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
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
Bellarmine is a Baffler to use fallacious arguments and a Lyar too having said nothing is more evident nothing more certain if they do then the Scriptures may be evidenced to be the word of God without the Churches Testimony which they so boldly deny at other times The like might I shew out of Gregory de Valentia who musters up diverse convincing arguments whereby even Heathens may be satisfied that the Scripture is the word of God without the aid of the Churches authority And the like is done by several of their learned and approved Authors from which it plainly appears That the foundation of Christianity and Protestancy is one and the same and that we have the same arguments and evidences for the ground of our Faith as Protestants viz. for the Divine authority of the Scriptures independently upon the Churches testimony which we have as Christians and that the Papists cannot say nor do any thing towards the subversion of the Faith of the Reformed Churches herein but at the same time and by the same art and arguments they must oppugne the Christian cause and acknowledg it untenable against a subtle Pagan or Atheist And I desire the Reader to consider that this is not an answer or argument ad hominem which I now insist upon but fetched from the nature of the thing the verity of the Christian Religion And for what they pretend That without the Churches Testimony we cannot know that S. Mathews Gospel was written by him and so the rest they shall take an Answer of a very eminent and approved Author of their own Melchior Canus It is not much material to the Catholick Faith that any book was written by this â—r that Author so long as the Spirit of God is bâ—lieved to be the Author of it which Gregory learnedly delivers and explaines For it matters not with what pen the King writes his Letter if it be true that he writ it § 3. The second thing is That the Books of Scripture are not corrupt in the essential and necessary points of Faith This a man may easily discern by looking into the nature and quality of those various lections which are pleaded as evidences of corruption where he shall quickly find them generally to be in matters of lesse moment and such upon which Salvation doth not depend But because the examination of this would be a tedious work I shall save my self and Reader the labour and shall prove it in general as at first I proposed from the confession of the Papists themselves who condemn the rashnesse of those of their own Brethren which out of a preposterous respect to the vulgar Translation assert the malitious coâ—ruption of the Hebrew Text and positively maintain the incorruption of the Bible in matters of importance Of this opinion are among the Papists Bellarmine Arias Mâ—ntanus Driedo Bannes Tena Acosta Lorinus and diverse others If you please we will hear the fore-man of the Jury speak for the rest I confesse saith he that the Scriptures are not altogether pure they have some errors in them but they are not of such moment that the Scripture is defective in things that belong to faith and mannâ—rs For for the most part those differences and various lections consist in some wâ—rds which make little or no difference in the Text To whom I shall adde the acknowledgment of a late Author S. Clara whose words are these Considâ—ring a moral thing morally it is altogether impossible that the Books of the New Testament were or are consiâ—erably adulterated And so he goes on proving what he had asserted This may suffice for the second thing § 4. For the third particular which alone now remains in doubt concerning the sense of Scripture My assertion is this A Protestant hath or may have a sufficient assurance of understanding the sense of Scripture in things necessary to salvation This I shall briefly prove by this argument God's promise is sufficient assurance the Papists do not pretend an higher assurance for their Churches Infallibility but a protestant is or may be assured of this by God's promise as appears from Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God Protestants have the assurance of Reason and whatever the Papists talk they have no other It is true they talk of several things Fathers Councels Tradition Motives of Credibility c. but in these and all other arguments both Papists and Protestants agree in this that when they go to settle and satisfie their consciences though they hear many things yet reason weighs them all and rejects what it judgeth false and holds fast what it esteemeth true and good if that will not do they have the assurance of the Spirit which God hath promised to those that ask it Luk. 11.13 and this is as much as the Church her self pretends In a word to strike the businesse dead you shall see the perspicuity and evidence of the Scriptures in things necessary to salvation acknowledged by our Adversaries from whom the force of Truth extorted these confessions That part of Scripture is plain and evident which conteins the first and chief principles of things to be believed and the principal rules of living so Sixtus Senensis We deny not that the chief articles of faith which are necessary to salvation to all Christians are plainly enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles so Costerus And Salmeron having said that all Doctrines and Traditions are to be examined by Scripture he saith The Scripture is so framed and ordered by God that it might be accommodated to all places times persons difficulties dangers diseases to drive away evil to procure good to overthrow errors to stablish truths to instil vertue to expel vice And Hieronymus ab Oleastro saith We are to praise God for it that those things which are necessary to salvation he hath made easy From all these things put together I think I may say it undeniably follows which I proposed to evince That the foundation of a Protestants Faith is solid and sufficient our adversaries themselves being Judges § 5. Onely I must remove one block out of the way Peradventure they will say that if all these things be true concerning the word of God in its own language yet there is one notorious defect in the groundwork of the Protestants Faith viz. That they build it upon the credit of a Translation made by persons confessedly fallible This because they make such a noise with it amongst ignorant and injudicious persons however to men of understanding it is but an impertinent discourse it will be convenient to say something to it and but a little To this then I Answer 1. The Papists cannot in reason charge us with that fault of which themselves are equally guilty nor can they accuse our Faith of that infirmity to which their own is no lesse obnoxious for the generality of unlearned
guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Councels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the churches authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures oâ—â—ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universalâ— Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many severall judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction 1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conâ—cience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe tâ— be the alone Law-giver Iam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. â— 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an externall and politicall Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internall and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more then the rest to be for ever suspended and wrapâ— in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne unâ—versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in expresse termes That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sence of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I meane in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe So againe the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
appointed by Christ as a part of that ground upon which we were to build our rule by which we were to try particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith but was necessary notâ— ex instituto Christi but ex natura rei and from the condition of humane affaires there being no other way without a new revelation possible or imaginable to convey the Gospell and Scriptures to those that were to live so many hundred years after the first publication of it Tradition being to us that which Eyes and Eares were to them that were Eye-witnesses of his convincing miracles and Eare-witnesses of his irrefragable discourses that is neither their Eyes and Eares were nor to us Tradition is the Argument and ground of our Faith but a necessary meane or instrument to convey those Arguments and grounds of Scripture which were convincing and satisfactory 2. This Tradition is no Act of Authority but onely of testimony not at all peculiar to the Church or generall Councels but common to all antient VVriters Yea let it be observed as a very materiall consideration in this point so far is the Capacity of a Church from being necessary to the validity of this Tradition and Testimony concerning the great rule of our Faith the Holy Scriptures that the Testimony and Tradition of such as neither are the Church nor any part of it but enemies to it I meane Jewes and Heathens are in some respects more considerable according to that known maxime Testimonium adversarii contra se est validissimum It being one of the best Arguments and at this day so urged both by Protestants and Papists for the truth of the Holy Scriptures and particularly of the Gospell that the truth of those Historicall relations of Christs miracles was acknowledged by the most Learned Jewes and Heathens that lived in antient times And by those considerations we may discerne the vanity of that triviall calumny of the great differences among Protestants about the rule of Faith and judge of Controversies whereas by what hath been said which is no other then the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches and Writers however sometimes they seem to differ in modo explicandi it appeares how all these severall things concurre like so many Stones fitly compacted together to make up the building of our Faith which that I may in few words present it to the Readers review is this The Scripture is the Object the onely rule and standard of Faith by which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged the res creditae and the ratio credâ—ndi Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh this rule to us and our times Reason is the instrument by which I apprehend or the eye by which I discerne or see this rule The spirit of God is the Eye-salve that anoints mine Eye and inables it to see this rule The Church is the interpreter though not infallible and authentick the witnesse the guardian of this rule and the applier of the generall rules of Scripture to particular cases and times and circumstances And things being thus stated which is really the sence of Protestants in this great point as it were easy to shew from the confessors of our Churches and the Treatises of our most and choicest Authors is it not at all difficult to blow away with a breath those pitifull cavils whereby they indeavour to perplex the mind of ignorant or prejudiced persons lest the light of the Gospell should shine into their minds One thing is worth our Observation That diverse of the Popish arguments do wholly arise from and depend upon either some in commodious expressions of some Protestant Writers or some false exposition put upon them by the adversaries As for instance when they argue against the Scripture from the nature of a Judge that a Judge must heare parties must not be mute but passe sentence c. All these and many such cavillations are thus silenced by saying that which is true that it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and figurative expression when we call Scripture a Judge in as much as it is the voice or writing of our Judge and indeed it is a rule So their Arguments against the judgment of reason either have no weight in them at all or else depend upon a scandalous and untrue suggestion as if the Protestants made reason the Judge in a Socinian sence So their Arguments against the Spirits being judge do proceed I doubt from a willfull mistake for in their Learned Writers it cannot be ignorance as if the Protestants submitted Scripture and reason and all to the judgment of the spirit in themselves in an Enthusiastick notion which is so farre from being true that they try and judge of the spirit by the Word according to Apostolicall prescription This being premised I come now to treat with my Captaine and weigh his Arguments that have any colour or appearance of truth in them And first he argues against reasons being the judge of Controversies Concerning which let me be bold to say thus much That the Papists themselves do make reason judge of Controversies as farre as the Protestants do though both the one and other tye up this judge to a rule If it be said the Protestants make the reason of every particular man judge which indeed they do in the sence forementioned and for their own actions so do the Papists make the reason of the Pope or a Councell the judge For when they say the Pope or Counsell is the Judge of Controversies I would know what it is in them if not their reason which is the judge as it is their reason which examineth and heareth and considereth so sure it is the same reason which concludeth and judgeth so that the question between the Papists and Protestants is not whether Reason be the judge but whether the reason of particular persons or the reason of the Pope or Councell The Arguments which he urgeth against the judgment of reason are so irrationall that it is sufficient confutation to mention them 1. Saith he Reason must submit to the Judge E. it is not the Judge Answ. It is true supreme Judge it is not but subordinate and tied to rule Protestants assert no more 2. The Judge must be Infallible but reason is Fallible Ergo Answ The Major is a pitifull petitio principii They that help'd him to make his Book will tell him what it meanes 3. If reason were Judge a man might please God without Faith for reason would teach us sufficiently how to please God Answ The same Argument will overthrow his Church If the Church be the Judge then a man may please God without faith for the Church teacheth us sufficiently how to please God 4. If Reason be Judge we must not believe what we do not understand Answ Non sequitur For this Judge is tied up to a Law and rule which commands us to believe what we do not understand But I am sick of such wofull Arguments though the
poore Captaine hath no better and therefore I will quit that work and come to that which is more materiall viz. To try whether he hath any better against the Scripture And here also I shall do his cause that right as with him to take into consideration what is said by M r Cressy in his Exomologesis which I am the more willing to do because if the Popish cause have any strength in it and if the Doctrine of the Scripture alone being Judge and rule of Controversies be untrue and indefensible as they pretend it is we may expect the demonstration of it from a man of his wit and learning and experience in the Controversy as having thoroughly considered all pretensions and arguments of both parties and taken in the advice of the most famed Doctors of the Romish Church But I must not dissemble that I was wofully disappointed in the perusall of M r Cressy's piece and whereas I expected something solid and substantiall or at least very plausible which I might have some ground in charity to believe might give at least a colour for his change I find little in him worthy of consideration but what hath allready received satisfactory Answers Yet because the cause affords no better Arguments I shall briefly consider what he and the Captaine and his assistants deliver in this matter That the Scripture is not the onely rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies is the Proposition they attempt to prove and their Arguments are those which follow Arg. 1. Scripture cannot be this Judge and Rule because it did not answer its end for they that own this Judge disagree among themselves Everard Epist. p. 33. Scripture doth not reconcile them Thus Cressy by this rule it is impossible that ever Controversies should be ended Sect. 2. chap. 4. n. 1. Answ. Scripture might be as really it was designed instituted and ordained for the ruling of mens Faith and the judging and deciding Controversies though through the depravednesse of men this end might not be obtained If this Argument have any weight in it I may upon the same ground argue thus Preaching of the Gospell was not instituted for the salvation of the World because it doth not answer its end but proves to many a favouâ— of death Or the Law of God was not instituted by God for a rule of life because it doth not obtaine its end and men will not be ruled by it In a word let it be observed If this Argument prove any thing it proves what the very Papists deny that the Scripture is not so much as a part of the rule neither of Faith nor manners for still according to the present Argument it doth not Answer its end for there is no one controversy in Faith which Scripture alone decides so as to silence all differences which is the thing pretended necessary to a Judge of Controversies For the further discovery of the impertinency and vanity of this Argument however it is their Goliah which they boast most of I shall offer them this Dilemma relating to that power of ending all differences among Christians which they suppose was necessary for and by Christ committed to the Judge of Controversies Either I say that power is absolute unconditionall and effectuall and if so there could be no Heresies Schismes or differences in the Christian World which we see is most false or it is a conditionall power sufficient of it self for the ending of differences though frustrable and impedible in its effects by the ignorance or perversenesse of men which is the reall truth And in this sense the Scripture may be judge i. e. there is enough in it said and clearly delivered by which all Controversies might be ended if men would be humble studious and self-denying and in the former sense the Church of Rome is no judge of Controversies Peradventure it will be said that all men are bound to submit and hearken to all the decrees of the Church of Rome and when they do so submit it is an effectuall meane to end all differences In the very same manner and upon farre better grounds I say of the Scripture that all are bound to submit and hearken to all its Councels and decrees and when they do so it will effectually end all Controversies If it be further said that the Church hath a power of coercion to compel dissenters to submit I Answer either that coercion they speak of is spirituall by Church censures excommunication c. or civill by corporall penalties death c. If they understand it of civill coercion that is not at all necessary nor intrinsecall to an Ecclesiasticall judge of Controversies otherwise the Apostles who had not this civill power Nay Christ himselfe who denies that he was judge or ruler should not be such a Judge and the Church for the first 300 years had no judge of Controversies Nay the Papists themselves in pretence at least abjudicate this from the Church and referre it wholly to the Civill Power If they speak of a Spirituall coercion then the Scripture hath such a power of inflicting Spirituall penalties upon its violaters and contemners such as obduration and ejection from the presence of God and such excommunication as the other is but a shadow of it And whether they speak of one or other the Protestant Judge of Controversies is not destitute of either advantage If it be remembred that the Protestants own an Ecclesiasticall Politicall Judge whiâ—h Judge although their modesty will not suffer them to pretend to Infallibility and a power to oblige all people to receive all their decrees though anti-Scripturall without enquiry and though they say with the Apostle they have their power for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 and they can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and though it is their advice to their people which was the counsell of the Apostle to his people 1 Cor. 11.1 Be followers of me even as I also am of Christ Yet they have a power to explaine and maintaine the Doctrines of the Scripture and they acknowledge a power in the Magistrate by civill sanctions and penalties to suppresse and restraine such as shall corrupt the Truth and infect peoples soules with the poyson of Hereticall Doctrines And this may abundantly serve for Answer to their Achilles or principall argument which makes such a noise in the world Arg. 2. Scripture cannot be a perfect rule because some books of Scripture are lost and it is the whole Scripture which is this rule Ans 1. Then Tradition also cannot be a rule for diverse Traditions are lost as Cressy confesseth Sect. 1. ch 8. n. 5. and all the Papists acknowledg Answ. 2. It doth not at all appeare that any one of those Books are lost which concerned controversies of Faith or the rule of Life All which to this day hath been proved is this That some Books Written by Holy men and Prophets are lost But it is a vaine
