he is Peters successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably followes that the Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered â—x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in it self and hath no strength nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peters chair but had ascribed the same priviledges which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this then wee have gained thus much That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or credible for it self that it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Councels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can shew that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Councels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Popes Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self without the Interpretation Testimonie and Authority of thâ— Church is not a sufficient foundation oâ— Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plaine so often asserted bâ— them so universally owned so vehemently urged in aâ— their Treatises that if there were not an horrible perâ—versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men whâ— indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to saâ— and unsay give and recall affirme and denie the samâ— things as occasion requires and the strength of an Arâ—gument forceth them I might supercede from anâ— further paine or trouble therein I shall therefore onely observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either oâ— which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian cannoâ— know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witnesse and Authority 2. That the sencâ— of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without thâ— Churches interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present tâ— mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuite in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop oâ— Burdeaux puts this Question To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables the Cardinall Hosius replies That these words may be taken in a pious sence For in truth saith he unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tels us That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Churches assertion and declaration Andradius in expresse termes denies That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which bindes us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the highâ—st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fidâ—s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a lyar that is no impiety but to mak the Church a lyar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome then the grossest transgressions of Gods Laweâ— because there is more impiety in them and so more sevâ—rity should be exercised against them And Pighiâ— useth no lesse freedome telling us That the Scripturâ— have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authours but meerly from the Churches Testimonâ— Thus you see that according to the systeme of Popisâ— Theology the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to bâ— the Word of God nor oblige my faith unlesse it brinâ— along with it the Churches Letters of credence Anâ— whereas in St Pauls dayes neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials froâ— Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austine in his dayes in hiâ— Controversies with the Donatists batters down theiâ— Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie And as Tertullian argued of old God shall not be God without mans consent It is here as in dealings between manâ— and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but onely my friends Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that
they are found to attribute this Infallibility not onely to all conjunctly but to the most of that smal remnant of surviving Writers as you saw from their expressions which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert I shall take the boldnesse to aske by what right shall five Fathers vid. Dionysius Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and Hermes supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age I say by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name or priviledge of the whole Catholick Church of that Age for it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made in what Scripture or Father or Lexicon do five Fathers make up the whole Church True it is the Pope hath a peculiar priviledge in this point and is by the Jesuites invested with the name of the Church The Church Virtuall And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title for having swallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church he ought to have the Name into the bargain But setting aside that prodigious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would know why I might not as well say that five of the Romish Doctors viz. Salmeron Canus Costerus Stapleton and Bellarmine are the Church of Rome or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England nay all the Protestant World as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age Yet againe forasmuch as they ascribe infallibility not onely to all but also to the major part of the Fathers of these five then two may erre by their own confession And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions Well then to keep to this particular instance It is granted that Dionysius may erre and so may Ignatius then the Infallibility is preserved in Clemens and Polycarpus and Hermes But they also or any two of them may erre in other things and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius and Ignatius and Hermes Thus it seems Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball from one to another and they have it by turnes Such monsters must be in the Conclusion if Infallibility be in the premises That is enough for the second Argument § 5. The third Argument is this The Fathers professe they are not infallible either they say true or false if true then they are not infallible if false then they erred in that assertion and therefore are not Infallible So the Papists are gone by their own Argument and rule too For here we have the consent of the Fathers It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose I shall onely suggest some few which are evident and undeniable in this particular Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets by the Gospell and by the Apostles and he addes If any man think this Principle needs another Principle he doth not indeed keep that Principle But the Papists say the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it viz. the Churches Authority Ergo the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostacy And he addes that the standard by which things are to be examined is not the testimony of men therefore not the Testimony of Fathers Councels Popes who I thinke are all men save onely that severall of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts but the Word of the Lord. And lest you should understand it of Tradition he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord We do not saith he believe the assertions of men they must not onely say but prove and that too from the Scriptures What can be more expresse So Basil tels us The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers they must receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject those things which are contrary to it Where we plainly see S t Basils direct contrariety to the principles and practise of the Romish Church 1. St Basil allowes his heares to examine their teachers Doctrine so do not the Papists The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastours that if their Pastours shoulderre the people were bound to erre with them saith Tannerus A Christian is bound to receive the Churches Doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine Pastours are simply to be heard in all things nor are we to consider what is said but who said it i. e. if he were a lawfull Pastour as Stapleton bellowes it out for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man And yet these are the men who will not depart a nailes bredth from the Fathers This is the Church the principall note whereof is consent with the Fathers of which you may judge by this and what we shall adde from others 2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined not Fathers not Councels not Traditions but the Papists are of another minde S t Clara. tels us of a Popish Treatise written by a friend of his solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sorbon so you see it is no particular fancy but a received opinion where saith he that Author expresly asserts that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures because and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily i.e. She doth not receive Tradition because and so far as it agrees with Scripture And thus far doubtlesse he was in the right saith S t Clare And consequently Basil was in the wrong That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten That Christ alone is to be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought but what he that was before all Christ first did for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God If the Papists would say as much this controversy would be at an end And it is observable that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and animadversions whereever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions passeth over this place with profound silence as well seeing it was so hot it would have burned his Fingers St Chrysostome is as fully Protestant in this particular as if he had been of Councell in our cause in two points he is positive for us 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude but let us examine things
and not contented to deliver the assertion he addes a reason Is it not absurd that when you are to receive mâ—ny you do not trust other men but examine it your selves and when you are to judge of things then to be drawn away by other mens opinions And this saith he is the worse fault in you because you have the Scriptures That brings in the second Herely of Chrysostomes The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture and the mischiefe too is he cals it a perfect rule you have saith he an exact standard and rule of all things and he concludes thus I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks but enquire all things of the Scriptures I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one if I might advise them the next Jesuite that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostomes works by the Protestants and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of Chrysostome in the Vatican What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully then Origen It is necessary saith he that we should alledge the Testimony of Scriptures without which our expositions do not command faith Or then Cyrill Do not believe me saying these things unlesse I prove them out of the Scriptures Or then Ambrose thus speaking to the Emperour Gratian I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation let us aske the Scriptures aske the Prophets the Apostles S t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration then Cyprian and Ambrose yet heare how he speaks of them of Cyprian thus I am not obliged by his Authority I do not look on his Epistles as Canonicall but I examine them by the Scriptures and what is repugnant thereunto with his good leave I reject it Would the Papists give us but this liberty we should desire no more and of Ambrose he saith the like Peradventure it will be said in this point as it is in the generall That although it is confessed by the Fathers that particular Doctors are liable to error yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree they have an infallible Authority and are a sufficient foundation of Faith To this I answer 1 If this were granted it doth not in the least secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us wherein such unanimous consent can be produced but in every one of them there are pregnant allegations out of some of the Fathers repugnant to their opinions and assertions This their learned men cannot but know and if they have any ingenuity in them they cannot deny 2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea What a silly thing is it to deny that that which happen'd to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them And with Gerhard the Testimonies of the Fathers collectively taken cannot bee of another kind and nature then they are distributively Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition if he apprehends the meaning of it for how can the same persons being onely considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time And if Austin Ambrose Cyprian supposing these were all the Fathers be each of them fallible how can a meer collective consideration of them render them infallible 3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth That the Fathers deny this Infallibility not onely to one or two of them dispersedly but to all the Antients collectively considered and this I shall prove onely by one Argument They that make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writer deny the Infallibility of the Fathers eitheir collectively or distributively considered But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writers and abjudicate it from all other Writers S t Ierome is