The novelty of the modern Romish religion set forth in an answer to three queries propounded by N.G., priest, with a rejoynder to his reply, and a reply to an answer made to three queries propounded unto him : together with animadversions upon some reflexions made by an unknown author ... / written by S.F., M.A. and vicar of Mitton in Craven.

Concerning the Canons of the Scripture.

IT is strange that he should presume to rely so much upon Pope Gregory's Testimony, term∣ing it a certainty to build on, while he is altoge∣ther a stranger to his opinions; otherwise how could he be ignorant that Pope Gregory vented that expression, which is charged upon him; and how could it escape his search, while the very Index affixed to Pope Gregory's Writings will af∣ford sufficient direction to find it; this surpasses the running of shooting at Rovers; he is a won∣derful▪ Artist that can hit the wh••te without

looking towards the But: but though he could not find the expression, yet upon a supposition that Pope Gregory said it, he takes upon him to make an evasion, but how seebly he pursues his undertaking the Reader may easily judg.

Here is nothing of coherency or sence to be sound in most of his expressions, therefore what was the chief reason of this exception against the quotation may be speedily conjectur'd, he knew not what to say, nor can he tell what he hath said; but to answer him with some sence, though not with as many just exceptions as may be made a∣gainst his words, if he will allow me that liberty which Printers claim as an undoubted priviledg belonging unto them, that is, to correct the Errata of the Transcription; and to write 17 for 13; and search once again into the Writings of Pope Greg••∣ry, according to this direction, he will find that the expression was vented by him; where he speaks (as may be presumed) not only of all the Books of Machabees in general, but also of all those Books that are rejected by Protestants as Apocryphal; and then passeth to a particular quotation of the first Book of Machabees moralizing upon Eleazers kil∣ling an Elephant, and dying under the weight of him; therefore to talk at this rate, demanding how I make it out that he speaks of the first and second Book of Machabees, rather than of the third and the fourth; and to say that Canus speaks in the general, and says only that Pope Gregory held them as disputable, not that he rejected them as Apocri∣phal, and to say that all that can be inferred thence, is that they are not declared to be or are not truly Canonical, is nothing but vain babling, altogether unable to resist the testimony, that is given on my side, Pope Gregory's wo••d•• being positive and

plain; in his Opinion all the Books of Machabees were non-Canonical, and then by his opinion they were rejected as Apochryphal; for truly I do not know any difference between non Canonical and Apocriphal.

And let us observe what is said beside; suppose (saith he) that Pope Gregory doth speak of all the Books of Machabees, not collectively taken, for in that acceptation it would still make more against me, but distributively as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth: I have no reason to say unto him as Festus said un∣to Paul, too much learning hath made thee mad; but certainly he was beside himself, or else he was in a dream when these expressions were com∣mitted to paper, here is a distinction without a difference, as he explains it; if Pope Gregory spake as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth, he spoke of all collectively taken, and how an absolute Identity doth work more and less against me, will nor enter into my ap∣prehension; and every fresh-man that is but new∣ly matriculated and initiated in Logick will tell him, that the genus doth include the species, and the whole the parts; if the whole heap be un∣sound, every parcel of that heap is unsound, if all the Books of Machabees collectively taken, were in Pope Gregory's opinion non-Canonical; let my adversary mention in particular what book he pleaseth, whether the first or the second; for these as will as the third, and the fourth were in his opinion non-Canonical.

And let us observe here what he says in the conclusion; the thing in controversie (says he) at present not being whether the assertions be true or false; but whether Pope Gregory held

them or not: there his integrity is to be applaud∣ed; he once spake truth; but then I must ask him how much truth is to be found in this expres∣sion, when he says, so fully is my objection answer∣ed by Dr. Bilson: how could Dr. Bilson's words answer my objection, and determine the controver∣sie, while (as he is quoted) there is not any thing spoken by him in relation to this question, whe∣ther Pope Gregory held the Books to be Apochry∣phal or not? surely, this Gentleman is admirable for his answers and reasons, as he is wonderful for his contradictions; and this being the contro∣versie, his following discourse may be rejected as impertinent by his own confession; for the whole scope and drift of it, is to prove that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Machabees were not Canonical, yet now they are to be re∣ceived as Canonical; but to shew how languishing every word that he speaks is, I shall bestow some observations upon it.

First, the truth of the supposition being grant∣ed, which I perceive, he is ••••willing at length to do; my desire is obtained, while he is crying out to triumph as if he had gotten the day; he is fly∣ing from his colours; leaving the assertion he un∣dertook to maintain to shift for its self, and grant∣ing that which I undertook to prove: the present Romish Religion differs from that professed by Pope Gregory in this particular, the Canon of the Scripture; and thus far falls short of its highly conceited and boasted antiquity; which concession I take to be a good Omen of Success to follow me in maintaining the other particulars.