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
attain that end and be unconvincing nay more Scripture is not profitable for doctrine if it onely beget conjectures and opinions and doth not give solid and satisfying evidence of its doctrines and if it do evidently assert or prove a Truth it must by consequence as evidently convince and consute the contrary error For example if any Scripture positively assert that Christ is the true God and equal with the Father as de facto it doth doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Hereticks who make Christ but a Creature and inferior to the Father Neither let him tell me of their cavils against such places for so Anaxagoras did cavill against those that said Snow was white and gave a reason for it saith Tully because the water of which it had its rise was black yet no man I think will deny that there is convincing evidence even in foro contentioso of its whitenesse 3. The Scripture was convincing formerly and therefore it is so still for I do not know that it hath lost any of its vertue Christ proved himself to be the Messias out of the Scriptures in sundry places and I think Mr. White will not deny that all Christ's arguments were convincing So Christ proves his Lordship and Divinity out of the Scriptures and I think convincingly for his Adversaries were not able to answer him a word out of the Psalmes Read Mat. 22.42 c. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jewes out of the Scripture and proved as they did out of the scriptures that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ I would know whether their scripture-proofs were solid and convincing or no if they deny it they make the Apostles deceivers and wresters of the scriptures if they affirm then scripture is convincing Once more we read Act. 18.28 of Apollos that he mightily convinced the Jewes shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. I am ashamed to mention more arguments in so clear a cause and yet we must believe these men against our senses and reason and conscience that the scriptures are not able to convince men in foro contentioso and Mr. VVhite who sometimes writes as if he believed an everlasting state dares hazard it upon such false and frivolous suppositions Excep 4. This word All Scripture must signify either every Scripture as the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred and then all Scripture save one Book is uselesse or all the Scriptures that ever were and then we have them not or all that were then written and then all since written are superfluous or all that we now have Epist. pag. 29.30 Ans. The Text speaks not of every scripture but of all the scriptures that then were As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two things are evident enough 1. That it may be taken collectively and the use of the word will warrant it I see the Captain is grown a Graecian therefore I shall desire him to look onely into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectivè not distributivè Mat. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole herd not every herd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole city v. 34. 2. That it must be so taken here our Adversaries being judges for else this confessed inconvenience will follow That any one verse of the Scripture is profitable and sufficient to all these purposes nor doth it at all follow that all the rest are superfluous because not precisely necessary The Pentateuch alone was a sufficient law for the Jewes yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous Excep 5. He sayes not the Scriptures are sufficient but onely profitable Cressy Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every good work and what is so is undoubtedly sufficient 2. He saith they are profitable so far as to make one wise to salvation and I think that is sufficient 3. He saith they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation which are acknowledged to be onely two Faith and Life and they are profitable to both of them 1 for doctrine i. the demonstration of the Truth 2. for conviction or reproof i.e. the consutation of errors 3. for correction i.e. the reproof of sins 4. for instruction in righteousnesse or the discovery of Duties And what is thus every way profitable cannot with any colour be charged with insufficiency Excep 6. It is a clear case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and applyed by a Preacher Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various elogiums which are here so emphatically given to all the Scripture do as truly belong to any one verse of Scripture By this those two words Dic Ecclesiae Tell the Church are able to make one wise to salvation and furnished to every good work c. for so they are or may be through God's blessing if explicated and applied by an able preacher So those words Abraham beg at Isa ac are able to all these mentioned purposes viz. if explicated and applyed So you see the Church of Rome is grown superlatively orthodox for they who ere while would not allow all the Scripture to be sufficient are now so abundantly satisfied in the point that they allow any one verse in the Bible not excluding Tobit went and his dog followed him to be sufficient This I hope may suffice for the vindication of this Text wherein I have been the larger because it is most plain and impregnable to our purpose and sufficient of it self to decide the whole controversy I shall not concern my selfe or trouble the Reader with the vindication of other Texts to the same purpose which are many and considerable and with great facility defensible against all the Romish assaults because to him that submits to the authority and self-evidencing light of this Text that labour is superfluous and to him whose Conscience will suffer his wit to quarrel against such forcible and clear expressions and arguments as this Teâ—t affords it is frustraneous And therefore upon the evidence that hath been delivered I shall take the boldnesse to conclude That not the Church but the Scripture is the sufficient Rule and Infallible Guide by which we are to be regulated in all things pertaining to Faith or Godlinesse FINIS Doctor Jesuita Ad quem peâ—â—inet de libris Canonicis Determinare Catholicus Papista Ad â—cclâ—siam sine cuâ—us authoritate non plus fidci aâ—hiberem Maâ—thaeo quam Tito Livio par 1 â—â— 12. (b) Poâ—uit illud pio sensu dici Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. (c) Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem nullum pondus nullam vim erga nos nostram fidem nisi
de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the Anathema's of Councels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alledged either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered pag. 45. Everards arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies examined answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissentâ—rs p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonicall books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sence of Scripture p. 57. 5. About fundamentall points p. 59. 4. Protestants have not the Originals but onely Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes p. 68. 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great apâ—plauded aâ—guments in his Daâ—â—alogues refuted The first taken from the greaâ— uncertainâ—y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88. The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued onely from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Councels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence the Reader will easily discerne The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decisâ—on p. 9. l. 7. r. Gretâ—â—â—â—â— p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. least p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because for best p. â—0 l. 8. r. least p. â—5 l. 26. r. Grill. â—â—â— acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. â—â—d there for â—y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4 r fricat â—b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosiâ—â— p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the citâ—tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apotaâ—â—ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iuâ—â— read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuallâ— p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Tâ—stimonie and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her then they sall into diverse opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimonie and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie and this present Churh too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a generall Councell and others the Pope and a Councell together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universall or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proofe For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome then the Bishop of York the onely plea is that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabrick of Popery There is no man so grosly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion that
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
and which are spurious For that there are great multitude of spurious Writings masked under the names of the Fathers is acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis Bel. and others and the Fathers themselves oft complained of that practise in their daies So again Scripture is obscure and ambiguous and full of seeming contradictions and there are many disputes about the true sence and therefore it cannot be the rule of my faith say Bellarm. Becanus Costorus and the rest The same may be more justly said against the Authority of the Fathers Their obscurity and ambiguity appeares from the very same Arguments which they bring to make good their charge against the Scriptures even from the multitude of Comments which Learned men have made upon the darke passages of the Fathers in which no lesse then in S t Pauls Epistles are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things hard to be understood which men of corrupt minds wrest to their own destruction and from the great disputes which are at this day fervent in the World concerning the judgments of the Fathers and their meaning in severall passages ' about which there are as fierce contests as about any passages of the Scripture it having been truly observed by indifferent persons that both Papists and Protestants have fortified their severall and contrariant assertions with plausible allegations from the Fathers Nor are there onely seeming contradictions in the Fathers as there are in Scripture but most reall and direct ones and if it be not enough that one of them contradicts another many pregnant instances are given of the same Father in one place contradicting himselfe in another But for this and other things concerning the Fathers Authority I must refer the Reader to those Learned Authors that have exemplified this in severall Instances Once more The Scripture they say is corrupted and falsified in severall places and so unfit to be a rule And have the Fathers Works seen no corruption Yes we have it under the hands of Possevinus Sixtus Senensis Bellarm. and others who confess their hard hap in this particular and how wofully they are corrupted in multitudes of places and needs must the Fathers fare worse then the Scriptures herein because they were never preserved with that care and conscience which was exercised about the Holy Scriptures Therefore either they must quit their Arguments against the Scriptures Authority or else renounce the Authority of the Fathers which is obnoxious to the same inconveniencies §. 4 2. That the Fathers whose writings are extant for of them this proposition treats are not infallible may be undeniably evinced from the Hypothesis of our Adversaries and the supposed subject of that Infallibility which is pretended Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church say all the Papists The onely question is What this Church is Some make it the Pope others a Councell others the whole body of the faithfull but they generally agree that it must be some one or all of those But the Fathers I am here discoursing of are not one or all of these and therefore they cannot pretend to the supposed infallibility nor can the Papists by their own principles ascribe it to them to which may be added That if the Pope himselfe notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility may erre as a private Doctor either in speaking or writing which all the Papists grant how can either any or most of them who have no other capacity but that of a private Doctor be exempt from a possibility of erring And consequently the Fathers are not infallible nor a solid foundation for a Papists faith Sect. 5. Again if they will needs obtrude upon us this upstart Infallibility of particular fathers I demand whether this infallibility belongs to all the fathers that lived in one Age or only to the Writers of that Age or only to those of the Writers whose works have had better hap then others to come to our hand and whether to all them together or onely to a part of them For one of these they must unavoydably assert If they say the first that this Infallibility was in all the fathers that lived in one Age or the Major part of them as in reason they must for what Scripture or Reason had one to pretend Infallibility more then another excepting alwayes the Bishop of Room of whose Infallibility it must bee confessed there was never any quaestion namely in those dayes none had the impudence to assert it if that be granted yet those few whose writings are extant of whom alone our controversie is might all be fallible though the Major part of the Fathers be acknowledged infallible If it be said those Fathers do not onely speak their own sence but the sence of the Church of their Age and in that respect they are infallible which is the common plea and most plausible Argument they use in this point The Fathers are infallible not in their expositions but in their traditions and the Doctrines they deliver as received from their Ancestors Thus Sr Kenelm Digby White Holden and the Papists of the new Modell This I shall have occasion to handle more largely afterward At present it may suffice to answer two things 1 That it is most certain they are so far from delivering the sence of the Church of that Age in the controversies between us and the Romanists that they seldom touch upon the most of them and when they do it it is obiter and by accident not ex professo and solemnly they being then taken up with other matters as disputing against Jewes and Gentiles and the hereticks of that Age 2 However that being purely matter of fact to understand and report the History of the Churches Doctrine in their Age if they were infallible in matters of Faith yet in point of fact they were not infallible For the Pope himself is allowed to bee fallible in such matters and as it is confessed the Pope may erre through fear or hope or humane passions as Liberius Marcellinus and others did at best for a season so doubtlesse might the Fathers either through weaknesse misunderstand or through favour or prejudice misreport the sence of others of which it were easy to give many Instances If the second thing be asserted that this Infallibility belongs only to the Writers of each Age wee would desire them to set theâ—r inventions on work to devise a reason why the Writers were infallible â—and not the Preachers seeing the Apostles who had and all others that pretend to Infallibility as the Pope and Councell challenge it equally in their Sermons and Writings in their verbal and written decrees and much lesse can they with any colour assert that this Infallibility belongs only to those Writers which are come to our hands as if it were not sufficient for the rest that they lost their Writings but they must also lose their Infallibility And yet such is the impudence of these men and the desperatenesse of their cause that
they are found to attribute this Infallibility not onely to all conjunctly but to the most of that smal remnant of surviving Writers as you saw from their expressions which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert I shall take the boldnesse to aske by what right shall five Fathers vid. Dionysius Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and Hermes supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age I say by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name or priviledge of the whole Catholick Church of that Age for it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made in what Scripture or Father or Lexicon do five Fathers make up the whole Church True it is the Pope hath a peculiar priviledge in this point and is by the Jesuites invested with the name of the Church The Church Virtuall And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title for having swallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church he ought to have the Name into the bargain But setting aside that prodigious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would know why I might not as well say that five of the Romish Doctors viz. Salmeron Canus Costerus Stapleton and Bellarmine are the Church of Rome or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England nay all the Protestant World as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age Yet againe forasmuch as they ascribe infallibility not onely to all but also to the major part of the Fathers of these five then two may erre by their own confession And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions Well then to keep to this particular instance It is granted that Dionysius may erre and so may Ignatius then the Infallibility is preserved in Clemens and Polycarpus and Hermes But they also or any two of them may erre in other things and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius and Ignatius and Hermes Thus it seems Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball from one to another and they have it by turnes Such monsters must be in the Conclusion if Infallibility be in the premises That is enough for the second Argument § 5. The third Argument is this The Fathers professe they are not infallible either they say true or false if true then they are not infallible if false then they erred in that assertion and therefore are not Infallible So the Papists are gone by their own Argument and rule too For here we have the consent of the Fathers It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose I shall onely suggest some few which are evident and undeniable in this particular Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets by the Gospell and by the Apostles and he addes If any man think this Principle needs another Principle he doth not indeed keep that Principle But the Papists say the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it viz. the Churches Authority Ergo the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostacy And he addes that the standard by which things are to be examined is not the testimony of men therefore not the Testimony of Fathers Councels Popes who I thinke are all men save onely that severall of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts but the Word of the Lord. And lest you should understand it of Tradition he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord We do not saith he believe the assertions of men they must not onely say but prove and that too from the Scriptures What can be more expresse So Basil tels us The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers they must receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject those things which are contrary to it Where we plainly see S t Basils direct contrariety to the principles and practise of the Romish Church 1. St Basil allowes his heares to examine their teachers Doctrine so do not the Papists The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastours that if their Pastours shoulderre the people were bound to erre with them saith Tannerus A Christian is bound to receive the Churches Doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine Pastours are simply to be heard in all things nor are we to consider what is said but who said it i. e. if he were a lawfull Pastour as Stapleton bellowes it out for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man And yet these are the men who will not depart a nailes bredth from the Fathers This is the Church the principall note whereof is consent with the Fathers of which you may judge by this and what we shall adde from others 2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined not Fathers not Councels not Traditions but the Papists are of another minde S t Clara. tels us of a Popish Treatise written by a friend of his solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sorbon so you see it is no particular fancy but a received opinion where saith he that Author expresly asserts that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures because and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily i.e. She doth not receive Tradition because and so far as it agrees with Scripture And thus far doubtlesse he was in the right saith S t Clare And consequently Basil was in the wrong That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten That Christ alone is to be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought but what he that was before all Christ first did for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God If the Papists would say as much this controversy would be at an end And it is observable that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and animadversions whereever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions passeth over this place with profound silence as well seeing it was so hot it would have burned his Fingers St Chrysostome is as fully Protestant in this particular as if he had been of Councell in our cause in two points he is positive for us 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude but let us examine things