expresse Except the Apostles whatsoever else is afterward said let it be cut off for it hath no Authority And againe I make a difference between the Apostles and other Writers those alwaies said Truth but these in somethings as men did erre St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scriptures and all other Writings That those are to be read with a necessity of believing but these with a liberty of judging What living man can expresse the Protestant Doctrine in more evident termes then the same Father elsewhere doth That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other witnesses and testimonies whether more or fewer agreed or divided all is one to S t Austin you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge they have more or lesse weight And again when he was pressed by Ierom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers he thus Answers I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture to believe there is no error in them But as for others how Learned or Godly soever they be I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures To conclude so evident is St. Austin's judgment in that point that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist Occam by name who speaking of a passage of St. Austins about this point hath these words It is to be noted that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the pen-men of the Scripture makâ—s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers and therefore whether they be Popes or others whether they writ in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed upon them You see St. Austin's mind is plain and doth our Adversaries themselves being judges directly overturne that great fundamental point of the Infallibility of Councels and Popes which if you will believe them is not only true but necessary to salvation and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths These are they that maintaine no doctrine but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great article of Transubstantiation viz. to tell us we must not believe our selves when we read such passages in the Fathers and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons and Consciences we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal And this doctrine of Austins if you will believe the Romanists when delivered by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine never heard of in the world till Luther's dayes and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge when the like is said of our other doctrines I might fill up a Treatise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this purpose but this is enough for any but those who are resolved to sacrifice
their consciences to the Pope's ambition and for them it is too much § 7. The fourth and last argument is this The Papists themselves whatever sometimes they pretend yet indeed do not make the Fathers the ground foundation of their Faith but acknowledg them fallible 1. This appears from what hath already been discoursed concerning their avowed Doctrine That Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church and consequently belongs not to the Fathers in their single capacities 2. It appears from the acknowledged novelty of several Romish doctrines which their most learned men confess cannot be proved from the Fathers Such are 1. The doctrine of forbidding the reading of the Scripture to Lay-men as they are called We confess in their dayes viz. of â—erome and Augustine Lay-men were conversant in the reading of the Scripture saith Azorius And whereas many Popish Authors expound those words Ioh. 5 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indicatively as if they did only acquaint us with the practice of the Jewes and not containe a command of Christ to his hearers to read the Scriptures Tolet and Maldonaete both witnesse that Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine and all weighty authors except Cyrill do understand it imperatively for a command of Christ. 2 They acknowledg the novelty of Transubstantiation The words of Scotus are these Before the Lateran Councell the doctrine of Transubstantiation was no point of faith and the first Laeteran Councel was above 1100 years after Christ's birth And Alphonsus de Castro delivers this memorable assertion Many things are known to later Authors which the Antient writers were wholly ignorant of for these seldome make any mention of Transubstantiation 3 The doctrine of Indulgencies and Purgatory I joyn them both together as being neer of kin of which Bishop Fisher hath this remarkable passage No orthodox Christian now doubts whether there be a Purgatory though the Antients seldome or never mentioned it And a little after Considering that Purgatory was for a good while unknown and again seeing then Purgatory was known and received in the Church so lately who can wonder that Indulgencies were not used in the primitive Church So Gabriel Bi el Before the times of St. Gregory that was 600 years after Christ there was little or no use of Indulgencies but now they are used frequently because the Church without doubt hath the spirit of Christ and therefore cannot erre That sine dubio did his worke for I was about to dispute against his assertion but that phrase quite took away my courage You see it is a courtesy that the Papists will condescend to prove their doctrine from Scripture and Fathers whereas if they would stand upon their termes they might argue thus The conclusion without doubt is true that the Church cannot erre therefore a fig for the premises So Durandus Concerning Indulgencies little can be said with any certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them and the holy Fathers Aug Ambrose Hilary Ierome do not at all mention them And Cajetan expresly No sacred Scripture no authority of antient Fathers either Greek or Latine hath brought the rise of Indulgencies to our knowledge And yet if you please to believe it this and all the doctrines of the Romish Church are no other then such as have been handed to them from the Apostles by all the antient Fathers in an uninterrupted succession I believe I could instance in twenty several Articles of the Romish Church for which they have no colour of authority from any of the Fathers But this may suffice for a Specimen of that respect which the Papists have for the Fathers when they do not comply with their humors The Fathers were so ignorant for a thousand years together that they did not understand or so negligent that they did not instruct their people in that great mystery of Transubstantiation then which none was more necessary to be taught because none more difficult to believe The Fathers were so hard-hearted and cruel that they would suffer souls to fry in Purgatory for hundreds of years together whom they might have certainly released by the help of Indulgencies The Fathers were so indiscreet that they allowed their hearers to read the Scriptures and have them in a vulgar tongue But now it is not fit to be granted saith Sixtus Sinensis The Church of Rome hath got a monopoly of all knowledg fidelity tender-heartedness which you will wonder at discretion and all good qualities and Infallibility into the bargain This is the excellency of the Romish faith that it is calculated for any Meridian Are any of their doctrines seemingly favoured by the Fathers why then you shall have large Harangues concerning the authority of the Fathers and their adherence to them Are there any of their points wherein the Fathers are either silent of opponent why they are furnished with another strain that the Fathers were but private Doctors and had their failings The chief of the Fathers had their falls saith Bellarmine In the books of the Antients which the Church reads as authentick sometimes are found wicked and heretical passages saith Sixtus Sinensis And so long as the Church of Rome reserves to her self alwayes a liberty of determining what passages are wicked and heretical I trow she is out of Gun-shot I do not value Origens judgment saith Pererius And that you may see the Papists do insanire cum ratione I pray you take notice that what they want in conscience and honest dealing they make up in wit and therefore have devised several ingenuous shifts whereby they can elude the most pregnant testimonies of the Fathers levied against them Sometimes they answer that the Fathers speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to the present Adversary they were disputing with not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as laying down their own positive opinion thus Perron and Sixtus Senensis Sometimes they say the Fathers speak declamatorio more by perbolically and by excess thus Sixtus Senensis answers our allegations from the Fathers for reading the Scripture Thus Petavius answers a clear passage of Chrysostomes against Auricular Confession At other times they tell us the Fathers did not alwaies speak what they thought but what they saw necessary to confute their Adversaries thus Perron answers the citations from the Fathers against creature-worship If you alledge the Epistles of the Fathers they tell you the Fathers did not use fully to open their minds in those writings So Perron answers a Testimony of Austins against Transubstantiation Sometimes they plead that the Fathers speak the opinion of others not their own as Bellarmine answers a place out of Hierom. If you bring any passage out of their Poems they say the Fathers did use Poetical liberty as Bellarmine answers to Prudentius So just was the judgment of the University of Doway upon Bertram's Book of the body and
should not be admitted to the vision of God before the day of judgment So much Perron confesseth and Sixtus Senensis That the Saints should raigne with Christ a thousand years that Pamelius grants In all these and severall others it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary how truly and justly I dispute not nor is it materiall to my purpose which is onely to shew how upon all occasions where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any whom they most traduce for so doing But would you know the mistery of this why The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church saith Duraeus In earnest that saying deserved a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuite seconds him in it where putting this question Whether the Authority of the Doctors Fathers ought to be admitted he answers Yes as fâ—r as the Church approves of them The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please I will adde a third that you may see it is a ruled case and that is Gresserus A Father saith he is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine but if instead of corne he give chaff or tares he is not now a Father but a step-Father not a teacher but a seducer When the Fathers say any thing which seems to countenance their positions then they are Fathers uncorrupt judges infallible interpreters and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall goe one haires breadth from them But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them and contradict his interest or opinion then it is time to take them a peg lower then they call them Fathers but make children of them They had better have held their Tongues for now all comes out and the Papists are the Chams as they call the Protestants who uncover their Fathers nakednesses Then Eusebius who when he is Orthodox in the Romane account passeth for a most famous Writer a most learned man and a Catholick with Lindanus Sixtus Senensis and others is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretick with Costerus and Baronius Then poor Tertullian who when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers with Lindanus is not so much as a man of the Church nay he is an hereticall Author an heresiarch a Montanist say Azorius and Bellarm Then Origen who when he is a good boy passeth for a witnesse beyond exception with Duraeus another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus is a meer schismatick saith Canus the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate Then Constantine himselfe that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor then Doctor saith Bellarm. Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine Nay I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages which might have been done with one Blot provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages What need I trouble my selfe and the Reader with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sence of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture and preferring new interpretations before them not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt That no man should dare to interpret Scripture against the common consent of the Fathers For which I shall onely referre the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied that this was the opinion and practise of the Learned and approved Romanists as Cajetan Pererius Maldonate and severall others § 9. In short to strike the businesse dead you shall have the positive judgment of the principall pillars of the Romish Church Sacred Doctrine saith Aquinas useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church onely as a probable Argument for our faith leanes upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets not to other Doctors The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith saith Biel It is the property of the Holy Scriptures that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius The Writings of the Fathers saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis are not a rule and have not authority to oblige me And not contented to assert he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the Fathers without and their perfect subjection to the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome The Fathers execute the office of Doctors but Counsels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God And againe The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church but all are his sonnes No wonder then that the sonnes are subject to the Father not the Fathers to the Sonnes Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out the Pope may use his Authority Really these Jesuites are most ingenious fellowes they are resolved never to be at a non-plus when they saw the Scripture was not for their turnes they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the â—athers destructive to their Hierarchy then it must be consent of the Fathers Now because they know they cannot make out the consent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith Here is a Salvo for that the Popes Authority is evident It is but saying that is a first Principle and all controversies are at an end By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fathers is neither ex veritate rei in truth nor ex opinione Pontificiorum in the judgment of the Papists a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved I shall dismisse this with two Observations 1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principall foundation of Faith viz. the Authority of the Fathers 2. I shall leave this Syllogisme taken out of their own Authors to the consideration of the prudent Reader If you take away the authority of Fathers and Councels all things in the Church are uncertaine saith Eccius as you saw before But Bâ—llarmine and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one of their radicall mistakes 1. That which Christ denies to the Apostles is not to be ascribed to the Church but Christ denies this absolute Authority to the Apostles Matt. 23.10 Be ye not called masters for one is your Master even Christ where it is not the name but thing which is prohibited even magisterium fidei or the usurpation of an absolute authority in teachers and the exaction of an universall beliefe and blinde obedience in hearers which was the errour of the Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour for so they said You are to believe all the sayings of our Rabbines in their Homilies no lesse then the Law of Moses And again All their words are the very words of God are their expressions in the Thalmud It cannot be denied that Christ derogates that authority from the Apostles which he ascribes to himself but if the Popish opinion were true the Apostles had as great authority as Christ himselfe for the height of Christs authority is expressed in these words nor can more be said of God himself him shall ye hear in all things Act. 3.22 This indeed the Popish Doctors most blasphemously arrogate to themselves as you have seen but so did not the Apostles they had not so learned Christ they allwaies observed their Distance Be followers of us as we are of Christ. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered S t Paul denies that he had dominion over their Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Not that we have dominion over your Faith I 'le warrant you Paul denied it to himselfe because it was Peters Prerogative for it is certaine St Peters Successors challenge it for Dominion and Subjection are Relatives And if the people owe an absolute subjection of their Faith to their teachers the Teachers have an absolute dominion over the Faith of the people In short This sottish Doctrine of an implicit Faith must needs be Apocryphal so long as the Epistle to the Galatians is Canonicall and especially Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Gospell let him be accursed And he is not contented with a single assertion but addes as we said before so say I now againe let him be accursed Which if the Reader compare with that abominable passage of Bellarmines If the Pope should erre in commanding Vices and forbidding Vertues the Church were bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evill He will be able to judge whether the Faith of the present Romish Church be the same with that of the Apostles dayes or not and whether they who are so liberall in dispensing their Anathema's to all that differ from their sentiments do not justly fall under the Anathema here denounced 2. If Pastours are to be heard in all things then people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours else they should sin in doing their duty but people may sin in obeying their Pastours Methinks this should need no proofe but I finde this to be the temper of our Adversaries they who give the hardest measure to us expect the highest measure from us and they of whom we may say as Galen did of Moses multa dicunt nihil probant they say much and prove nothing will yield us nothing but what we must win by dint of Argument Therefore I shall prove it briefly The Jewes sinned in following Aarons Doctrine These be thy Gods O Israel So the Prophet Ieremy frequently condemnes them for obeying the decrees of their Priests in his time And our Saviour hath put this out of doubt speaking of the Jewish Teachers Matt. 15. If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch And S t Peter assures us if his Successors will please to give him credit that the Jewes were guilty of a great sinne in Christs death though they did it in obedience to the decrees of their Rulers Acts 3.14.17 3. If people are allowed to examine the Doctrines of their Teachers by the word ere they receive them then they are not to be heard in all things But people are allowed so to examine All the doubt lies about the Minor and yet who can doubt of that who ever read these following places Take heed that no man deceive you for many shall come in my name Math. 24.4 5. Prove all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes. 5.21 Prove the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 It is true Bellarmine saith These precepts belong onely to Learned men And Gretserus gives this reason for it because the unlearned people are not able to examine very good It seemes then none but the Learned can have their sences exercised to discerne between good and evill Heb. 5.14 And it is the priviledge of shephards onely which Christ made the Character of all his sheep That they knew his voice and could distinguish it from the voice of Strangers Joh. 10.4 5. It seems Christ spoke to the learned only when he said Search the Scriptures Ioh. 5.39 It seems the learned Thessalonians only were bound to hold fast that which is good for that goes with their proving and proving was in order to holding fast It seems the Bereans whom Paul commends for examining his doctrine by the Scriptures Act. 17. were Masters of Arts and Berea was an University and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies that they had Academical education and the Apostle meant it only of the University when he writ to the city of Corinth I speak as to wise men judg ye what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 Nay the mischief is if this be granted their work is not done for if the learned may examine that is sufficient for our purpose for such are many Lay-men as they are called and diverse of the Clergy who have no share in the Churches government and therefore are as much bound to subjection as any of the people and consequently the Rulers are not simply to be obeyed nor their doctrine blindly received upon their own credit But saith Bellarmine Inde d doubtful doctrines are to be examined but the doctrine of lawful Ministers is not doubtful but openly good I see the Cardinal intended to shew his wisdome reserving the discovery of his honesty to another time Bellarmine was resolved to take a post which he might be sure to keep he knew the Hereticks would be nibling about the premises and therefore he leaves the guarding of them to others and resolves to hold the conclusion which he knew was not good manners to deny But if such doctrine as our teachers deliver be eo nomine evidently good and true then these commands of trying are both dangerous seeing they suppose and allow of doubts and frustraneous since I may safely receive them without tryal § 16. A third place alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Joh. 16.13 When the Spirit of truth his come he will guide you into all truth Hence Bellarmine thus argues Christ speaks not of the
was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and veneration and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into and consequently writing is a sure and orall Tradition an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels decrees of Courts Acts of Parliament though the importance of them were many times so great and evident that according to this new notion writing was superfluous and verball Tradition Infallible And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly concernments shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it Let Papists do so who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargaine But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this grosse absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines meerly speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise then could be by books VVritten their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronouncing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly have been more securely propagated and more clearly and intelligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy daringly asserts See Exomolog Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery O the tremendous judgment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprobate sence Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeall sence or this bread is converted into the very substance of this body which you now see These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a posture of adoration viz. kneeling with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concernes himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse both the absurdity of their Arguments and assertion and the solidity of this second Answer and the advantage of writing above unwritten Tradition § 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in it selfe else an infallible Authoritie is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Hereticks recede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines as we have seen But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition Here all the doubt lies and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperatenesse of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confesse to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians saith Iustin Martyr This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M r VVhite shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in publike Preaching For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apostles and so transmit them to their Posterity which is the thing now denied It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them but also propheticall of the Papists When Hereticks are reproved out of the Scripture they begin to accuse the Scripture as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors particularly they named Origen Dionysius Alexandrinus and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them as Baronius acknowledgeth Epiphanius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men The Doctrine of
