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
13 but because St. Peters successor or the Church injoyns you to believe it but it is no Fundamental that Christ is God if the Church doth not oblige you to believe it Did I say it was not a Fundamental I do them wrong in not speaking the whole truth for so far are they from owning it for a Fundamental Article that they will not allow it to be an article or object of our Faith without such confirmation and injunction from the Church as I shewed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse But this is so grosse a cheat and such a groundless imposture wholly destitute of all appearance of proof that it is a vanity to spend time in the confuting of it If any Papist think otherwise let him give us solid proofs That the Pope or Councel have such dominion over our Faith That Fundamentals are all at their mercy though meâ— thinks the very mention of such a conceit is abundant confutation nor can any thing be more absurd then to say That it is no Fundamental to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them them thaâ— diligently seek him unlesse the Churches Authority command us to believe it and that it is a Fundamental to believe that which so many of the Antients did not believe viz. the falsehood of the Millenary opinion or of the admission of departed Saints to the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement because these are determined by the Church And there is nothing which more essentially overthrowes the Popish conceit of Fundamentals then the consideration of the Pillar upon which they build it which is the Churches Infallible authority as the Answerer of Bishop Land Discourseth whose great argument is this whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a damnable sin but whosoever refuseth to believe any point sufficiently prâ—pounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently prâ—pounded to him for a truth revealed from God this is proved from hence because general Councels cannot erre Where to say nothing of the Major you see this man proves and the Church of Rome hath no better proofs incertum per incertius their notion of Fundamentals from their opinion of Councels infallibility and the infallibility of Councels having been abundantly evinced to be but a Chimaerical Imagination I must needs conclude That the foundation being fallen the superstructure needs no strength of argument to pull it down if any desire to see this wild conceit baffâ—ed he may find it done in that excellent discourse of Mr. Stingfleets part 1 chap. 2 3 4. For the 6. particular the doctrine of the Trinity it is true that is a real Fundamental but to say that is not clearly proved from the Scripture and for one that pretends he was a Protestant to say thus I confesse it is one of those many arguments which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather then to the convictions of his conscience or the evidence of his cause Behold the harmony between Socinianisme and Popery Rather then not assert the Churches authority these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands to confesse that they cannot be confuted by Scripture But the learned Papists are of another mind in their lucid intervals and some of them as Simglecius have sufficiently overthrown the Socinian Heresy from Scripture evidence however I am sure Protestants have abundantly evinced it Let any man read but those excellent discourses of Placaeus about the Praeexistence of Christ before his birth of the Virgin and his Divinity and he will be of another mind But this shews the Captain was prepared to receive any thing that could so easily believe a proposition which he could not but know from his own experience to be horribly false unlesse he were shamefully ignorant 7 For the remaining points they split upon the same Rocks with the former for there is none of them but is sufficiently evident from Scripture as hath been fully proved by those who have treated of those matters but I must forbear digressions And besides in the sense he intends he will find it an hard matter to prove their necessity to salvation if he think otherwise let him try his strength And this may satisfy the third argument concerning the Scriptures darkness in things said to be necessary to salvation A fourth argument urged against the Scriptures supremacy is that we have not the Originals but onely Copies and Translations and these made by fallible men and therefore it cannot be a certain rule to our Faith This hath been answered in the former Discourse it will suffice therefore briefly to suggest some â—ew things 1 This argument if solid and weighty will prove that no Copies nor Translations can be a Rule to us that onely the Original Decalogue which was written by Gods own finger was a Rule to the Jews and consequently that Transcript of it which by Gods appointment the Prince had and was obliged to read was no rule to him which how false it is will appear from Deut. 17 18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein that he may learn to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them By which the Reader will quickly discern what weight is in this part of the Discours That a Copy cannot be a certain rule for the Princes rule is but a Copy and the Transcription of that not limited to an infallible hand When Moses of old time was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Act. 15.21 it is to be presumed each of them had not the Original of God's writing yet was it never rejected from being a rule upon that account What rare work would this Notion make in a Kingdom if throughly prosecuted Belike the Captaine doth not hold his Statute book a rule to him because it is not the Original And observe the horrible partiality of these men The Decrees of the Pope or Councel suppose of Trent are a Rule and a certain one too to our English Papists though they have nothing of them but a Copy and a Translation but the Scripture cannot be a Rule because it is onely a Copy and Translation The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers when it is delivered onely by a Popish Priest and he confessedly fallible by word of mouth and it ceaseth to be a rule when it is delivered by writing by a fallible hand yet surely the one is but a copy as well as the other though made by diverse instruments 2. The copies and Translations of Scripture are a sure and certain rule because they do sufficiently evidence themselves to be the word
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
to be true which I read in my Book that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I beare to your deep judgment and great abilities Here it is plaine the reading in his book is not the foundation of his faith or perswasion but onely the reverence he bears to his teacher And just this say they is the case of the scripture to which purpose they alledge and own those words of Austin though they pervert the sence I should not believe the Gospell unless the Churches Authority did move me Which if true in their sence then the Churches Authority is the sole foundation of my faith and without it the scripture is a meer Cypher or at least not sufficient to command or ground my faith which was the thing to be demonstrated The truth is the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King Iehoram 2 Kings 3.14 and bespeake it in the same language were it not that I regard the presence the testimony and the authority of the Church I would not look towards thee not believe nor reverence thee Sect. 3. If it be said that although the Churches Testimony was necessary before yet since the Church hath long agoe consigned the Canon of the scripture my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches testimony but upon the scriptures Authority To this I answer 1 That now as well as formerly the faith of a Christian acted by Romish principles doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches testimony which I shall make plain by an instance I do not believe supposing I were a Papist the Popes supremacy because I read these words Thou art Peter for if I read those words in Tacitus I should not draw an Argument from them unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of Plato Cicero and Virgil But because the books wherein I read those words Thou art Peter is a book of Canonicall scripture and a part of the word of God there lies the whole stress of the argument And this I cannot know say our Catholick masters and am not bound to believe but for the Churches Testimony Which testimony as it is the onely cause which makes the scripture in generall Authenticall Quoad nos saith Stapleton so it must be that alone which makes this place Thou art Peter Argumentative quoad nos that is all the force that Argument hath to perswade or convince me is from the Church and not from the scripture and the scripture makes it Canonicall to me and its being Canonical gives the whole weight to the Argument and quod est causa causae est causa