Secondly, I shall let him see what fruit he brings forth in the behalf of his Religion, by labouring to introduce the books of Machabees into the Canon, it is not the declaration of the Church that makes the holy Scripture to be a Rule;

but divine inspiration, which gives its intrinsical rectitude, whereby it is qualified and fitted to be a rule; for a rule is not such because it is declared to be a rule, but because of its intrinsecal rectitude which it receives from the Author, who upon that ground designs and appoints it to be a rule; therefore where a writing wants divine inspiration, it would be a capital errour in the Church to declare it to be Canonical: This being preposed I shall offer this Dilemma so his serious consideration, the books of Machabees, either had divine inspiration, or they had it not; if they had it, it was an errour in Pope Gregory to hold them non-Canoni∣cal; which was not only his own private errour, but it is strongly deducible from his expressions, that it was the er∣rour of the whole Church; for sure there is none of this Gentlemans Tribe will dare to say, that the Opinion of the pretended Head of the Church did dash against the opini∣on of the body; if they had it not, it was an errour in the third Councel of Carthage; and in the Councel of Florence and Trent to declare them to be Canonical: it is supposed now that he will not stand mute at the sight of this Dilem∣ma, but will make choice to some side, and whichsoever is made the object of his choice, it will shake some of the greatest Pillars that are invented for the supportance of the Romish Religion; for the one throws down the infal∣libity of the Church and Pope, the other the infallibity of Councels.

Thirdly, not to spe〈…〉〈…〉 much of the nature and the con∣stitution of those Councels that are nominated and affirm∣ed to declare the books of Machabees to be Canonical; that of Carthage and Florence were particular, therefore falsly denominated general; and that of Trent was but a Con∣venticle, made up (like unto Nebuchadnezars Image of different matter, some real, some imaginary Byshops, only to serve for the advancing of the Popes Interest; I shall oppose to these Councels the Councel of Laodicea, which excluded the books of Machabees from the Canon; and likewise the general Councel of Trullo, which appro∣ved and confirmed the Councel of Laodicea; I shall object also against these, the Opinion of a Mellito, b Origen, c Hillary, d Cyrillus e Athanasius, f Jerom, g Cy∣prian, h Austin; all these Antient Fathers maintaining

all the books of Machabees to be Apochriphal: contradicto∣ries cannot be both true; therefore I would have this Gen∣tleman to determine which side the truth is to be ascribed; but in the mean time he may again take notice of the tot∣tering condition of the Romish Religion; how unable the foundation is to support the building, while Councels are contradictory to Fathers, and the subsequent Councels to those that were preceding; I desire to know whether the Title of Infallibility is to be fixed upon any of them.

Fourthly, he speaks of a Catholick tenent that was intended to be assented unto and approved by Protestant Divines, but his meaning lies in the clouds, and truly I have wearied my self in gues∣sing what it should be; if it be that which he hath undertaken to prove here, viz. that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Machabees were Apocriphal, yet now they are to be received as Canonical: It is a most injurious and false asser∣tion, for all protestants have unanimously main∣tained the contrary: if he means that tenet, which he says is expresly held and defended, not only by Doctor Bilson, but also by divers of the chief Protestant Divines, to wit, that this most weighty controversy of discerning true Scripture from false, cannot otherwise be decided, but by the Authori∣ty of Gods Church, I suppose he understands the Church representative, otherwise I do not appre∣hend his meaning, while he says, that the Church having determined the controversy concerning the books of Machabees, all parties are obliged to sub∣mit unto it; it is most injuriously done to report any Protestant writers to be Patroons of this most gross untruth; what did not the general practice of the Primitive Church, planted and watered by the Apostles, and their immediate Successors, and the opinion of the Fathers, which lived next after them, serve effectually for the deciding of this con∣troversy, and discerning of true Scriptures from

false? Did the Apostles (as without question they did) after the writing of the Holy Scriptures, propound them as a Canon to the Church, and while the original copyes were extant, did the Apostle John collect and consign a Canon for the Church, as is proved by the concurrent suffrage of antiquity, and was not this transmitted to posterity? did not the Church of God know what Scriptures were Canonical for the space of three hundred years after Christ, during which time there was not any general Councel to determine this controversy? and what perspectives doth a ge∣neral Councel use, that the Primitive Christians and Fathers had not the same glass to look through for the discerning of true Scriptures from false, that Religion is very indigent of supports, that stands in need to be sustained by those slanderous reports, that are the Parents of many irrational and senceless conclusions.