a parallel place to his consideration It is said particularly concerning Jerusalem which never was said concerning Rome I have hallowed this house to put my name therein for ever and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 1 Kings 9.3 And it is again repeated concerning that house that the Lord had said In Ierusalem shall my Name be for ever 2 Chron. 33.4 Then if he have a conscience let him Answer whether there be not as much warrant from these Texts to prove this promise to Ierusalem to be infallible and unconditional which they grant it was not as from the other Texts to prove them to be so to the Church of Rome He need not take day to answer it His second Answer is wholly ad hominem and the other you will say was little ad rem That Mr. Chillingworth applies this to future times onely not to past or present and therefore it concernes not the dispute in hand about the Romane Catholick Church which all English Protestants acknowledg to be a true Church of Christ. Just so they would perswade their Proselytes that all Protestants grant that theirs is a safe way and Salvation to be had ordinarily in the communion of their Church whereas neither the one nor the other are true But what if Protestants do and Mr. Chillingworth did grant their Church to be a true Church doth it therefore follow these Texts were pertinently alledged to prove it or did Mr. Chillingworth say these promises were absolute for time past or present and conditional onely for the future no such matter but these are onely his own dreams and shufflings who pro more when he cannot answer his Adversary indeavours to blind his Reader I have onely one thing more to observe upon that which he tels us Mr. Chillingworth saw it That if there were such promises of Indefectibility none could challenge them but the Romane Church since she onely claims them all others lay down their claime But that also is no more solid then the rest for since this promise of Indefectibility is general and indefinite it no more belongs to Rome then to any other particular Church neither have they any more interest in the promise because they boldly claime the Monopoly of it since an Usurpers claime gives him no just Title to the thing Nor have other Churches the lesse interest in it because their conscience and modesty will not suffer them to appropriate it to themselves for though they extend this promise of Indefectibility to the whole Church yet they reap the comfort and benefit of it in as much as they are true members of that Church and not upon any local or particular consideration There is a fourth argument behind taken from the Tradition or testimony of the present Church but this I have discoursed at large and I hope discovered the folly of that new device thither I refer the Reader A fifth argument there is and that is all I find in Mr. Cressy for I have diligently searched him and God is my witnesse I have indeavoured to single out the strongest and most plausible passages in him which I had not answered before and that is taken from the Churches Unity One Church thâ—re cannot be without one faith nor one faith where differences are irreconcileable and no reconciling of differences but by an Authority and that infallible Append. ch 6. n. 3. And again The Sun shines not more clear I suppose he means in the Cloysters of his Convent then that there is no possible Vnity without Authority nor no Christian Vnity without an Infallible Authority ch 7. n. 2. Ans. Very well it being premised That their onely infallible Authority is as Mr. Cressy states it the Church speaking by a general Councel confirmed by the Pope Appen chap. 4. num 9. then if this argument be solid let Mr. Cressy take what follows Then there was neither one Church nor one Faith for the first 300 years when there was no general Councel then when the Pope dies or his Sea is vacant other wayes as it oft hath been and when there is no Councel as now there is none there is no Unity in the Church of Rome what thinks this man of the Gallican Church which unlesse they be throughly Jesuited do still hold as they used to do that the Pope personally considered is not infallible but onely with a general Councel will he justify it in the Assembly of the French Clergy that they have at this day no unity among them and no way to reconcile their differences because they have no infallible Authority But I shall not wast my time any longer with these impertinent and miscalled arguments I shall leave the point with this short Memorandum That it is a plain evidence of the desperatnesse of their cause that all the great wit and vast learning and deep cunning of the Romish Doctors can furnish them with no better arguments then these And since this is all that Mr. Cressy can pretend for his Apostacy I would intreat him in his next to furnish me with some Answers to those that suspect his Change was not from Conscience but Discontent or Passion or Worldly Interest as affairs then stood for I confesse I am at a losse and know not what to say for him and the rather because the pretended motives of his Conversion are so ridiculously absurd and incredible among which I find two that deserve a special remark One is the scandalous personal qualities of Luther and Calvin which if all that he saith of them were true and material as it is either notoriously false or inconsiderable yet it amounts to nothing against the Protestant cause since though we own them for eminent persons and worthy instruments yet we readily acknowledge they were lyable to error and subject to passions and infirmities no lesse then other men nor did we ever make them the pillars and grounds of the Gospel or the foundation and rule of our Faith But that this should occasion his Change I confesse is beyond the faith of Miracles to believe This is prodigious That the supposed mistakes or miscarriages of two particular Protestant Doctors should really have greater influence to turn him from the Protestant Religion then the real Blasphemies and abominable filthinesses of their Masters and Pillars of their Faith and Church viz. the Popes should have to alienate him from the Popish Religion and these things not feigned by Adversaries as most of their Calumnies against Luther and Calvin are but acknowledged by their own Authors who have left us a particular account of the several sorts of their villanies so many Blasphemers as Iohn 13. Iulius 3. c. so many Hereticks as Boniface 8. Iohn 23. so many Conjurers as Sylvester the second and his Successors for many successions so many Whoremongers so many Sodomites Poysoners Incestuous and what not 150 Popes saith Genebrard rahter Apostatical then Apostolical persons And yet this tender-conscienced man who knew all
guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Councels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the churches authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures oâ—â—ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universalâ— Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many severall judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction 1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conâ—cience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe tâ— be the alone Law-giver Iam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. â— 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an externall and politicall Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internall and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more then the rest to be for ever suspended and wrapâ— in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne unâ—versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in expresse termes That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sence of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I meane in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe So againe the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the
and evident yet I shall at present forbeare that answer and referre it to another place and shall here consider whether the Scriptures assert the Popes infallible Authority as it is pretended And first in generall whereas severall Texts of Scripture are pleaded by the Romanists in favour of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility as Feed my sheep Thou art Peter I have prayed for thee and the like I demande whether these words or Texts of Scripture in and for themselves without the interpretation and testification of the Romish Church do bind me to believe the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility or no◠If they deny the validity of these Texts without the Churches Testimony and Authority as needs they must according to their Principles then it followes that there is nothing in Scripture considered in it selfe that bindes me to believe the Popes Supremacy and consequently I do not sin when I do not believe and own their Arguments drawn from these Texts and that the Scripture in it selfe is no sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith If they affirme it then let all the Papists in the World give me a reason why these Texts The Word was God Joh. 1. He thought it no robbery to be equall with God Phil. 2. This is the true God 1 Joh. 5. Should not in themselves and without the Churches Authority as solidly prove the Divinity of Christ as the other mentioned Texts are affirmed to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope § 6. If they persist still to say that the alleadged Texts are in themselves a solid foundation for my faith although such an aspersion is contrary to their universall profession and overturnes the whole fabrick of Popery yet because I know those Proteus's will turne themselves into all shapes and indeavour to slip all knots and because I observe all their writings are stuffed with severall Texts of Scripture as if they would make their deluded Proselites believe they made them the foundation of their faith I shall therefore make some briefe remarks upon the chiefe of their Scripture allegations in pursuance of the Proposition under consideration and shew that the faith of a Papist hath no foundation at all in the sacred Scripture in the great and fundamentall point of the Popes Infallibility Onely that you may understand the diffidence which some of their own great Rabbies have in their Scripture Arguments I shall minde you of a remarkable saying of Eminent Doctor Pighius who perswading his Catholicks in their Disputations rather to argue from Tradition then Scriptures he breaks out into these memorable expressions Of which Doctrine if we had been mindfull that Hereticks are not to be convinced out of Scriptures our affaires had been in a better posture but whilest for ostentation of wit and learning men disputed with Luther from Scripture this Fire which alas we now see was kindled as if he had said You may as soon fetch water out of a stone as prove the Romish cause from the the Scripture Oh the power of truth Oh the desperatenesse of the Popish cause His Councell indeed was good but they could not follow it for having once been sumbling about some Scriptures though they saw well enough how impertinent they were to their purpose yet having once begun they were obliged to proceed and make good their attempts for of all things in the World they hate retreating and recanting left they should put an Argument into our hands against the infallibility of the Church from her actuall mistakes and errours in the exposition of Scriptures § 7. The principall places of Scripture upon which the Popes Supreme Authority and infallibility is founded are as follow The first is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Ergo The Pope is Supreme Head and Infallibe I shall forbear actum agere and therefore shall omit severall Answers allready given and onely point at some few of those many allegations by which the ridiculousnesse of this collection may appeare and the desperatenesse of that cause that can find no better supports 1. This promise concernes onely the invisible Church of elect persons which appears thus because he speaks of that Church against which the gates of Hell do not prevaile but the gates of Hell do prevaile against all reprobates and therefore the meanest sincere Elect Christian in the World hath a juster claime to infallibility from this place then many Popes of Rome had whom their own Authors confesse to have been reprobates 2. This promise secures the Church as well from damnable sins as damnable errours I prove it The Church is here secured against the prevalency of the Gates of Hell But the Gates of Hell may prevaile as surely and do prevaile as frequently by damnable sins as by errors Ergo If therefore notwithstanding this Text Popes have fallen into damnable Sins they may consequently fall into damnable Heresies 3. The Infallibility here promised extends onely to damnable Heresies and such as lead to and leave a man under the gates of Hell and therefore if it were intended of the Pope and Church of Rome Christ promiseth no more infallibility to him then he hereby promiseth and generally giveth to all persevering Christians 4. This promise is spoken of and made to the whole Church and therefore belongs to all the parts and members of it alike So that if it prove the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop and Church it proves also the same of the Bishops and Churches of Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. which may further appeare thus That if we should grant the Papists their absurd supposition that this work was not Peters confession but his person yet since the Bishops of Corinth and Ephesus and indeed all the Bishops in the World according to this supposition were built upon Peters person as well as the Bishop of Rome and the infallibility supposed is here promised equally to all that are built upon the Rock it must either prove all of them infallible or leave the Pope fallible 5. Whatsoever Authority or Infallibility is here promised to Peter is in other places promised and given to the rest of the Apostles and therefore what is collected from this place for S t Peters Successors may be with equall truth and evidence pleaded from other places for the Successors of the rest of the Apostles The same Keyes which are here promised to Peter are actually given to all the Apostles Math. 18.18 and Ioh. 20.22 23. And if infallibility be here promised to Peter as much is promised to all the Apostles John 16.13 He will guide you into all Truth And if St Peter be here called a Rock so are the other Apostles called Pillars Gal. 2.9 and Foundations Eph. 2. Apoc. 21.14 And that 16 th of Matthew speaks not one syllable more of transmitting S t Peters Authority to his Successors then those other places do to their
sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith according to their Principles and that the popes pretended Infallibility hath no solid foundation there But when they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to the Fathers and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers And therefore that must be considered in the next place CHAP. III. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Fathers Prop. 3. Sect. 1. THe third Proposition then is this The Faith of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers This the rather deserves consideration because they make their great boast of it and urge it as a principall Pillar of their Faith It is asserted in their Cannon Law That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion yet they generally agree in this That the Authority of the Fathers especially where they consent is a solid Foundation for their faith to rest upon Hence those expressions of their great Doctors Take away the Authority of Fathers and Councels and all things in the Church are doubtfull and uncertaine Eccius From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities have the certainty of their assertions and Councels have their decrees Sixtus Senensis Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Romanists laies down this Conclusion That the common sence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certaine Argument to confirme Theologicall assertions For saith he the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of Gods Spirit And a little after Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophicall Conclusion yet in the exposition of Holy Scripture you are bound to believe your Ancestors though they give you no reason for it and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them of the Law of faith and of Religion And a little after All those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faith All the Fathers together do never erre nor can they agree in one error saith Bell. The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined when all or almost all do agree in one opinion saith Salmeron That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is Infallibly true saith Gregory de Valentiá from all which we plainly see that according to their opinion the judgment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith That is it which I am now to disprove and to shew That the Writings of the Fathers neither are nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith § 2. Onely let me premise two things 1. I would not be misunderstood as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiquity ability and integrity but onely to denie that pretended infallibility which none did more dislike then themselves as we shall see hereafter Let them have all the honour which is due to the most worthy men not acted by divine inspiration but let them not have that Honour which belongs to God onely and his inspired ones We grant their Testimony is highly credible especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended but seldome proved viz. an universall consent but their Authority is not infallible 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgment of the Fathers of the first 600 years or suspecting their partiality on the Popes side I know sufficiently and so may any man whom the God of this World hath not blinded that doth but read what our Learned Divines have said in this particular or with his own eyes look into the Fathers that there is is not one considerable point in controversie between us and the Romanists but if judgment were to be given by any impartiall person from the Fathers excepting those who are evidently demonstrated to be spurious Authors their mouths would presently be stopped and their cause and confidence lay'd in the dust onely because that work is so thoroughly done by others and would swell this into a voluminous bignesse I shall forbeare that and proceed to handle what I proposed and P shall prove the proposition by foure Arguments 1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Papists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture for the decision of controversies do no lesse overthrow all the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers When they attempt to disprove the Authority of the Scriptures considered in themselves these are then Arguments universally owned and urged God would not have his Church depend upon Paper-Books saith Costerus Scripture say they cannot decide controversies because it cannot summon and heare both parties it cannot compell trangressours to obedience it doth not particularly condemne Hereticks It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere Gretser you are in an errour It speaks doubtfully and men dispute about the sence of Scripture and so controversies will be endlesse Hence I thus argue Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority or they are not If they be not then the Scripture must be owned as Judge of Controversies notwithstanding all those Arguments If they be valid against the Authority of Scriptures why are they not as strong against the Authority of the Fathers Or what difference is there in this particular between the writings of the Scripture and of the Fathers Are the writings of S t Paul deaf that they cannot hear parties and dumbe that they cannot deliver sentence and can the Writings of St Austine heare and speake Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an errour And do the writings of Ierome or Ambrose say Luther you are in an error Cannot S t Paul condemne Hereticks and compell transgressors to obedience and can S t Cyprian do it What offence hath St Paul done that Peters Successors should thus degrade him sure Manet altâ mente repostum they bare him a grudge for reproving S t Peter Gal. 2. And so now they are even with him In short forasmuch as the Arguments and premises are wholly the same concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers either the authority of both of them must be receaved as Judges of Controversies or else both must be rejected For in pari causâ idem jus say the Lawyers in the same cause there is the same right Againe another of their Arguments Why the Scripture cannot of it selfe be a ground of Faith is this because without the Church we cannot know which books of Scripture are genuine and which are spurious This is the great Argument of Stapleton and all other Romish Doctors In like manner I argue the writings of the Fathers cannot in themselves be a solid ground of my faith because without the Churches judgment I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine
bloud of Christ Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers and extenuate and excuse them and oft times by some divised fiction we deny and put a convenient sense upon them when they are opposed against us in disputations with our adversaries we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity and diligent recognition And thus they deale with the Fathers when they displease their humor and oppose their doctrines But if the Fathers deliver any thing that seems to countenance their conceits then every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical and every word an argument then the Fathers have done playing and quibling then they have opened their minds fully and given us their most serious and last thoughts § 8. And lest you should think it was only the opinions of several Fathers which they despised I shall acquaint you with their practice in case of consent of the Fathers or the major part of them That the Angels were corporeal was the opinion of most of the Fathers saith Pererius For this opinion Sixtus Senensis reckons up Origen Lactant Athenas Methodius Hilarius Damascinus Cassianus and the secound Councel of Nice to whom Maldonat addes as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexan Theodoret Tertullian Ambrose Augustine c. such a Constellation one shall seldome find in any controverted opinion Yet hear what Senensis saith I think the contrary opinion is the trust If a Protestant had said as much what tumults and tragedies would it have raised in the Romane Court how would all the world have rung with it So again that I may further lay open this Romish imposture I shall represent to the reader's consideration that controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin what is the common and current doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day is sufficiently known from the decree of the Councel of Trent concerning Original sin in which decree they expresly tell us they would not have her included and from the severe constitutions of Sixtus the fourth and Paul the fifth and Gregory the fifteenth Popes against those that should presume to teach this Doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin and from the practice of divers Popish Universities who have not only received the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin but bind their members by solemn oath to own it and from the writings of multitudes of the most eminent Popish writers who positively assert it as Delrio Henriquez Azâ—rius Suarez Vasquez Salmeron Acosta Abulensis Canus Navarrus and a world of others Now let us see whether in this point they made the consent of Fathers their rule or which is equivalent what was the judgment of the antient Fathers therein which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves then which they cannot desire a fairer tryal Hear Canus All the antients that make any mention of this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as Ambrose Aug Chrys c. and none of them contradicted that assertion and then he addes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Romish opinion That the argument from authority is weak and the contrary doctrine is probably and piously defended in the Church of Rome And he confesseth he knew no other way to confute this argument of Erasmus against the authority of the Fathers then by saying the opinion was not de fide or no matter of faith A remedy as bad as the disease 1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine is not de fide till the Pope or Councell have determined it from whence would follow amongst many other grosse absurdities 1. That it was not de fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias no Councell having determined it 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not de fide before the Councell of Nice 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Councell revealing it in their Decrees But I need say no more of this because it is rejected by diverse of their own most Learned Authors It is the common opinion of Doctors that a Councell doth not make a thing to be of Faith but denies or declares that such a thing is or formerly was de fide as the Holy Fathers abundantly confirme saith White 2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine For the Councell of Basil had positively defined and determined it as pious and agreeable to Faith reason and Scripture to be embraced by all Catholicks and that it should be lawfull to no man to teach the contrary This put S Clara so hard to it that he is forced to this horrible shift that they onely defined it tanquam piam consonam fidei Now the termes tanquam consonam are termes of diminution But to returne Salmeron treating of this point tels us that his Adversaries reckon 200 others 300 Fathers against his and the Romish Doctrine of the immaculate conception Well what is his Answer Really it is so full of Heresy that I fear they will chide me for translating it he tels you The Argument from Authority is weak I Answer saith he from Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not speak in a cause to incline after many to wrest judgment as Augustine answered the Donatists it was a signe that a cause wanted truth which leaned upon Authority That the younger Doctors see further then the antients that is to say the Romish Doctors are wiser then the Antient Fathers I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors the next time the purging humour takes them they richly deserve a roome in the Iudex expurgatorius And yet these are the onely adorers of the Antient Fathers that tell you We do not receive part of the Doctrine of the Fathers and reject part but we embrace it all saith Duraeus We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian These are they that hold the Fathers to be uncorrupted judges of Controversies whom God would not suffer to fall into error and lead others into it saith Costerus Will you see more of this mistery of iniquity I shall onely name the rest Diverse Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the generall opinion of the Fathers That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought to be given to Infants So Maldonate The Opinion of S t Augustine and Innocent the first a Pope and therefore his opinion infallibly true flourished in the Church for 600 years that the Eucharist was necessary to Infants That the Lords Supper should be receaved by the people in both kinds For the Councell of Constance in that very place where it takes away one kind the Cup do acknowledge that the use of both kinds by the people was instituted by Christ and enjoyed by the people in the antient Church That the Saints departed