should not be admitted to the vision of God before the day of judgment So much Perron confesseth and Sixtus Senensis That the Saints should raigne with Christ a thousand years that Pamelius grants In all these and severall others it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary how truly and justly I dispute not nor is it materiall to my purpose which is onely to shew how upon all occasions where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any whom they most traduce for so doing But would you know the mistery of this why The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church saith Duraeus In earnest that saying deserved a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuite seconds him in it where putting this question Whether the Authority of the Doctors Fathers ought to be admitted he answers Yes as fâ—r as the Church approves of them The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please I will adde a third that you may see it is a ruled case and that is Gresserus A Father saith he is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine but if instead of corne he give chaff or tares he is not now a Father but a step-Father not a teacher but a seducer When the Fathers say any thing which seems to countenance their positions then they are Fathers uncorrupt judges infallible interpreters and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall goe one haires breadth from them But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them and contradict his interest or opinion then it is time to take them a peg lower then they call them Fathers but make children of them They had better have held their Tongues for now all comes out and the Papists are the Chams as they call the Protestants who uncover their Fathers nakednesses Then Eusebius who when he is Orthodox in the Romane account passeth for a most famous Writer a most learned man and a Catholick with Lindanus Sixtus Senensis and others is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretick with Costerus and Baronius Then poor Tertullian who when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers with Lindanus is not so much as a man of the Church nay he is an hereticall Author an heresiarch a Montanist say Azorius and Bellarm Then Origen who when he is a good boy passeth for a witnesse beyond exception with Duraeus another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus is a meer schismatick saith Canus the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate Then Constantine himselfe that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor then Doctor saith Bellarm. Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine Nay I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages which might have been done with one Blot provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages What need I trouble my selfe and the Reader with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sence of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture and preferring new interpretations before them not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt That no man should dare to interpret Scripture against the common consent of the Fathers For which I shall onely referre the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied that this was the opinion and practise of the Learned and approved Romanists as Cajetan Pererius Maldonate and severall others § 9. In short to strike the businesse dead you shall have the positive judgment of the principall pillars of the Romish Church Sacred Doctrine saith Aquinas useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church onely as a probable Argument for our faith leanes upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets not to other Doctors The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith saith Biel It is the property of the Holy Scriptures that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius The Writings of the Fathers saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis are not a rule and have not authority to oblige me And not contented to assert he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the Fathers without and their perfect subjection to the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome The Fathers execute the office of Doctors but Counsels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God And againe The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church but all are his sonnes No wonder then that the sonnes are subject to the Father not the Fathers to the Sonnes Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out the Pope may use his Authority Really these Jesuites are most ingenious fellowes they are resolved never to be at a non-plus when they saw the Scripture was not for their turnes they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the â—athers destructive to their Hierarchy then it must be consent of the Fathers Now because they know they cannot make out the consent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith Here is a Salvo for that the Popes Authority is evident It is but saying that is a first Principle and all controversies are at an end By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fathers is neither ex veritate rei in truth nor ex opinione Pontificiorum in the judgment of the Papists a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved I shall dismisse this with two Observations 1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principall foundation of Faith viz. the Authority of the Fathers 2. I shall leave this Syllogisme taken out of their own Authors to the consideration of the prudent Reader If you take away the authority of Fathers and Councels all things in the Church are uncertaine saith Eccius as you saw before But Bâ—llarmine and
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
Spirit of God his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Divell By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blinde may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with othâ—rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles wherein by the Argument I have now in consideration it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors or wittingly to deceive their posterity That which they make impossible to be done the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done it being impossible that the Fathers should make such a decree if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tradition as Bellarmine chargeth them or wilfully and maliciously opposed it as the Pope accuseth them And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome it irresistibly followes that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designes use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages in times of ignorance and carelesnesse when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer wherein I have been the more prolix because it strikes at the root of the Argument not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the wayes and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falshoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will adde but one thing more § 24. Answ. 8. and last If the Tradition pretended give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines but such as they have received from the Apostles But the Romish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles This I might take for granted having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content my self with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largeâ—y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Originall sin The present Doctrine of the Romish Church or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it is for her immaculate conception as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities c. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent sufficiently appeares from their Decree about Originall sin though cunningly and doubtfully delivered as the Devils Oracles used to be in which Decree they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin The sence of which decree according to that favourable glosse which M r White puts upon it was this That the Councell did judge both opinions probable Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true which is an implicit contradiction 2. Seeing in this hot contest not yet ended between the different factions of the Romanists in this point both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tradition Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them Ergo it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers as I have shewed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessâ—d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture according to its genuine meaning But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition therefore he addes presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles But it is evident that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spight of your eyes you shall believe not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fathers to Children even from the Apostles dayes but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scripture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom Canus gives us Origâ—n Damascen Athanasius and Melito a famous and antient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgment and venâ—rable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principall residence and employment to learne out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books and returnes with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolicall Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell within the compasse of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for ought appeares in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seemes by the story
make an infinite of two finites and of two guilty persons make up one innocent But this also is destroyed by themselves For although the divided parties seem to patch up an Agreement yet indeed they are as much at variance as ever For the Jesuites make the Pope alone Infallible and the Councell onely in dependance upon him And their Adversaries ascribe this Infallibility to the Councell alone and to the Pope onely by communication from them And so they are both gone by the Arguments allready mentioned under each of those heads And if we may believe either there is security in neither And besides all these diverse of their late Learned Writers reject the Infallibility both of Pope and Councels as White Holden Cressy S r Kenelme Digby c. who assert that neither one nor other are further Infallible then they keep to the Golden rule of Tradition and in that sence every Christian viz. so farre as he keeps to Tradition is Infallible 6. The next devise is orall Tradition and the Authority of the present Church who are therefore right because they say so So this is a confirmation of their Faith answerable to his confutation who answered all Bellarmines works with saying Mentir is Bellarmine Bellarmine thou liest In like manner do these men confute all the Protestant Writers and maintaine their own Tenets by saying recte dicis Domine Papa or mater Ecclesia That the Pope and present Church are in the right Thus their bare assertion must passe for a solid demonstration their pretence that they hold nothing but what they had frō the Apostles must be admitted as a proof that it is so shadowes must go for substances But this besides the ridiculousnes of begging the questiō craving what they cānot prove is denied by the greatest Pillars of their own Church and such as with whom the Authors of this new and wild fancy will not compare themselves either for number or quality For this is the known and most approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Tradition and Scripture both are two dead letters and partiall rules and there is besides these required a living judge indued with supreme and infallible Authority and without this judge we cannot infallibly understand and are not bound to receive and believe either the one or the other 7. At last they are so hard put to it that they cannot leap out of the Circle nor extricate themselves out of that Labyrinth in which their conceit of Infallibility hath involved them without Miracles In come the marks of the Church and the glory of Miracles And thus farre I shall discharge them from that invincible difficulty of proving the truth of their most famous miracles for if they can prove the Infallibility of their Church I will give it under my hand that they can worke a Miracle for then they can reconcile contradictions and they can do that which the ineffectuall essayes of all their greatest wits have shewed to be above the wit of man or Devill either for doubtlesse those Popes who had familiar acquaintance with the Devill would not faile to take in his advice and assistance for the defence of their Infallibility and therefore must needs be acknowledged for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or workers of Miracles Thus I have dispatched their severall pretences and shewed the nullity of them all and consequently the nullity of their Faith § 24. There is onely one thing to be added They have one Argument more which although if their other cords break they acknowledg this will not hold yet because they use much to insist upon it I shall consider in a few words And that is an Argument taken from the providence of God and his care over the Church It is fit and necessary lay they that there should be some infallible Judge that could finally end all Controversies and therefore there is such an one and they are that Judge I know no man in the world can leap further at three jumps 1. There ought to be 2. There is an Infallible Judge 3. Their Church is it § 25. Answ. 1. Why may not I turne their Argument upon them God hath not provided such a judge Ergo such a judge is not necessary VVhen God thought fit to appoint a judge for the decision of some controversies in the Old Testament he thought fit to expresse the person the place his work his power And if the Popish doctrine be true that this Judge is of such necessity that without him we cannot understand and are not bound to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and that submission to this Judge is necessary to Salvation it is ten thousand times more incredible that God to whom all our present controversies were not unforeseen should not leave us some mention of it in those Scriptures which are written for this end that we might believe Joh. 20.31 and that we might be made wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Then that such a Judge is necessary If God had but said instead of Tell the Church Tell the Bishop of Rome or heare the Bishop of Rome in all things all those infinite and dreadfull distractions divisions persecutions errours and mischiefes which have since risen in the world had been prevented So if reason may be judge who can believe it consistent with the goodnesse of God or Christs care over his Church or Gods designe in giving the Scriptures to omit such a necessary point as this upon which all the rest had depended especially when Doctrines of far lesse concernment are there plainly recorded and often repeated § 26. Answ. 2. If once men suffer their understandings to mount so high as to teach God what is fit and positively to conclude that to be done which they judge fit to be done It opens a gap to Atheisme and to all imaginable Superstition What a fine modell of Divinity should we have if once this doore were open'd It was fit that all the Translators of the Bible should have infallible guidance that they might not mistake in a letter It was fit that the Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility should have been ingraven upon every mans heart or at least plainly revealed in the Bible this being of more use then all the Bible besides since the Pope could have supplied the want of a Bible And as Chillingworth well argues it was as fit that every Minister should have been Infallible that all the Popes should be free from grosse wickednesse as all other infallible persons recorded in Scripture were It was fit that obstinate Hereticks should be consumed with fire from Heaven Therefore by this Argument all these things are done how much better and more becomming is it for a Christian to say with the Apostle who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor Rom. 11.34 Then boldly to measure God by our own fancies and tie him to our fond imaginations § 27. 3. If it be
