a Cardi­nal. Yet I must take leave to tell him, that in none of these examples, is there an instance of an affirmative proposition de praesenti producing its object, meer imperative words, such as fiat lux, let there be light; and the rest mentioned pag. 115. are no affirmative propositions, but meer commands. Doth God affirm every thing to be which he commands to be? What, a Jesuite, and not able to distinguish betwixt one affirmative proposition, and a word of command? If any of his instances seem to be to the purpose, it's that Joh. 15. This is my command, that ye love one another. But neither is that an affirmative proposition de praesenti, producing its object. I hope the Disciples were bound to love one another before that, consequently the command of mutual love had a pre­vious existence. If therefore it be asked, what Christ meant by hoc, This, in that proposition, I do not say with the Pam­phleter, that he meant nothing determinately, till the whole proposition was uttered, but he meant the command of loving one another, which was in force before he uttered that pro­position; and that the following words, that ye love one ano­ther, are added but exegetically, that the Disciples might understand, what was the particular command he meant. And truly the Disciples had as much need of this explicati­on, after the prolation of the predicate as of the subject. For when he had said, This is my Commandment, they had yet been at a loss what the command was, unless he had subjoyned this explication. If it be enquired, may not an affirmative proposition de praesenti be a command quoad primum suum esse, and have its self for its object? Answ. Though that were, yet would it not follow that an affirmative proposition de praesenti is productive of its object; I suppose Philosophers [Page 440]sufficiently demonstrate that it is repugnant to reason that a thing should produce it self, at least, as to its first being? In that case it would only follow that the proposition were a formal command, or a signification of the will of God, ob­liging to obedience; but not that the proposition should be a command, and yet produce the command; that I suppose were still a contradiction.

As there is no solidity in his retortion, so neither in his positive answer which thus he delivers, The proposition of Christ (saith he) is true in the instant of Nature; sed non pro instanti Naturae, but not for the instant of Nature, even as to day I may truly affirm what will be to morrow. If I mistake not, he still involves himself in contradictions. As to day he cannot truly affirm, de praesenti what shall only be to morrow, so neither can he in this instant of Nature truly affirm de praesenti what shall only be in the next. When a proposition for any instant, whether of time or nature, affirms that to be de praesenti, which is not in that instant, that proposition is surely disconform to its object, and consequently false. If there­fore that may truly be affirmed de presenti, which is not de praesenti, then the proposition should be both true and false; true, and not true, at once. Nor do Idestroy all pra­ctical knowledge, as he ignorantly affirms, by denying that an affirmative proposition de praesenti can be productive of its object. Who beside him ever affirmed that all practical know­ledge affirms its object to be before it is? Were not this indeed to make all practical knowledge to imply a contradiction? Now, whether he or I deserve his civil Complements of a Don Quick-Sott, and whether their figment of Transubstan­tiation, or the Doctrine of reformed Churches, concerning the sense of this proposition of Christ, be the Chymer and Wind­mill of giddy brains, is remitted to the Judgment of unbyassed persons.

SECT. II. The Pamphleters Superficial reflexions on the number and Nature of Sacraments, examined.

COncerning the number of Sacraments, I had the more largely insisted in my Tenth Paper, because Mr. Demp­ster [Page 441]had Solemnly appealed me to prove the Doctrine of the Re­formed Churches as to that thing. But how Scabrous a Reply is given by the Pamphleter from p. 115. they who indifferently compare both may judge. The enumeration of the pamphleters omissions in this one question would draw long, I mention but one, though each of the five Romish Sacraments, Confirmation, Pennance, Marriage, extream Unction, and Orders were severally confuted, yet this Ghost of Mr. Dempsters had not the confidence to examin what was objected against any of them.

To Supply those defects, he betakes himself, as his custome is, to some jmpertient clamours. As 1. That this tenet of two Sacraments and no more, is a fundamental of the Protestant Religion. 2. that this is peculiar to us, all the rest of our Tenets being derived from other Hereticks. 3. That it was a year before this answeer to Mr. Dempsters, query did appear. To begin with the last of these, I answer, that my Reply to Mr. Dempsters tenth paper was inread­iness within a moneth, and communicated to some friends, but could not be delivered through Mr. Dempsters disappearing. To the first of the other two, I answer, its a manifest falshood did I not prolixly shew that if there be any controversy in Divinity, wherein an adversary may wrap himself up in Logomachies, this is it. And that as the word Sacrament is explained more or fewer, may be asserted. Ought not protestants to know what are the fandamentalls of their one Religion better then a Ro­manist? Doth not learned Whittaker praelect. de Sac. q. 6. cap. 2. declare that any errour in this matter non est capitalis. Indeed the precise septenary of Sacraments is a fundamentall of the Romish Religion, and therefore the Council of Trent. Ses. 7. Can. 1. hath anathematized all that hold any otherwise, yet I hope this foundation was Sufficiently overthrown in my last. To the se­cond, I answer that Papists Simbolizing with Hereticks, hath been demonstrated in many particulars, but our concurrence with them in one reall Heresy hath not been proved, nor can be, by all the Caball of Jesuits. As to the Doctrine of two Sa­crements, the Magdeburgians Cent. 12. Cap. 6. Col. 1206. from an ancient manuscript shew that it was one of the Positions of the Waldenses, Duo esse Ecclesiae Sacramenta, Baptismum & caenam Domini, either then the Waldenses wer Protestants, which is con­trary to what he said before, or it is falls, that this is peculiar to protestants. Were not justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian Ambrose, [Page 442]Chrysost. Anstin, &c. of the same mind? He may remember Anstins numero Paucissima, Epist. 118. and his Gemina, lib. 2. de Symbol. ad Catech. cap. 6. and other touches of Antiquity to this purpose in my tenth, which yet wait for his examination. His gloss upon Austins gemina, that he meant only two chief Sacraments, is to dilute, he might as well say, there are but two Planets, or that Jacob had but two Sons, meaning two chief ones. But why should these only be called the two chief Sacraments, seeing according to Romanists, Pennance is more necessary to Salvation then the Eucharist? I appealled my adversary to Instance so much as one Father that affirmed a precise septenary of Sacraments, should we not heard of it, if it could have been given?

It's true that p. 122. He hath some insignificant hints at Denys and Austin, and first he begins in Luther, de cap. Bab. granting that Denys the Disciple of Paul stood for seven Sacraments. I have not that Book of Luther by me to try the Citation, But though the Pope would affirm it, as well as Luther, I can say, from an ocular inspection, that it's a gross mistake. Yea, Bell. l. 2. de Sac. in genere c. 27. confesses that Denys in his Book De Hierarch. Eccles. (which was the proper place of treating of Sacraments) omits three of the Romish Sacraments, Matrimony, extream Un­ction and Pennance. Learned Criticks have demonstrated that the works passing under the name of Denys the Areopagit, were not written by the Areopagit Pauls Disciple, nor as appears within the three first Centuries, neither is that Author of the present Roman Faith, nay, on the contrary, he is ours as to the main substantials in controversy, he is not for communions under one kind, nor for the Priests sole receiving, nor for ex­hortations, lessons, and Prayers in a Tongue, which people cannot understand, nor for invocation of Saints, or adorati­on of Images or Creatures, nor for praying for Souls in Pur­gatory, yea, nor for Transubstantiation, &c. as may farther appear, cap. 7. who will affirm he is for the Romish precise Septenary of proper Sacraments, neither more nor less, I may say, either he hath not read Denys with advertency, or he tres­passes against the principles of Ingenuity. If the Pamphleter can prove that [...] and [...] are taken by Denys in the strict notion, wherein a Sacrament is used in this controversie, and that they are applyed by him to the seven Sacraments pleaded by the Romanists, and to nothing else. I shall acknow­ledge [Page 443]I have learned a lesson from him. Next for Austin, the Pamphleter says, he hath all the seven Sacraments, because forsooth in one place he gives the name of a Sacrament to one, and in another place to another, but to pre-occupy that cavil in my Tenth paper a­gainst Mr. Dempster, I did advertise that Austin frequently uses the word Sacrament in a large sense, and attributes it to many things, which neither Papists nor we hold for Sacraments, as to the Sign of the Cross, meat given to Catechumens, yea to Po­lygamy, insomuch that Bell. lib. 2. de sac. in gen. cap. 24. Sect. Lotionem pedum non esse Saeramentum, acknowledges that not only Austin, but also other Fathers, as Cyprian, Ambrose, Innocent. 1. called many things by the name of Sacrament, which are not proper Sacraments What need I more, where ever said Austin, or any Father, that there be seven proper Sacraments neither more nor less? 'Till this be proved, is there not reason to hold Romanists as Innovators in this matter.

How comes this quibling Sophister, who answers nothing to what was objected against their five suppositious Sacra­ments to snarle p. 117. at the Scriptures which I brought to prove Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Sacraments, viz. Act. 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 11.23, 24, 25. Is his Indignation so great that we admit not their five new coyned Romish Sacraments, that he would turn out of the Church Baptism and the Lords Supper, which beyond all, peradventure are of Divine Institu­tion, and of perpetual observation in the Christian Church? Did he forget himself, when pag. 120. he brought one of the same Scriptures (at which here he cavils) to prove Baptism to be a Sacrament? Doth a Jesuits breath add significancy to a Scripture, which signifies nothing from a Protestant? Or is his choler moved That I called Sacraments Seals of the Promises of Salvation? Did not the Apostle call Circumcision, to which Baptisme hath succeeded The Seal of the Righteousness which is by Faith, Rom. 4 11. Is not Baptism by Theod. lib. de Divin. decret. epitome, called [...], the earnest of future good things, and the type of the Resurrection to come. Doth not Basil, lib. 3. contra Eu­nom. say, [...], we must first Believe and then be Sealed by Baptism; what should I cite Tertul. de paenit. or Austin lib. 4. de Bapt cap. 24. might he not have learned from Valent the Jesuite Tom. 4 Disp. 3. [Page 444] q. 3. Punt. 1. That Sacraments are in a manner Seals of Divine Promises? Doth he not also Punct. 3. compare Sacraments to the Seals of Princes annexed to their Patents? Ought he not at least to have been better acquainted with the Roman Catechism set forth by Pope Pius Quintus, which teaches part. 2 cap. 1. q. 7. that when Christ had promised forgiveness of sin, and heavenly grace, he did institute sensible signs, Quibus eum quasi pignoribus obligatum haberemus, atque ita fidelem in promissis futurum nunquam dubitaremus, that is, whereby we might have him obliged as it were by pledges, and so we might never doubt of his fidelity in his promises? Who could desire a more full explication of Sacramental Seals? Doth not the Scriptures at which he cavils, sufficiently hold forth that Sacraments are instituted for the obsignation of promises? Is not this the ground upon which Peter, Act. 2.38, 39. exhorts those to be Baptised for the Re­mission of Sins, because the promise was theirs; if the Promise was theirs, then their sins were already pardoned, and so Bap­tism was to be administred for the obsignation of the Promise. But says he, there is no mention of Salvation in that Scripture, how childish is this objection? Is not Salvation contained in the Promise? Is there not an Infallible connexion betwixt re­mission of Sin and Salvation, Rom. 8. Whom he justifies, them he glorifies? Doth he Seal to any remission of Sin, to whom he seals not Salvation? Can the other Scripture, 1 Cor. 11. This Cup is the New-Testament, bear any other tolerable sense, but that the Cup, that is, the Consecrated liquor in the Cup, was a Seal of the New-Covenant? Can any Romanist deny that this pro­position, The Cup is the New-Testament is figurative? Can any say that the Cup was Transubstantiated into the New-Testa­ment? If it could have born another congruous sense, ought it not to have been declared when this Sophister was quarreling at the sense given by me, what needs more, doth not Esthius a Popish Commentator in loc. give this sense, That which is con­tained in this Cup, is that by which the New-Testament, San­citur & confirmatur, is ratified and confirmed.