causati Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words but sence of Scripture where the strength of the argument lies And that sence say they wee cannot understand nor attain but by the Churches interpretation which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists viz. That the sence of scripture which is indeed the very Soul of scripture and the onely ground of faith and Arguments is in many matters of faith so obscure and ambiguous that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentick and infallible Interpreter and Judge to acquaint us therewith that is the Church or per aequevalentiam Iesuiticam the Pope And it is absurd to expect and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts and dceision of controversies of faith from the scripture which is but a dead letter unless the Church animates it This is so notoriously owned by them all that it is needless to quote Authors for it That which I inferre from hence is this that according to this Hypothesis the scripture in it self I say in it self for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove is no solid foundation for my faith and indeed that it is a meer Cypher which if your Church be put to it may have some signification and value butelse none at all And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in it selfe but the Churches interpretation which gives weight to this argument And this plainly appears from that saying of their great Master Stapleton which deserves to be often men tioned in rei memoriam and the rather because Grotserus owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion Gretsers defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in se ex parte rei but onely quoad nos in respect of us and so saith Gretser it is very true for that I believe that Christ is God and that God is one and three I do it being induced by the Authority of the Church testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered are divine and dictated by God a I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mysterie of the Romish Cabal and discovering the dreadfull tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ for as he was beholden to Christ for his Authority so now Christ is beholden to his vicar for his Divinity and saith hee it was truely said by Tannerus nor needed Pappus to wonder at it that without the interpretation and testification of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone that God is one and that there are three persons Who is it that dare charge these Jesuites with Equivocation I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se quoad nos viz. They acknowledg the Scripture in it self to be true and Canonicall and it is a Truth in it selfe that Christ is God but so far as concernes me I am not bound to believe either the one or other but for the Churches Testimony which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted That the Scripture in it self is no foundation of my Faith And this is the more weighty because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one mans Pen but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors each of whose works where that passage was is set forth with the approbation of severall Romish Doctors of principall note § 5. But peradventure Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant Although neither the Popes Authority nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith and the Popes Authority being asserted in and demonstrated by the Scriptures is a sure sooting for my faith To which though it might suffice to object the circle which is here most palpable
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
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
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
given c. And a little after he would have yielded to a general Councel if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced and declared and confirmed by a general Councel And he gives the reason of his yielding Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the truth much more to a general Councel In all which it is plain that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Councel but the clearness of the truth and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in St. Austin's judgment 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence that St. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture by which it is distinguished from and advanced above all the opinions decrees or writings of all Bishops in or out of Councels that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it The words are express and brought in with a Quis nesciat Who knowes not that the holy Scripture is so preferred before all the letters of after-Bishops that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Councels if they swerve from the truth and Provincial Councels must yeild to General Councels and former general Councels are oft corrected by the latter where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial and thence to General Councels but all of them are in this respect postposed to the Scripture that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees and where they swerve from the truth reject it And nothing more evinceth the strength of this argument then the silliness of our Adversaries evasions He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony not of Faith saith Bellarmine and Stapleton whereas the question there disputed was whether persons Baptized by Hereticks should be rebaptized which the Fathers formerly made and the Papists now make a question of Faith But by emendantur saith Stapleton he means perfectiùs explicantur If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is so taken you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus that if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faith which diverse Papists professe they may much more may they devise new significations of words But I would know of these Doctors what they would think or at least what discreet and sober men would think of that Author that should say Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apostolis emendantur and yet if Stapletons Lexicon may be used it were an harmlesse expression But if these men will give St. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words he hath sufficiently open'd his mind by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions and by speaking of such an Emendation as follows after or is conjoyned with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Councel This may serve for the third Proposition § 12. And here I might give my self a supersedeas having shewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers but ex abundantis I shall adde the fourth Proposition which is this That it doth appear the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels The former proposition shewed that they could not prove their Assertion and this I hope will disprove it But because what hath been already said may serve for that end also I shall be the briefer in this and shall only mention three arguments to prove it 1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so did the Fathers Ergo. The Major is evident from hence because one infallible Authority is sufficient and the addition of another though it may tend ad melius esse yet it cannot be necessary ad esse for then the former were not sufficient And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Councels do professe eo nomine that Scripture-proof is not necessary and that the Churches authority without Scripture evidence is sufficient When Whitaker urged the necessity of Scripture-proof to shew the Church for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church Stapleton roundly answers That such proof is not necessary to a Christian man and a Believer For the Minor That the Fathers did judge Scripture proof necessary hath been already shew'd and will hereafter be made good and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it 2 They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men since the Apostles say do not believe the Infallibility of Councels but so do the Fathers The major is evident from the confession and practice of our Adversaries who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels do injoyn the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination A Christian ought to receive the Churches doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine The Minor hath been proved from the expresse words of the Fathers 3. They that derogate Faith from all men without exception beside the Apostles do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so do the Fathers Ergo. The Major needs no proof for the Councels are made up of men and such too as are confessed to be each of them fallible Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasme or immediate revelation The Minor also hath been fully proved to which I shall adde one out of Austin◠If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture we are to believe it without all doubting but for other witnesses or their testimonies a man may believe or not believe as he apprehends what they say hath weight or not It is true S. Clara sayes that St. Austin doth only prefer Scripture before particular authors which how false it is sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Austins which I have even now discussed wherein you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgment St. Austin positively took away all difference between Councels and private Doctors in this particular and equally denied all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both of them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers in reference to the Infallibility of Councels This is the first Branch The Infallibility of Councels is not made known to us by Tradition the next Proposition must shew That it is not revealed in Scripture § 13. This therefore is the Second branch That the Infallibility of Councels hath no foundation in Scripture◠1. I might justly insist upon what hath been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency by the Scripture to ground my faith without the Churches authority And surely they that professe they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ were it not for the