granted that there is an Infallible judge yet it doth not their work for particular Christians are not Infallibly assured of the Infallibility of their Church unlesse they will say that every Papist is Infallible And therefore no particular Papist hath better ground for his Faith upon this score then the Protestants have for they neither have nor pretend to better Arguments upon which they believe their Church to be this Supreme and Infallible judge then what Protestants alledge to prove the Scripture to be judge viz. Texts of Scripture Tradition Fathers Councels Miracles rationall Arguments c. And if a Protestant may be deceived in these when he inferres from them the Infallibility of the Scripture why may not a Papist be deceived when he inferres from them the Infallibility of his Church since he hath no better Arguments nor more Infallible guidance And therefore as to particular Christians of whom the whole Church consists and about whom alone the care of Christ and Gods Providence is exercised God hath not taken more effectuall care for their infallible guidance according to the Romish Principles then according to ours For as they say Protestants have no security for their Faith though the Scripture be Infallible because they cannot Infallibly underitand it or believe this to be the Scripture so say I the Papists have no security of the Infallibility of their Church though the Churches Infallibility be acknowledged true in it self since they cannot infallibly know either that there is such an infallibility or theirs to be the Church to whom it is promised § 28. 4. It is neither necessary nor suitable to the methods of Gods Providence and the declarations of his will that there should be a finall end and infallible judge of all controversies in this life That which these men teil us was fit to be done God hath told us he did not judge fit and who is most credible do you judge 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be Heresies that they which are approved may be made manifest God hath acquainted us that it is his pleasure that Tares should grow with the Wheat unto the end of the World In respect of wicked men it was fit in regard of Gods Justice that there should be stones of stumbling and Rocks of offence for the punishment of those that were disobedient And in regard of elect and sincere Christians who live holily and humbly believe and pray fervently and seek the true way diligently such a judge is not necessary God having provided for them other wayes by giving them the promise of his Spirit and guidance into Truth which is as good security as the Pope himselfe hath or pretends for his supposed Infallibility by that anointing which teacheth them all things 1 Ioh. 2. 27. in confidence of whose conduct they may say with David Thou shalt guide me with thy counsell and afterwards receive me to Glory Psal. 73. 24. They are kept by Gods power 1 Pet. 1. 5. and the care and strength of Christ Ioh. 10. And what need a Christian desire more Truly saith Amesius God hath provided for the safety of the Godly not for the curiosity or perversnesse of other men And therefore this plea must go after all the rest and they are still lest in a Forlorne and desperate because in a faithlesse condition And thus having forced my way through all the obstructions which they laid before us I know not what hinders but I may pronounce the sentence notwithstanding all their big looks and glorious pretences of Infallibility notwithstanding all the noise of Scripture Fathers Popes Councels Tradition Miracles when things come to be scanned it appeares they have no foundation for their Faith and consequently have no Faith Lord be mercifull to them CHAP. VII Of the Solidity of the Protestants foundation of Faith § 1. HAppily they will fay of us as Ierome did of Lactantius that he could facilius aliena destruere quam stabiline sua that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith then make our own good I shall therefore though it be besides my present designe which is onely to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility in few words enquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith then the Papists have And this I shall shew onely by one Argument The Popish foundation of faith is such as many of their own great Doctours are unsatisfied in There being no foundation laid by any of them but it is both denied and disproved by others no lesse eminent of their own communion as I have proved at large and such as is unanimously opposed by all Protestants and solidly disproved But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches of what denomination soever are agreed in yea such as diverse of our most learned Adversaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient You will say if you can prove this the controversy will be at an end and if I do not let the Reader Judge There are but three things that need proof 1. That the Books of Scripture which Protestants build their Faith upon are and may be proved to be the word of God 2. That in the substantials of Faith these Books are uncorrupted 3 That the sence of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary points § 2. For the first That the Protestants Bible is and may be proved to be the word of God It is true when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question as they call it to them How know you Scripture to be the word of God what matters it how I know it seeing they acknowledg it and by granting the thing make their question superfluous But I Answer I know it even by the Confession of our Adversaries So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation and the testimony of an adversary against himself is undeniabe It may be of good use here a little to compare the several discourses of learned Papists to different persons and how prettily they contradict themselves and confute their own arguments When the Papists dispute against us they tell us It is impossible to know the Scripture to be the word of God but by the Churches Testimony But if you take them in their lucid intervals and their disputes against Atheists or Heathens then you shall have them in another tune then Bellarmine can say Nothing is more evidâ—nt and more certain then the Sacred Scriptures so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them Here he can furnish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture distinct from and independent upon the Churches authority the verity of Prophecies harmony of writers works of Providence glory of Miracles consent of Nations c. Either then these arguments do solidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures or they do not if they do not then
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
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
imagination without the shadow of a proofe that all which was written by such men was a part of Canonicall or Divine Scripture for we read that the Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost which inspired them not at all times but onely when he pleased there being this difference between the spirits inspiration of Christ and all other Holy men that it was in Christ without measure and without difference of time but in the Apostles it was a gift confined to such seasons and proportions as God saw fit for them Is any man so absurd as to think that every letter which a Prophet or Apostle might write about any private affaires was a part of the Sacred Scripture Or if Solomons Herball were extant must it needs be admitted into the Canon of the Sacred Scripture Or how can they prove and if they do not prove it this Argument is impertinent that the Histories which Ioshua or Nathan or Samuel or Gad c. might or did write concerning the Warres of the Lord or the Civill transactions of the Kingdomes of Israel and Iudah must needs be a part of the Canon Or did the temporary transient and extraordinary inspirations of the Holy-Gost deprive them of their common gifts and faculties And was the capacity of a Prophet inconsistent with that of an Historian or because Balaam was once inspired must we needs Canonize all that afterwards he spake if it were extant or because Hannah was once inspired 1 Sam. 2. and Simeon and Elizabeth Luk. 1. did ever any man unlesse in a dream imagine that all their after Discourses were Canonicall Answ. 3. Although fragmenta auri sunt pretiosa the least shreds of Scripture are of inestimable value yet we must distinguish between the essentiall and integrall parts of the rule of Faith every part and parcell of it is a choice blessing for our bene esse and more abundant direction and consolation yet is it not an essentiall part of the rule of Faith for the farre greatest part of those sacred Books is spent in the explication of such general lawes and directions as were of themselves sufficient strictè loquendo or the repetition of the same things which mans dulnesse and backwardnesse to such things made highly expedient and beneficiall The five Books of Moses were sufficient to Salvation before any of the other Books were indited and the following Writings of the Prophets were but Comments upon them which if by Gods providence they had been lost no doubt the first five Books would have been sufficient for Salvation for that state of the Church So when St Matthew had VVritten his Gospell wherein the Doctrine of the person and office and works of Christ who is the marrow of both Testaments and the sole-sufficient object of saving knowledge Ioh. 17.3 is clearly revealed and fully proved I do assert and let any of our Adversaries prove the contrary if they can that that had been sufficient for our Salvation And yet it must be acknowledged a wonderfull favour from God that he hath so plentifully provided for us and so carefully watched by his Providence for the preservation of the severall Books of Scripture that all the wit and learning of Adversaries can only furnish them with two instances of Apostolicall VVritings which they suppose to be lost viz. one Epistle from Laodicea and another to the Corinthians Arg. 3. A rule must be plaine and cleare but the Scriptures are darke and doubtfull and that in things appertaining to Salvation as appeares from 2 Pet. 3.16 things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their destruction Now this could not bring destruction if they were not hard in things appertaining to Salvation And here the Captaine musters up severall necessary Doctrines which he supposeth not to be clearly laid down in Scripture Answ. The Scripture is plaine and cleare in things necessary to Salvation as hath been abundantly evinced by Protestants out of expresse Scriptures and consent of Fathers But that belongs to another point and I do not love to mingle distinct questions together therefore to them I shall referre the Reader onely I shall take notice of such assaults as he hath made upon this Doctrine For the Text 2 Pet. 3.16 I confesse I do not meet with any passage so plausible as this in his whole Book But the solution of the doubt is not difficult If you consider 1. To whom these things are said to be darke even to ignorant unstable ungodly men VVhen Protestants say Scripture is cleare they do not meane it is so to those that are blind or to them that shut their Eyes or have discoloured Eyes and such are they of whom those things are said but unto such as are humble and diligent in the use of means to find out the Truth not onely some passages of St Paul but in generall all Divine and Spirituall Truths are darke to the naturall man and such there is no reason to doubt these were as is positively asserted by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnesse unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned and consequently if the Popish argument from this place have any force in it not onely some parts of Scripture will be dark but not any part of it will be plaine which the most impudent Papist durst never yet assert 2. The wresting of the Scripture in any of its truths or doctrines is so great a sin that it may well be called destructive though the doctrine wrested be not simply necessary to salvation as the disbeliefe and contempt of any Truth or assertion plainly delivered by God is confessed to be damnable though the matter of the assertion be meerly circumstantial and not at all in it self necessary to salvation 3. S. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or difficult passages might be wrested to destruction although the matter of them was not necessary to be known or understood in order to Salvation As for instance That passage of St. Pauls All things are lawful for me scil all indifferent things for he there speaks of the use of meats or observation of dayes This I say is not a fundamental Truth nor is the knowledg of it necessary to Salvation yet when the Libertines do abuse this Scripture to justify themselves in the practice of all wickednesse doubtlesse they wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction Besides the matter of a Text may be of lesser importance and the knowledge thereof not necessary to Salvation and the first and immediate mistake of it may be in it self inconsiderable and yet that may usher in other and those higher mistakes as we see error is fruitful and grows worse and worse and at last end in destruction as that Cloud which at first was no bigger then a mans hand did quickly overcast the whole Heavens The
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
same imperfections and corruptions that the Scriptures because writings are said to be subject to and consequently there is no rule neither for Papists nor Protestants but every one may do that which seems right in his own eyes 4. He pretends it is necessary to Salvation to understand which is the true sense of Scriptures when it is to be taken literally when mystically and this saith he cannot be understood from sole Scripture Ans. Here also both Propositions are remarkably false 1. It is not necessary to Salvation to a Christian to understand the true sense of every Scripture if it were what shall become of those Legions of poor deluded Papists into whose devotion ignorance is so considerable an ingredient who neither understand the seâ—se nor are permitted to read the words of the Scripture 2. The â—ense of Scripture in fundamental points is clear and intelligible and that from Scripture which is its own best Interpreteâ— And if we consult the best Expositors either Popish or Protestant we shall find they never so well unfold Scâ—pture riddles if I may so speak as when they plow with the Scriptures Heifer Every puny knows the collation of parallel or seemingly repugnant places and the observation of the scope and cohaerence and the like are the best Keyes to find out the true sense of the Scripture and sufficient to discover it unlesse the readers ignorance or negligence pride or prejudice stand in his way I will take an instance from the Captain himself of those Scriptures which confute the Arrians Joh. 10.30 I and my father are one but saith the Captain the Arrian will say this is meant of Onenesse in affection as Joh. 17.21 And here my Captain is gravelled and halfe made an Arrian and because he could not answer the Arrian he concludes again no body else can But wiser men would have told him That this Arrian glosse is confuted out of the Scriptures both out of the present chapter the Captain and Arrian being more blind then the Jewes who understood Christs meaning better viz. That he made himself God v. 33. and from other places of Scriptures where Christ is expresly called God Joh. 1.1 the true God 1 Joh. 5.20 and thought it no robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2.6 And indeed the Councel of Nice as I shewed in the foregoing discourse did confute the Arrian Heresy out of the Scriptures they saw no need of going further 5 He alledgeth the number of fundamental points which saith he the Scripture determines not Ans. This is most false The Scripture doth sufficiently determine fundamental points I must not here run into another controversy concerning the number of fundamentals This may suffice at present That the Scripture doth not presse all Truths with equal vehemency that there are some points wherein the Scripture doth though not approve of yet dispence with differing opinions in Christians such as those were concerning dayes and meats and ceremonies in Religion and there are other points which it urgeth upon us with highest penalties such as that in Joh. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall dye in your sins To me this is a rule That to which God promiseth or annexeth salvation is surely sufficient for salvation I care not one straw for all the Romane Thunder-claps of Damnation where I have one promise from God for my salvation I am assured by God that to fear God and keep his commandements is the whole duty of man Eccles. 12.13 That he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him Act. 10.35 That this is life eternal to know thee to be the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17.3 and consequently if I know him and believe in him his person and office and work I may humbly put in my claime for eternal life and have not so much reason to fear their cursing of me knowing that the curse causelesse shall not come as they have to fear the curse of God and an addition to their plagues for adding to God's word Rev. 22.18 In a word the fundamentals or substantials of Religion do apparently lie in two things the Law and the Gospel the Scripture tels me that love is the fulfilling of the law Rom. 13.10 that he that loveth Christ shall be loved of his father Ioh. 14.21 that hereby we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Joh 3.14 It tels me also That faith in Christ is the fulfilling of the Gospel ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 14.1 and these things are written that ye might believe that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing ye might have life in his name Joh. 20.31 Christ hath â—â—sured us it seems he should have asked his Vicars leave for it He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Ioh. 3.36 For my part I am not afraid to venture my salvation upon this promise and for Popish comminations and curses I shall only say with the Psalmist Let them curse but bless thou Psal. 109.28 By these things we see the Scripture sufficiently informes us of fundamentals To which I might adde the common sense of Gods Church and the learned Ministers in all ages it having been acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors both antient and modern both Popish and Protestant as may be seen at large in Dr. Pottèrs want of charity charged upon Romanists and Mr. Chillingworths Defence of it That the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed doth contein in it a compleat body of the fundamentals of salvation for the Credenda and all the Articles of the Creed are sufficiently evidenced from the Scriptures as I could with great facility demonstrate but I study brevity But you must know the Church of Rome hath another notion of Fundamentals a rare notion I tell you for you shall not find the like either in Scripture or any antient Author They make the Churches definition the rule of Fundamentals That is a Fundamental Truth and de fide which the Church determines and decrees though never so inconsiderable and that is no Fundamental nor de fide which the Church hath not determined though it be never so material Thus to fast in Lent on Fridaies if the Church command it is now become a Fundamental and if any man obstinately refuse it God will assuredly condemne such a person saith an English Apostate Cressy sect 2. ch 13. n. 2. though he there confesseth it is but an action little more then circumstantial yet on the other side it is no Fundamental to hold That all men except Christ are conceived in sin because the Church forsooth hath not determined the Question of the Blessed Virgin Thus with the Romanists it is a fundamental doctrine to believe that Paul left his Cloak at Troas namely if the Church injoyn you to believe it for there is the knack it is not Fundamental because St. Paul asserts it 2 Tim. 4
rule of Faith which must be so true and cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soule upon This is the summe of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and cleare and so evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and cleare and evident c. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtfull that it is not onely rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the VVorld men so absurdly scepticall that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equall Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concernes onely one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no speciall occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and Deâ—th and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine They are the Authors words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casuall to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not onely to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned untill the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Thâ—s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least diverse of them were written upon speciall occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproâ—fe c. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use no man that knowes any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them sorth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proofe but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turne for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been allready handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tels us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Hereticks the Jewes at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and