Was it pertinent for this Caviller when oppugning our Do­ctrine of the Sacraments, being Seals of the Covenant, to di­gress as he doth pag. 120. to another question, Concerning the efficacy of Sacraments? Do we deny their efficacy? God forbid. The Pamphleter tracing the footsteps of Bell. lib. 2. de effect. [Page 445]Sac. cap. 2. says, We make Sacraments but nuda signa, bare signs. But this is an egregious Calumny, as may appear not only by the private Writings of Protestants, but by our publick con­fessions, particularly the Scottish confession, Art. 21. Quicun (que) uobis detrahunt quasi affirm [...]emus vel crederemus Sacramenta nihil aliud esse quam nuda & vacua signa, injuriam nobis faciunt & contra manifestam veritatem loquuntur, so also the Belgick confession, Art. 33. We do indeed deny that Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, as the Council of Trent hath defined, Sess. 7. Can. 8. Bell. lib. 2. de effect. Sac. cap. 1. acknowledges opus operatum, to be ill Latine, but it is worse Divinity, unknown to Scripture and ancient Fathers. Our Learned Whittaker praelect. de Sacr. in ge­nere q. 4. cap. 1. supposes Scotus the quodlibetick Schoolman to have been the first Inventor of that barbarous Phrase. The in­consistency of Popish Doctors with themselves, and with Scri­ptures, and Fathers in this matter, is largly proved by the same Author, and by Chamier, lib. 2. de Sac. in genere from cap. 1. to cap. 11. and Gerard loc. com. de Sacr. cap. 9. Sect. 1.2, 3. Only I would be resolved what Sacramental grace this is which Bell. and other Romanists say is produced by the Sacrament? for they manifestly distinguish it from Faith, Repentance, and Love. And how Bell. says, that Sacraments sometimes pro­duce the first grace, and yet this opus operatum, ever presup­poses Faith, Repentance, and holy affections and dispositions of the subject, shall it presuppose these graces, and yet pro­duce the first grace. It shall be time to me to confute you, when you come to understand your selves.

Though this Pamphleter lays aside my definition of a Sacra­ment, not daring to tell why, yet I will use him with more Candour, for pag. 120. this definition he insinuates, That Sa­craments are visible or sensible signs of the invisible grace they produce in the Soul, as Instituted by Christ our Lord for sanctification, and in this sense, saith he, there be seven set down in the Gospel. Behold the Fox! should he not have said, and no more, as the Council of Trent hath defined? What a disjunctive is this he gives, for the genus, visible or sensible signs? are these reciprocal terms? Is every sensible signe visible? Or if a Sacrament must be a visible signe, what needed the word sensible? Doth not this description agree to things which neither Papists nor Prote­stants hold for Sacraments, as to the Preaching of the Gospel, its a sensible sign, &c. Nay more, this description, though [Page 446]many ways peccant, doth decart most, if not all their five spu­rious Sacraments, either they are not visible or sensible signs, or are not instituted by Christ, or at least not to produce our sanctification? Was Balsamated oyle in Confirmation Institu­ted by Jesus, &c. doth not Jesuit Suarex in 3. p. tom. 3. q. 72. disp. 3. sect. 1. &c. acknowledge the contrary? He may ask at Hugo de S. Victore, Lombard, Bonaventure, Alensis, and Altifidorensis, whether their extream Unction was instituted by Jesus, what I pray is the visible sensible Sign instituted by Christ in Marriage and Pennance? Were Marriage and Orders instituted to pro­duce grace? It would be supererogation to add any more a­gainst these five Sacraments, until he have answered what I wrote in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster.

But doth not this Pamphleter bring some Scriptures for the controverted Sacraments Pag. 121. I confess he doth, but such as conclude nothing for him, all these having been often vindicated by Protestants from the detorsion of Romanists, yea, some of them wer touched in my tenth reply to Mr. Demster yet he sets down the Scriptures barely, as if they contained in terminis his position, such is the daring boldness of Jesuites, as if their Dictates and glosses upon Scripture were to be received without any reason.

For Confirmation he cites two places, Act. 17. he should have said Act. 8.17. and 2 Cor. 1.22. But neither of these prove the present Romish confirmation to be a proper Sacrament; Not the first, in which its only said, Then laid they their hands upon them, i. e. these that believed, And they received the Holy Ghost, is there here any mention of Oyle or of Balsome, which Pope Eugenius the Fourth, and the Council of Florence, in Decreto ad Instrust Armen. and the Roman Catechism, Part. 2. cap. 3. q 6. affirm to be the matter of this Sacrament, or is there mention of these words which the Pope and Catechism q. 10. call the Form of this Sacrament, viz. signo te signo crucis, &c. Doth not Esthius in 4. Sent. Dist. 7. Sect. 7. confess this to be the more common opinion of Romanists, that the Apostles used no Un­ction in Confirmation, how then can an Argument be drawn from this Scripture, that their Romish Confirmation is a Sacra­ment? In that Scripture there is only mention of imposition of hands, but in their Confirmation there is no imposition of hands, (as Dallaeus learnedly proves, de Confirmatione lib. 1. cap. 6.) [Page 447]but only an anointing and crossing the Forehead with the Bal­samated Oyle by the finger of a Bishop, which can no more pro­perly be termed Imposition of hands, then the sprinkling of water in Baptism upon an Infant, can be so called. Did ever any ancient Father expound these words of Anointing and Crossing with Balsamated Oyle? Are not Romanists then ma­nifest Innovators, who have substitute a Sacrament of Balsama­ted Oyle, which hath no vestige in that, or any other Scripture? Besides, Sacraments are exhibitive of sanctifying grace. But how can it be proved, that by the Holy Ghost which here is said to be received, are meant the sanctifying Graces, and not the edi­fying Gifts of the Spirit, such as the gifts of Tongues, Miracles, &c. which in the Popish Schools pass under the Name of gratia gratis data? Sure these Samaritam were Baptized, Believed and received the word of God, Act. 8. v. 12.13.14 before Peter and John came down to them, and so had the sanctifying graces of the Spirit, but the Holy Ghost, as here spoken of, had fallen upon none of them, vers. 16. Undoubtedly therefore by the Holy Ghost here are meant the edifying gifts of the Spirit, and not sanctifying graces. Was not the falling of the Spirit upon these believing Samaritans, like the falling of the spirit on these of Caesarea, Act. 10.44, 45. and these Act. 19.6. on whom Paul laid his hands, but there surely the edifying gifts of the Spirit are meant, for presently it is added, they Prophesied and spoke with Tongues. Had it been otherwise, how could Simon Magus so easily have discerned that they had received the Holy Ghost? The sanctifying graces of the Spirit are not easily dis­cernible, but edifying gifts, as speaking with Tongues do clearly manifest themselves. But though it were given that some sanctifying graces had been conferred by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, doth it therefore follow that it was a proper Sacrament? Is every sensible sign by which grace is conferred, a Sacrament? Is not the Spirit given by Prayer, and by Preaching of the Word, which yet are no Sacraments. How great things do Romanists ascribe to their Crucifixes and Holy Water, which yet they make not Sacraments? What should I speak of that Trash of outward Ceremonies which are added to Baptism, Exsufflations, Spittle, Oyle, Salt, &c, are all these Sacraments? Doth not Bel. lib. de Bapt. cap. 25. Sect 10. relate from Austin of Sanctifying of Catechumens by the Imposition [Page 448]of hands of presbiters, yet that was not a Sacrament, did not Christ himself bless young children by imposition of hands, Mat. 19.13.15. Yet Soto, Coninck, and generally the rest of the Popish Doctors deny that to be the Sacrament of Confirma­tion? Was not Imposition of hands in solemn benedictions an ancient Jewish rite, as may appear by Gen. 48.14. Numb. 27.18, 19, 23. 2 King. 5.11. Mark 7.32. and so not first in­stitut by Jesus. Lastly, some practices of the Apostles make not always a perpetual standing Rule for the Church. But more for the vindication of that Scripture, together with a confutation of all Bellarmins cavils, may be seen in Dallaeus Disp. de Confirm, lib. 1. cap. 6.9, 10, 11, 12. as for the other Scripture for Confirmation, from 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. there is mention in­deed of establishing and anointing, but its manifest from vers. 22. it was with no material oyle, but by the Holy Ghost, and so much is acknowledged by Esthius on the place. Is not Christ said to be anointed, Psal. 45.7. Isa. 61.1. dare he say it is with material oyle? Is there not a parallel Scripture, 1 John. 2.27. The anointing which he have received of him abideth in you, and it teach­es you all things. But sure that is a mystical Unction by the Spirit, for it abides, is Internal, and teaches all things, which, without too violent a Catachresis, cannot be ascribed to Romish Con­firmation.

For Pennance he cites other two Scriptures, Joh. 20.23. whose Sins ye shall forgive, are forgiven; and Act. 16.18. And many of them that Believed, came confessing their Deeds. Both these places are sufficiently vindicated by Fulk against the Rhemists. In a word, it shall be enough to me to say that these Scriptures prove a Ministerial power of absolution, and that distressed Consciences may disburden their Spirits, by laying open their sins to faithful Pastors, and in case of publick Scandal, publick confession of Sin should be made. All these Protestants do grant; but that every one is bound necessarily to reveal all his particular sins, how secret soever, by auricular confessing to a Priest, and that he hath power to impose proper satisfacti­ons to Divine Justice, as Romanists teach concerning the Sa­crament of Pennance. Neither these nor any other Scriptures hold out. Nor is there a visible sign, such as I shew in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster to be necessary to the being of a Sa­crament here Instituted by Christ.