nothing was further from their thoughts and suppose a lesse number of the Fathers did in that age contradict it though the contradictours happily either did not commit their opinion to Writing or if they did their Writings might be suppressed by the major part as hath been the lot of most Ages or by the injury of time are lost which the Papists cannot say was impossible for the Writings of the Fathers seeing they tell us that de facto some of the Books of Holy Scripture are lost The next age comes and understands the truth of what I have now supposed The question is Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a sufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and infallibility Melchiôr Canus saith No Now then the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions which the Age immediately next remembred The question is whether that foundation which was insufficient to the precedent Age is now through their ignorance of such contradiction become sufficient to the following Age if they affirme it it would become the Jesuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is it seems not onely the Mother of Devotion but of assurance and certainty of knowledge if they deny it they confesse the weaknesse of their assertion In short he that will lay the foundation of his Faith upon such a quicksand must either prove the negative that there was no such contradiction as we have supposed which is impossible or confesse his Faith relies upon the Sand which is dreadfull And againe admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition I have given severall instances wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers and that there were severall Doctrines which if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine but what they had by Tradition the Fathers receaved by Tradition wherein they were de facto mistaken and why might they not be mistaken in this Wee all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the second and third Centuries though it be said all came from the mistake of Papias an honest but credulous Doctor And dare these men venture their Souls upon it that Papias was the onely credulous Author and that this was the onely mistaken Tradition or that it was impossible for those Fathers who were so many of them imposed upon by one credulous person in one point to be imposed upon by another in other points All these and many other uncertainties must not onely be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility § 6. The second particular is this That if the Antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition for they might believe it upon other grounds It is evident they believed many nay to speak the truth all Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures and why might it not be so with this Why might not the Fathers believe this if they did believe it upon the same misapprehensions and mistakes which the Papists at this day runne into concerning the sence of those Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels And consequently the Fathers opinions of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles but only that this was their opinion wherein no lesse then in other points they were subject to errors as I have proved § 7. The third Proposition is this It doth not appeare that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels For triall hereof I shall refer my self to those Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary position Bel brings three Arguments to shew that the Antient Fathers held that generall Councels could not erre and not one of them speak to the point His first Argument is this They affirme that the sentence of a generall Councell in the cause of Faith is the last judgment of the Church from which thâ—re lies no appeale and which cannot be made void or retracted Hence it evidently followes that such Counsels cannot erre because else it were a very unjust thing to compell Christians that they should nâ—t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious I Answer 1. S t Austin did hold that the sentence of a generall Councell might be retracted though not by private Christians yet by a â—ollowing generall Councell former generall Councels saith he are corrected by the later of which more by and by and that is enough to shew he did not believe it infallible 2. The Consequence is weak and denied by the Protestants and therefore might be denied by the Fathers If the consequence be infirme now it could not be strong then and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara who tels us that Calvin and Robertus Baronius and all the Protestants and some others who deny the Infallibility of generall Councels do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Councell hath a detâ—rmining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme Nor is it unjust but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefes that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority beyond which there might be no appeale And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civill affaires though he be confessed to be Fallible so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible provided it be granted which the Protestants with the Fathers do assert and have proved that such Judicatories do not bind the conscience but onely regulate the outward Acts and prevent visible Confusions § 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmines second Argument which is this The Fathers and Councels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of generall Councels are Hereticks and deserve excommunications and therefore they thought such Councels could not erre Answer 1. I deny the Consequence againe for the now mentioned reason The civill cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrates Infallibility as the Ecclesiasticall cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Councell doth prove the Councels Infallibility 2. The Fathers did not account men Hereticks meerly because they rested not in the sentence of a Councell as such for then they should have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels but because the Doctrine which they opposed and the Councels asserted was true and so it was the verity of the Doctrine not the Conciliarity if you will pardon the word of the sentence by which they judged of Hereticks
Infallibility from the Pope which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do confess Councels without the Popes confirmation and in themselves to be but fallible for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara and all the Authors he cites to that purpose What say you further if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion let the intelligent Reader judg His Conclusion is Therefore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Councels now I assume St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held that Councels are fallible This I prove from his own words In this sense Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin whether they be Popes or others whether they wrot any thing in Councel or out of Councel the same judgment is to be passed upon them that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true certain because they wrot so but onely because they could prove it by Scripture or reason or miracles or the approbation of the universal Church Thus far Occham Now follows S. Clara's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which doctrine of his I judg most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Councels in lesser things though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain and a distinction foisted into the text which St. Austin never dream'd of and he is reduced to such straits that he hath no other way to evade but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another viz. that it is sufficient for him that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Councels Ergo they thought them Infallible It is Bellarmine's argument and I have already answer'd it And so this block being removed the Conclusion remains firme That St. Austin thought not Councels infallible For farther confirmation whereof I shall from hence collect two Arguments plainly proving that St. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Councels 1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Councels then to particular Synods nay then to private Doctors This I prove because St. Austin and the Papists themselves and indeed all men allow each of them so far infallible and their assertions to be infallibly true as they can prove them by Scripture or irrefragable reasons or miracles or the approbation of the whole Church and not one syllable more doth Austin give to general Councels 2. Because the Papists will not and cannot according to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there speaks and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think unlesse they will make him one of those who seldome speak as they think It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church however disowned by some few of them whom they look on as Extravagants and Schismaticks that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope say some of the Councel say others of the Pope and Councel together say almost all upon the credit of their own assertion without any further reason This is evident from Stapleton Gregory de Valentia Tannerus and Bellarmine in several pâ—aces one I shall instance in It is one thing saith he to interpret a law as a Doctor that requires Learning another thing to interpret it as Iudge that requires Authority a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed farther then reason induceth us but a Iudg propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it The Fathers â—xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes And now let S. Clara himself judg if he will deal candidly whether St. Austin and Bellarmine were of a mind or which is all one whether St. Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes barely upon the credit of their authority or assertion as the Papists say he did or only as Doctors because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason as St. Austin in terminis asserts § 11. But because it is of some concernment to understand Austin's mind in this point whose authority is so venerable both to them and us and whom both Parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy I shall further consider what S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose the passage he pleads is this Vntill that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed by a general Councel Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels Put it it into a Syllogism and it is this That which so confirms a truth as to remove all doubts is Infallible But a general Councel so confirmes a truth as to remove all doubts Ergo. The Major is denied for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reason so confirme a truth as to remove all doubt from the hearers and yet is not therefore infallible There are then two wayes whereby doubts may be removed 1. By the infallibility of the authority Thus when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason this should remove all doubt 2. By the evidence of arguments and so their argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativè thus a general Councel removeth doubts Ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority it followeth not for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument And this Answer might very well suffice But that I may give them full satisfaction if possibly the interest of these men would suffer their consciences to open their eyes I shall prove that it was so and that St. Austin speaks of this latter way of removing doubts i.e. by their convincing arguments not by their infallible authority This plainly appears by considering the contexture of the words Lest I should seem saith he only to prove it by humane arguments because the obscurity of this question did in former times before the schisme of Donatus make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves untill by a General Councel that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments Where you plainly see that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority and that he acknowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa certain or infallible as is evident from the Antithesis 2. This appears most undeniably from a parallel place where St. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian That holie man sufficiently shewed that he would have changed his opinion if any had demonstrated to him that Baptisme might be so