so that thou understand them according to the faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally delivered unto thee Apology for Tradition Sixteenth Encounter Ans. 1. The necessity of Faith is no argument of the Scriptures insufficiency The Scripture is sufficient i. e. in genere objecti in respect of the object or doctrine or revelation and yet Faith is necessary in genere instrumenti as an instrument for it is plain enough the faith he speaks of is the grace not the doctrine of Faith By this argument Scripture and Tradition together were no perfect rule for both will not make a man wise unto salvation otherwise then through faith Ans. 2. It is falsly supposed and can never be proved That the Faith here spoken of is the fides quae creditur or the doctrine of Faith not fides quâ creditur or the grace of Faith and that by Faith are here intended Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from St. Paul or the other Apostles and this Supposition is the Basis of their Answer The contrary sufficiently appears from diverse considerations 1. This contradicts the Apostles scope which apparently is to commend the Scriptures as able to make wise to Salvation c. But this were no commendation at all to say they together with such Christian verities are sufficient for salvation for according to this argument it might be said of any one verse in all the Old Testament what is here said of all the Scriptures viz. That that Verse together with Faith i. e. with the Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition is sufficient for Salvation which no Papist will deny and therefore that Answer is absurd 2. Timothy's faith here supposed is of the same kind with the Faith of his Mother and Grandmother 2 Tim. 1.5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee which dwelt first in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice Was the faith of his Grandmother too the Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from the Apostles after she was dead 3. It is not said The Scriptures are able with the faith but through the faith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which plainly shews that this Faith is not another object distinct from the Scriptures but an instrument to apply the Scriptures especially if we consider a parallel place Heb. 4.2 The word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith i e. with the grace of Faith for none can be so senselesse as to think they were damned for want of oral Tradition 4. The Faith here spoken of is together with the Scriptures sufficient for salvation and so is the grace of faith But the Dogmatical belief of Christian Verities deliver'd by Tradition together with the Scriptures is not sufficient for Salvation as the Papists confesse E. the grace of Faith is the thing here spoken of 5. The Faith here spoken of is a thing distinct and totally differing from the Scriptures and not at all coincident with them But the Christian Verities or Traditions delivered by the Apostles were not things so different but coincident with the Scripture as evidently appears from Act. 26.22 where S. Paul in terminis professeth he said preached none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come But I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome know what Paul preached better then himself a plain evidence of their Infallibility Exc. 2. By this argument the Scriptures of the Old Testament for of them he speaks are sufficient for salvation and so the New Testament is not necessary So the Captain p. 29. and Cressy ubi suprà Ans. 1. It is very true the Scriptures of the Old Testament were in those times sufficient for salvation This appears from the place now cited Act. 26.22 compared with Act. 20.27 where S. Paul saith he delivered the whole counsel of God Hence I argue The whole counsel of God was delivered by S. Paul and is sufficient for salvation but all that S. Paul delivered was in Moses and in the Prophets Act. 26.22 If the Old Testament was deficient in any doctrine it was that which the New Testament seems to supply viz. the doctrine of Christ and yet the Old Testament was sufficient to teach Christ for it did both instruct men about the Person and Office and work of the Messias as our Divines do abundantly prove against the Jews to whom I refer the Reader for the proof of it and also did sufficiently prove that Jesus was the Christ as appears undeniably from Act. 18.28 and consequently there was no defect but a sufficiency for that time and condition of affairs even in the old Testament in things necessary to salvation A Third Exception they take against our argument from this place is That it speaks onely of perfection after faith but here is no question about the first choice of faith much lesse is there any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Thus Mr. White 's Apology for Tradition 16. Encounter Ans. Since then all our controversy is about that whether the Scriptures are so convincing it will be worth our while to examine the point for it is not my desire to catch at little advantages but to attaque the Aversary in his strongest Fort. But before I come to the proof let us inquire into the meaning of the Phrase What it is for the Scripture to be convincing in foro contentioso i. e. in way of disputation I take it for granted he is not so absurd as to expect that the scripture should be so convincing as actually to convince and satisfy and silence the most importunate and unreasonable Caviller In that sense the clearest demonstration in the Mathematicks is not convincing but without doubt Mr. White takes his Apology and so his Treatise de fide and Mr. Rushworths Dialogues to be convincing Discourses because though they do not actually convince the stubborn Hereticks yet they are apta nata to convince them there is so much evidence in them as may and ought to satisfy any understanding unconcerned inquisitive and prudent adversary and in this sense I do assert that the scriptures are convinâ—ing in fâ—ro contentioso which is the great thing Mr. White sticks at I prove it thus 1. The scriptures make a man of God i.e. the Minister as they acknowledg perfect and throughly furnished to every work but this is one of his chief works to convince Gain-sayers Tiâ— 1.9 Ergo scripture furnisheth him with convincing arguments 2. The Scripture is here expressely said to be profitable among other things for Conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first for doctrine i.e. for the confirmation of Truths then for conviction for so the Greek word more properly signifies then for reproof which is mentioned in the next particular for correction or for resutation of errors But surely Scripture were not profitable for conviction if it be insufficient to
the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9. CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of St Austins judgment § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in generall § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours 3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as 1. That they be generall § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Councels Fathers Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of Oâ—all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing against the judgment of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers § 9. â— Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. â— Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19. 2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From Gods just judgment § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The oâ—inion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fallâ—bility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles onely prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19. 4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from Gods providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Proâ—â—stants Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fouâ—â—dation of Faith in the Scriâ—â—tures the Papists themselves 〈◊〉 ing judges Sect. 〈◊〉 Their Learned men acknowleâ— 1. That the Scripture is 〈◊〉 may be known to be the 〈◊〉 of God without the Church Testimony and by its owâ— light Sect. 〈◊〉 2. That the Books of Scriptuâ—â— are not corrupted in essentiaâ— and necessary points Sect. 〈◊〉 3. That the sence of Scripture 〈◊〉 things necessary may be uâ—â—derstood Sect. 〈◊〉 Except Protestants 〈◊〉 upon an humane Translaâ—tion answered Se. 5 6 7 â— Protestants freed from the preâ—â—tended circle of proving Scripâ—â—ture by the spirit and the spiâ—rit by the Scripture Sect. 9â— 10 11 12â— A consideration of that pretenâ— ostered at by some Romanists That the Churches Authority 〈◊〉 a sufficient foundation foâ— faith without infallibility Sect. 13â— The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to
the Bishop of Avignon must succeed in the universall headshipâ— But I need say no more of so absurd a fancy Sect. 10. A second place of scripture is Ioh. 21. Peteâ— feed my sheep And this feeding must denote ruling as welâ— as teaching and this rule forsooth must needs be the supreme power and that power must bee attended withâ— infallibility and these sheep must be all the sheep in the world nay shephards too exceept the Pan or princepâ— pastorum at Rome Tantae molis erat Romanum conderâ— papam And this rope of sand must be called an argument by which one may see the intollerable confidence they have in themselves and their shamelesse contempt of the Readers whom they think obliged to receive all their dictates without enquiry I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome knew what they did when they invented the doctrine of an implicit faith and a blind obedience to all the Churches decrees for if men should once dare to open their eyes and examine their assertions all their craft would be in danger to be set at nought and the Temple of Dominus Deus noster papa as the Canon Law calls him would be despised and his magnificence would be destroyed whom so great a part of the world worshippeth But if indeed they will by Transubstantiation turn this handfull of straw into a pillar of their Church as I cannot blame one near drowning for catching at every twig then I shall offer these things to their consideration 1 That Bellarmine as his manner is bestowes seaven arguments to prove that which none ever denied that those words were spoken to Peter alone and neglects that which he should have disproved viz. the reason thereof given by Aug. Cyril Ambrose and others and after them the Protestants which was not the collation of a new dignity superior to that of the other Apostles but his restoration to his former dignity of the Apostleship from which by his great transgression he might seem to have fallen as Iudas really did fall by his Transgression Act. 1. 2. If this Text afford them any support they must have it either from the Act or the word Feed or from the object or phrase my sheep For the first By what Arts can the Supremacy of the Pope he drawn from that word or precept This feeding in the judgment of the Romanists themselves implies nothing but teaching and ruling and both those are ascribed to all the Apostles without any discrimination Mat. 28.19 20. Mat. 18. Iohn 20. And Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that not onely the power of Rule but the supreme power was conferred upon all the Apostles Nay they are ascribed to inferiour Ministers Heb. 13. Obey them that have the rule over you and 1 Tim. 5.17 The elders that rule well and to such the very same Precept is given 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders I exhort Feed the flock of God which is among you Doth Feeding in one place argue superiority and in another place imply subjection or rather in both places it seemes it signifies what the Pope pleaseth But you must know the Romish Doctors having called â—he Scripture a Lesbian Rule and a Nose of Wax they were bound in honour aut invenire aut facere either to finde it so or to make it such if it be said their charge 〈◊〉 limited to the Flock of God among them whereas Peters extends to all the sheep the Answer is easie if that â—e granted for then the difference doth not lie in the act of Feeding but in the object of which I now come to speak that is the second thing the phrase my sheep Granting therefore what Bellar. desires that he speaks of all the sheep yet herein S t Peter had no prerogative above the other Apostles who are equally commanded to teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19 to preach the Gospell to every Creature Mar. 16.15 And Peters Diocess surely cannot be larger unlesse happily Utopia be taken in or that which is in the same part of the world I meane Purgatory But you will say surely they have somewhat else to plead for themselves from this Text Why yes These good masters of the feast have reserved the best Wine to the last Here comes in a rare notion not fit to be prostituted to vulgar apprehensions you shall heare it upon condition you will not put them to the proofe of it which they are not bound to do for nemâ— tenetur aâ— impossibilia No man is obliged to do more then is in his power Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary Pastour the rest as extraordinary Ambassadors and with a certaine subjection to Peter If you ask doth this Text say so or any other Text or is there one syllable from whence this may be deduced you must remember the condition which I told you And what if this be granted how comes the ordinary power to be greater and higher then the extraordinary In the Old Testament generally the extraordinary officers the Prophets whom God raised were superior to the Priests And in the New Testament the Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary officers were superior to Pastors and Teachers which are the ordinary How come the Tables to be turned and the ordinary agent to be advanced above the extraordinary Ambassadors And what if all this be granted it edifies nothing unlesse two things be superadded of both which the Scripture is wholly silent and their proof failes them 1. They must prove that this power of feeding is transmitted to Peters Successors in a more peculiar manner then to the Successors of the other Apostles and that whatever power Peter had is deposited in their hand 2. That the Pope is this Successor to whom these things are concredited And these they do not pretend to prove from Scripture So that still the conclusion remaines intire That the Scripture is not to the Papists a solid and sure ground of Faith § 11. A third place alwaies in their mouths is Luke 22.31 Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith faile not A man would not believe if he did not see it with his own eyes that such Learned men as diverse of the Papists are should put any confidence in such broken reeds and shatter'd Arguments as this is Truely saith a learned man Hoc non est disputare sed somniare This is rather a dreame then an Argument What thoughts the Papists have of our English Sectaries is sufficiently known but I must needs do them this right to professe I do not know that Sect among us the Quakers excepted so absurd and impertinent in the all gations of Scripture for their most irrationall opinions as in sundry particulars and this especially the Papists are But because they shall not complaine of us as we do justly of them that we rather condemne them then confute them I shall shew the ridiculousnesse of this allegation to their purpose 1.
fall into Heresy If this be granted the Pope is not concerned in this prayer and promise of infallibility For if this prayer for Peter reacheth to his Successors then the same priviledge for which Christ here prayes for Peter for the same he prayeth for his Successors But the same priviledge which according to their supposition is here prayed for on Peters behalfe is not prayed for on the behalfe of his successors themselves being Judges For Christs prayer they confesse secured Peter from falling into errour even as a private person which you see they do not Pretend for the Pope But here is the benefit of the popes reserving the key of interpretations in his own brest for now he can order it as he pleaseth and proportion the meanings of any Text as need requires and so this Text if you please to believe them it procures 1. That Peter cannot erre neither personally nor judicially 2. That the Pope may erre personally but not judicially 3. That the whole Church of Rome cannot erre personally But it is all the reason in the world that the first inventers and Authors of Infallibility should have the disposing of it in their own hands § 12. A fourth place vehemently urged on the behalfe of the Popes Infallibility is Deut. 17.11 12. where the Iowes are commanded under paine of death to stand to the judgment of the High-Priest and to do according to the sentence which the Priest should shew them Therefore say they the High-Priest was infallible else the people had been bound to rest in a false decision consequently the Pope who succeeds in the High-Priests place is infallible To which I answer 1. If a man should put them to prove the consequence how wofully would they be gravelled If these Romanists would lay aside their Dictatourship and condescend to the proofe of their assertions how would they prove one of these things 1. That the high Priest of the Jewes hath a visible Successour upon earth among Christians 2. That the Pope alone is this Successor 3. That this supposed successor must be invested with all the Priviledges which the High-Priest had But I shall passe by all these and the horrible impertinency of the instance feeblenesse of the consequence and shall assault them on the strongest side by denying the Antecedent viz. that any infallibility is here ascribed or promised to the High-Priest for proof hereof I offer these Arguments 1. No more infallibility is here ascribed to the High-Priest then to the Judg and to the inferiour Priests But the Judge and inferiour Priests were not infallible Ergo This place doth not prove the High-Priests Infallibility The Major is evident from the reading of the Words the Judge or Civill Magistrate is joyned in the same commission with the Priest and the people are commanded to acquiesce indifferently in the determinations both of the one and of the other and therefore either both are infallible or neither Again it is not the High-Priest alone who is here meant but others also so the words run in the plurall number the Priests the Levites v. 9 And they shall shew thee they shal inform thee For the Minor it is acknowledged by the Papists Ergo. 2 If this text proves the high Priests infallibility it proves it in the matters here spoken of But this place doth not prove the high priests infallibility in the matters here spoken of for those are matters of fact between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke questions which were decided by Testimonies and in such they confesse the Pope may erre so then their Argument runs thus The high Priest was infallible in matters of fact Therefore the Pope is not infallible in matters of fact but he is infallible in matters of Faith but our comfort is as it is a dangerous Argument so themselves furnish us with an Antidote for they deny both propositions 1. they deny the consequent from matters of fact to matters of faith 2 They deny the antecedent for they do not ascribe to the Pope and consequently not to the high Priest infallibility in matters of fact You see what shifts they are put to to support their cause with such rotten posts to argue from the Aut hority of the priests to end particular controversies between man and man between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke which is all that place speaks of to the infallibility of the Pope in all the matters of God and deciding all the controversies of religion I think they have sufficiently improved the stock the high Priest left them 3 Those words however they may seem to a carelesse reader at first view do not assert the infallibility of the Priest or Priests nor the obligation of the people to an absolute submission and blind obedience to all their dictates and expositions that for two undeniable reasons 1 Because other places of Scripture with whom this must be reconciled command both Prince and people to keep close to the word of God and to that end to read in the book of the law diligently and to do according to all that is written therein Deut. 5.32 33. You shall observe to do as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left You shall walke in all the wayes which the Lord commanded you So Deut. 6.6 c. It is Gods speech to Ioshua ch 1.8 This booke of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein And in case of doubt it is the Prophets injunction to the people to have recourse to the law and to the Testimony Isa. 8 20 Now put case an high priest should fall into Idolatry I may well suppose it for it was done and should expound the law so as to favour his opinion practice I demand whether in this case the people of the Jewes were bound to believe obey him or not to worship an Idol or not Affirme it none will but one of a Jesuiticall h. e.a feared conscience nor can any Christian hear such an assertion without horrour If they deny it their argument from this place is lost 2 That sence of Scripture which justifies the Jewes in in putting Christ to death is a false fence and corrupt exposition But the Popish sence of this place and their argument from it doth justifie the Jewes in putting Christ to death Ergo it is a corrupt exposition for the Major he that denies it deserves not the name of a Christian And whatever his successours will do at a pinch I am sure St. Peter did not justifie them but severely condemns them and highly aggravates their sin in it Act. 2 3 4 5. The Minor about which alone the doubt lies I shall easily prove which I am more willing to do that all Christians may observe the just Iudgment