For extream Ʋnction, he cites Jam. 5.14. and Mark 6.13. Did I not shew in my last against Mr. Dempster, pag. 266. That Bell. lib. 2. de Extream Ʋnct. cap. 2. Jansen. Concord. cap. 55. Coninck Tom. 2. de Sacrat. Disp. 111. Dub. 1. Num. 3. as also Suarez, a lapide, Carleton, and many others deny that in the latter place Mark 6.13. any Sacrament is held out, ought he not to have examined Bellar­mins arguments to the contray? did I not also ibid. 1. shew that Cardinall Cajetan, Comment. in Jam. 5. aff [...]rms that from these words, Jam. 5.14.15. no Sacrament can be concluded, and he says as much, of that place Mark 6. so that both these places are declared by eminent Doctors of the Romish Church to signify nothing as to the purpose in hand. Did I not also plainly tell that both these Scriptures treat of an Unction in reference to a miraculous healing of diseased persons? Ought not this inter­pretation to have been refuted, if he had intended to Satisfy those that are judicious? Many arguments might be heaped up to confirm the interpretation I have given. I hint but at a few things. And, First, that of Mark treats not of a Sacramental Un­ction, as is acknowledged by the most eminent Champions for the Romish cause already cited, to whom Greg. de Val. Dominicus a Soto, Ruardus and many others may be added, and who will deny it, must answer both Bellarmins arguments, and also these brought by our Divines. Therefore neither is there any Sacra­ment in James. For any, who with indifferency of Spirit, will compare the two places, will find them exactly parallel, and this the Jesuit Maldonat on Mark c. 6. hath sufficiently proved, albeit his heat for the Romish interest made him falsly to jmagine a Sacramental institution, Mark. 6.13. Secondly Sacraments are not principally instituted for the body, but chiefly at least, if not only for the soul. But both these Unctions, Mark 6. and Jam. 5. are chiefly for the body, In Mark 6. mention is only made of bodily cure, In Jam. 5. the healing of the body is both first and ab­solutely Spoken of, and forgiveness of sin only in the second place, and also conditionally, therefore in neither place have we a proper Sacrament. Thirdly, the Romish greasy Unct [...]on is only administred to those that are desperatly Sick, of whose recovery there is no hope, but the Vnction Spoken of by Mark and James, are not at all restricted to these, therefore the present Romish Unction is different from them both. Fourthly, if James words are to be understood of Extream Unction, why are Elders in the [Page 450]plural appointed to be called for, seeing only one can officiat in that matter. Lastly, not to repeat what was objected against this in my last, is it probable that if this had been a Sacrament instituted by Christ, that the Fathers in the first three Centu­ries would have made no mention thereof, how comes it that we hear not of it either in the constitutions under the Name of Clement, or in Denys, whom they hold for the Areopagit in his lib. de Hierarch. had they not convenient opportunity of it? Indeed Denys speaks of an anointing the Dead, but of Unction of the Sick he hath no mention. That it was wholly unknown to the ancient Churh is learnedly proven by Dallaeus de extrem. Ʋnct. lib. 2. who also examins all the Cavills of Romanists for this pretended Sacrament.

For Orders, he cites 2 Timoth. 1.6. Stir up the gift which is in thee, by laying on of my hands, the most that this place proves is, that or­dination is a standing Ordinance in the Church, which the pro­testant Churches do not deny, but no way conclude it a proper Sacrament. I hope nothing needs to be added against this preten­ded Sacrament, till he answer what is objected against Mr. Demp­ster, only I must remember him that Estius on the place confes­ses that the gists here spoken of are Timothies Ministerial endow­ments, consequently the grace here spoken of not being Sancti­fying, nor imposition of hands being a Sufficient Sacramentall sign, as I shew against Mr. Dempster nothing can be hence con­cluded as to a proper Sacrament, albeit Calvin as I advertised them grants that in a large Sense it may be termed a Sacrament. For Matrimony he only cites Ephes. 5.32. which thus he renders, this Sacrament is great, but according to the originall it is, this is a great mystery. Is every thing which the Scripture calls a mystery a Sacrament with them, then the mystery of iniquity. 2 Thes. 2.7. and the mystery of the whore Babylon, Revel. 17.5.7. must also be Sacraments, but doth not the Apostle Signify what it is he means by that mystery Ephes. 5.32. when he Subjoyns, I Speake of Christ and the Church, what need I more, Seing I brought in my last against Mr. Dempster, there own great Cardinall Cajetan con­fessing that from this place it doth not follow that Matrimony is a Sacrament. But if he had not been smitten with Mr. Demp­sters tergiversing Disease, he had never wholly overleaped what I objected against this, and the rest of their five spurious Sacra­ments, if he have any Candor, its expected in his next, he will [Page 451]reply not only to these hints, but also to what was objected in my last.

By all this I hope it appears that the Doctrine of the Prote­stant Churches concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, and concerning the number of Sacra­ments remains unshaken, what unity Romanists can pretend to in this question of the number of Sacraments, I leave to be ga­thered from these two Testimonies. The first shall be of Greg. de Val. the Jesuite, lib. de num. Sacr. cap. 3. & 7. Some Catholicks, saith he, denies Matrimony, others Confirmation, and others extream Ʋnstion to be univocally a Sacrament. The other of Cassander, Con­sult. art. 13. apud authores (saith he) Paulo vetustiores inter Sacra­menta proprie dista nunc duo ponuntur, nunc tria, Baptismus, Ewhari­stia, & Confirmatio non temere quenquam reperies ante Lembardum qui certum aliquem & definitum nunierum statuerit, & de his septem non omnes quidem Scholastici aeque proprie Sacramentum vocabant.

SECT. I. The Pamphleters first Instance of Novelty, touching the Popes Supremacy, briefly canvased, and retorted upon Romanists.

HIs first instance, Pag. 139. is concerning the Popes Supre­macy, as being, says he, the most principal thing. Its indeed the most principal thing with the Popes Parasits, hence, Bell. lib. 2. de concil. cap. 17. Greg. de Val. lib. 8. de anal. fid. cap. 7. and other Jesuits give the Pope a supremacy over the whole Catholick Church, yea and over general Councils, as Pope Boniface the 8. extrav. commun. unam Sanctam, had defined that subjection to the Pope, is of necessity to Salvation to every Creature. But this is as opposit to the faith of the ancient Church as East to West. Had this been the faith of the Church in those times, then it had been defined, according to the Pamphleters Principle, by the infallible visible judge of those times. Why then does he not produce such a definition among his citations? Doth not the world know that in those three ages there was not one Oecumenick Council, except that at Jerusalem, Act. 15. unless with Binius and the Ordinary gloss those other three Conventions of the Apostles, Act. cap. 1.6.21. be also held for Oecumenick Councils. But sure it is, [Page 470]that none of all these made any definition for the Popes su­premacy, Consequently there was no infallible visible judge in those times to make such a definition. I did always ap­prehend that the seat of the pretended Romish infallibility had been the seat of their supremacy. How then is it, that though Pope and Council were insinuated by this Pamphleter Sect. 3. to be the seat of infallibility joyntly. Yet now the Pope alone is made the seat of supremacy? Is he alone su­pream but not infallible? Is their Church bound to obey and believe a fallible Pope teaching lyes and blasphemies, as having supremacy over them, though not infallibility? Had the Churches in those three ages believed the Popes supremacy as necessary to Salvation, would Polycrates and the holy Asiatick Fathers in the second Century, have withstood the Pope so resolutly in the matter of Easter, as is witnessed by, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22? Would Cyprian so holy a Father, and Martyr with the Affrican Fathers in the third Century so vehemently have opposed Pope Stephanus in the matter of rebaptization, as is acknowledged by Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 7? Would he have so zealously opposed appeals, to Rome as he does, Epist. 55. or censured Popes so sharply for admitting them, which is to strike at the root of this pretended supremacy? Would the fourth Oecumenick Council at Chalcedon, Act. 15. can. 28. and Act. 16. in which were 630. Fathers have defined in foro con­tradictorio, after debate with the legats of Rome, that the Bi­shop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome? Would the second Council of Milevis. can. 22. have ordained them to be excommunicated, who should make transmarin appeals? Would the same African Fathers, among whom Austin was one, in the sixth Council of Carthage, have so stoutly opposed appeals to Rome, as Barron. ad annum. 419. cannot deny, though both he and Bell. lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 25. endeavour, by some slight evasions to palliat the matter, the falshood whereof is luculently evicted by Chamier. Panstrat. tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 3.4. yea the case is so clear, that Stapleton relect. princip. controv. 3. quest. 7. Is not ashamed to condemn the proceedings of that ancient African Council against the Popes of Rome. Such is the respect of Romanists to Antiquity, when it crosses their interest. Had the Popes supremacy been an essential of the Christian Faith? [Page 471]Would Greg. 600. Yeares after Christ. lib. 4. Epist. 32.34.38.39. have condemned the Title of universal Bishop, as a Title of Novelty, error, blasphemy, the universal poyson of the Church, contrary to the Ancient Canons, contrary to Peter, and to God himself, a Title which none of his predecessors assumed, and who ever did presume to challenge it, was a forrunner of the Antichrist. Its a manifest forgery contrary to all truth, which, Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 31. and other Romanists use to elude those luculent testimonies of Greg. as if he had only condemned the title of universal Bishop in that sense wherein John of Constantinople did claim it, Namely, so as he alone should be Bishop, and other Bishops should not at all be Bishops, but his Vicars. Whereas John of Constantinople never claimed that Title in any other sense, then it is this day used by the Bishops of Rome, for. 1. the oriental Bishops consented with John of Constantinople that he should be termed universal Bishop, but its hardly credible, that they would all have consented that themselves should be degraded. But secondly Romish Authors, particularlarly Platina in the Life of Boniface the third doth testify, that the same dignity which John did effect, Boniface obtained from that bloody Murtherer Phocas, not without much ado, magna tamen contentione, says Platina. Doth not the opposition which the Ancient Brittish and Scottish Churches made to Austin the Monk, to Laurentius and Mellitus, sent over to England by Greg. the first in the matter of Easter and celebration of Baptism, of which see, Bede. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. and 4. and Barronius ad annum. 604. demonstrat that the Popes supremacy was not an essential Article of their Faith, Yea so far was it from being an Article of the Faith of the Ancient Catholick Church, that in late Councils such as that of Constance. sess. 4. & 5. and of Basil. sess. 2. Its statuted that Popes be subject to the decrees of general Councils, and sess. 39. who ever contradict this, is stigmatized as an Heretick. Behold then the stupendious impudency of those men. Though many such luculent demonstrations of the contrariety betwixt the now Romish Faith, and the Ancient Catholick Faith, in this their principal point of the Popes supremacy, have been often proposed yet they have confidence still to alleadge that the Church in the three first, yea in all ages was of the same Faith with them. They might as well say that within those [Page 472]first three ages, Ignatius Loyola founded the order of Jesuits which all know to be but of Yesterdays erection.

But hath he not some pretences for his assertion? Yes, but those, which times without number have been confuted. The chief of his citatious are manifestly spurious, such as that from Denys de divinis nominibus, cap. 3. Clement. epist. 1. and the decretals of Pope Zepherinus. The decretals of Clement, Zepherinus, and of many more Bishops of Rome are not only demonstrated to be Spurious by Whittaker, Cocus, and Blondel, but also are acknowledged to be such by learned Romanists, Turrecremata, Possevin, Barronius, as is ob­served by Rivet, Crit. Sac. l. 1. c. 8. particular reasons may be seen in Cocus, against each of them, Bellarmin himself de Script. Eccles. Pag. 51. edit paris. 1630. questions the epistles, which now pass under the name of Clement. As for the Books attributed to Deny's, learned and modest Causabon. exercit. in Barron. 16. Sect. 43. affirms none can look on them as the writings of the Areopagit, but he that is grosly ignorant and a stranger to antiquity. Rivet. lib. cit. cap. 9. brings 13: arguments to prove them Spurious, and that they wer not so much as writen within the first three ages. It's noted by Cocus, in Censur. Vet Script. Pag. 50.51. not only that Ʋalla, Erasmus, Grocinus, and Photius hold these writings to be Supposititious, but that also they are questioned by Cajetan, yea and as seems likewise by Bell. lib. 2. de confirm. cap. 7. and the like is noted by Strang. lib. 2. de Script. cap. 21. concerning Ribera the Iesuit. But grant they wer genuin, yet in lib. de devinis nom. cap. 3. there is nothing for the Pope of Romes Supremacy, yea not so much as mention of Rome or of the Pope thereof, only of the Apostle Peter, it's said that he is, [...], which only imports the primacy of order which Peter had among the Apostles, but no jurisdiction over them, and though he had it, what is that to the Pope of Rome, unless it could be proved, that the Pope succeeded to Peter in the latitude of his Apostolicall function, which will be found an hard taske.