If he had said that Dr. Bilson, and other Pro∣testant writers do affirm that a general Councel hath authority to enquire concerning every con∣troverted part of Scripture, and to examine whe∣ther the evidence that it hath on its side can afford sufficient inducement, to believe that it can have no other derivation, but from the Fountain of truth, and accordingly to declare and propound their o∣pinions to be embraced by the Church, I should have easily assented to the truth of it; but this is nothing serviceable for him, but altogether repug∣nant repug∣nant and destructive unto his present design; for in∣quisition hath been made concerning the books of Machabees, and upon examination they have been found so defective in evidence, that they have been judged to be meerly the issue of mans invention, therefore they have been determined and declared

to be Apocriphal, and that determination and de∣claration being agreeable unto truth, there is no general Councel, can have authority to determine and declare the contrary.

Fifthly, I will tell him that the books of Macha∣bees were not only doubted of by some particular Churches and Persons, but rejected as Apocriphal by the Pope (who is pretended to be the head of the Church) declaring not only his own private o∣pinion, but also the opinion of the whole Church, and they were doubted of and rejected not only for some short time, but for many ages upon just and undeniable grounds, they being originally not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and the Jewish Church, to whom (as the Apostle tells us) were committed the the Oracles of God, never received them into the Canon, besides the stile of them is so low and unlike the stile of the holy Scriptures; that it is a disgrace unto the spirit of God, to affirm them to he his di∣ctates; they contain likewise several matters con∣tradictory, to those books, that were never doubt∣ed of by any in the Church; nor did our Saviour or any of his Apostles give testimony unto them, by quoting any part of them, as they did to several books of the old Testament: now must he prove that the books of the new testament mentioned by him; were not only doubted of, but rejected by the whole Church for several ages upon as just and un∣deniable grounds, otherwise the members of his comparison are as unequal and lame, as the legs of Mephibozeth were, and his argument grounded up∣on it as ridiculous and unconclusive as that of Car∣dinal Bellarmin, who because there is but one King in an hive of Bees, concluded that there was to be but one visible Monarch in the Church: he must not think to pass that coin, that is proved to be counterseited by wanting purity of Mettal, and

the Kings impression for current money, as well as that which is proved to have both, though it be q••••stioned by some unskilful persons, that want understanding to distinguish between the good coin and the counterfeit.

I dare refer it to his own judgment, to determine whether there was as much reason for the rejecting of the books of the new Testament, that were doubted of but for a short time, by some particular Churches and Persons; as there is for the rejecting of the books of Machabees, that for ma∣ny ages after their first existence in the world, were not re∣ceived as Canonical by any part of the Church, and then whether it was rationally and justly done by the Councels of Carthage, Florence and Trent to decree contrary to the o∣pinion of the Primitive Church and Fathers, and contrary to the Councel of Laodicea, which declared them to be A∣pocriphal, and to the Councel of Trullo; which approved of and confirmed the decrees of the Councel of Laodicia.

Sixthly, let it be observed once more how consistent he is with himself, here he labours tooth and nail to bring the books of Machabees into the Canon, which (if I do under∣stand what the word Canon doth import) is to joyn them to the Holy Scriptures in being a rule; and in his fourth re∣flection, with one wipe of his Pen he dashes out the whole Scripture from being a rule, by denying it to be a compleat and infallible rule, for if it be a rule, it is propounded by God unto his people, who can propound a rule of faith and manners to direct them in the way of Salvation, but him∣self? and if it be propounded by God as a rule, it is com∣pleat and infallible, I hope he will not face Heaven and say that God hath deceived his people by propounding to them an imperfect and fallible rule, therefore to deny it to be compleat and infallible, is to deny it to be a rule.

He thanks God that he is not a professor of the Prote∣stant Religion, but by this how blasphemously he charg∣ed God to be the author of those delusions, that are en∣tertained and owned by him, I leave to the judgment of any rational and pious person; if instead of thanking God for this, he had prayed to God, that he would have given him grace to open his eyes to see and acknowledg those truths that are professed by Protestants he would not have been least to himself, to use such shameful contradictions, and such pittiful arguments, as he hath used in defence of that cause which he undertakes to manage and maintain against me.

Notes

• a

  Euse. l. 4. c. 25.
• b

  Euse. l. 6. c. 18.
• c

  Hil. m. Prol. in Psal.
• d

  Cyp. l. cat. 4.
• e

  Atha. in Syn.
• f

  Jer. in pref. l. Sol.
• g

  Cyp. in exp. Sym.
• h

  Aug. in civ. dei. l. 18. c. 36.
• •• Cox. Lao. can. 59.