see it is argued on both sides by many most godly and learned Catholicks both antient and modern and neither part hath yet been censured or prohibited and therefore it is evident no Catholick is bound to this or that side By which one instance you may see how much reason we have to bespeak them as Christ did the Pharisees Math. 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast out the Beam out of thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye Thus we see when their pretended signs come to be examined they are lighter then vanity as we have seen by this short and transient consideration of the most and weightiest of them § 11. But although other evidences are pleaded yet the rest of them come in onely as handmaids to the principal Character of miracles for here it is that they set up their rest and so must I too for a season So the Answerer of Bishop Land The Church is proved to be infallible the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be infallible and that was by the sanctity of their life and the glory of their miracles The works of Christ did of themselves without Scripture prove Christ to be infallible Ioh. 5.36 and 10 25 38. and 14 11. and the Apostles confirmed their words by signes Mark 14.19 And consequently the miracles done by the Church of Rome do without Scripture prove her infallibility This is their last plea they are now brought to their last legs if this fail them they are lost § 12. Ans. 1. If the miracles of Christ and his Apostles did prove their infallibility in the doctrine they delivered then they prove the fallibility of the Church of Rome and their actual error because they are visibly departed from that doctrine and if they prove any infallibility they prove theirs who adhere to the doctrine of the Scriptures And so we thank them for this argument § 13. Ans. 2. Although where miracles are true and many and evident and uncontrolled they give a great stroke to the proof of that doctrine which is confirmed by them yet it is false to say that Christ or his Apostles did require an absolute submission to and belief of every doctrine upon the bare account of miracles without any reference to Scripture And it is most certain that Christ and his Apostles notwithstanding their miracles did prove their doctrines from and allow their hearers to examine their doctrines by the Scripture This strikes at the foundation of their argument plea and therefore I shall endeavour thoroughly to prove it § 14. 1. This appears from the expresse commands of Christ and the Apostles to that purpose In the same place where Christ bids them believe him for his works sake he commands them to believe him for the Scriptures sake Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures And if the former prove the sufficiency of their argument from miracles why should not the latter prove the sufficiency of the Protestants argument from Scripture especially if you consider that Christ apparently prefers Scripture arguments before that of miracles for in that 5. of John where he ascends gradually from the weakest to the strongest testimonies he placeth them in this order First he urgeth Iohn's testimony vers 32. next the testimony of his miracles vers 36. and last the testimony of Scriptures v. 39. And this more fully appears from Luke 16.29 If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead Upon which words Chrysostome's glosse is full and cogent at least to them who pretend to rely upon the Fathers authority and exactly to maintain their doctrines his words are these That you may see that the doctrine of the Prophets and consequently of the Apostles is more to be believed then the preaching of one raised from the dead consider this that every one that is dead is a servant but what the Scripture speaks those things the Lord speaks Whence I thus argue The authority of the Lord is not onely greater in se but more credible quoad nos then the authority of the Servant This no man living will deny But the authority of Scriptures is the authority of the Lord and the authority of the Pope adde a Councel to him if you please is the authority of a Servant yea if you take that in earnest which is intended onely for a complement a Servant of Servants Ergo the Scripture is more to be credited then the Pope or Church It was a good turn for the Pope that Greg. de Valentia hath assured him that if the Fathers do at any time talke sawcily Sua tum constat authoritas Romano Pontifici i.e. The Pope will keep his authority and infallibility in spight of them else I am afraid this passage of S. Chrysostomes might have done his Holinesse a discourtesy And this farther appears from 2 Pet. 1. where you have the question expresly decided for after the Apostle had confirmed his doctrine from that miraculous appearance of God in the Mount and that voice from Heaven he addes ver 19. We have a more sure word of Prophecy The Bereans did not believe S. Paul's inâ—allibility barely upon the account of his miracles nor are they therefore blamed but did examine his doctrines by the Scriptures and for that they are commended Act. 17.11 § 15. 2. It was not the will of Christ that all miracles should be believed but he would have some miracles rejected therefore he would not have all miracles in themselves and for themselves credited and owned The Assumption I prove by three arguments § 16. 1. Christ's will was compliant with his Fathers will and he came to fulfill Gods word not to destroy it But this was the express will of God that all miracles should not be credited This no man can doubt of that reads Deut. 13. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a sign or a wonder and the sign or wonder come to passe whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods and let us serve them thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet for the Lord your God proveth you Whence it irrefragably follows that if it could without blasphemy be imagined that Jesus Christ had delivered such a doctrine as this Let us go after other Gods his miracles should have been disowned and rejected and therefore miracles of themselves are not to be credited § 17. 2. Christ and his Apostles have foretold us that miracles should be done by the teachers of false doctrines Therefore miracles in themselves are no sufficient evidence of the truth of a doctrine The Consequence none can deny The Antecedent which alone can admit of doubt is so evident from plain Scriptures that I need onely recite them I will mention onely two places 2 Thes. 2 9. The coming of Antichrist is said to be after
Scripture And although their infallibility be said to be larger or greater extensivè because in them it reached to all sentences and words and Arguments yet the Romanists themselves cannot say it is higher or greater intensivè and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decisions decreed by Councels are in their opinion as infallible as the same are when they are laid down in the Scripture This was the Notion M r Chillingworth combated against with so great successe as Cressy confesseth The second Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Churches infallibility I shall take from the impertinency and feeblenesse of those crutches or reasons wherewith they indeavour to support it I observe the summe and strength of what he hath to say in this point is reducible to five heads The first and great pretence is this Take away Infallibility and you destroy all Authority all Authority that is not Infallible is meer Faction and Rebellion and Authority that reacheth onely to the outward appearance or the purse Cressy Appen ch 7. num 2. And elsewhere Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church Ibid c. 5. n. 14. And the assertions of the Churches Authority which are frequent in the Fathers Mr Cressy urgeth as if they had been directly levelled at the Churches infallibility Exomolog Sect. 2. chap. 19. Nay so daring is this man in his Argument that not contented with his own pretended satisfaction in it he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland which it is sufficiently known he abhorred viz. that if the Catholick Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches must expire The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme c. Append. chap. 6. num 9. For Answer I durst appeale to the conscience of this very man but that Apostates in the Faith do at the same time make shipwrack of a good conscience let any Romanist that is not prodigall of his damnation seriously consider the grosse falshood of this bold supposition What! no Authority without Infallibility Belike there is no Authority in the King because no Infallibility He will say Civill Authority is but externall But Ecclesiasticall reacheth the conscience and commands the beliefe of the inward man Mr Cressy knew this to be a gratis dictum and justly denied by Protestants and therefore he should have proved it but crude suppositions and imperious dictates do passe among Romanists for solid demonstrations Yet againe I would aske Mr Cressy whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Authority over that Church or no If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer If he grant it then Authority may be without Infallibility Againe I aske him whether the Pope without a Councell have Authority over the Church or no If he deny it 't is at his perill if he affirme it then his Argument is in great jeopardy For Protestants are allowed to disbelieve the Popes personall Infallibility And he confesseth I gave you his own words before that good Catholicks deny it and dispute against it Yet once more When generall Councels have been called to determine the pretensions of Anti-Popes or to depose usurping Popes or when they have had differences with the Popes I demand whether these Councels had any Authority or no To say they had none or that their Authority was but an airy fantasme I think Mr Cressy will not dare and if they had then either a Councell without the Pope is Infallible which most Learned Papists now deny and if Mr Cressy be of another mind let him tell us or Authority may be without Infallibility In a word that the World may see the complexion of an Apostates conscience This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convent in every Bishop over his Diocesse in ever Generall over his order and a weighty Authority too as their vassals feel by sad experience yet I hope these are not Infallible E. the more impudent is he that argues fâ—om Authority to Infallibility A second Argument is much of the same complexion taken from the stile and practise of generall Councels which was to propose their Doctrines as infallible truths and to command all Christians under the paine of Anathema and eternall damnation to believe them for such That Authority which should speak thus not being Infallible would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty and usurpation that ever was in the World Append. chap. 4. n. 9. This hath been fully answered before and therefore I shall here content my selfe with these two reflections 1. The utmost of this Argument abstracting from the invidious expressions he here clothes it with that it may have in tenour what it wants in strength would be no more then this That generall Councels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own and I hope well may since the Jesuites so great a part and support of the Roman Church have and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible untill the Popes consent be added yet such Councels as is notoriously known have used to put their Anathema's to their decrees before the Popes assent was given And yet forsooth if you will believe a man that hath cast away his Faith this Argument is more evident then we can produce for the Scripture it selfe for so he saith ibid. 2. These Anathema's do not at all prove that such Councels either were or thought themselves Infallible It is true it is an Argument they thought one of these two things either that the Doctrine proposed by them was Infallibly true as indeed they did or that their Authority was infallibly certaine which they never pretended either of these were a sufficient ground for such Anathema's and therefore his Argument is infirme proceeding à genere ad speciem animal est E. homo They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do so in case of Excommunication of Hereticks Are they therefore infallible If it be said they do it onely in pursuance and execution of the decrees of Councels I Answer If such persons confessedly fallible may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines delivered in Councels because supposed to be Infallibly true why may not the same persons Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines expressely delivered in Scripture which all grant to be infallibly true Againe if we look into the Records of Councels wee shall find that this practise of Anathematizing was not onely in use in generall but also in particular aud Provinciall Councells which are confessed to be fallible E. Mr Cressy look to your Arguments and conscience better once more The Popes Anathemas aâ—l the World rings of yet you have seen his Infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists and