Concerning Ignatius, whose Epistle to the Romans the Pamphleter cites, I will not remit him to Rob. Parker, de Polit. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 13. who also musters up a Multitude of arguments to prove these epistles attributed to Ignatius to be Spurious. Nor will I altogether condemm as Supposititious the Seven Epistles men­tioned as his by Euseb. and Hierom, yet Revet in crit. Sac. lib. 2. cap 1. et 2. following learned Ʋsher makes it very probable that they [Page 473]are interpolated and vitiated, yea Bell. himself. lib. 4. de Eu­charist. cap. 26. confesses, that there be many errors crept into them. How can a firm argument be taken from vitiated Epi­stles? But grant them to be entire (and the rather seeing I find reformed Criticks divided, especially concerning the Latin Edition of Ignatius, set forth by Bishop Ʋsher, and the Greek published by Isaac Vossius) yet all this Pamphleter can alleadge from Ignatus, is only a transient word in the inscription of the Epistle to the Romans, which also he misrepresents, though I blame not him so much as them from whom he borrowed the citation.

The words in the Greek concerning the Church of Rome are, [...], which if rendered passively, quae praesidetur (which is presided over, or which is governed by her own pastours) give no shadow of a Counte­nance to Romish supremacy, but take them actively (which presides) yet the presidency of that Church is restricted to the Religion of the Romans, so that no universal jurisdiction is there ascribed to her.

The Testimonies of Ireneus Cyprian, and Origen. are suf­ficiently vindicated by Learned Chamier, Whittaker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Stillingfleet, &c. to whom it were enough for me to remit him. He had done well to have left out Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. for he is there disputing against unwritten Traditions main­tained by the Valentinian Hereticks, and confutes them by this argument, because if there were such Traditions left, the Churches founded by the Apostles could not be ignorant of them. And because it had been long to have recited all, he mentions the Church of Rome, to which the faithful resorted from all places, she being seated in the imperial City, which is that he meant, by the more powerful principality, that resort to her from all quarters, was not from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, but from peoples necessary affaires in the imperial City, as is largly cleared by Chamier, tom. 2. lib. 13. cap. 22. and Stillingfleet. Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 12.13. Yea, Ire­naeus is so far from acknowledging the Popes supremacy, that he reprehended Victor for his carriage to Polycrates, and the Asiaticks, and as seems retained communion with them not­withstanding the Popes Excommunication, as may be ga­thered from, Euseb. lib. 5. Hist. cap. 23.

I proceed to Cyprian whom the Pamphleter cites, Epist. ad Jul. calling Peter the head and root of the Church, and Epist. 55. the Church of Rome Peters Chair. But there is none who with­stood Popes of Rome more resolutely then Cyprian. Notice but that one Character which in Epist. 74. ad Pompeium he gives to Stephanus Bishop of Rome, viz. that he defends the cause of Hereticks against Christians, and the Church of Christ; Sure therefore Cyprian neither acknowledged the supremacy nor the infallibility of the Pope. It may be time enough to answer the first of those citations, when he finds out Cyprians Epist. ad Jul. for I cannot find such an Epistle among all Cyprians Works. But poor Soul he could say no better then his Manual of con­troversies, for H. T. Art. 7. cites it thus, Epist. ad Julian. I find indeed Cyprian Epist 45. ad Cornel. exhorting them who sayled from Africk to Rome (in the time that Novatianus was schis­matically chosen Bishop of Rome) to adhere to the root and Matrix of the Catholick Church, not that he so called the Roman Church, but as Chamier judiciously observes, tom. 2. de Oecum. Pontif. lib. 13. cap. 23. the Catholick Church ad­vising them not to joyn with any schismatical party, but to adhere to those who did keep the unity of the Catholick Church. The same is the importance of that which Cyprian says Epist. 73. ad Jubajanum (which perhaps this Pamphleter in his Collection from others has taken for Epist. ad Jul. Nos unius Ecclesiae caput & radicem tenemus. We keep the head and the root of the only Church, but there he makes no mention of Peter at all. So that the meaning is, we keep the unity of the Catholick Church, whereof particular Churches are mem­bers and branches. What though the Church of Rome be termed the Chair of Peter? Is it not usual with Fathers to mention the Chairs of other Apostles, as may be seen in Tertul. de praescript. cap. 36 or had Peter himself jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles? No verily. Yea the Apostolick function being supream, if the rest had been subordinate to Peter, they had been supream as being Apostles, and not supream as being subordinate to 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. [Page 475] 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, Its 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. T [...] 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, at (que) 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 [Page 477]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. Its 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. Its 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 [Page 478]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. Its 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. [Page 479]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 [Page 480]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 its 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 Sacrifice to God, bread and win in the Eucharist, so Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. Cyprian Serm. de opere & Fleemosyuis, and epist. 63. and Austin epist. 122. yea and the compyler of a part of the Missal (for its like a beggars [Page 265]cloak patched up at Severall times) Seems to have been of the same opinion, for before the Consecration, its said, suscipe pater hanc Immaculatam hostium, but then by the Romanists own con­fession, there is nothing but bread and wine; Now sure it is, bread and wine can be no propitiatory Sacrifice to expiate the sins of the Elect, Ergo, all these must be understood to speak of an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice.

Secondly, the Fathers doe clearly expound themselves to mean nothing else, Chrysostom who as often terms the Sacrament of the Supper a Sacrifice as any, expounds his meaning most clearly Hom. 17. in Heb. we offer up, saith he, The same Sacrifice which Christ offered, then he Subjoyns by way of Exposition, [...], or rather the remembrance thereof. So Euseb. lib. 1. de demonstrat. cap. 10. he has commanded us to offer-unto God [...], a Memoriall, instead of a Sacrifice, and Austin, lib. 20. Cond. Faust. Manich. cals it, Sacramentum memoriae, a Sacrament of re­membrance Theoret, Clemens, Basil, and Greg. Nazianzen call the eucharist Simbols and tips of the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse. The Chuch Theodoret in Ps. 109. offers to God the Simbols of Christs body and blood. These Fathers indeed (excepting Clemens) are posterior to the 3d Century but their faith is consonant to the faith of the Church in former ages, Hence Iustin Martir in dial cum Triph. Pap. 101. edit Comelin, Christ commanded us to offer the bread of the Eucharist, in recordationem passionis, in remembrance of his Passion, and Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. makes this disparity betwixt the Jewish and Christian Sacrifice, Species tantum mutata est, the change is only in the out ward formes, but sure the Jewish Sacrifices were not the real Sacrifice of Christ, but re­presentations thereof, consequently Irenaeus looked on the eu­charist only as a representative Sacrifice.

Thirdly, as the Eucharist, so also Baptism was called by the Fa­thers a Sacrifice, the most of the Fathers, plerique antiquorum, if we may credit Melchior Canu. lib. 12. loc. com. c. 13. p. 680. expound that of the Apostle Heb. 10. There remains no more Sacrifice for sin, of Baptism. But Romanists will confess Baptism is no proper Sacrifice, why then do they not say the same of the Eucharist.

Fourthly, as fathers say that Christ is Sacrificed in the eucharist so are they found saying that he dyes and Suffers in that Sacra­ment. Hence Greg. is cited in the Canon law by Gratian, de con­secrat. dist. 2. cap. 73. quid sit, affirming that Jesus dyes in the [Page 266]mistery of the eucharist. Will any Romanist say, Christ properly dies or Suffers either in Baptism or in the Eucharist, Nay says the Gloss upon the last cited place, he is said to die quia mors ejus & passio repraesentantur, why then do they not say the same concerning his Sacrifice? And indeed if he be properly Sacri­ficed then must he also properly die and Suffer.

Fiftly, when Julian the Apostate did object that Christians had no proper Sacrifices Cyril lib. 9. cont. Jul. did admit they had only Spiritual Sacrifices, which he would never have yielded, if he had been of the Tridentin faith, that there is a proper propiti­atory Sacrifice in the Mass.

Sixly, this truth is so luculent, that it hath extorted confessions from eminent Doctors of the Romish Church, that the Sacrament of the Supper is called a Sacrifice, because in it the Sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is commemorated, so Lombard lib. 4. sent. dist. 12. Aquinas. part. 3. quest. 83. art. 1. Liranus in heb. 10. Piche­nel, dissert. de Missa. Barnesius in Catholico Romano Pontif. sect. 7. to whom D. William Forbes, de Missa cap. 1. adds Wicelius, Ferus, and divers others.

Seventhly and lastly, Romanists are so divided among them­selves touching this matter, that Malderus Bishop of Antwerp, as cited by D. Will. Forbes, pag. 452. relates nine several opinions of Romanists, all which Malderus refutes, not excepting the o­pinion of Bellarmin himself. And yet says mine Author (who is known to have been no rigid Adversary of Romanists) his own opinion was nihilo melior, no whit sounder then the rest. By these considerations I hope the discreet Reader may be satis­fied, that though Fathers used the word Sacrifice, yet they meant only an Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice.

To the Testimonies therefore objected by the Pamphleter, I answer in two words, viz. That the first three, namely, from the Liturgy of James, Andrews Book of the Passion, Clements Epistle 3. as also that from Hippolitus de Antichristo are censured as spurious, see Cocus in Censur. pag. 9. 21. 53. and 65. And Rivet Crit. Sac. lib. 1. cap. 3.4. and 8. lib. 2. cap. 11. Yea, the faith of James Liturgie is questioned by Bell. de script. Eccles. an. 34. and lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 3. Andrews Book by Barronius, Tom. 1. an. 44. Num. 42.43. and an. 69. Num. 34. And Clements Epistles both by Bell. de script. Eccles. an. 92. and Barron. Tom. 2. an. 102. Num. 6.7. Secondly, that the rest of the testimonies from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertul. &c. [Page 267]are only to be understood of Eucharistick, commemorative, and Symbolick Sacrifices, which might be confirmed by par­ticular arguments from the several Authors, but I hope the premised considerations may suffice. Only lest any should imagine that the word Mass was known in the days of Ignatius, that which the Pamphleter renders out of him to celebrate a Mass, in Ignatius Greek Epist. ad Smyrn. is [...], which signifies only to celebrate a banquet. I may therefore here shut up with a new demonstration of Popish Novelty.