they infer the necessity of the Churches authority these kind-hearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the bryars for now it seems and it is a truth and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority viz. by tradition And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stript of the capacity of a Judg and retained only the qualification of a witnesse and consequently the Churches authority is not at all necessary And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition it may be said to her according to these mens principles as the Apostle said to the Gentiles Rom. 11. If thou boast thou bearest not Tradition but Tradition thee for so say these Doctors Mr. White spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith and saith that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church or in Councels or in Scriptures in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition And he spends several chapters to shew that neither the Pope nor Councels can give any solidity or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church and so there is still a necessity of her Authority I answer plainly no It followes onely that there is necessity of her Ministery but not of her Authority A Proclamation of the King and Councel could not come to my hands If I live at Yorke but by a Messenger and by the Scribe or Printer But if any from this necessity of his Ministery infer his Authority I may well deny the consequence but because it is unhansome to extenuate a courtesie I hold my self obliged further to acknowledge the great kindnesse of our Adversaries who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foundation of Faith have also overturned their own which that you may the better understand I shall briefly represent to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren and how God hath confounded the language of Babels Builders so that they have little to do but to stand still and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one anothers sides The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right he answers because the whole Church which receives it cannot erre So the late Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholick Church be rejected as erronious and fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority Nay S Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantick strain That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient yet elsewhere confesseth the Churches infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain His words are these The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us is infallible from a Divine Revelation because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible And presently after If the Church were not infallibile it could not produce in me an infallible Faith And this was the constant Doctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of infallibility hard beset and that Pillar shaken they support their cause with a quite coÌ„trary position That it is not the Churches infallibility that renders Tradition infallible as their former Masters held but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible and therefore they say the Church her self is no further infallible then she followes Tradition Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible because the speciall assistance of Gods spirit makes them infallible but because by irrefragable testimony they confirm the succession of their Doctrines and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused Thus Holden having told us that the Popes infallibility is controverted on both sides by just godly and most learned Catholicks as well antient as modern and neither â—svde condemned by Authentick censure which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Soules and rest their faith upon what themselves confesse to be a doubtfull foundation viz. the Popes infallibility All Divines saith he confesse it is not certain with a Divine and a Catholick Faith he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Priviledge granted to the Romans sea or St Peters successeur but from the universall and Catholick tradition of the Church and Councels fare no better then Popes They are saith he not Founders but only Guardians and Witnesses of revealed truths so M r White allowes neither Pope nor Councels any infallibility but what they have from tradition as wee have seen and tels us in expresse termes that Tradition is overthrown if any other principle be added to it for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Tradition § 3. Well what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith Here are two contradictory assertions one of them must unavoidably be false A man may with probability at least assert the falshood of either of them having the suffrage of diverse of their own most learned Catholick Authors for him in either opinion but whether they be true or false their cause is lost 1. If they be true and 1. If that be true that Tradition be the foundation of the Churches Infallibility then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility From Scripture That they utterly disclaime From Tradition Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to it self as well as Tradition And whence hath that Tradition its Infallibility and so in infinitum Is it from the reason of the thing So M r White implies who attempts to prove it by a rationall and Logicall Discourse but himself hath prevented that while he saith To leane upon Logicall inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand And S. Clara gives a check to this It is more reasonable and wise even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Authority of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever And that is largely disproved in the following discourse Is it then from the Churches Infallibility This they deny
the Pope Or will they say the Infallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alpes among the Italian Doctors who urge Tradition for the Popes Supremacy above Councels But what security will they give us That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot passe over the Alpes and get from one side to the other Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains But Fallibility can travell to all parts and at all times In short it being certaine that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest Nor can this be any way prevented but by pretending the promise of Infallibility but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition and that is hereby disproved and for the fiction of a promise I have discovered that before But the third and last pretence is most frequent That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divided yet they are agreed in all that is de fide in all points of Faith that is in such things as have been decided by Pope or Councell I answer in few words and thus I reinforce my Discourse If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision it might deceive them afterwards because the Decision of a Councell doth not alter the nature and property of Tradition It is true according to the opinion of some Papists such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied because he may judge the Churches Authority so infallible and obliging to him that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike saile to it But the decision of a Councell cannot make that a Tradition which was no Tradition nor can it hinder but that Tradition did deceive me before and consequently might deceive me afterwards For instance If the Pope determine the controversie between the Jansenists and Jesuites about Predestination Grace Frewill c. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgments because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the Infallible Judge of Controversies to whom they must all submit But supposing that the Popes decides according to the verity of Tradition and that must alwaies be supposed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had untill that time been deceived by Tradition So it seemes Tradition in that point was Fallible for above 1600 yeâ—rs together after Christ and now upon the Popes determination An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible but neither will this do their work for the nature of Tradition being the same either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages or else it must now be acknowledged Fallible § 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to shew the impossibility of any mutation or corruption where Tradition is pretended viz. that it is apparent there have been severall mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alledged to prove that there was no motion when his Adversary walked before him though happily the other brought some Arguments that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer which in that point is not hard to doe Or if any man should urge a subtile Argument to prove the impossibility of Sins comming into the World because neither could the understanding be first deceived nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding it were sufficient to alledge the universall experience of mankind to the contrary So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called which no man that hath the use of his Eyes and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it yet because I will use all possible means to convince them if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Divell I shall proceed farther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case and point at some of those many fountaines of corruption from whence the streames of errour might flow into the Church notwithstanding the pretence of and adherence to the Doctrine of Tradition And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches If saith he a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach could teach falshoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity but neither of these are credible I shall apply my Answer to him first in generall and then to the severall branches of his Argument § 12. In generall the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide as if it were impossible that the Tares of Errour should be sowne in the Church while men slept and never dreamed of it The basis of this Argument lies in an assertion of the impossibility of that which the nature of it shewes to be most rationall and probable and the experience of all ages shewes to be most usuall i. e. that corruption of Doctrines and manners for in this both are alike should creep in by degrees As Iasons ship was wasted so Truth was lost one piece after another Nemo repente fit turpissimus Who knowes not that errours crept into the Jewish Church gradually and why might it not be so in the Christian Church We know very well Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa One error will breed an hundred yet all its Children are not borne in one day S t Paul tels us the mystery of iniquity began to worke in his daiâ—s but was not brought to perfection till many ages after The Apostle hath sufficiently coâ—suted this sencelesse fancy whilest he tels us that Heresy eats like a cankâ—r or a gangreen i. e. by degrees and is not worst at first but encreaseth to more ungodlinesse 2 Tim. 2. 16 17. As that cloud which at first appearance was no bigger then a mans hand did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens so those opinions which at first were onely the sentiments of the lesser part might by degrees improve and become the greater or at least by the favour of Princes or power learning of their advocates become the stronger untill at last like Moses's Rod they devoured the other Rods monopolizing to themselves the liberty of writing professing their Doctrines and suppressing all contrary Discourses Treatises their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholick Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages which was frequently pretended by severall Hereticks and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons which in some Ages were few and those easily
prove the Spirits testimony but by the Scripture This is counted one of the hardest knots and therefore it will be worth the while in few words to unty it though it may seem a little heterogeneous to my present design § 10. 1 They have no reason to object this circle to us that they cannot free themselves from I speak not now of the other famous circle of the Church and Scripture which their most learned Authors of late have ingenuously confessed but here is another Circle The Papists have Circulum in Circulo For they professe a man cannot know the Church but by the Spirit nor the Spirit but by the Church That a man cannot know the Spirit nor the mind of the Spirit nor distinguish it from false and counterfeit ones but by the Church is their great principle He cannot know it say they by the Scripture unlesse he read it with the Churches spectacles Revelation they do not pretend to therefore this is known onely by the Church to whom the discerning of Spirits belongs and by others onely from the Churches authority and infallible testimony But that is a clear case the onely doubt lies about the other branch viz. That a man according to their principles cannot know the Church but by the Spirit and that you shall have under the hands of their great Masters Stapleton's words are these This secret testimony is altogether necessary that a man may believe the Churches judgment and testimony about the approbation of the Scriptures neither will Faith follow without this inward testimony of the Spirit of God although the Church attest commend publish approve the Scripture a thousand times over So Canus tels us that Humane authority and other moâ—ives are not sufficient inducements to believe but there is moreover a necessity of an inward efficient cause i.e. the special help of God moving us to believe What can be more plain let them answer themselves and that will serve our turn Either they must leave themselves in the Circle or help us out Iam sumus ergo pares And it is unreasonable that they should urge that as a peculiar inconvenience of our Resolution of Faith to which their own is no lesse obnoxious § 11. 2. It is false that we have no other way to prove the Scripture to be the word of God but the Spirits internal Testimony They cannot be ignorant that we have diverse arguments of another nature and independent upon that Testimony of the Spirit by which the authority of Scripture is solidly proved And Papists as well as Protestants have substantially defended the cause of the Scriptures against Pagans and Atheists Either those arguments are solid rational and convincing or they are not if they say they are not then Be it known to all men by these presents that the Assertors of Popery are the Betrayers of Christianity If they be then is the Scripture proved other wayes then by the Spirits testimony How can our Adversaries vindicate themselves either from shameful Ignorance if they do not know or abominable malice if they wittingly bely us that we have no argument to prove the Scripture but the Testimony of the Spirit What are those glorious miracles by which the Scripture was sealed and propagated now become no argument Is the Transcendency of the Matter and Majesty of the Style and admirable Power of the Word of none effect to prove the Scriptures Divinity Are not the patience of Martyrs the concurring testimony of Jewes and Heathens to the truth of Scripture-relations the verity of predictions and the like as solid arguments now as they were in the Primitive times when the Fathers confounded the learnedest Pagans by these and such like arguments If they be as they must affirm unlesse they will turn perfect Pagans as they are in the half way to it already then their Assertion is false That we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scripture but by the Spirits Testimony and the Circle which they impute to us is indeed in their own Brain and their Argument is the fruit of their Vertigo § 12. 