of God and the same for substance with the Originals The incorruption of the Scriptures in substantial things is sufficiently evinced from the confession of its greatest Adversaries the Papists from the consent of Copies taken by persons of several ages and far distant places and contrary principles from the innumerable multitude of copies every where dispersed and the constant jealousy and watchfulnesse of so many wise and zealous Christians ready to observe the least considerable corruption and give warning of it and many other considerations All those arguments which are pleaded both by Papists and Protestants for the Divinity of the Scripture they reach to copies and Translations In these as well as in the Original is the majesty of the Style the sublimity of the doctrines the purity of the matter the excellency of the design To these as well as the Originals God hath given so many signal testimonies by the conversion of thousands by frequent and illustrious miracles by the cooperation of his Spirit with them in the hearts of his people and many other arguments which when a Papist is in a good mood and disputing with a Pagan must passe for undeniable demonstrations of the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of the Scriptures And for the differences in Translations either noted by the Papists or confessed by any of the Protestants which the Captain makes a great Flourish with and other Papists make such triumphs at they are so petite and trivial and so little concerning the substance and foundation of Religion or the Scriptures that to me it affords an unquestionable evidence That our Translations are unblameable in fundamental places because all their great wits and learned Doctors to this day could not discover any such mistakes though they have made it their businesse to find them out But I shall say no more to this argument in this place having in the former part of the Treatise spoken to it A fifth argument is taken from the seeming contradictions which are in Scripture not resolveable by the Scripture Hence saith the Captain Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. no one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other is infallible in speaking but the Scripture so speaketh therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking Nay he might and should have said the Scripture is not credible in speaking and therefore say I by the vertue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge himselfe an unreasonable man or an Atheist I tell you it was good hap That in stead of the Catholick Gentleman he did not meet with an Atheist for the arguments which convinced him are indifferently calculated for either Meridian But for all those seeming contradictions the short Answer is this 1. That there are no such places but are capable of convenient reconciliations as hath been already made good by several learned men both Papists and Protestants who have professedly treated of those matters and discovered the vanity of this objection And if it were granted That there are some places which men have not yet hit upon the right way of reconciling them that is no evidence of the impossibility of it since we can give instances in others which in former times were thought as insoluble as any now are which the learning and diligence of after ages hath fully cleared from all semblance of contradiction 2. Those seeming contradictions are either reconciâ—eable out of Scripture or else are but historical difficulties not at all necessary to salvation The Captain should do â—ell to put the parts of his discourse together and see how they agree because he will not I will do it for him The Proposition which Protestants assert and he attempts to disprove is That the Scripture is a perfect Rule in things necessary to salvation This he disproves by instancing in some insoluble difficulties in matters unnecessary to salvation But we must pardon him it is vitium causae the cause affordes no better arguments A sixth argument is this Scripture is no sufficient rule because it is lyable to diverse and contrary expositions An invincible argument by which a man may dispute all Rules out of the world Probatur The Decalogue is no rule of life or manners for the Pharisees understood it one way Christ another Mat. 5. The Statutes of the Kingdome are no rule for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions The Decrees of Popes and Councels are no rule because lyable to diverse and contrary expositions so far that Gratian the compiler of their Canon Law hath one entire Title De Concordantia Discordantium Canonum i. e. concerning the reconciling of disagreeing Canons And there is this remarkable difference between the condition of the Romish and our affairs our differences are in the exposition and accommodation of the rule but Popish differences are in the Text and rule it self since there are amongst them not onely diverse and contrary expositions of the same Canon which yet is sufficient to take off all their glorying over us and to bring them to our levell but indeed there are contrary Texts the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another and one Councel to another Pope Stephâ—n nulls the decrees of Formosus the three next Popes null the decrees of Stephen and re-establish those of â—ormosus Sergius the third comes after and again nulls Formosus his decrees But I will tell you of a greater matter even no lesse then the Authentical Translation of the Bible Sâ—xthe 5th sets forth one Bible An. 1590 not rashly but deliberately with the advice of his Cardinals the assistance of the most learned men of all the Christian world they are his own words corrects the errors of the Press with his own hand imposeth this upon the whole Church Within 3 years comes Clemens the 8. and he puts forth another Edition not onely diverse but in several passages directly contrary to it for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves or to Dr. Iames his Bellum Papale and the Defence of it where he shall find above a thousand differences between them yet Cleâ—ens suppresseth all other Translations and enjoynes this for the oneâ—y Authentick Translation and so it is held to this day The like I might shew of Councels as it were easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Councels among themselves and yet forsooth the appearance of a contradiction must exauctorate the Scriptures when real contradictions shall not prejudice the Authority of Pope and Councel so true it is That some may better steal a horse then others look over the â—edge The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge then it was so in the Apostles dayes and if so the Authority of the Apostles ceased when they had done writing I Answer 1. The Consequence may very well be denied from the
Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the onely rule when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly Ergo it is not the onely rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Councel combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord. Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Councel Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of Gods Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather then for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equall Avthority the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis affâ—ctu ac reverentia with equall piety and reverence it consequently followes that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sence to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despoticall having dominion over the peoples Faith and being Lords over Gods Heritage but onely Ministeriall not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so farre as it concernes his own actions It is true and that Judgment as I have shewed the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an errour common to the Jewes of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every mans being Judge in words and shew yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captaine for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Councell is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Councell be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captaine or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called Rushworths Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtlesse si Pergama dextrâ Defâ—ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security aâ—quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture yet is onely upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written onely to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written meâ—rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Hereticks had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a
would have made who can build a towring confidence upon such pittiful foundations and yet this doth not informe us of the practice of Kings but acquaints them with their duty as Interpreters agree 4. This Phrase The pillar and ground of Truth notes the necessity of the Churches ministry quoad nos but not the infallibility of her Authority those are two distinct things and the one no way consequent upon the other The utmost which can be squeezed from that phrase is this that the Church doth support the truth and Gospel of Christ in the world and so doth every sincere zealous defender of the truth and especially the Ministers and prime champions of the truth not only when met together in a general Councel but also in their single capacities which I think will be undeniably proved by this argument The Church was the pillar and ground of truth for the first three hundred years after Christ and the Apostles never did it more deserve that name nor did it ever more discharge that office but all that time there was no oecumenical Councel and that is the only Councel to whom Infallibility is ascribed by the Papists therefore either that phrase doth not evince infallibility or the several pastors of those ages were infallible 5. The consequence of the argument is false and frivolous The Church is the pillar of truth Ergo she is infallible for the same Church may be a pillar of truth and a seat of Error For what is it to be a Pillar of the Truth if we draw aside the curtain of the Metaphor but to be a Defender of the Faith And who knows not that the same persons may defend the truth and maintain errors with them unlesse he be one that never read the Bible nor Ecclesiastical History Who knows not that the same persons which defended the truth of Christianity against Jewes and Pagans did also maintain the Doctrine of Iesabel and the Heresy of the Nicolaitans Rev. 2. and that those very men that owned the foundation did build the hay and stubble of false doctrines thereupon 1 Cor. 3. and that diverse of the stoutest defenders of the truth of the Gospel among the Fathers had their errors as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Else if they will stand to the consequence it will follow by vertue of it Such a Minister preacheth the truth Ergo he is infallible and cannot preach false doctrine Such a Judg is the Pillar of Justice in the land Ergo it is impossible he should make an unjust Decree Proclamations are hanged upon such a pillar Ergo a Libell cannot be fastned there 6. Their argument proceeds from a declaration of the Churches present state for that is all that place asserts viz. that the Church then was a Church and Pillar of truth to an assurance of its perpetual continuance in that state which is quite another thing Which kind of argumentation if it might pass for currant it would work brave exploits for then it would follow The city of Sion was an habitation of righteousnesse a pillar of truth and justice Ergo the Prophet Isay was mis-informed when he said The faithfull City is become a Harlot it was full of judgment righteousnesse lodged in it but now murderers Isa 1.21 Nay then the Church of England is orthodox in the Romane sence Probatur It was the Pillar of truth viz. when it was the Pope's Asse Ergo it is so still and the Papists slander us when they say we are fallen away The Church was a Virgin in the Apostles dayes saith Egesippus Ergo she is not now corrupted nor indeed can be for I must tell you the Pope can do more then all the Apostles either pretended or did for they could not even while they lived wholly keep the Church from actual corruption but the Pope keeps her from all possibility of corruption Thus the Pope is omnipotent and it is no marvell he is infallible § 15. The Second place of principal moment alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Mat. 18.17 where all are commanded to hear the Church and they that hear her not are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans Ergo the Church of Rome is Infallible for this is the comfort whatever is in the premises Romes infallibility is in the conclusion and the Church of Rome that can dispence with Gods lawes may well dispense with Syllogistical rules by which there ought not to be more in the conclusion then in the premises but that Law was made for Subjects but not for our Sovereign Lord the Pope To this may be added another place they vehemently urge Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ergo the Church is infallible Ans. 1. Whatever these texts prove what right hath the Church of Rome to her monopoly of the priviledges here conveyed Or why may not the Greek or English Churches and their Ministers claime the benefit of them The words have an indifferent aspect to all of them 2. The consequence is false Christians must hear the Church and Ministers Ergo they are infallible which I thus prove Children must obey their Parents and if they do not they must dye for it Deut. 21. are parents therefore infallible Subjects must obey their Magistrates or dye for it Ios. 1.18 Whosoever will not hearken unto thy words he shall be put to death it seems then Magistrates are infallible For this is the argument by which the Romanists pretend to prove the Infallibility of the High-priest of the Jewes because they that would not hear him were to be put to death Deut. 17. Nay this very text Luc. 10. destroyes that sense which the Romanists would fasten upon it for seeing it is not the Apostles but seventy disciples and they too not as met in a Councel but as preaching the Gospel severally or at most by pairs whom they are under such dreadful penalties commanded to hear if it be conclusive for infallibility it proves the infallibility of every Minister or at least of every pair of them 3. It is agreed between them and us that Christ speaks of the Censures of the Church Mat. 18. and therefore surely if it prove the Churches Infallibility in any thing it must be in the matter there spoken of viz. in Church-censures But they grant the Church is Fallible in her censures as depending upon Testimony and matters of fact And therefore it is ridiculous to infer from thence her Infallibility in other things which are not spoken of in this place 4. The Church and Ministers are to be heard not simply and in all things but onely in the Lord and what they speak according to his word This is denied by the Papists who positively assert that they are to be heard in all things and without examination as we have seen from their own words It is therefore necessary to say something to overthrow this lawlesse liberty and boundlesse authority ascribed by them to the Church for this is their