That there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass, was no essential of the Ancient Catholick Religion. But that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass is an assential in the present Romish Religion. Ergo. There is an other essential in the present Romish Religion, which was not in the Ancient Catholick Re­ligion.

SECT. IV. A fourth Instance of Novelty, concerning Transubstantiation, discussed and retorted upon Romanists.

THe Pamphleter in his fourth Instance, saith, that Pro­testants deny the real presence and Transubstantiation. And toward the close of this fourth Instance, Pag. 145. he would sneakingly insinuate, that their half Communions (which are so palpable an innovation, that their own Authors cannot deny it) had been approven by the Ancient Church. To this last I shall have a more fit occasion to speak in the first appendix to this, Sect. 7. And therefore at the time shall only examin that of Transubstantiation. We deny not the real presence, nay, we affirm that Christ is really exhibited to believers in the use of the Sacrament. That which we deny is a Transubstantiated presence, so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed, a specter of accidents without a Subject, remaining, and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the acci­dents. In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church. Hence Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread (after consecration) is not now common bread, but an [Page 268]Eucharist, consisting of two things, the terren, and the heavenly. Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers, the terren, viz, Bread and Wine, and the Heavenly, the body and blood of Christ. And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World, because that bread upon which thanks is given, is the body of the Lord, and that cup his blood, makes nothing for Transubstan­tiation, Nay it distroys it, Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense, but in a figurative, and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this, he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Sym­bols of his body and blood, must be the Son of God, Christ did so, Ergo, &c.

Tertullian is no less luculent, lib. 4. Cont. Marcio. cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body, and then drawes an argument against Marcion, and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body, because it could not be the figure of his body, if he had not a true body. But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, Tertull, could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion, for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament, but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject, this had rather given advantage to Marcion, who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body. Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter, he mentions only these words of Tertull, the Bread taken and distributed he made his body, and then crys out, what more cleer for Transubstantiation? But had he not mutilated Tertullians words, it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation, for presently Tertull, thus explains himself, hoc est, figura corporis mei, that is, this is, the figure of my Body. Yea, Beatus, Rhenanus, in admon. de Tertul. dogm. reckons, this as one of Tertullians sentiments, that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucha­rist.

By this also may be cleared, what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh. For as, Spalat. lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes, though the Eucharist be not pro­perly [Page 269]the Flesh of Christ, yet being a Symbol of his Flesh, it receives the denomination of the thing signified, and strong­ly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature, which those Hereticks denyed. They therefore see­ing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucha­rist.

I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima. cap. 17. the senses, saith he, are not deceived about their own objects, lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks, making but a Phantasm of Christ, &c. But according to the tenet of Tran­substantiators the senses of all the World are ludified, with Tertullian accords Cyprian, who Epist. 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood, which were a mani­fest falshood, if not figuratively understood. So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer, according to the material part of it, goes into the belly, and is sent into the draught. I desire to know by a Romanist, what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught, if the substance of bread do not remain? when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord, in the place objected by the Pamphleter, he can only be un­derstood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drink­ing.

With those Fathers of the first three ages, these of follow­ing times do agree as appears by, Theod. dial. 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration, the nature of the elements is not changed, but grace added unto nature, [...], but abide in their proper nature shape and figure, so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis Christi contra Eutych. & Nestor. in bib. pat. tom. 5. part. 3. So also Augustin contra Adi­mantum, cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae erant, & in aliud convertantur, that they may be what they were, and be converted into another thing. If they remain what they were, then sure their conversion into another thing, must be only Symbolical. A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up.

Scarce doth any testimony remain objected, by the adver­sary which we have not cleared on the by, as we were bringing testimonies for the truth. His spurious testimonies I value [Page 270]not, and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles. Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini, as is demon­strated by Criticks, and yet neither of them make for Tran­substantiation. Not the first, or the Pseudo—Deny's exclama­tion, O divinissimum sacramentum, whither it be taken with Dr. Morton, as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat, as an invo­cation of Christ himself, who is the thing signified in the Sacrament. Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian, wherein the Elements are said to be changed, not in shape, but in nature, for nature is not taken for substance (else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian) but for the condition of these Elements, as when we say that things are of different nature, some common and prophane, others holy and Divine, in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature, beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue, albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino, Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be viti­ated, and that it ought to be read nec specic, nec natuna, neither changed in shape, nor in nature, Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers, so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty.

That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist, and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place, was no essential of Faith in the first three ages. But this is an essential of the pre­sent Romish Faith, Ergo, &c.

SECT. V. A fifth instance of Novelty, concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted.

THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith, that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead, Where Sophisti­cally he throwes two Popish errors together. Well he knew that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries, therefore he adds to it, prayer for the dead, as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead, but to deliver them from the [Page 271]torments of Purgatory, which shall appear to be a manifest falshood.

Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith, as ap­pears by the Council of Trent, sess. 6. can. 30. and sess. 25. decret. de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea, so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say, that we are under as much necessity to believe it, as the Trinity, or incarnation, nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it. For as Spalat. lib. 5. de repub. Eccles. cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed, it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome. But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages, as Hell is from Heaven. Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church, Roffensis art. 18. cont. Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent. rerum cap. 1. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres. lib. 8. verb. indulg. and lib. 12. tit. Purgatorium, that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church, little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers, and by the Latins them­selves received but by little and little. Yea, that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church. Doth not Sixtus Sen­ensis lib. 6. annot. 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop. of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil, in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory. And among themselves there are Authors of great Note, who have denyed Purgatory, such as Learned Picherel, de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes. Cathol. Roman. Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral. and doth not Thomas ab Albijs, in his tractate. de medio animarum statu, strike at the Foundation of it?

But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels, how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory, to be an Article of Faith is copiously, and Learnedly demon­strated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis & satisfac. per totum. At the time let Cyprian suffice for all, lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit, when once we pass from this Life, there is no place for repen­tance, nor any effect of satisfaction, sure then no Purgatory, and a little before, to the same Demet. he says that when this Life is finished, ad aeternae, vel mortis, vel immortalitatis bospitia dividimu [...], we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death, or of im­mortality, where he acknowledges two states after this Life, [Page 272]and both these eternal, and in Serm. de lapsis, he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin, dum in saeculo est, while he is in this World, dum admitti confessio ejus potest, dum satisfactio & remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est, where clearly he holds out, that after this Life, neither confession, nor satis­faction can be accepted of God, and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate, this is one of his chief arguments, whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death, because presently after death, they are invested with eternal Life, ejus est mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire, ejus est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare, if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ, then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell.

But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead? Answ. Its granted she did, but not for a liberation from torments, under which she supposed them to be presently smarting, as do Romanists, and therefore from these Prayers, nothing can be concluded for Purgatory. The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs, Apostles, Patri­archs, Prophets, the Virgin Mary, and for all the faithful, as appears from Epiphanius haeres. 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James, and of Chrysostom, in bib. pat. tom. 2. graeco—latin, and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt, attributed to Basil, Greg, Nazianzen, and Cyril, in bib. pat. tom. 6. edit. 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist. 5. affirms, they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns. Many more testimonies may be brought, but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith. See­ing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those, who by the confession of all were not in torment, but in a blessed state, the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory.

If any aske, for what then did they pray for the dead, Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer, for when he had objected to himself, lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray, that the Sculs of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of H [...]ll, from the deep lake, from the mouth of the Lyon, he answers, that although the Souls of the faithful at their par­ticular judgment have received a sentence, whereby they are [Page 273]delivered from Hell, yet there remains a general judgment, where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body, and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day, the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church.

But yet further, to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to Purgatory. It would be remem­bred, that among ancient Christians there were divers Errors concerning the state of the departed, now justly disowned both by Protestants and Papists, which might have given occasion to these Prayers, as first, many of them were of opinion, that though all the Souls of the Faithful were in requie, in a blessed rest, yet they were not admitted to the Beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment. Hence Sixtus Senensis, lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. to prove that many in the ancient Church were smitten with this Error, he not only adduces testimonies from several particular Authors, such as Irenaeus, Justin, Tertul. Origen, Lactan­tius, Prudentius, Ambrose, &c. but also the form of Prayer for the dead, in James Liturgy. 2. Many were of opinion, that all were to pass through a fire of Purgatory at the great day. Yea, 3dly, some were of opinion, that by the Prayers of the liv­ing, the pains of the Damned were eased, among whom were Chrysostom and Prudentius, &c. of which see Sixtus Senensts, lib. 6. Annot. 47. I should not willingly mention these mistakes and errors of Fathers, did not the importunity of Romanists con­strain me to discover the misapplications which are made of their Prayers to Purgatory. But generally they believed, that the Souls of the faithful at the present were in requie, and there­fore Tertul. lib. de Patientia, accounteth it an injury to Christ to judge, that the Souls of departed Saints are in a state to be pi­tied, these mistakes of Ancients, being now through the mercy of God cleared, there is no reason to admit the superstructure built thereupon.

I cannot but add what learned Dallee hath observed, lib. 6. de paenis & satisfact. cap. 2. that among all the Testimonies which Bell. hath mustered up for Prayers for the Dead, there is none brought from the real writings of any Fathers, who died be­fore the beginning of the 3d Century, and therefore judiciously concludes, that seeing there is no mention of them, either by Moses, or the Prophets, or by Christ and the Apostles, or by the Fathers, who immediately succeeded to them, as Ignatius, Ire­naeus, [Page 274]or Justin Martyr, that upon the forementioned accounts they have been introduced into the Church towards the end of the 2d Century, but without any intuition to Purgatory. Had they been then designed for Purgatory, how came it that the Fathers never once gave this as the reason of these Prayers? When Epiphanius was demanded by Aerius, for what end Prayers were put up for the Dead, it had been easie to have answered, that it was for the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory? But he brings other reasons, and has nothing to that purpose, which is a clear demonstration, that he was not of the present Romish Faith concerning Purgatory. And surely its built upon most absurd Principles, such as 1. the distinction of fins Venial and Mortal, as if some sins of their own nature did not deserve everlasting punishment. 2dly, That when God for­gives sin, he forgives not all the punishment thereof. 3dly, That Christ has not satisfied Justice fully for our sins, seeing we must in part satisfy our selves for them.