3. Here is no Circle because although the Spirit and Scripture do mutually prove one another yet they do it in diverso genere in diverse wayes and several capacities but a Circle is when a man proceeds ab eodem ad idem codem modo cognitum when a mans knowledg proceeds from the fame thing to the same thing in the same way But in this case though the thing be the same yet the way of knowledg varies and that breaks the Circle The Scripture proves the Spirit per modum objecti argumenti objectively and by way of argument by suggesting such truths to me from which I may collect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Spirit and prove its Divinity But the Spirit proves or rather approves the Scripture per modum causae effectivae instrumenti as a Divine instrument infused into the soul whereby I am enabled to apprehend such verities as are contained in the Scripture The Papists indeed cannot get out of their Circle of Church and Scripture because each of them is the argument by which they prove the other the argument nay the onely argument say they for which I believe the Scripture is the authority of the Church testifying it and the argument for which they believe the Church is the authority of the Scripture And here the Circle is so grosse and evident that it is acknowledged by diverse of their own late learned Authors Holden confesseth in expresse terms that they who resolve their Faith in this manner and so do almost all the learned Papists in the world do unavoidably fall into a Circle So the late Answerer of Bishop Lawd confesseth it is a vitious Circle to prove Scripture from the Churches Tradition and the Churches Tradition from Scripture as they generally do some few Excentrical spirits excepted nor can he get out of it but by returning to that Vomit which his former Masters had discharged themselves from viz. to prove Infallibility by miracles and the motives of credibility But in our case it is quite otherwise for the Spirit works ut instrumentum by way of Instrument the Scripture ut argumentum by way of Argument It were an absurd aspersion to call this a Circle if any man should say I believe the Sun to be bigger then the Earth because my reason tels me it is so and I believe my reason saith true because Mathematical arguments convince me it must needs be so That which frees this discourse from the Circle is that the Mathematicks prove it ut argumentum Reason proves it ut iustrumentum and the same may be said in the present case I shall farther illustrate this by a similitude or two It is here as when a man through the infirmity of his eye apprehends a thing to be lesse then it is There are three wayes whereby this man may be convinced of his error 1. By
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
That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels which is common to those that deny their Infallibility but the calâ—ing of those Hereticks who do not acquiesse in the sentence of Councels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Councels for the Protestants themselves have branded and censured and sometimes put to death as Hereticks such men as in fundamentall points of Religion have receded from their publick Confessors of Faith and the decrees of their Synods without ever pretending to Infallibility But that I may improve the Cardinals Argument for him to the highest Put case the Fathers had said that men were bound to believe all the assertions of their generall Councell yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible I prove it plainly thus The Papists maintaine that people are bound to believe their Pastours and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or haesitation according to that which Stapleton so largely and frequently defends That Pastours are simply to be heard in all things and yet they do not hold these Pastours to be Infallible So they tell us by vertue of that Text Mat. 23. 2. The Jewes were bound to believe all the Doctrines publikely taught by the Scribes and Pharisees and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharisees of whom that Text speaks were infallible And the Fathers might justly say all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Councels which then were past not that they thought Councels were Infallible but because they judged all their decrees true and consonant to the Scripture otherwise how little they valued the decrees of Councels when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be sufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Councels 3. There is in this argument the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or error which was through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Fathers pretended in this cause viz. they argue from the authority of Councels to their infallibility and how invalid the consequence is appears from this undeniable argument Masters Magistrates Parents Bishops and Provincial Councels have Authority but not Infallibility If all that the Fathers say to that purpose were put upon the rack it would prove nothing but this that they thought what the Protestants grant that general Councels were the supreme judicatories of the Church from which was no appeal and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquesce but that doth not infer Infallibility as we have seen § 9. Bellarmine's third argument is this The Fathers teach that the Decrees of general Councels are Divine and from the Spirit of God from whâ—nce follows that they were not subject to error And this he confirms by the testimony of Constantine who now he is orthodox is grown considerable though when he was alledged against him he was a greater Prince then Doctor as we heard even now Greg. Nazianz. Cyrill and Leo who call the decrees of the Councel of Nice divine and say they were ordered by the Spirit of God and so say I too And it is true of all the decrees of all Councels nay of all the Sermons of Ministers which are collected from Scripture and conformable to it such as the Nicene Decrees were that they are divine Oracles But then their Divinity and that which is the consequent of Divinity Infallibility ariseth not from the Authority decreeing them which being but humane could not make the decrees divine but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture as Bellarmine confesseth and therefore divine But if Bellar thinks from this particular case to draw a general conclusion I must make bold to stop him in his careere till he hath told me whither he think this argument solid The Fathers held the decrees of the Councel of Nice to be divine and say it were infallibly true Therefore they thought the decrees of all Councels divine and infallible and consequently the Anti-Nicene and Arrian Councels If he can disgest this I will say he hath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad § 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Cardinal and come to the Fryar S. Clara who being an ingenuous person and coming last hath doubtlesse selected the best weapons and his great argument I find to be this That the Fathers did generally own the Infallibility of the Catholick Church and consequently the Infallibility of general Councels which are the same with the Church and their definitions are the determinations of the Church this he largely prosecutes cap. 20 21 22. For Answer let me premise what I have proved that if this were the opinion of the Fathers yet seeing that they confesse themselves to be men subject to like passions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin Neither do you think that because we are Bishops we are not liable to irregular motions but rather let us conceive that we live dangerously amongst the snares of temptations because we are men And seeing the Papists confesse they have erred in many things therefore this if it were true will afford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith but I shall forgive them that infirmity The argument however he glories much in it hath nothing sound from head to foot how can they expect this argument should prevaile with us when it is rejected by themselves who deny the consequence from the Infallibility of the Church unto that of Councels So doth Camâ—racensis as S. Clara notes in these words A general Councel may erre in the faith because if it should erre yet it would remaine that others without the Councel did not erre and by consequence that the faith of the Church did not faile The like saith Panormitanus A Councel may erre as it hath errâ—d nor doth this hinder it that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre because although a general Councel represent the whole Church yet in truth it is not the whole Church All the faithful do constitute that Church whose head and husband Christ is and that is the Church which cannot erre The very same thing and almost in the same words saith Antonius where he adds an instance That the saying of Ierome was preferred before the decree of a Councel Thus you see the consequence is denied by three famous Authors of their own Nay what say you if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence I am greatly mistaken if it doth not follow from hence that he makes Gouncels infallible no further then they are afterwards received and owned by the Church and allowes them to be fallible where that reception doth not follow as we shall see hereafter and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholick Church not in the Councel and consequently the Church may be infallible and yet the Councel remain fallible as those Papists that assert Councels to have their
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
