ÌChap.2 6. The Old and New Covenant. Ig5 cular in hand he borrowes not fromJefui tes. Let him name an argument of any weight againft the Birth- priviledg of Chriffians, which he hath ufed in his whole book ; or any argument under- valuing the Covenant with eilbraham and his feed,and the Seale of Circumcifon as no G ofpel- Covenant, nor .Seale of a Gofpel- Promife and try me whether I (hall not trace him out of fome Jefuite. His way of vindication is to produce the arguments in this thing, and put them to the tette, whether they be Jefuiticall or no; when he is told that by me, that I.know no one Prote- ftant Writer that bath declared himfelfin this- thing, but bath de- clared himfelf to be his adverfary. To acquit himfelf, he names, and only naines T-wijje,Baine, r ne,,Downame to be for him in one Text,and Camerarius ,iWuafètiltii,112'elam7hon,Oj nder to be for him in another. But not one to joyne with him in his opinion that he bath named, but Antipxdobaptifts, and thefe he names in generali ; they and he by his own confeíiion joyn with Jefuites againft Proteftants. And being demanded by what character or marke Popery, may be difcerned when that, is denied to be Popery, which all P roteftant Divines hold againft the Papifts? He gives us two other characters. There ù a /hotter way then that, and it is, That is to be counted Popery, which is commonly known by that name, as the dottrine of the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility , the dotrine of the (iWZaffe,Tranfubfiantiation, Bread- worfhip, Cro(fe- werfhip, Invocation of Saints, cc. Apolog. pag. 134. If a com- mon opinion that any one point of dodrineis Popery, will con- clude it to be Popifh ; then the common confent of all Prote- fiant Divines, in reafon fhould much more conclude it. The com- mon people may eafilier take up a common errour, then the com- mon content of Divines making it their Rudy to difcover it ;He gives us a fecond character, which he fayes is more fixt ; Or if you will have a more fixed way, you may take that to be Popery, which either the 39. Articles of the Church of England condemne in oppo- fition toPapiffs, or u rent tnced in the Scottifh Negative Covenant, or Confefon in the year 1581. as I remember, or what the prefent Parliament of England in their late P ropofitions to the King,Pro pof. 7. would have Papifis abjure. All Proteflant Divines are too low to conclude a point to be Popery , yet a handful corparativè in one Nation an handful in another, yea a Parliament can do it ; yet none of all thefe have voted for him, that his opinion iQ a B b Pro-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=