The testimonies cited by the Pamphleter, having been often cleared by Protestant Authors, I shall speedily dispatch them, and first many of them, as from Denys de Hierarch. cap. 7. Clements Constit. and Epistles, and James Liturgie are spurious, and yet make nothing for the purpose. Learned Dallaeus de Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis, hath not only proved against Jesuite Turrian and Bovius by Armies of arguments Clements constitutions to be spu­rious, but also lib. 1. cap. 1. shews them to be held as such by most learned Romanists, Bell. Barron. Perron. Margarinus de la Bigne, Albaspinaeus, Petavius, &c. to whom afterwards he adds Pope Gelasius, and lib. 2. cap. 17. he makes it probable that these constitutions were compiled by some Impostor, towards the end of the Fifth Century. However, these writings attributed to Clemens, Denys, and James, speak of Prayers for them, who un­doubtedly are in a blessed Estate, and therefore not for those, who labour in the flames of Purgatory. Hence Clemens lib. 8. constitut. cap. 41. pro quiscentibus in Christo fratribus oremus; and in the Liturgy ascribed to James, animas beatas requiescere faciat Do­ninus, and again, Prayers are put up for all the faithful from Abel the just, unto this day. Consequently either none were in a blessed state or their prayers are put up for such. In the citation of Origen, he discovers little either of wit or honesty. For who knows not that Origen was condemned, not only by Epiphanius Epist. ad Joan. Hieros. Hierom, ad Pammach, Austin, Haeres. 43. Auflin [Page 275]de Civ. Dei. lib. 21. cap. 17. but also by the 5th Occumenick Council, yea, and by Bell. himself lib. 1. de purg. cap. 2. as maintaining there were no pains after this life but only Purgatory pains, and as­serting that there shall be an end of the pains, both of Devils, and wicked men, and our Pamphleter had not so much judg­ment, as to observe that Origen asserted this his Heresie in the testimony cited by him, Ʋt efficiantur omnes aurum purum, that all may become pure gold, shall Judas, shall Cain, shall devils at length become pure gold? as for Tertull. in his book de coron. militis, he speaks only of prayer for the dead, which how it was used by the Ancient Church, I have already told, and in his book de anima cap. 58. he makes mention indeed of a carcer inferni, but truly means no Purgatory, but only the common receptacle of saints, untill the day of judgment, for a litle before cap. 55. he clears himself saying, constituimus omnem animam apud inferos se­questrari in diem domini, and there upon Bell. concluds him to be one of those, who mantained the elect were not admitted to the beatifick vision, untill the day judgment, and the rather he calls it a Carcer, for according to his Chiliast fancy, he thought not that all should rise alike, but some sooner, some latter, accord­ing to their degrees of sins or graces.

From Cyprian he cites that commonly objected Place, ex Epist. ad Anton. its one thing to be amended for sins by long grief, and to by purged with fire a long while, another to have purged away all sins b [...] suffering Martirdome, but this nothing concerns Purgatory. As not only our divines, but some of there own also, as Rigaltius and Albaspinaeus have showed, that Cyprian is there only speaking of the severities of discipline, which the lapsi under went in order to pardon, and comparing them with the felicity where of Martyis after death are possessed. That purging fire is the severity of Church disciplin, which in primitive times was very long drawn out, neither needs it seeme strange to any, that its compared to a fire seeing Hierom discribing the penitentiall ex­ercises of Fabiola, Epitaph, fab. ad Oceanum saies, Sedit super Car­bones ignis hi fuerunt in adjutorium, and Pope Siricius in epist, ad Him­mer calls perpetuall repentance, purificatorium paenitudinis ignem, the purging fire of Repentance, and that this is the genuine scope of Cyprian, might be confirmed from the series of his dis­course, but who desires farther satisfaction, I remit them to Dallaeus de paenis & satisfac. lib. 4. cap. 10.

Now only remains Austin, who is the first Father that really speaks to this purpose, about the end of the fourth, or be­ginning of the fifth Century, but sure it is, Austin concluded nothing dogmatically in this matter, as may appear, by his, non redarguo, quia forsitan vorum est, lib. 21. de civ. dei cap. 26. That which is here objected from him in Ps. 37. is to be under­stood of the exploratory fire at the great day, as appears by a like discourse of Austin on a paralel penitential, Psalm, viz. Psalm, 6. where he expresly restricts his speech to the day of Judgment.

Though none of these Authors which the Pamphleter has gathered up implicitly from his masters, do favour his cause, yet I confess he wants not patrons for his Purgatory, and some of them very Ancient. viz, Platonick Philosophs, he might truely have cited Lines out of Virgil, Claudian, &c. Yea, and per­haps from the Turkish Alcoran, and the Jewish Talmud, from all which Bellarmin is not ashamed to argue, lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 11. we do not envy them these heathnish, and Infidel abettors. Our Learned Countrey man, Dr. Forbes of Corse, lib. 13. instruct. Hist. Theol. cap. 1. after a paralel betwixt the Romish Pur­gatory, and the old dreams of Platonick Philosophs, Montanus and Origen, concluds, they have borrowed something from Origen, more from Montanus, but most of all from the Platonists: I conclude with that of Austin lib. 1. de pecc. merit. & remiss. cap. 28. non est loeus medius, ut possit esse nisi cum diabolo, qui non est cum Christo, and the Author Hypog. lib. 5. Tertium ignoramus, nec in scripturis invenimus, hence emerges a fifth demonstration of Romish Novelty.

That the Souls of the faithful undergo Purgatory pains after this Life, was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three ages. But it is an essential of the present Romish Faith, Ergo, &c.

SECT. VI. A sixth instance of Novelty, concerning invocation of Saints, examined and retorted upon Romanists.

THe Pamphleter in his sixth Instance, saith, that Protestants deny invocation and Honouring of Saints, where he bewrays [Page 277]either gross ignorance, or so much disingenuity, as to verify in himself his other Apocryphal Text, quod interiora ejus sint plena dolo, for though Protestants deny invocation of departed Saints, yet they acknowledge they ought to be honoured. They cordially homologate that of Austin de vera relig. cap. 55. honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter Religio­nem.

It will prove an hard province to all the Romanists of the World, to produce one anthentick Instance for invocation of Saints within the first three ages, either from Canonical or extra—Canonical Authors. For as to Canonick Writers, Eccius a violent Romanist, in Euchirid, cap. 15. acknowledges that there is no explicite command for invocation of Saints, either in the Old or New Test. And for extra—Canonical Authors Sixtus Senensis, lib. 6. Bibl. annot. 345. reckons out many in the first three ages, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertul. Cle­mens Romanus, and Origen, to whom in after times, he adds Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Ambrose, Chrysost. Yea, and Pope John the 22. maintaining, that Saints do not enjoy the beati­fick vision before the resurrection of the last day, and though he hint at a piteous evasion to draw some of their words another way, yet the evidence of truth makes him acknow­ledge, that all their words could not bear such an interpreta­tion, Consequently these could not maintain a proper invo­cation of departed Saints, this being the reason why Bell. lib. 1. de beat Sanct. cap. 20. concluds, that Saints under the Old Testament were not invocated because they were not yet admitted to the beatifick vision. Did not the Fathers of those ages explicitly reject invocation of Angels, as Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 25. reckon­ing invocation of Angels, and incantations together, as things not practised by the Church. And Origen lib. 5. cont Celsum & lib. 8. says that our Prayers are to be offered up to God alone by his only begotten Son, and why Angels are not to be invocated, he brings diverse reasons. How is it that in the excellent tractats concerning Prayer, written by Tertul. and Cyprian, there is no mention of invocation of Saints? How is it that in all the Sermons of Origen there are no ave Maries or invocation of Saints recommended? Do not Romish Catechists in expounding the first command, labour to reconcile their invocation of Saints with the prohibition of that command, but Origen in [Page 278]Exod. homil. 8. though he prolixly treat of that command, makes no mention of invocation of Saints. Are not these evidences, that invocation of Saints was not then in fashion? Do not the Fathers of these ages define Prayer to be directed to God alone? So Tertul. de orat. cap. 1. &. 9. apol. cap. 30. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 32. cap. 35. lib. 2. cap. 17. Origen cont. Celsum lib. 5. & lib. 8. and after them Athanasius orat. 4. cont. Arrianos. Well did Ambrose express the sense of the Church de obit. Theod. Tu Domine solus invocandus es, should not the argument of Athan­asius orat. 4. cont Arrianos concluding the deity of Christ, be­cause he was invocated be very inconsequent, if the invoca­tion of Saints had been judged lawful. When in the fourth Century invovation of Saints began to creep in, was it not doubted if departed Saints knew particularly the affaires of the living. Hence Nazianzen's, [...], orat. 3. and [...] orat. funeb. in laudem Basilii, Hierom in Epitaph. Nepotiani, non audit quicquid dixero, Ambrose, de obitu Satyri, cum quo loqui non possumus, &c. How could they then hold it as an Article of Faith, that Saints are to be invocated? Did not the Council of Laodicea can. 35. condemn expresly the invocation of Angels? Is it not a notorious imposture of Romanists, to substitute for, Angelos, either in the Title, Text, or Margin, Angulos, as is ob­served to be done by Caranza, Crab, Binnius, Canisius. Is not that Canon commended and the worship of Angels condemned by Theodoret in cap. 2. ad Coloss.

Doth not the Pamphleter bewray how desperat his cause is, when all the testimonies he brings, are either spurious or im­pertinent. These from Denys de Hierarch cap. 7. Clements Apost. constut. Cornelius 1. Epist. and Origens Lament. are all spurious, and most of them quite impertinent. That of Clement (which should have been cited. lib. 5. cap. 7.) speaking only of Honour due to Saints, that of Cornelius (which not only Cocus in censura Pag. 36. has demonstrated to be spurious, but also, as Bar­ronius ad an. 221. n. 6. confesses, non est perinde exploratae fidei) of the intercession of Saints, neither of which are denyed. Who may not see a vast difference betwixt intercession, and invocation? Saints in time do intercede for the Church, and sure their charity being inlarged in Heaven, they cease not to intercede for her. But the Question is, if we be to invocate them Religiously, or if they know all the particular wants of [Page 279]Souls on Earth. This is more then will be proven, either by Scripture, or primitive Antiquity. That lamentation or peni­tential of Origen, is declared apocryphal by Pope Gelasius, wit­ness Barron. ad an. 253. n. 118. Concerning that of Denys lib. de hierarch Eccles. cap. 7. it hath oft been told Romanists, par­ticularly by Dr. Will. Forbes controv. 3. cap. 3. Pag. 308. By Dallaeus lib. 1. de object. cultus religios. cap. 8. and by Dr. Fern in his answer to Scripture mistaken, Sect. 2. pag. 262. That it is spoken of the Prayers of the living for the dead, not of Prayers to the dead, and cannot but be obvious to any that have read the Book it self He cites Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 9. speaking of the commemoration of the sufferings of Martyrs, but Cyprian has nothing to that purpose in that Epistle? Only he vindi­cates himself from some calumnies to Florentius, Pupianus, indeed lib. 3. Epist. 6. he speaks of the memories of the Mar­tyrs, but what is that to invocation? The sufferings of Mar­tyrs were commemorated, to excite the living to follow their footsteps, but not for invocation. Might he not have Learned from Austin lib. 22. de civ. dei cap. 10. Martyres nominari non invocari, that Honourable mention is made of them in the publick service of the Church, but not invocated.