them To conclude this consideration It is sufficient for my purpose which is acknowledged by the greatest and most considerable part of the Romish Church at this day That generall Councels in themselves are not Infallible and consequently are no solid Foundation for a Papists Faith which is all this Proposition pretended to make good though you see I have given them an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. A third consideration is this If the Infallibility of general Councels rightly called constituted and ordered were granted yet this would give no Advantage to the Romish cause nor security to their Faith and that for such reasons as diverse of the most Learned Papists themselves do stamp with their approbation And here I might insist upon sundry particulars but I shall confine my selfe to a few and for the rest refer you only to one of their own Authours White in the oft mentioned Treatise who thus breaks out his doubts concerning this Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councels If you assert an unknown and invisible influence of Gods Spirit it is so uncertaine and doubtfull that it is fruitlesse to contend about it Seeing it is matter of strife rather then evidence to what Councels and when this assistance is given whilest some quarrell with the calling others the absence of nations or Patriarchs and others dispute about thâ— praesidency and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions others about the number weight or degree of suffrages others about Confirmation and others require the Churches consent ere it can be known whether this Assistance belong to the Councell or no Where you may observe no lesse then ten severall causes of doubting and yet all these uncertainties they will rather run upon then acknowledge the Authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which are called a more sure word 2 Pet. 1.19 then that which had another kind and far higher degree of certainty then the decrees of Councels can ever arrive at but I must not rest in generals I shall particularly acquaint you with some of the Intrigues of the Romish Church and their own requisites to the legitimation of Councels I shall pick out three 1. They confesse the Councell which is Infallible must be oecumenicall 2. And its decrees must be ratified by the consent and approbation of the whole Church 3. They must proceed sincerely and faithfully and piously in it Now in all these things there are notorious defects in the Church and Councels of Rome § 23. 1. Most Papists grant that that Councell to which Infallibility is promised must be generall or oecumenicall and they that pretend to assert the Infallibility of Provinciall Councels when confirmed by the Pope do indeed utterly reject the Infallibility of all Councels and ascribe it wholly to the Pope and to Councels onely by participation from him and in dependence upon him If then any Councels be Infallible they must be generall to which purpose they alledge the saying of St Austin That those onely are Concilia plenaria full and general Councels which are collected out of all the Christian World Hence the seaventh Synod disowned the Constantinopolitan Councell and their decrees against Images because they were not a generall Councell and had not all the Patriarchs there And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church and cites severall Authors of great note to that purpose Now to assume The Councels pretended by the Romanists were no generall councels To say nothing of former Councels which in their greatest plenitude were onely conventions of the Churches in the Romane Empire The later Councels on whom the weight of the Popish cause principally depends were not oecumenicall Councels There is one acknowledged defect in them all to wit the absence of the Greek Church Cardinal Cusanus complaines At present Alas the Catholick Church and the Parochial Church of Rome have but one Councell seeing the whole Church is now reduced to one Patriarchate And as the Objection is really unanswerable so that which is offered in stead of an Answer is very considerable which S. Clara. represents out of Cusanus and Barlaam That it matters not that onely the Romane Patriarch and those united to him are there and that the Schismaticall Patriarcks are absent for generall Councels are not to be collected out of Hereticks and Schismaticks but out of the Orthodox and such as are united to the Church From whence I gather two things 1. That if the Church of Rome cannot assoile her self from the imputation of Heresy which by the leanenesse of their replies to the inditements of Protestant Authors sufficiently appeares they are not able to do their Councels are constituted ex Indebitâ materiâ of undue materials and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility if there were any such thing in rerum natur â. 2. That we are not to believe the Orthodoxy and much lesse the Infallibility of Councels upon the credit of their naked assertion and absolute Authority as the Papists affirme seeing the most Hereticall and Schismaticall Councels have ever asserted themselves to be Orthodox but it is the right and priviledge of Subjects to examine and judge of the legitimatenesse of Councels and consequently of the validity of their decrees § 24. The second particular is this That Councels are not infallible nor their decrees unquestionable unlesse they have the tacit consent and approbation of the whole Church This position is laid down by S. Clara in the forementioned Treatise There is required a tacit or interpretative ratification of the whole Church to compleat the definition of a Councell Nor is this his private opinion but he there confirmes it from the words of Panormitanes Turnball Pope Leo Petrus â Soto Castillo Mirandula Gersonius and others And afterwards he quotes these words out of Petrus D' Aliaco That generall Councells may erre unlesse when they are accepted by the Vniversall Church and then they are Infallible And in another place himselfe expressely tels us We are not presently to pronounce a thing de fide by reason of some expressions of Councels or their Canons but we must diligently inquire the constant judgment of the Church else we shall finde many Canons of Faith which doe not agree with the truth according to the opinion of many And Coltius hath these words As wee have seen before the common dâ—ssent of the Church hath rendred the decrees of Popes and Councels invalid I mention this the more fully because it is a pretty devise It must be confessed the Religion of Rome cannot easily be mistaken for a piece of Piety but he that shall denie it to be an Art of Policy will quickly be confuted and here is an instance will put him to silence There is a double discovery of the Romish subtilty in this businesse 1. You see how handsomely they make a vertue of necessity now they manage it as a Principle taken up
fair glosse upon a foul cause yet indeed the authority of them all is as vigorously disputed against by the most and learned'st Romanists as by any Protestants in the world You remember what their great master Bellarmine told you That Infallibility and Supreme Authority is not partly in the Pope partly in the Councel but wholly in the Pope what need we trouble our selves further Those four are now reduc'd to two Scripture and the Pope and those two must mutually prove one another There is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Scriptures but the testimony of the Pope say the Papists and there is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Pope but the testimony of the Scriptures For the Fathers and Councels receiving all their authority and infallibility from the Pope cannot give him the infallibility and authority they received from him Now how senslesse a resolution of Faith this is though most of the Papists have no better and no other you may perceive by some few instances It is as if a Sudent should say thus I should not believe such a book to be an excellent book but for my Tutor's testimony who tels me so And again I should not believe my Tutor's testimony to be of any validity but for the testimony of that book concerning him Who would not laugh at such an assertion Or as if a man should say I should not believe the honesty of Richard were it not for the testimony of Thomas And I should not believe the honesty of Thomas were it not for the testimony of Richard Where is there a man that will accept of such security in a trivial worldly bargain And yet the Papists are content to venture their souls upon it From all that hath been said I conclude that the pretended authorities we have discoursed of do neither severally nor yet jointly afford a solid foundation for a Papist's Faith nor prove that Infallibility which they pretend to and consequently there is no solid foundation for a Papists faith And here I might discharge my self from further trouble having discovered the nullity of all the pretences which have been hitherto owned by the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of