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
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
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
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
testimony and interpretation of the Church i.e. the Pope or a Councel which is their assertion must needs give us the same liberty to assert that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture saith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels but for the testimony of the Pope and Councels that is we have no reason to believe their Infallibility but this that they tell us they are infallible we have their word for it so it seems the Disciple is better then his Master and the Pope's word will go further then the word of God for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause saith Bellarmine as the Churches Testimony is When the Papists would presse the Scripture to the service of this notion it may say to them as Iepthah did to the Elders of Israel Iud. 11.7 Did not je hate me and expell me out of my fathâ—r's house and why are you come unto me now when ye are in distress And upon condition they will reply with the Gileadites Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou mayest be our head I will overlook that otherwise unpardonable fault by which they have rendred the Scripture unserviceable to their purpose and once more they shall have a fair tryal whether the Infallibility of Councels can be demonstrated from Scripture Sect. 14. The first and principall support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3. 15 where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth This is their Ajacis ctypeus which you shall find used upon all occasions and infinitely repeated by every impertinent scribler of the Romish party For Answer to passe over that notion of our acute Chillingworth that it is not the Church but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth and so there is onely an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very frequent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Gataker observes and there are diverse instances of either of them So the sence is that thou mightest behave thy selfe in the House of God the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar And he gives this notable reason for it because it was heterogeneous to call that Church a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house And this I am sure would puzle our masters to answer But to wave that I answer 1 The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome but the Church in which Timothy was placed And whether it be spoken of the Church in generall or in particular what is this to Rome Here wee find a notable piece of the Romane mystery of iniquity If there be any reproofes or censures applied to any other Churches there every Church must bear its own burden But if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations promises priviledges that presently belongs to Rome and they have a commission to seize it for their own use but how unjustly we shall here discover for if you understand these words of the Catholick Church or of the Church in generall then the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church which may consist with the errour and Apostacy of several which then were eminent Churches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia which notwithstanding this promise fell away and consequently Rome though then her faith was famous throughout the World might fall with them or after them And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed And if my memory faile me not exceedingly that was not Rome but Ephesus which notwithstanding this Caracter did fall away And moreover it was not the Church ruling but the Church ruled in and over which Timothy was set which is here called the pillar and ground of truth And so the Argument runs thus The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth Therefore the Pope of Rome is infallible The Consequence is thus proved the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleaseth and though he may erre in the premises as Stapleton confesseth yet he is alwayes infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton asserts Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments 2 The terme of Pillar notes the solidity but not the infallibility of the Church it notes the difficulty of its removall but not the impossibility Every stout Champion of Gods Truth is a pillar of the truth and such are frequently called by that name in the fathers but yet they are not infallible Athanasius was a pillar of the truth but not infallible The great Osires a pillar of the truth and Nicene faith yet fell fowly as appears by the story Musonius Bishop of Neocaesarea is by Basilius Caesariensis invested this very title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo by the Romane Logick Basil thought him infallible or if he did not then Basil did not think those words implyed infallibility Gregory Nyssen tells us not onely Peter and Iames and Iohn are pillars not only Iohn Baptist is a light but also all that build up the Church are pillars and lights Therefore it seemes all Ministers are infallible Male Children are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillars of their families among the Greek Poets and Getae a faithfull servant in Terence is called Columen Familiae the pillar of the family For ought I know if those men would go to Rome and upon the credit of this word sue out a Writ of priviledge they might be as infallible as the Pope himselfe 3. This Phrase The Church is the Pillar of Truth may note the Churches duty not her practice and what she ought to be not what she alwaies is They shall not say this is gratis dictum I will make it good by parallel Instances wherein they shall see the absurdity of their argument Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evill Rom. 13.3 If this argument be good The Church is a Pillar E. she cannot eâ—re then this also is good That Rulers cannot be a terror to good works None but one that comes from Bedlam would assert the latter and none but one that comes from Rome would conclude the former Thus our Saviour saith of his Ministers Ye are the salt of the world ye are the light of the world Matth. 5. Ergo by this argument this Salt could not loose its savour and no Minister can be in the dark but every one must be infallible Thus Prov. 16 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgment Ergo Kings are infallible If the Pope had such a Text in the New Testament The Pope's mouth transgresseth not in judgment you may easily imagine what triumphs the Assertors of Infallibility
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
rebaptisation which the Papists acknowledge to be erroneous was brought in by Cyprian and the African Bishops under a pretence of Tradition The words of Cyprian are these We do not now broach a new Doctrine but one long fince decreed by our Predecessors It is true Pamelius saith he meanes this of his immediate Predecessors Agrippinus and the rest and that will serve my turne if M r VVhites Argument will hold for then no Age and consequently not this could either be ignorant of or knowingly recede from the Doctrine of their Fathers nor they from their Fathers and so upward to the Apostles And indeed Cyprian carries it higher even to the Apostles whiles he calls it The Faith of the Catholick Church and reckons it amongst the Apostolicall and Evangelicall precepts And Firmilian expressely affirmes it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles b And will these mens confidence yet serve them to assert that no error could come into the Church by Tradition If all those Eminent African Bishops and Churches might either misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their posterity as M r White cannot deny they did eâ—â—â—er the one or other why might not the Spanish or French or Romish do it If it be said there was a promise to the contrary at least for the Church of Rome To say nothing of the manifest weaknesse of that pretence I answer two things 1. That M r White expressely rejects this Infallibility by promise 2. However this Argument being of another nature and depending not upon the promise of God but the nature and evidence of the thing is by this instance irrefragably overthrown Answ. 4. That way of proving which was rejected by the Prophets and godly Jewes by Christ and by the Apostles is not to be approved much lesse preferred before that way which they approved and used but this way of proving the truth of a Doctrine by Tradition from their next Ancestours and the Testimony of the present Church was rejected by the Prophets c. and by Christ and the Apostles Ergo It is not now to be approved For the Minor in which all the doubt lies it consists of two Branches The first relating to the old Testament The second to the New The first is That this way was disowned by the Prophets and godly Jewes under the old Testament It is true some of the Jewes did owne this Popish opinion as you may read Iâ—r 44.17 But the Prophets were of another perswasion Ezek. 20.18 Walke not in the Statutes of your Fathers And from Tradition they used to send their people to the Law and Testimony Isa. 8.20 And the godly Kings of Iudah did not make Tradition as the Papists do but the written Law as the Protestants do the rule of their reformation Thus David 1 Chron. 16. 40. to do according to all that is Written in the Law Thus Hezekiah 2 Chron. 31. he did all as it is Written in the Law of the Lord So Iosiah 2 Chron. 34.30 31. and 35.12 The like did Ezra long after Ezra 6.18 and Nehemiah chap. 8. They dwelt in Booths as it is Written Here Scripture recovers what Tradition had lost for though God had commanded this yet since the daies of Ioshua they had not done so vers 17. By all which we evidently discerne how different their opinion was from this of the Papists and how little confidence they put in Tradition Iosiah would not so much as make Hezekiahs reformation his rule nor Hezekiah take his patterne from Iehoshaphats reformation but still every one had immediate recourse to the written Word For it seems it was a Language that these Holy men understood not That Scripture was a corrupt writing a leaden rule a dumb master § 7. There is indeed one Objection against the consequence from the Jewes to the Christians and from the Old Testament to the New I shall give it you in the words of one of the acutest of our Adversaries i e. Mr White The Law of the Iewes was delivered in Tables of Stone and the volume of the Law to which it is expressely opposed that God will write the Law of Christians in their hearts I Answer 1. The words are not to be understood absolutely as they sound but comparatively not as if they did wholly deny that the Mosaicall Law was written in the Heart for that is affirmed in other places as Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed or as if they did affirme that the Christian Law was written only in mens hearts and not in Paper which the Papists themselves dare not assert but onely it is a comparative expression like that I will have mercy and not sacrifice Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach i. e. principally and primarily for else the one as well as the other was enjoyned by God And so it is here implied that the Christian Law should be written more eminently upon the hearts of Christians then it ordinarily was upon the hearts of the Jewes and that it should be writ in a more legible Character Answ. 2. If we examine in whose hearts this Christian Law is written we shall find it concernes not the Tradition of the Church by which all things are to be regulated For I demand of them was this promise made and performed to all that are called Christians or onely to the elect and sincere Christians or onely to the Pope and Bishops If they say the first then one Christian as well as another is furnished with this rule of all Controversies and consequently as able to judge of Controversies then lay-men and Ministers have this Law equally written in their hearts if they say the second That it is onely the elect and sincere Christians as indeed it is then it must be something else beside Tradition which is no lesse known to the hypocriticall pretender then to the sincere professor of Christianity If they say the third That this Law was written onely in the hearts of the Pope and Bishops met in Councell As what is there so ridiculous which some of our Adversaries will not say rather then confesse their errours and give glory to God They are evidently confuted by the words of the place Jer. 31.34 They shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every one his brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest for I will forgive their iniquity And besides Mr White himselfe saith This Law is written onely in cordibus sid lium in the hearts of the faithfull Now in what Dictionary we shall find fidelis to be translated Atheist Sodomite Magitian c. Epithetes not without cause given to Popes and Popish Bishops by their own Authors I would gladly be informed Answ. 3. If we enquire what this is which is here said to be written in their hearts we shall see Mr VVhites invention was better then his judgment or his
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
when the Image of Diana dropt down from Heaven she brought this Tradition along with her The like might be shewed in â—undry other particulars In the caelibacy of Priests which is onely de jure humano not divine by the confession of Thomas Durandus Lombardus and Scotus four principall pillars of the Papall Church and Turrianus was noted by Cassander as the onely man of all both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it But if it were an Apostolicall Tradition it was de jure Divino and the Councell of Nice would never have dispensed with a divine Injunction So in the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Purgatory and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing because it hath been so fully cleared by diverse Learned Protestant Writers particularly by Iewell Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge Moulins Novelty of Popery Dallaeus in severall pieces Rainolds de Libris Apoâ—ryphis Whitaker Chamier and innumerable others But manum de Tabulâ This I hope may suffice for the refutation of this novell invention concerning the Infallibility of Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church where I have been more large because it is a late plea and lesse hath been said of it by Protestant Authors And so it remaines unshaken That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in orall Tradition and the present Churches Authority which was the businesse of this Proposition CHAP. 8. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility Sect. 1. BUt we are not yet come to the end of our journey And although the Arguments urged by Protestants against their resolution of Faith have probably convinced the consciences of diverse of them yet have they not stop'd their mouths We have shewed in the former Chapters how they have been driven from post to post and as in a besieged City when the Walls and Works of it are battered down they raise new fortifications so having seen their former pretences batter'd about their eares some of them have devised one shift more for finding themselves yet in that ridiculous Circle of believing the Scripture for the Churches sake and the Church for Scriptures sake notwithstanding all the attempts of their Brethren to get out Some of them have taken up their rest in the markes of a Church and the motives of credibility This though rejected by former and learneder Papists yet of late hath been taken up by Turnebull in his Tâ—tragonismus a discourse about the Object of Faith and after him by the late Answerer of Bishop Lauds Book called Lawa's Labyrinth whose words are these We prove the Churches Infallibility not by Scripture but by the motives of Credibility and signes of the Church which are these Sanctity of life miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophâ—cies succession of lawfully sent Pastours Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick Then saith he having thus proved the Churches Infallible Authority and by that received the Scripture we confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture proofs are not Prime and Absolute but onely secondary and ex suppositione ad hominem or ex principiis concessis against Sectaries This is their plea concerning which I shall need to say the lesse because the Book wherein it is revived and urged called Labyrinthus Cantuariensis is so solidly and Learnedly Answered by my worthy friend M r Stillingfleet Yet having finished this Discourse long before that excellent work came forth and having twisted it into the method of the present Treatise and designe I thought not fit wholly to supersede it whereby the body of the work would be renderd lame and incompleat but rather to be shorter in it and as far as I can to cut off such passages as happily may be coincident with what is said by Mr Stillingfleet in that particular for I do not desire actum agere § 2. Answ. 1. Let it be observed how shamelessely these men abuse their Readers when they pretend the Infallibility of the Church is solidly demonstrated from Scripture and this they generally do Here you have reum confitâ—ntem they confesse the imbecillity of those Arguments For say they they are but secondary proofs and Argumenta ad hominem Now such Arguments are not cogent and concluding in themselves but onely do conclude against some particular Adversary from his own principles So they acknowledge that although their Arguments may perswade one that is docible yet they cannot convince a gainsayer And the strength of their Argument depends upon the Courtesy of the Protestants § 3. 2. In vaine are these Marks of a Church pleaded for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome when other Churches have a juster claime to them and so little colour have the Romanists for their monopoly of them that upon enquiry it will be found they have no considerable interest in them This I shall shew in the principall and most important of them 1. The first in dignity though not in order is the glory of Miracles The most eminent in this kind are confessed to be those which were done by Christ and his Apostles Those Miracles were done in Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches not of the Church of Rome which appeares thus These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures but the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is repugnant thereunto Ergo These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches The Major our adversaries dare not deny The Minor hath been undeniably evidenced so much to the conviction of our Adversaries that they dare not owne the Scripture for their Judge and instead of submitting themselves to its sentence bend their wits to except against the judge and decline its Tribunall following that Counsell which was given to Pericles when he was studying how to give up his accounts to the Athenians that he should rather study how to give up no account at all And some of them whose words are recited in this Treatise acknowledge the folly of their brethren who would manage their cause by Scripture Arguments But whether the Protestant Doctrine hath been solidly evinced from Scripture or not thus much undoubtedly followes that if any miracles be pretended against that Doctrine which Christ sealed by his miracles they are not to be regarded and the miracles done by Christ c. are infinitely to be preferred before them And consequently the glory of Miracles is more ours then theirs § 4. The like I may say secondly for the efficacy of Doctrine which they so confidently appropriate to themselves But if the efficacy of their sword were not greater then that of their Doctrine the world would quickly see the vanity of that Argument And how little confidence themselves put in it may be seen by the professed necessity of an Inquisition Next newes I expect
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