None of the testimonies alleadged for invocation, or ado­ration of Saints have a shaddow of Pertinency, but that of Justin Martyr. apol. 2. and that is an egregious imposture, and so long agoe discovered, that Cardinal du Perron in his large dispute concerning invocation of Saints with King James the sixth is ashamed to alleadge any thing out of Justin Martyr, But this Simpleton scrapes out any thing he finds in Bell. Its objected therefore by Bell. lib. de beat Sanci. cap. 13. that Justin Martyr Apol. 2. taught that Christians did worship God the Father, and the Son, and the whole hoste of good Angels, and the holy Ghost, could there be a greater indignity done to this holy Father, and Martyr, then to make him ascribe the same Religious worship to Angels, which is given to the Father, Son, and holy Ghost? Are not Papists themselves ashamed to be so gross, and shall we beleeve, that in enumerating the objects of wor­ship, Justin would have put Angels before the holy Ghost? Doth not the same Justin expresly affirm a little after Pag. 150. [...], wherefore we worship God alone. If then it be asked, what Justin Martyr says, in the place ob­jected? [Page 280]Answer, Justin says only, that we worship the Father and the Son (who teaches the whole hoste of good Angels) and the holy Ghost, so Justin makes only God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, the object of adoration, and Angels only are said to be taught by the Son of God. Yet the Cardinal is not ashamed to impose that blasphemy on Justin Martyr, as if he had asserted Angels should be adored, with the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, whom this Pedantick Pamphleter follows. That this is the genuine sense of Justin, any may see, by look­ing on the Text of Justin Pag. 45. edit Comelin, and the version of Langus a Popish Author, who has rendred the words of Justin in Latin, as I have Englished them, and yet further this may be confirmed, seeing Pag. 47. where Justin is again discribing the object of adoration, we worship says he, first the Father, secondly the Son, and thirdly the holy Ghost without any mention of Angels at all.

How much Romanists have wrangled with their own con­sciences in this matter of invocation of Saints, may appear, when their Jesuit Suarez in defens. fid. cathol. lib. 2. cap. 9. n. 21. acknowledges, that Christians may be saved though they do not invo­cate Saints, and Cardinal Perron declared to Isaac Casaubon he had never all his time invocated Saints, except he had fallen to be at a pro­cession, then he had said with the multitude ora pro nobis, and Wecel. in methodo concordiae as cited by Dr. Will. Forbes Pag. 285. wished that invocation of Saints might not be held as an Article of Faith. Yea, Rivet, in his animadversions, upon Grotius Notes on Cassanders Consultation. art. 21. brings in Wicolius utterly condemning invocation of departed Saints, as injurious to God and our Saviour Christ Jesus. And many of their Doctors have denyed invocation to be an Act of Religion, as Thomas 2.2. q. 81. art. 1. Vasq. in 3. part. tom. 1. disp. 98. cap. 1. and Valent. lib. 3, de Idol. cap. 7. Yet Bell. lib. 1. de beat Sanct in ord. disp. will have it eximium adorationis genus. How in the Roman Church the adoration of Christ is obscured by the invocation of the Virgin Mary, and of other Saints, may be seen in Cas­sander in defens. libelli de officio viri pii. Pag. 849. and 850. edit. paris. 1616. and in consult. de merit. & intercess. Sanct. seeing they are invocated with more confidence then Christ himself, neque id à vulgo tantum imperito factitatum est, (saith he) sed & Doctorum etiam scriptis & concionibus comprobatum, do they not thus pray, [Page 281] ora patrem, jube filio, &c. O faelix puerpera, pians scelera, jure matris impera Redemptori. Yea, not only do they invocate and adore Saints recorded in Scripture, but also Saints of their own canonization. Doth not Bell. lib. de beat Sanct. cap. 8. affirm it to be the common opinion that this power of canonization does appertain to the Pope, and cap. 9. that those whom he Canonizes without doubt are to be worshipped, Yet have they neither Scripture, nor Antiquity for this. Yea, this being a matter of fact according to their own principles, the Pope may surely erre therein; And Consequently they may pray to damned reprobats, in stead of Saints, as Cassaud. in Consult. de Ven. Relig. tells how the bones of a robber were adored, in stead of the reliques of a Saint. This might afford us a sixth demonstration of the Novelty of the present Romish Religion.

That Saints are to be invocated being an Article of the present Romish Religion. But not of the Ancient Christi­an Religion in the first three ages.

SECT. VII. A Seventh Instance of Novelty, concerning Crosses and Ima­ges, examined and retorted.

THe Pamphleter in his seventh Instance saith, Protestants deny the use of the Cross and Images. Have Jesuits lost all shame with their ingenuity? How grosly is this question mis­stated? Do Protestants deny the use of Images and crosses? May not Images be seen dayly adorning the walls of their houses? I had thought that Campian the Jesuit and Garnet Provincial of their order in England, found the Protestants do not altogether disallow the use of Crosses.

Know therefore its the Religious adoration of Images, and Crosses, which we condemn. In this we have the full consent of Scriptures, and of Antiquity. Nay I appeal all the generation of Jesuits to produce one Instance of the Re­ligious adoration, either of Images, or Crosses within 300. Years after Christ, for this Pamphleter has brought none. Did not all the Fathers of these times, particularly Irenaeus, [Page 282]lib. 5. cap. 3. Pag. 478. 479. edit Paris. 1545. Justin Martyr, apol. 2. Pag. 49. 50. edit Comelin 1593. the Church of Smyrua in Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. Theoph. Antioch. lib. 2. & lib. 3. ad Autol. tom. 1. bib. pat. edit. 2. Clemens Alex. lib. 6. Strom. Tertul. apol. cap. 17. & in Scorp. cap. 4 Origen Contra Celsum lib. 4. homil. 30. in Luc. Cyp. Epist. 56. ad Pleb. Thib. assert that God alone is to be worshipped, and Consequently neither Cross, nor Image? Are not Romish inquisitors so offended with such like assertions in Fathers, that Bernard de Sandoval Spanish inquisitor, as is noted by Dallaeus lib. 2. de objecto eultus relig. cap. 2. hath bloted out of Athanasius his Index these words, which had been taken from his orat. 3. contra Arrian. adorari solius dei esse? Was not this one of the great objections of the Heathens against An­cient Christians, that they used no Images in their worship, as is to be seen in Origen cont. Celsum lib. 8. Minut. in Octavio, Arnobius cont. Gentes lib. 6? Do not the latter Jews since the Christian Church was corrupted by Image worship, upbraid Christians therewith? There was a famous dialogue Written a little before the second Council of Nice, as is related Act. 5. In which a Jew is brought in, thus speaking to a Christian, Scandalizor in vos, Christiani, quia Imagines adoratis. I am offen­ded at you Christians, because you worship Images. Whence is it, that the Fathers of the first three Centuries, who disputed with the Jews, such as Justin Martyr in dial. cum Tryphone and Tertul lib. cont. Judaeos met with no such crimination from them, but because there was no Image worship in the Church in those days? Do not the Fathers of those ages expresly condemn Image worship, and cross worship? Hence Tertul. apol. cap. 12. we do not worship statues, and Images like unto the dead, whom they represent, and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough to be dead things. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum, its impossible that he who knows God, should be a worshipper of statues, Minut. Faelix in Octavio, cruces nec colimus, nec optamus, we neither worship crosses, nor desire them. Arnobius lib. 6. cont. Gentes reckons it a most absurd thing, opem a deo sperare, & ad effigiem nullius sensus deprecari. Lactantius lib. 2. Justitut. cap. 2. holds it madness to worship Images, and to Image wor­shippers applys that of Persius. O curvae in terras animae & cae­lestium inanes. Did not that Ancient Council of Eliberis can. 36. decree that Picturs ought not to be in the Church? Yea, were [Page 283]not the Fathers of those times so far from Image worship, that diverse of them did condemn the art of Painting Images, and graving statues? Tertul. alleadges lib. de Idol. cap. 3. the Devil to be the inventor of them: they were also disallowed by Clemens of Alexandria protrept Pag. 41. and Strom lib. 6. Pag. 587. edit Lutet. 1629. and by Origen lib. 4. cont. Celsum. I am not justifying their opinion in this. Dr. Jer. Taylour puts some faire Gloss upon it, in duct. dub. lib. 2. cap. 2. Pag. 345. 346. but had Images been as frequent in the Christian Church then, as now in the Romish, is it like those Fathers would have con­demned the very painting and statuary arts? Should any do so now among Romanists, how would the Vatican thunder anathema's against them? Many more evidences could be brought that the Catholick Church in the first three ages, was a stranger to the now Image worship of Romanists, let these for the time suffice.

Only I must remember the Reader of the subdivisions of Romanists touching this thing, Some as Durand and a Castro deny the Image in it self at all to be adored, but the Prototype before the Image, but these are backed with a very small train, and generally disallowed. Others therefore on the contrary hold that they are to be adored with the same worship with the Prototype, for this Bell. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 20. cites Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cajetan, Marsilius, Almainus, Carthusianus, Capreolus, haec sententia, saith Azor Part. 1. Moral. lib. 9. cap. 6. communi theologorum consensu est recepta. According to these Images of Christ, and the cross are to be adored with Latrie, of the Vir­gin, with Hyperdulie, and of ordinary Saints, with dulie. There be a third sort, who say Images are to be adored with an inferiour kind of Religious worship then the Prototype, yet such as analogically belongs to the same Species, thus Bell. Perron, Catharinus, &c. according to these, the Images of Christ are to be adored with Latrie, yet not simply so called, but analogi­cally. What shall the ignorant multitude do, when their Doctors are no less divided then the builders of Babel? How can they understand what an analogical Latrie and dulie is? Much wiser was the Heathen Varro, who in Aug. lib. 4. de civ. dei cap. 31. testifies, that the Ancient Romans about 170. years wor­shipped the Gods without an Image, adding, quod si adhuc mansisset, castius observarentur dii. which observation of Varro is commen­ded by Augustin.

As for the Pamphleters testimonies for crosses and Images, diverse of them are spurious, yea and fabulous, and all of them impertinent, Not one of them Speaking of the religious ador­ation of Images, or crosses, which is the matter in question bewixt Romanists and us. So I might let all pass, yet take this structure of them. He cites three concerning the cross, Denys lib. 2. de Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 2. (whereas Denys hath but one book de Hiera [...]ch Eccles. but the Pamphleter behaved to writt after his copy in H. T. Manual, art. 22) Martial epist. ad Burdegal, and Ter­tull de corona militis cap. 3. the first two are suppositious, that of Martial [...]ad Burdegal, is demonstrated by Bell. de script; eccles. Pag. 60. to be Spurious. The Third is Supposed by some to be written by Tertull. in his Montanism. They import no more; but that the signe of the Crosse was used to shew Chri­stians were not ashamed of a crucified Saviour. But how farr they were from adoration of the cross, may be collected from Ambrose de obitu Theodos [...], speaking of that story (or fable as some Suppose) Helena the Mother of Constantin her finding the crosse of Christ, Regem (says he) adoravit, non Lignum, utique hie gentilis est erro, & vanitas impiorum. She worshipped the King, 1. e. Christ, not the tree, and that because its a heathenish errour, and vanity of the wicked to worship such things religiously.