Orall Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church § 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors where the authors are any whit considerable and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility There is then another shift which some subtle Romanists have lately invented who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of the field by strength of Scripture and argument in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Councel come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition and the authority of the present Church This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues Mr. White and Holden and Sr. Kenelm Digby and S. Clara. Their defence and discourse is this for I shall give you their opinion in their own words A man may prudently believe the present Church for her self and ought so to do A man needs not nor is not obliged to enquire further there he may safely fix saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary That society of Christians which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers and they from theirs and so from the Apostles they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered for if they could teach falsehoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity neither of which is credible But the Church of Rome and they only pretend to teach nothing else c. Ergo they must needs hold the truth The acute Mr. White explains the opinion more exactly and fully and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words 1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles and practised it and highly valued it as most necessary for them and their posterity and to be preferred before all other things 2. Those first Christians even at their death both could and would and therefore doubtlesse did most vehemently commend this doctrine to their Children and the Fathers did alwaies deliver the same doctrine which they received from their Parents and under that notion because they had received it 3. If any delivered another doctrine he could be proved a lyar by the rest of the world or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine under that notion scil of a doctrine delivered from their Parents that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide and should agree to murder themselves which is impossible 4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors who took care of Faith and manners and it is evident that the Pastors and people had the same faith 5. And there arose heresies by which the truth might be more cleared and they that maintained the antient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators which Innovators did not publickly reject the Apostles doctrine but pleaded it was not rightly understood and the other part kept the name of the Catholick Church 6. It is necessary that that congregation which alwaies kept the antient discipline should alone profess that she received her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Canon of their Faith under another notion 7. As certainly therefore as one may know that the congregation of believers which at this day is called Catholick is animated with a number of learned and wise men so certainly will it be known that she is not conscious of any newness of doctrine and therefore there is no new doctrine 8. Following ages cannot be ignorant what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons Catechisms Prayers and Sacraments and such are all things necessary to the Catholick Faith 9. This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was confirmed by long custome diverse laws rewards and punishments both of this and the following life monuments of writers by which all would be kept in it 10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schisme and notorious tumult in the Church as dayly experience proveth To the same purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the resolution of Faith This is a new Plea and deserves special consideration § 2. For Answer 1. I give Mr. White and his worthy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or rather justice done by them to the Protestant cause For whereas this is the perplexing question wherewith they think to puzzle us How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority and from the supposed impossibility thereof
though they be either of Apostolicall or Angelicall originall Gal. 1.18.9 2. The Argument I confesse is right of the Romish stamp viz. The Thessalonians were bound to receive what they heard immediately from St Pauls mouth in such things as for the substance of them were contained in the Scripture Therefore we are now bound to receive all those Traditions which the Church of Rome tell us they had from those that had them from those that had them from those that told them their Ancestors were told by their Ancestors that some of their Ancestors had it from Paul 1600 years agoe risum teneatis amici This may serve for the fourth Answer § 9. Ans. 5. If this Doctrine be true Scripture proof is not necessary for any point in Religion for it asserts the sufficiency of Tradition in it self and without the Scripture But Scripture proof is necessary for confirmation of points in Religion This I might prove from Scripture but that hath been done allready in the former Answer therefore I shall here confute this Argument of Tradition by Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers To pick up all they have to this purpose would fill Volumes I shall therefore single out some few Illustrious Testimonies Nothing can more evidently overthrow this goodly structure then those forementioned words of Cyprian We ought not to regard what others have done before us but what Christ who was before all thought fit to be done For we must follow Gods Truth not mens custome What Protestant can say more in few words then Clemens Alexandrinus in few words We assert nothing without Scripture Therefore he thought not Tradition a sure evidence though so near the Fountaine much lesse can it now give us any certainty having conflicted with hazards and been exposed to the infection of 1300 years S t Basil is expresse It is necessary that every word or thing be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures And else where he tells you It is a manifest defection from the Faith and token of Pride either to rejâ—ct any thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written And Constantine speaking of the rule by which all things were to be examined and judged confines it to the Scripture The Books of the Prophets and Apostles saith he do plainly instruct us what to think of Divine things therefore laying aside hostile discord from the words which were divinely inspired let us take our expositions of quoestions e It is a pitiful shift of Bellarmines to say that Constantine was a better Emperor then Doctor whereas in this particular Theodoret assures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying nor did any of the Antients ever condemne him for it And indeed the practise of the Synod shewes their approbation of the Speech and consequently gives us another Argument for they determined the controversy according to the Scriptures saith Ambrose and Athanasius too whose words are these The Bishops congregated at Nice collecting togâ—ther all things they could out of Scripture to defend their opinion they affirmed that the Son was consubstantiall to the Father And Bellarmine himself confesseth it The Councell of Nice when they defined the Son to be consubstantiall to the Father they drew their Conclusion out of the Scriptures Notable is that place of Chrysostomes because it acquaints us with his own judgment and the judgment of the Christians of that age If any thing be asserted saith he without Scripture the minde of the hearer wavers But when Scripture comes that confirmes the speakers words and settles the hearers mind Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Hermogenes that things were made of prae existent matter with I never read it let Hermogenes shew where it is written or else let him fear the woe denounced against those those that adde to the Scripture e And againe I do not receive what thou bringest of thy own without the Scripture And againe Take away from Hereticks the things they have in common with Heathens that they may referre their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand But the Papists are of another mind for if you will believe them if Scripture alone must judge Controversies Heresies will never fall Theodoret professeth he was not so bold as to assert any thing wherein the Scripture was silent Thus Origen It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of Scripture for without this our expositions have no credit Austin is most full and plaine I will mention but one place Whether they have the Church they cannot shew but from the Canonicall Books of Scripture And yet there is no question wherein Tradition seems more pertinent and where the Papists urge it with more