arguments taken from the thing it self 2. By bringing the object nearer to the eye which was at too great a distance whereby it appears in its due proportion 3. By curing the infirmity of the eye Thus the Physitian that removes the distemper of the eye and restores it to its native strength and vigor may be said to convince him Now to apply this The Spirit of God doth not convince a man of the Divinity of the Scriptures the first way as a Philosopher but the last way as a Physitian not by an elucidation of the object by arguments but by the elevation of the faculty or by anointing the eyes with eye-salve and curing its infirmity To which the second may be added viz That the Spirit of God brings his word and the characters of its Divinity impress'd upon it nearer unto us and writes it in the heart according to Gods promise to that purpose and so we see the object better by reason of its approximation to us Or as it is with a Philosopher when he reads a book written in the defence of some Position as suppose the doctrine of the circulation of the Bloud possibly his mind may be discomposed and his braines by reason of some peccant humor much distemper'd and in this case he reads the book but is not at all satisfied by it afterwards Physical means are applyed whereby the brain is restored to its native constitution and purged from those distempers whereby it was clouded now he returns to the book again and reads it over anew and yields himselve captive to the opinion You see here is no change of the old arguments nor any addition of new ones onely the impediments which were in the faculty or the organ are removed Just so it is in the matter now in controversy The Spirit of God doth not prove the Scripture to me by arguments which I never had before but by the illumination of my mind to apprehend the arguments which I did not apprehend before It is with men as it was with Hagar Gen. 21. there was a Well of water but she saw it not till God open'd her eyes vers 19. There is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures onely the Spirit of God cures that blindness of mind whereby the Devil hindred the world from discerning it Thus the Spirit convinced the Jews of the Truth of the Gospel by removing the vaile which was upon their hearts in the reading of Moses 2 Cor. 3.15 16. And so God convinced his elect among the Heathens not by discovering any more arguments to them then he did to the reprobates among them for the same doctrine and arguments were preached to both alike but by opening their eyes to see what others saw not Act. 26.18 and by opening their hearts to receive what others would not receive as Act. 16.14 To conclude forasmuch as the testimony of the Spirit is not the Argument for which but onely the Instrument by which they believe and on the contrary the Testimony of Scripture is the proper argument for which they believe it is most evident that they work in several capacities and so we are fully discharged from that Circle which they causlesly charge us with and notwithstanding this objection the foundation of our Faith standeth sure This is the first particular § 13. The other particular concernes the Popish foundation for some of the Romanists finding themselves so wofully intangled in the business of Infallibility are grown sick of the notion Cressy the English Apostate in his Exomologesis confesseth That Infallibility is an unfortunate word combated by Mr. Chillingworth with too too great success that he could wish the word were forgotten or at least laid by these therefore tell us that if the Infallibility of the Church be denied yet a Papist hath sufficient ground for his Faith in the Churches authority in which he is obliged to acquiesce and whom he must hear in all things and this way some others go This I thought fit to mention that the world may see the complexion of a Romish conscience and the desperate shifts which the wretchednesse of their cause forceth them to But because the absurdity of this new fancy doth suâ luce constare I shall dismiss it with two remarks upon it 1. That it is disclaimed by the Romish Church and it were a frivolous thing to concern our selves in refuting all the wild fancies of their particular Doctors It is true Cressy saith No such word as Infallibility is to be found in â—ny Councel the good man had forgot the definition of the Councel of Basil wherein they call it a pernitious error to say that a Councel can erre the passage I cited before or else he meant to be witty for it is very true that non potest errare is not the same word with Infallibility though it be the same thing Nor do the Papists onely assert the Infallibility of their Church but generally acknowledge That without this their Faith would have no solid Foundation nor their Religion any certainty I shall not multiply instances in so known a thing you have many instances in one in that forementioned passage of the Councel of Basil That if once that pernitious error were admitted that general Councels may erre the whole Catholick Faith would tâ—tter And Bellarmine in a fore-quoted passage confesseth That it is a most unreasonable thing to require Christians to be finally subject to the judgment of that Church which is liable to error And therefore I need not cast away pretious time in confuting those particular fancies of some private Doctors which are directly repugnant unto the confessed opinion of the Pope and the Decree of a general Councel 2. This is so far from mending the matter that it makes it far worse for he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things because she is infallible in all things speaks that which is coherent in it self and the consequence is agreeable to reason the onely fault lies in the Antecedent But he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things though she may erre in many things and none knows how many throws himself and me upon such desperate Rocks as none but a mad-man would run upon When Bellarmine delivers that desperate doctrine That if the Pope should command us to sin we are bound to obey him and when others have said That if the Pope should lead thousands to Hell we must not reprove him their followers mollifie the harshnesse of those assertions with this favourable construction That the Propositions are onely Hypothetical depending upon such conditions as by reason of the promise of Infallibility can never be fulfilled for say they the Pope cannot command sin and cannot lead men to Hell and this if true were a plausible evasion But to tell me that if the Pope or Church may erre yet I am bound to believe obey them in all things this is to make that my
Pope and Councel together say a third sort and the several assertors of each opinion confute and destroy the rest and all that hold any of these opinions are universally esteemed good Catholicks saith Mr. Cressy in his Append ch 4. num 7. So they are good Catholicks that dispute down the Pope's Infallibility and they good Catholicks too that dispute down the Infallibility of Councels and for the reason before mentioned they good Catholicks that reject the infallibility of both together And therefore t is a mâ—st impudent position which Mr. Cressy layes down and the Papists are obliged to owne That the doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is so evident that the Protâ—stants are inexcusable and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that do not receive it out of thy own mouth will God judge thee O thou unfaithful Servant who hast thus expressed thy self in another place To my understanding there is some inhumanity in urging Protestants to more then Catholicks will be obliged to or to thinke that to Protestants prepossessed with passion and partiality that can be made evident which is so far from being evident to some Catholicks that they renounce it Appendix to the Exomologesis ch 4. num 7. To this might be added as a farther demonstration of the inevidence of this point even to the Romanists themselves those secret checks which they meet with from their own consciences in the assertion of this supposed Infallibility discovered by their haltings and corrections and tergiversations and self-contradictions in explication of this new phaenomenon For however Mr. Cressy mounts this Infallibility so high that it must not yield to Scripture it self yet both himself elsewhere and their other Authors every where are contented with a far lower proportion Bellarmine whom Mr. Cressy rights and approves in his comparison of the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture gives the preheminence to Scripture in five several respects See Cressy sect 2. ch 21. Truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture then in the decisions of the Church Cressy Appendix chap. 5. n. 2. And this Infallibility of the Church though they will not suffer us to call it humane and moral yet they dare not assert it to be Divine but onely after a sort and in some manner Divine as the Author of Laua's labyrinth informes us And this Infallibility they farther confesse is not in way of immediate revelation or inspiration from God but in the way of argumentation and discourse And here too they are wonderful cautious for it is acknowledged by Bellarmine and Stapleton and subscrib'd by Mr Cressy That the Church is fallible in the premises but infallible in the conclusion Cressy ubi suprà and sect 2. chap. 32. and Append. chap. 5. In the decisions of the Church the simple conclusion decided is onely accounted infallibly true not so the principles upon which it depends or reasons by which it is proved Really these Romish Priests are admirable fellows in all things Admirable Builders Vitruvius himself might learn Architecture from them for they can teach him how to build a solid and durable Edifice upon a rotten foundation Admirable Logitians Aristotle might go to School to them and learn such Lessons as were above his apprehension for it is resolved he must blot out his Axiomes Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem and Non debet esse plus in conclusâ—ne quà m in praemissis and Ex falsis nil nise falsum The Colledge of Jesuites at Rome are ready to make good the contrary against him when Plato's great year shall bring him and them together upon the Stage Admirable Divines that have outdone their Lord and Master and in spight of whatsoever is said by him Luk. 6.43 44. will it he please maintain a dispute with him upon this Thesis That a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit and that of thornes men may gather figs and of a Brambâ—â—bush grapes and this shall be not probably defended but infallibly demonstrated For it were a silly thing to think that they that are infallible Divines should be but fallible Disputants But to return The inevidence of this notion of the Churches Infallibility may sufficiently appear from Mr. Cressy's own expressions which have been observed by others who by the evidence of the Truth was forced to this acknowledgment That Infallibility is an infortunate word that Mr. Chillingworth hath combated it with too great success so that I could wish saith he the word were forgotten or at least laid by whereas all that understand any thing know that it was not the word but the thing which he combated and his arguments were not nominal against the Title but real against the thing it self It is true since this passage was published and taken notice of Mr. â—ressy having doubtlesse been severely school'd by his Superiors for such a dangerous passage is grown more cautious and hath stretched his wit and I fear his conscience too to palliate his assertion and make an honourable retreat and he honestly acquaints us with his design i. e. being crafty to catch the Protestants with guile Sect. 2. ch 21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologesis will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty conscience whilst sometimes you shall find him tacitly denying the Churches Infallibility properly so called and contenting himself with great Probability in the room of it at other times you will meet him crying up this Infallibility in express or equivalent terms and in most places having no salvo for himself but this That his assertion and the Protestants disputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility which the Protestants advanced to an higher pitch then ever the Church of Rome did and so fought against an image that themselves had set up which is so notorious a falsehood that if Mr. Cressy's wit and memory and conscience had not all failed him together he could hardly have run into it since all Protestants of any note ever did and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth dispute against the Churches Infallibility onely in that sense and degree which Mr. Cressy upon maturest advice in this second Edition hath thought fit to expresse in these words That God will preserve his Church in all truth so as to secure all believers that she can neither deceive them nor be deceived her self sect 2. chap. 21. Did ever any Protestant that understood himself or the point pretend to more Not Mr. Chillingworth I am sure They all knew and granted that abolute infallibility was Gods Prerogative and neither pretended by the Church of Rome nor was that opinion by Protestants fastned upon them The onely question was whether God did vouchsafe such infallible guidance to the Church that she could not erre in her decrees and decisions This Papists affirmed and Protestants denied and let me adde that this Infallibility is as high as was ever ascribed to the Prophets or Apostles and Penmen of the Holy
of God and the same for substance with the Originals The incorruption of the Scriptures in substantial things is sufficiently evinced from the confession of its greatest Adversaries the Papists from the consent of Copies taken by persons of several ages and far distant places and contrary principles from the innumerable multitude of copies every where dispersed and the constant jealousy and watchfulnesse of so many wise and zealous Christians ready to observe the least considerable corruption and give warning of it and many other considerations All those arguments which are pleaded both by Papists and Protestants for the Divinity of the Scripture they reach to copies and Translations In these as well as in the Original is the majesty of the Style the sublimity of the doctrines the purity of the matter the excellency of the design To these as well as the Originals God hath given so many signal testimonies by the conversion of thousands by frequent and illustrious miracles by the cooperation of his Spirit with them in the hearts of his people and many other arguments which when a Papist is in a good mood and disputing with a Pagan must passe for undeniable demonstrations of the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of the Scriptures And for the differences in Translations either noted by the Papists or confessed by any of the Protestants which the Captain makes a great Flourish with and other Papists make such triumphs at they are so petite and trivial and so little concerning the substance and foundation of Religion or the Scriptures that to me it affords an unquestionable evidence That our Translations are unblameable in fundamental places because all their great wits and learned Doctors to this day could not discover any such mistakes though they have made it their businesse to find them out But I shall say no more to this argument in this place having in the former part of the Treatise spoken to it A fifth argument is taken from the seeming contradictions which are in Scripture not resolveable by the Scripture Hence saith the Captain Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. no one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other is infallible in speaking but the Scripture so speaketh therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking Nay he might and should have said the Scripture is not credible in speaking and therefore say I by the vertue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge himselfe an unreasonable man or an Atheist I tell you it was good hap That in stead of the Catholick Gentleman he did not meet with an Atheist for the arguments which convinced him are indifferently calculated for either Meridian But for all those seeming contradictions the short Answer is this 1. That there are no such places but are capable of convenient reconciliations as hath been already made good by several learned men both Papists and Protestants who have professedly treated of those matters and discovered the vanity of this objection And if it were granted That there are some places which men have not yet hit upon the right way of reconciling them that is no evidence of the impossibility of it since we can give instances in others which in former times were thought as insoluble as any now are which the learning and diligence of after ages hath fully cleared from all semblance of contradiction 2. Those seeming contradictions are either reconciâ—eable out of Scripture or else are but historical difficulties not at all necessary to salvation The Captain should do â—ell to put the parts of his discourse together and see how they agree because he will not I will do it for him The Proposition which Protestants assert and he attempts to disprove is That the Scripture is a perfect Rule in things necessary to salvation This he disproves by instancing in some insoluble difficulties in matters unnecessary to salvation But we must pardon him it is vitium causae the cause affordes no better arguments A sixth argument is this Scripture is no sufficient rule because it is lyable to diverse and contrary expositions An invincible argument by which a man may dispute all Rules out of the world Probatur The Decalogue is no rule of life or manners for the Pharisees understood it one way Christ another Mat. 5. The Statutes of the Kingdome are no rule for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions The Decrees of Popes and Councels are no rule because lyable to diverse and contrary expositions so far that Gratian the compiler of their Canon Law hath one entire Title De Concordantia Discordantium Canonum i. e. concerning the reconciling of disagreeing Canons And there is this remarkable difference between the condition of the Romish and our affairs our differences are in the exposition and accommodation of the rule but Popish differences are in the Text and rule it self since there are amongst them not onely diverse and contrary expositions of the same Canon which yet is sufficient to take off all their glorying over us and to bring them to our levell but indeed there are contrary Texts the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another and one Councel to another Pope Stephâ—n nulls the decrees of Formosus the three next Popes null the decrees of Stephen and re-establish those of â—ormosus Sergius the third comes after and again nulls Formosus his decrees But I will tell you of a greater matter even no lesse then the Authentical Translation of the Bible Sâ—xthe 5th sets forth one Bible An. 1590 not rashly but deliberately with the advice of his Cardinals the assistance of the most learned men of all the Christian world they are his own words corrects the errors of the Press with his own hand imposeth this upon the whole Church Within 3 years comes Clemens the 8. and he puts forth another Edition not onely diverse but in several passages directly contrary to it for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves or to Dr. Iames his Bellum Papale and the Defence of it where he shall find above a thousand differences between them yet Cleâ—ens suppresseth all other Translations and enjoynes this for the oneâ—y Authentick Translation and so it is held to this day The like I might shew of Councels as it were easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Councels among themselves and yet forsooth the appearance of a contradiction must exauctorate the Scriptures when real contradictions shall not prejudice the Authority of Pope and Councel so true it is That some may better steal a horse then others look over the â—edge The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge then it was so in the Apostles dayes and if so the Authority of the Apostles ceased when they had done writing I Answer 1. The Consequence may very well be denied from the
Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the onely rule when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly Ergo it is not the onely rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Councel combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord. Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Councel Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of Gods Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather then for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equall Avthority the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis affâ—ctu ac reverentia with equall piety and reverence it consequently followes that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sence to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despoticall having dominion over the peoples Faith and being Lords over Gods Heritage but onely Ministeriall not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so farre as it concernes his own actions It is true and that Judgment as I have shewed the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an errour common to the Jewes of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every mans being Judge in words and shew yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captaine for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Councell is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Councell be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captaine or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called Rushworths Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtlesse si Pergama dextrâ Defâ—ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security aâ—quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture yet is onely upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written onely to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written meâ—rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Hereticks had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a
severall matters should be under severall Chapters or divisions and not one piece here another there and things must be plaine and distinct From which it is evident enough that the Scripture was never intended for a Law or Iudge of Controversies because the Book is so large and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our beliefe as Historicall Epistolar Mysticall and so many repetitions and lastly it is left to a meer conjecture what may be the meaning of it Thus Rushworth Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Is this the Mathematicall man Is this the rigour of Mathematicks This is enough to make a man forsweare the study of the Mathematicks if it produce no better demonstrations We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Lawes of these men for you see they give Lawes to God himselfe and it is allready enacted in the conclave of Rome that if God do not speak in Mood and Figure he shall not be heard and that if he put forth any Law-book wherein he doth not rigorously observe the orders and methods of a Systeme it shall not be received Believe me it was a good turne that Mr Cowell Writ his Institutiones Iuris Anglicani wherein he reduced the English Lawes to a Method for else woe had been to the poor Statute-Books and all Records of our Lawes for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Lawes nor Judges of Controversies between men and men for so saith our Theologicall Euclide that scornes to speak under a Demonstration for we know how much more large a book they make then the Bible and how many things are mingled unappertaining to the substance of our estates and lives c. The summe of the Argument is this The Scripture was not intended for the Law because it is so large so miscellaneous so full of repetitions c. Shall I need to say any more for the answer of such an Argument wherein there is nothing evident but the disputers confidence and the Papists credulity and the desperatenesse of their cause Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jewes But this is false and it was a Law to the Jewes Ergo the principle is false from which such a conclusion is deduced The Major I prove from his own words and besides he particularly disputes against the Old Testaments being a Law The Minor I hope I shall easily prove Where to prevent equivocation or mistakes take notice I meddle not with the ambiguous terme of JUDGE wee are now disputing whether it were a Law nor do I meddle with that question whether it be a Law to us But to the Jewes This then I assert that the Old Testament notwithstanding this objection was a Law to the Jewes and a man would think the very mention of the proposition should cut off all necessity of proof It is so absurd and portentous a thing to Christian eares to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned I prove it onely by this Argument That Book by which both people and Priests and Princes of the Jewes were to be guided and ruled and commanded in their decisions was certainly a Law to them But such was the Old Testament 1. For the people it is plaine They are commanded to observe to do all the Words of this Law that are Written in this Book Deut. 28.58 And Moses makes bold to call it a Law-book notwithstanding all the mixtures repetitions c. and a curse is pronounced to every one that continued not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 and for the guidance of the people those Books were to be read by or to the people Deut. 31.9 Ios. 8.35 Neh. 8. and diverse other places 2. For the Princes it is no lesse evident that it was a Law and rule to them Ios. 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is Written therein And 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 all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them Thus it is undeniable it was a Law both to Prince and People and that is sufficient to overthrow the whole argument But I adde 3. It was a law to the Priests too I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tyed to follow the Priests decisions I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced but my present assertion is onely this The books of Scripture were a law to the Priests by which they were to be ordered and regulated in their proceedings The sentence which the Priests were to pronounce it must be the sentence of the Law Deut 17.11 and the Priests are oft censured and condemned for neglecting or transgressing the Law which plainly shews it was the law and rule of their proceedings Ans. 2. But what shall we say if the Papists themselves deny their own Conclusion which here they indeavour tanto molimine to prove You will say we have little reason to believe those that do not believe themselves or to assent to that Conclusion which they deny To make good this you must remember the question is not about the Judge properly so called but about the Rule or Law to which we suppose the Judge to be tyed for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisitenesse this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuites but there must have been another and that a living Judge of controversies This premised I thus proceed Either they of the Church of Rome have a Law by which they regulate all their Decrees and decisions or they have none if they say they have none then they act lawlessly and arbitrarily and we have found Antichrist by his character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lawlesse 2 Thes. 2. but if they say as they all pretend and professe they are guided by a law then I enquire what that law is Here it is true they are divided while some make the judgment of the antient Church and Fathers their law others the Popes Decrees others the Acts of Councels but all of them pretend some law or other and which opinion soever of their Church they take for they have good choice either their argument hath no force against the Scriptures being our Law or it equally militates against their own Laws As for instance if they make the judgment of the Fathers their Law are not they lyable to the same exceptions with the Scripture of largenesse aliene mixtures repetitions c And the like may be said of Popes Decretals and the Acts of Councels which
they generally pretend to own as their Law and it is no lesse true of Tradition of the largenesse whereof one may say as was formerly said of Livy Quas mea non totas Bibliotheca capit for according to the estimate which a learned Author of their own makes Charron by name the Scripture is but minima pars veritatis revelatae the least part of revealed Truth He that pleaseth may see good store of them collected by that great terrour of the Papists Moulin in a Treatise of his in French concerning Traditions Nay to put all out of doubt these very men that argue at this rate though they do not acquiesce in the Scripture as a Judge yet they do own it for a Law they confesse the word of God is their rule and law onely they make as I may say this law to consist of two Tables the written and the unwritten Word which you saw the Councel of Trent receive with equal piety and reverence Now certainly they that subscribe to this as the Papists generally do they own the Scripture for a Law though not for a compleat and sufficient Law nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law devest the Scripture of it any more then the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and statutes that is not at all Much more might be said to shew the folly and absurdity of this argument but if I should spend more words about it I should both question my own and too grosly distrust the Readers discretion And now having done with the Mathematicks let us come to the Politicks the best argument the Church of Rome hath Politick Mr. White who seeing their Scripture arguments in the suds and for the Fathers pila miâ— nantia pilis comes in to succour a falling cause with Politick considerations and moral conjectures and fine-spun probabilities No man can deny that it was politickly done when they saw their Church could prove nothing to assert that her bare saying was sufficient that the testimony of the present Church that she holds nothing but what she hath received from Christ and the Apostles is security enough for a Christian's Faith but this notion I have largely examined and I hope Mr. White will abate something of his confidence in it therefore I have nothing to do here but to consider what he alledgeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies and excepting what hath been before discussed I find onely one argument that can pretend to merit any consideration and it is delivered by him pro more with great confidence and contempt of his Adversaries When the Protestants ask the question as well they may Cannot the Bible make it self be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle a question which all the wits of the Romane Church not excluding Mr. White were never able to answer and thence infer that the Scripture is sufficiently intelligible and able to decide controversies Mr. White 's answer and argument against the Scriptures is this That this depends upon a most false supposition viz that the Scripture was written of those controversies which now are whereas it is a most shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world beginning from Genesis to the Apocalypse let them name one Book whose Theme is any now controverted Point between Protestants and Catholicks Apology for Tradition fifteenth Encounter And consequently the Scripture is no fit Judge for our controversies This you must know is the argument of another Mathematical Papist who cries out of Protestants for resting in probabilities yet can satisfy himself or at least pretends to do so with such absurd and improbable ratiocinations O the power of prejudice or interest for I cannot tell which it is that blinds such men as Mr. White Be of good chear Protestants the Papists are upon their last legs you see their arguments run very low The Answer is this in short for truly it needs no long nor laborious reply how much soever Mr. White is conceited of it It is not a most shamelesse but a most shameful proposition to say the Scripture is unable to decide any of those controversies which are since sprung up in the Christian world Is there any Freshman in the University ignorant of this That Rectum est Index sui obliqui that the assertion of a Truth is sufficient for the confutation of all contrary errors wheresoever or whensover broached I may say to Mr. White as they did to Moses Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men Doth Mr. White think his Readers would have neither wit nor conscience I aske whether those passages of Scripture In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Joh. 1.1 who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 This is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 do not solidly and sufficiently confute the late sprung Socinian Heresy and prove Christ's Divinity and prae-existency before his Incarnation If he say no I will promise him hearty thanks though not from Christ nor peradventure from his Vicar yet from all the Socinians in the world and then he would do well to answer what Placaeus and other of the Protestants or rather as a demonstration of the unity of the Romish Church what Smiglâ—cius and others of his Brother Romanists have argued from those places or else let him give us the reason why his Brethren should play the knaves and own and urge those things for solid arguments which they did not think so If he say yea then down fals all this goodly structure and Mr. White must seek for a new prop to their declining Babel and Scripture is not unable to decide controversies of a later Date Yet again I will prove Jesus Christ was not of Mr. White 's mind for he thought Scripture yea even such parts of Scripture as were not written upon those Themes or controversies nor designed against those errors able to decide supervening controversies Thus he confutes the Pharisaical opinion about Divorce from a Text well nigh as old as the Creation of the world even the institution of marriage Math. 19.4 5 6. So he confutes the error of the Sadduces against the resurrection from a Scripture long before delivered and such an one too as seemed to have no respect at all to such an Heresy Mat. 22.29 30 31 32. May it please this worthy Gentleman to give us leave without offence to prefer our Saviours opinion before his I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so sensless a cavil but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Non-sence passe for an Argument I need onely advise the Reader to read over the New Testament and if he have either reason or conscience it is impossible he should be of Mr.
White 's mind Did not the Apostles decide that controversie Act. 15. from antient Scriptures and from such places as seem as irrelative to the matter debated as any which are urged by any considerable Protestant against the Popish errors And why then may not we tread in their steps why may not a Protestant as well confute the opinion of Justification by works in the Popish sense from that Scripture we conclude we are justified by Faith without the works of the Law as S. Paul might and did confute the same doctrine when held by the Jews from that passage of Davids Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven Rom. 4 If these words long before delivered Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Deut. 6.13 were sufficient to decide the controversy between Christ and the Devil to confute the opinion of Devil-worship why may not the same words as urged by Christ be as sufficient to decide the controversy between the Papists and us to confute the opinion of Image-worship But I am not at leisure to transcribe all the New Testament I cannot think of Mr. White as it is said of many Popish Doctors that he never read over the Bible but I would desire him once more to read it and to put on his Spectacles and then tell me if he be still of the same mind If this will not do let him reflect upon the Fathers whether it was not the universal practice of the Fathers to confute later Heresies out of the Scripture this they did either pertinently or solidly and then it may be done still or impertinently and fallaciously and then Mr. White makes them meer Juglers In a word as upon supposition that Aristotle was authentick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it were no hard matter out of him to confute all the new opinions of the Modern Philosophers So the Scriptures being confessedly such it may suffice for the confutation of later Heresies Lastly if all this will not serve turn it is to use his own words a shameless proposition to say the Scripture doth not speak of the matters now in controversy between us and the Papists and whoever asserts it either understands not what he saith or must be presumed never to have read any of our Protestant Controvertists who have fully confuted all the Popish errors and heresies from express Scriptures or which is all one from genuine consequences evidently deduced from them Nor doth it matter at all to say the Scripture treats not of the controversies at large since it is by all acknowledged that every part and parcel of Scripture is Canonical and Authentical and the Papists make this the difference between the Divinity of the Scriptures and Conciliary Decrees That these are Divine in the main Conclusion but not in the premises or mediums but the Scripture they say is Divine in all every verse every word being Divine and consequently if but one verse of Scripture speak against an error it doth as solidly though not so fully confute that error as if a whole Book were written against it For instance that Text This is the true God if the sense of the words be agreed and if they be not it would do nothing though an whole Epistle were written about it and so far there is no difference doth as substantially confute the Socinian Heresy in that point as a larger Discourse upon it would do and therefore Mr. White 's argument is empty and inffectual and must go after its fellows And so all their arguments of any note against the Scriptures being Rule or Judge of controversies are I hope sufficiently answered and the Protestant doctrine or Truth of Christ viz. The Scripture is a sufficient rule or judge of controversies stands-like a Rock at which their Waves are dashed in pieces And now I should come to the other part by positive Scriptures and arguments to prove the Scriptures authority and sufficiency but this is fully done by many learned pens onely because our principal arguments for it are assaulted by the Adversaries I now have to do with I shall therefore consider their pretensions against the evidence of those places alledged by us in defence of the authority and sufficiency of their Scriptures for I am forced by them against my own desire and inclination to confound found these two heads and treat of them together I know there are several Texts rightly urged by the Protestants and vainly cavilled by the Papists but because the handling of this point was not my first nor is my main design at present and one solid argument or convincing Scripture is as good as a thousand and both parties are upon the matter willing their cause should stand or fall by the verdict of one place as it doth or doth not convincingly prove the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures and because above all places the Romanists most eagerly combate this I shall therefore more largely insist upon it and clear up the force and evidence of it notwithstanding all the clouds they cast before it The place is 2 Tim. 3.15 16. From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Iesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to all good works To ingenuous and dis-interested persons the very reading of these words is a sufficient confutation of the Popish opinion but that you may see the Romanists have if no conscience yet some wit they are able to darken the clearest Texts and to perplex what they cannot answer Our arguments from this place are plain and cogent 1. That which can make a man wise unto Salvation is sufficient for Salvation 2. That which is sufficient for the conferring of all those things which are necessary to salvation is sufficient for salvation but so is the Scripture For there are but two things necessary to salvation viz. knowledg of the Truth and practice of righteousness and holiness and for both these the Scripture is said to be sufficient 3. That which is sufficient for a man of God or Minister is much more sufficient for a private Christian but so is the Scripture Ergo. But let us see what our Adversaries pretend against this evident place Excep 1 It is able indeed but that is through faith E. it is not of it self sufficient saith our Captain It speaks not of making Timothy a Christian by the Bible since it supposeth Timothy's being already made a Christian by Paul's institutions vivâ voce but it speaks of the perfecting of his faith not the first choice of it and this faith is a belief of Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition saith Mr. Cressy sect 2. cap. 6. And consonantly to him Mr. White thus glosseth upon the place The Scriptures will contribute to thy salvation