That which he cites out of Tertull. lib. 2. de pud. was not only an emblematick representation of the parable of the lost sheep; for ornament or instruction, upon glassen cups, which is vastly different from the setting up Images for adoration. The story of the Image of Christ sent to Prince Abgarus, hath been often convicted to be meer fable, there being no mention of it by ancients until Euagrius, about 600. years after Christ, is it like that Eusebius, who lib. 1. hist. cap. 14. makes mention of letters betwixt Christ and Abgarus, would have spoken nothing of that Image had it been reall? These letters also are Pronounced apocriphal in the Canon law dist. 15. cap. Sansta. Romana ecclesia. Metaphrastes is a late historian in the 9th Century, of small Credit, even with Romish writers, as may be seen in Bell. de script. Eccles. Damascen was a violent promoter of Image worship, and there­fore neither of them are fit witnesses in this matter. More notice is to be taken of the Statue which the Hemoroos woman is said to have crected at Caesarea Philippi. Its true Euseb. speaks thereof [...]b. 7. cap. 14. But it is true, that its long since the faith of that [Page 285]Relation was questioned by the authour of the work, which goes under the name of Charles the great lib. 4. cap. 15. and not with­probable reasons, Is it not strange, that none of the Evangelists, nor Irenaeus, nor Justin Martyr, nor Tertul. nor Origen, should make mention of that statue, or that miraculous herb? How could that woman who spent all her living on Physicians, be able to erect these brazen statues? is it probable that Heathens would suffer such monuments of Christ to stand 300. years undemollished? That there were statues at Caesarea cannot rationally be doubted seeing Euseb. does testify he saw them, but there is cause to questi­on whether they were built by that woman, or that one of them was Christs, and the rather seeing Euseb. brings no certain author for it but a rumour. Finally, granting she had erected that statue to Christ, yet Euseb. says not that it was worshiped, nay he affirms, it was erected [...], by an heathenish custome. Pro­testants doe not deny, but there were portraitures of Christ and Apostles in those dayes, as Euseb. there doth witnes, but Euseb. is so clear from asserting that they wer used in Churches, as ob­jects of Religion adoration, that in the Second Nicen Councell Act. 6. he is brought in testifying to Constantia the Empress a­gainst the making of the Image of Christ, had it not then been the Pamphleters wisdom to have held his peace of Eusebius. He is as unadvised in mentioning Austin l. 1. de consensu evangel. cap. 10. for there he condemns them who study Christ, non in Sanctis co­dicibus, sed in pictis parietibus. His story of the Image made by Nicodemus is an evident fiction, and the book out of which it is taken, de passione imaginis Christi, attributed to Athanasius is suppositi­tious, as is proved, by Cocus Pag. 93.95. and seems to be forged by Image worshippers about the time of that Idolatrous Second Nicen Council, yea, Bell. de scrip [...]. Ecel. in Athan. confesses it not to be written by Athanasius, but in the eight Century, when the contro­versy about Image worship, was in agitation. That Image of the Virgin Mary, said to be drawn by Luke, appears likewise to be fabulous, there being no authour making mention thereof until Euagrius about the end of the sixt Century, the Apostle Paul calls Luke a Phisician, but not a Painter, Nor is it probable, if he were a Jew, they not using such artists, if we may believe Origen lib. 4. cont. Celsum. As little faith is to be given to what is alleadged out of Damasus Pontificall of the Images of Christ, and of the Baptist, erected by Constantin, for that Pontificall is not only proven to be Suppo­sititious by Cocus Pag. 139. but also acknowledged by Baronius, [Page 286]Binius, Possevin, yea Bell. lib. de script. Eccles. ascribes it to Anastasius the bibliothecary, who lived in the 9th Century, a grosse Image worshipper, at least it seems interpolated by him. Neither is it likely that this would have been omitted by Eusebius, who is so accurate in describing what was done by Constantin. By this it appears that most of the stories which Romanists alleadge concerning their Images are meer Fables, But grant they were real Histories, they speak not at all of adoration, which is the only thing in controversy. Yet I shall help my adversary to some presidents of great Antiquity for the adoration of Ima­ges, but its from Hereticks, such as the Gnosticks in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. and Carpocratians in Epiphan. in Haeres. Carpocratianorum and Austin Haeres. 7. such presidents we do not envy them. But as to the Catholick Church they may hear their own Clemanges in lib. de novis celebritatibus non instituendis, who saith, sratuit olim universalis Ecclesiae, ut nullae in templis imagines ponerentur.

Hence might be deduced another demonstration of the Novelty, of the present Romish Religion, seeing it ap­proves the Religious adoration of crosses and Images, whereof no vestige can be found in the Catholick Church of the first three ages.

SECT. VIII. An eight instance of Novelty, concerning Free-will examined and Repelled.

THe Pamphleter in his eight Instance, saith, that Protestants deny Free-will, since the fall of Adam. Behold another Jesu­itism! that is, an arrant Cheat. Do not our Authors, as Learn­ed Ʋsher in his answer to the Jesuits challenge, Pag. 464. Chamier Panstrat. tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 10. Paraeus contra prae­fat. Bell. ad lib. de grat. de lib. arb. positively protest, that they do not deny free-will? We do abominate the madd Sects of Manichees, Valentinians, &c. Who either by fatal or simply na­tural necessity, do quite overthrow the liberty of human wills, which of us, ever doubted whether Popes, Cardinals, and Jesuits do practise their impieties freely? We cordially sub­scribe to that of Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. quis nostrum dicat, quod primi hominie peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere? Libertas quidem perijt, sed illa quae in paradyso fuit. Well did the same Austin say lib. de nat. & gra. cap. 66, quod sit quae­dam [Page 287]peccandi necessitas, that unregenerate persons have brought upon themselves a kind of necessity of sinning, yet that ne­cessity is well consistent with liberty. Hence Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. liberum arbitrium usque adeo in Peccatore non periit, ut perillud peccent maxime qui cum dilectatione peceant, free-will is so far from being lost in sinners, that by it, they who sin with greatest delight, sin most egregiously. Devils cannot but sin, and yet sin most freely. Protestants grant no less indifferency to the will of the sinner then Austin of old in his debates against the Pelagians, yea, as much as Dominicans and Thomists do require to the nature of Liberty. Will he say that all these do dogmatize concerning free-will contrary to the Faith of the Church in the first three ages? Indeed we cannot adorn mans free-will with such elogies as did the Pelagians or Semi­pelagians of old, or as their Jesuited and Arminian of-spring, which do exceedingly derogate from the necessity, and efficacy of free grace. I will not take up time in mentioning all the heads of controversy betwixt the Catholick Church and the Pelagians or Semipelagians. Only two things I pitch upon. 1. We assert the necessity of supernatural grace to every good work. This Learned Vossius lib. 3. Hist. Pelag. Part. 2. copiously demonstrates not only to have been the Doctrin of August. Prosper, Fulgentius, to the Councils of Diospolis, Arausica, Car­thage, and of the whole Catholick Church after that the Pela­gian heresy was broached, but also Part. 1. confirms it to be the perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers and Church before the appearing of Pelagius. Of the Latin Fathers, he brings Tertul. Cyp. Arnobius, Lactantius, Ambrose. Of the Greeks, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Macarius, Athanasius, &c. yea, is bold to con­clude, Thes. 1. nec secus qui senserit quisquam adduci potest, To spare time in transcribing testimonies, that one of Vineent Lyrin, in commonit. cap. 34. may suffice for all, quis unquam (said he) ante profanum Pelagium tantam virtutem liberi praesumpsit arbitrii, & adhuc in bonis rebus per actus singulos adjuvandum necessariam Dei gratiam non putaret. Yet Jesuit Molina in concerd, cap. 14. art. 13. disp. 19. memb. 6. Says a man may love God above all, and may over­come a grievous temptation without grace, yea Arriag. in. 1.2. tom. 2. tract. de div. gr. disp. 41. Sect. 2. n. 1. Says that a man in his fallen estate, has a Physical natural power without grace to keep the whole law. So much indeed we cannot grant to Pelagius, both Scripture [Page 288]and Antiquity clearly contradicting Scripture, Joh. 15.5. 2 Cor. 3.5. And Antiquity, hence is that Concil. Araus. 2. can. 22. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium & peccatum. I confess Jesuits grant (for I would not wrong them) the necessity of grace, to acts which merit eternal Life, and thereby they en­deavour to elude the Testimonies of Scripture, Fathers and Councils, asserting the necessity of special grace unto good Works. But as neither Scripture, nor Fathers, nor Ancient Councils do acknowledge that any Works of ours do properly merit eternal Life; So neither do they hold that a man with­out the special grace of God, can love God above all, and keep the whole Law. Secondly we likewise assert the power­ful efficacy of grace in the conversion of sinners, so that how­ever it may be resisted, and opposed by corruption, yet never conquered, August haeref, 88. blamed Pelagius quod gratiam non libero arbitrio praeponeret, sed infide [...] [...]lliditate supponeret, that he did not subject free-will to gra [...]ce, but contrary wise, by Here­tical craftiness, grace to free-will. Na [...] [...]o not Jesuits, who deny the efficacious and inexpugnable power of grace, subject grace to free-will? Is it not free-will with them which de­termins grace, and not grace which determins free-will, and put they it not in the option of free-will to make grace effi­cacious or inefficacious? Doth not Augustin frequently make this difference betwixt the grace of the state of innocency, and the medicinal grace after the fall, that the grace of the state of innocency was only adjutorium sine quo non, or possibili­tatis, grace which gave man power to do good, but medicinal grace is adjutorium quo, & voluntatis, grace which gives both to will and to do, as the Apostle phrases it, Phil. 2.13. here him­self, lib. de corrept & gra. cap. 11. prima gratia est, qua fit ut habeat homo justitiam si velit, secunda plus potest, quia fit ut velit and cap. 12. by that, auxilium quo subventum est infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut Divinae gratia indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter ageretur. What could a Protestant have said more? See c. 14. and l. 1. ad Simplic. q. 2. and lib. 1. contra duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 19 and that this surely was a main point of difference betwixt the Orthodox and the Semipelagians, may appear by Faustus Regiensis a prime man of the Semipelagian party. Anathema (said he) ei qui dix­erit illum qui periit non accepisse, ut salvus esse posset. Hence Hilary of Arles in Epist. ad August, de reliquiis Pelagii reports, that they [Page 289]ascribed to free-will, ut velit, vel nolit admittere medicinam, Hereupon Concil. Aransic. 2. can. 6. decrees per gratiam in nobis fieri ut credamus, & velimus, and therefore surely prevailes over corruption, I know Austin, Hilary, Prosper, and Fulgentius, were posterior to the first three Centuries, yet was it in their time that the Pelagian and Semipelagian tontroversies concerning free-will were tossed. And therefore a more accurate defini­tion of the truth is to be exspected from them, then from these who went before, securius loquuti sunt ante exortum Pelagium, and the rather having to do with Manichees and other Here­ticks which denyed free-will altogether, and the question being so difficult, that as Austin observed lib. 3. de gratia Christi cont. Pelag. cap. 47. and lib. 4. cont. Jul. c [...]p. 8. when free-will is defended, grace seems to be denyed, and when grace is asserted, free­will seems to be taken away. Dr. Morton in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 10. Sect. 4. has noted, that not only S [...]xtus Senensis but also three of the Jesuits society Tolet, Maldonat, and Perer us, have cen­sured sundry of the Fathers, especially in the Greek Church, as too much favouring the Pelag [...]an interest in the matter of free-will, and therefore the less stress is to be laid upon their Authority in this thing.