vehemency I might adde a thousand pregnant places more but either these or none will suffice to prove that the Antients did judge Scripture proofe necessary for the confirmation of any Doctrine in Religion which the Romanists now judge not necessary The Fathers pretended Tradition for their opinion and the Papists pretend it now Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then or it deceives the Papists now Either will serve our turne to shew the Fallibility of Tradition If it be said there are no lesâ—e expresse Testimonies alledged by the Papists on the behalfe of Tradition and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalfe of the Scripture I Answer 1. If the Fathers do in some places assert the sufficiency of proof from Tradition and in other places the necessity of Scripture proofe these assertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of Religion For so say the Lawyers most justly and truly Testis pugnantia diceus fidem non facit 2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition especially if you compare them with those alledged for Scripture that they do plead Tradition onely as a secondary Argument to confirme that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture but it is as clear as the Sunne that they ever made Tradition strike faile to the Scripture and made no scruple of deserting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments stood on the other side Answ. 6. The Romanists themselves are undeniable instances of the vanity of their own Argument They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us Why Tradition hath deceived them There are diverse contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome about 300 are reckoned out of Bellarmine The dissenters though never so implacably divided amongst themselves do agree in this That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers and so from the Apostles Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived some of them or both the parts of a contradiction may be true I shall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions nor take notice of pettie differences amongst obscure Authors but shall instance in two materiall
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
doctrine of Predestination the Papists confesse is no fundamental since their own Doctors are divided about it yet if any man from St. Paul's assertions of the efficacy and immutability of Predestination should infer the unnecessarinesse of Sanctification to Salvation as some have done doubtlesse this man would wrest the Scriptures to his own destruction But the Captain is not contented with a general imputation of darknesse to the Scripture but pretends several Instances of things necessary to Salvation which are not plain and clear in the Scriptures his Instances are these 1 The nature and number of the Sacraments 2 The number of the Canonical Books and that the Scriptures are the word of God 3. The incorruption of the Scripture 4. The understanding the true sence of Scripture which is literal which mystical 5. The number of fundamental points 6. The doctrine of the Trinity and 7. other doctrines concerning the baptizing of Infants and womens receiving the Eucharist and the observation of the Lords day and the doctrine which condemnes Rebaptization All these saith he are necessary to Salvation and yet Scripture is not plain and clear in them So that here are two assertions and both of them false in most of the Instances and all are false in one of them It pitties me to trifle away time in the particular answer of such impertinent allegations did not the weaknesse of some in believing all that is boldly asserted make it necessary For the 1. The Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of those two Sacraments which Christ hath instituted as the Captain might easily have informed himself if in stead of going to Knot and Fiat Lux c. he had looked into almost any of our Protestant Systems or common places of Divinity whither I refer the Reader having somewhat else to do then to transcribe common places And for the other 5 Sacraments I cannot say they are delivered in Scripture more clearly then the others but I may say they are lesse darkly because indeed not delivered there at all being onely a fiction of their own of which God may say They never came into my mind For the 2. It is a crude and false assertion which the Captain layes down That it is necessary to salvation to believe all the books of the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to believe nothing to be the word of God which is Apocryphal If the latter part be true woe to the Church of Rome that now is which hath owned those writings for the word of God in the Councel of Trent which by the judgment of so many most learned Fathers and grave Councels and the Church of so many successive ages have ever been held for Apocryphal as no rational man can doubt that shall take the pains to read either of those excellent pieces Raynoldus de libris Apocryphis or Bishop Cousens his Scholastical history of the Canon of the Scripture And if the former part be true then we must damne all those Fathers and Churches who as both Papists and Protestants acknowledge did sometimes doubt of some books now universally received nay farther we must damne all the former ages and Churches and innumerable holy and learned writers and even many of the most famous Papists themselves who did all disown and disbelieve some at least of those Books which if we take the judgment of the Trâ—nt Councel are and were a part of the word of God The truth is and so it is generally owned by Protestant writers That the belief of those Truths conteined in the Scriptures is necessary to Salvation though happily a man through ignorance or error should doubt about some one Book It is necessary that I should believe the history of Christs life and death but it is not necessary to Salvation simply and absolutely to believe that the Gospel of St. Mark for instance was written by Divine inspiration This may appear from hence because Faith is sufficient for Salvation and faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. as well as by reading now as Faith might be and really was wrought by the hearing of the doctrine and history of Christ when preached by such Ministers as were not divinely inspired so might it be wrought by the reading of such things when written by the very same persons and consequently it was not and is not necessary to the working of Faith and therefore to the procuring of Salvation to believe That St. Marks Gospel was written by Divine inspiration And yet I do not assert this as if I thought that it were not a very great sin especially in and after so much light about it to disbelieve any one book of the Scriptures there being so many evident characters of a Divine inspiration upon the particular books besides the general assertion 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by divine inspiration and other convincing places but onely to shew That which is a certain and evident Truth it is not simply and absolutely and ex natura rei necessary for every person to believe every particular Book to be the word of God but a serious and practical beliefe of the Truths conteined in those Books may be sufficient to Salvation even where there is an ignorance if not wilful and affected of the Divine Authority of some book or books of Scripture 3. For the Third thing the incorruption of the Scripture I Answer 1. The Scriptures incorruption in substantial and considerable points besides that it is confessed by the learned Papists as I have shewed before doth sufficiently appear from it self by the collation of one place of Scripture with another as also by the collation of several copies And one great argument of it may be fetched from that which seems to twhart it viz. the various readings which learned men have observed out of diverse copies let any man look into them as he finds them collected in the late Polyglotte Bible and his own eyes shall witnesse that howsoever the differences of Readings are numerous yet they are not of any moment and indeed the differences in lesser matters are a considerable evidence of the Scriptures uncorruptednesse in greater wherein the copies do wonderfully consent 2 If the Scripture not evidencing its own incorruption hinder its being a rule then neither can the Scripture be so much as a part of our Rule which yet is granted by the most insolent of our Adversaries for so the argument will carry it if there be any strength in it nor was the Decalogue a rule of life to the following generations of the Israelites nor can the old and unrepealed Acts of Parliament be a Rule to England nor yet can Tradition be a Rule to the Papists for the Papists not onely confesse its insufficiency to evince its own uncorruptednesse but acknowledge its actual corruption in several points as hath been shewed before nor can the Decrees of Popes and Councels be a rule which being writings must needs be lyable to the