and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition 2. Seeing they grant the Church may erre if she receed from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not erre unlesse I be sure she keep to Tradition And therefore I must examine that and judge of it and so private men are made judges of controversies which they so much dread 3. Hereby the Authority of the Pope and generall Councels of Bishops is rendred unnecessary I prove it thus If these be necessary onely as witnesses to Tradition then their Authority is not necessary For it is not Authority but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witnesse competent A lay hearer of S t Paul may be as competent a witnesse of the Doctrine he heard S t Paul Preach as a Bishop supposing a parity in their knowledg fidelity and converse with the Apostle and another Bishop may be as competent a witnesse as the Bishop of Rome and consequently as Infallible and any congregation of discreet and pious Christians who heard S t Peter Preach are as infallible witnesses as the Church of Rome and if there were a generall assembly of lay men of equall knowledge and experience they are as infallible witnesses what the Faith of the next precedent age was and what the Faith of the present Church is as a Councell of Bishops Nay to speak truth they are more credible witnesses because lesse byassed by interest affection or prejudice These rocks the first branch throwes them upon 2. If they flie from his and make the Churches infallibility the foundation of Traditions as the most Papists do then they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture Fathers or Councels which we have seen they cannot do So that if either of their positions be true their cause is lost But 2. If either of them be false they are gone too For if tradition be not Infallible in it selfe without the Churches Authority as the one side saith then the Papists have no certaine rule for the Church to steere iâ—s course by for the Scriptures they do not own as such and if the Church be not infallible but by vertue of this Tradition as the other side saith then they confesse the insufficiency of all their proofes from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Councels and their Authority is no more then that of any faithfull or credible Historian and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historicall faith I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogisme from the words and assertions of M r White Tradition is overthrown if another principle of Faith be added to it But the most and Learnedest Doctours of the Romish Church do adde another principle to it viz. the Churches Authority and infallibility as I shewed from their own words Ergo either Tradition and all this new devise or the Authority of the Romish Church is overthrown 4. Answ. 2. This new conceit directly thwarts the designe of God in the Writing of the Scripture and indeed the common sence and experience of all mankind for hereby a verball Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing It hath been the Wisdome of God in formeâ— ages to take care that those things might be Written which he would have kept in remembrance Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a Book So little did God trust this now supposed infallible way of orall Tradition that he would not venture the Decalogue upon it though the words were but few and the importance of them so considerable both in truth and in the apprehensions of the Jewes that if M r Whites Argument have any strength in it it was impossible posterity should ever mistake it but write it with his own finger once and againe after the breaking of the first Tables And although whilest the Church was confined to a few families and divine revelations were frequently renewed a verball Tradition was sufficient yet when the Church came to be multiplyed and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Nations and Revelations cease then Writing proves of absolute necessity How farre the first and wisest Christians were from M r Whites opinion appeares from hence that not daring to leane upon the broken reed of Orall Tradition they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing Eusibius reports that S t Peters hearers were not content with this way of Tradition from Peters mouth but for want of M r VVhites presence there to convince them of their folly They earnestly begged it of Marke that he would leave them that Doctrine in VVriting which they had received by word of mouth And Hierome tels us That S t John the Evangelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia who it seems were raw novices that did not understand their Catechisme nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of orall Tradition And S t Luke gives it us under his hand not fearing either M r VVhites anger or his Argument that he wrote his Gospell ad majorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4 When Iob desires the perpetuall continuance of his words he wisheth O that my words were now VVritten Oh that they were Printed in a Book Job 19.23 And David in the same case would not rely upon Tradition but takes this course for assurance This shall be written for the generation to come Psal. 102.18 But because M r VVhite undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or Iob or David were and therefore good reason they should all vaile to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgment he shall do well to remember that God himselfe was of the same judgment Go write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever Isa. 30.8 And to this agrees the common experience of mankind Vox audita perit litera scripta manet verball Traditions quickly vanish onely writings are durable Hence those famous Lawes of Lycurgus institutes of the Druides Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and onely some few fragments reserved because not committed to writing but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind wereby the aierinesse of this phantasme will be discovered and the great difference between Tradition and writing in point of certainty demonstrated Adam and Noah the two successive heads of mankind did doubtlesse deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances which M r VVhite supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospell as a Doctrine of everlasting consequence and they so received it and for a season transmitted it to their Children But alas how soon was all obliterated and in this sense all mankind some very few excepted did agree to murther themselves and they actually did that which M r VVhite saith
delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak what hinders but that they may understand them in contrary senses and so derive from them contrary conclusions and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S. Peter's mouth Are there not sharp contests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points and that too among those who were present upon the place and heard their debates And will these men still undertake to prove that Snow is black or which is equivalent to it that it was impossible to do tâ—at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tels us a man is justified by faith â—thout the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sence Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrot who can say that hath any care what he saith that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book could not as easily have mistaken them when they heard them from his mouth Especially if it be considered that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembring their various expressions might not derive contrary Traditions from them why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as excluding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification and the others have understood Iames as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied then it follows unavioidably that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition which was the thing to be proved Another instance we have in the Sadduces whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel was teaching that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul no resurrection of the body yet we ought to serve God his Scholar Sadok so mis-understood him that he broached a new doctrine and turned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical and asserted that there was no resurrection of the body nor immortality of the soul c. And will these men pawn their souls on it that it was impossible for the Apostles hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee the Evangelist observes that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren that that Disciple should not dye vers 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shews for common hearers to mis-understand the words and mistake the sense of a Preacher when they are but newly come from him and all things are fresh in their memory what a desperate assertion is this that a man can certainly remember the words and infallibly understand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers it may be twenty years ago And if it be granted as it cannot be denied that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks and so of the fourth and further untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome To clear this further consider what I have already intimated § 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remembred and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Trâ—dition of the first age was this That God alone was to be worshipped not men not Angels not Images Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then the Fathers unanimously did in this particular Now comes the next age and they receive indeed this Tradition but then here ariseth a question In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped S. Austin takes it up and saith they meant that God alone was to be worshipped with Latria and the Saints with Dulia And although it is evident enough that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship he appropriates it to God yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his perverse successors gave rise to another controversy viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature And thus as in the throwing of a stone upon the water one circle begets another so doth one controversy ingender another and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition Take one Instance more S. Gregory the great Pope delivers this doctrine to posterity as his doctrine and the doctrine of his Ancestors that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop is proud profane abominable wicked blasphemous and the forerunner of Antichrist This is confessed Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bishop in order to this they start a question where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop For this is a Maxime let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is alwaies orthodox Oh say these Sophi Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor Iohn never dreamed of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholick Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever ought to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to shew how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in
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
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
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
Infallibility from the Pope which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do confess Councels without the Popes confirmation and in themselves to be but fallible for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara and all the Authors he cites to that purpose What say you further if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion let the intelligent Reader judg His Conclusion is Therefore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Councels now I assume St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held that Councels are fallible This I prove from his own words In this sense Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin whether they be Popes or others whether they wrot any thing in Councel or out of Councel the same judgment is to be passed upon them that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true certain because they wrot so but onely because they could prove it by Scripture or reason or miracles or the approbation of the universal Church Thus far Occham Now follows S. Clara's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which doctrine of his I judg most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Councels in lesser things though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain and a distinction foisted into the text which St. Austin never dream'd of and he is reduced to such straits that he hath no other way to evade but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another viz. that it is sufficient for him that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Councels Ergo they thought them Infallible It is Bellarmine's argument and I have already answer'd it And so this block being removed the Conclusion remains firme That St. Austin thought not Councels infallible For farther confirmation whereof I shall from hence collect two Arguments plainly proving that St. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Councels 1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Councels then to particular Synods nay then to private Doctors This I prove because St. Austin and the Papists themselves and indeed all men allow each of them so far infallible and their assertions to be infallibly true as they can prove them by Scripture or irrefragable reasons or miracles or the approbation of the whole Church and not one syllable more doth Austin give to general Councels 2. Because the Papists will not and cannot according to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there speaks and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think unlesse they will make him one of those who seldome speak as they think It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church however disowned by some few of them whom they look on as Extravagants and Schismaticks that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope say some of the Councel say others of the Pope and Councel together say almost all upon the credit of their own assertion without any further reason This is evident from Stapleton Gregory de Valentia Tannerus and Bellarmine in several pâ—aces one I shall instance in It is one thing saith he to interpret a law as a Doctor that requires Learning another thing to interpret it as Iudge that requires Authority a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed farther then reason induceth us but a Iudg propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it The Fathers â—xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes And now let S. Clara himself judg if he will deal candidly whether St. Austin and Bellarmine were of a mind or which is all one whether St. Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes barely upon the credit of their authority or assertion as the Papists say he did or only as Doctors because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason as St. Austin in terminis asserts § 11. But because it is of some concernment to understand Austin's mind in this point whose authority is so venerable both to them and us and whom both Parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy I shall further consider what S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose the passage he pleads is this Vntill that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed by a general Councel Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels Put it it into a Syllogism and it is this That which so confirms a truth as to remove all doubts is Infallible But a general Councel so confirmes a truth as to remove all doubts Ergo. The Major is denied for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reason so confirme a truth as to remove all doubt from the hearers and yet is not therefore infallible There are then two wayes whereby doubts may be removed 1. By the infallibility of the authority Thus when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason this should remove all doubt 2. By the evidence of arguments and so their argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativè thus a general Councel removeth doubts Ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority it followeth not for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument And this Answer might very well suffice But that I may give them full satisfaction if possibly the interest of these men would suffer their consciences to open their eyes I shall prove that it was so and that St. Austin speaks of this latter way of removing doubts i.e. by their convincing arguments not by their infallible authority This plainly appears by considering the contexture of the words Lest I should seem saith he only to prove it by humane arguments because the obscurity of this question did in former times before the schisme of Donatus make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves untill by a General Councel that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments Where you plainly see that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority and that he acknowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa certain or infallible as is evident from the Antithesis 2. This appears most undeniably from a parallel place where St. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian That holie man sufficiently shewed that he would have changed his opinion if any had demonstrated to him that Baptisme might be so
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
one as soone as the other 2. The utmost importance of this phrase is that they made this decree by the direction of the Holy Ghost d. d It seemed good to us by the direction of the Holy Ghost And for this there is no need to devise a new Phaenomenon of infallible assistance to be afforded to all Councels of which there is not one syllable in the whole Chapter seeing there are other waies mentioned in that place in respect whereof they had the Holy Ghosts direction and might say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us and by which the Holy Ghost did give its Testimony to their decree directed against those that urged the necessity of Circumcision upon the Gentiles 1. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost inasmuch as when the Gospell was preached to the Gentiles by Peter God bare them witnesse giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us v. 8 so making no difference between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost who in the Scripture had foretold the conversion of the Uncircumcised Gentiles to the Faith and their reception into the Church And for asmuch as it is exceeding plaine that the controversy was debated in that Councell principally if not solely by Scripture Arguments and the conclusion deduced from Scripture evidence they might very well say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost if it was conformable to the Scripture there being nothing more familiar then this that what is said in Scripture is ascribed to the Holy Ghost as Act. 1.26 The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David Heb. 3.7 Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith to day if ye will here my voice 3. If that phrase doth imply Infallibility yet the consequence doth not hold from Apostles to Bishops I appeale to any Papist whose candour is not gone with his conscience whether this follow A Councell wherein were severall persons even in their single capacities Infallible had infallible direction when they were met together Ergo Those Councels wherein there is not one person but is confessed in his single Capacity to be Fallible are Infallible If any or every Apostle had singly said It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me would this have inferred the Infallibility of every single Bishop They say No Then let them shew a reason why the Argument proceeds not as well from single Apostles to single Bishops as from Apostles conjoyned in Councell to Bishops conjoyned 4. There is also another inconsequence The Apostles and Councell had the direction of the Holy-Ghost in a conclusion regulated by Scripture and collected from it Ergo All following Councels have the direction of the Holy-Ghost and cannot erre in all their conclusions whatsoever Is not this a goodly Argument This Councel did not erre Ergo No other Councel can erre The words are onely assertive of a present case viz. of the direction of this Councell in that point not at all promissive of any thing for the future and therefore can give us no security at all for the Infallibility of Councels for the future it would make fine work if every assertion were turned into a promise I might as well argue David was guided by the Spirit of God in the ordering of Gods house as you read I Chron. 28.12 19. Therefore all succeeding kings of Iudah were Infallible Moses was faithfull in all Gods house Heb 3.5 Ergo None of Moses's Successors could be unfaithfull Nothing can be replied but this That David and Moses had a speciall assistance not communicated to all their Successors And the same may as truly be said of this Councell and the Apostles here assembled But saith Bellarmine Infallibility being granted to this Councell as being necessary for the conservation of the Church against Herestes the same reason and necessity continuing the same Infallibility must consequently be granted to following generall Councels I Answer 1. If this Councell by reason of the Apostles was Infallible yet this Infallibility was purely accidentall because persons indued with Infallibility for other ends were there present and not conferred upon them for the decision of the present controversy and the reason why Infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles was not common to all but particular to that age and season viz. because they were to lay a solid foundation for and to give a sure rule to all the Churches in after ages and therefore Infallibility was their peculiar priviledge It is but a lame inference Infallibility was necessary in the first founders of Christianity for the Plantation and constitution of the Gospell Church Ergo It was necessary for the constant and perpetuall government of the Church in all after ages Upon the same warrant a man may argue thus Miracles were necessary in the first erecting and laying the Foundation of the Church Ergo they were necessary for the edification of the Church in all successive ages In both cases the consequence is repugnant to common sense and reason and confuted by experience For 2. That such generall Councels and their Infallibility are not so necessary as the Papists would perswade us plainly appeares from hence that God who is never defective in necessaries left his Church for three hundred years together wholly without them and yet the Church since the dayes of the Apostles never had more stability in the Faith and a greater plenitude of every grace and good work then in those times 5. That you may see how little reason there is that Protestants should be convinced by this place take notice that diverse of the Learned Papists are unsatified with this Argument among which are Ockam Cameracensis Ferus and M r White in his Treatise De fide Theologia where he thus Answers the Argument Nor is it materiall that in that Apostolicall Councell they use those words It seemed good to the Holy-Ghost and to us For first it was a Councell of Prophets in each of which Gods spirit dwelt in a speciall manner at least in the Apostles And he addes If they acted with reason doubtlesse they acted by the instinct of Gods Spirit although not such as Divines feigne to be assistant to Councells A fifth place they urge is Mat. 28. vers the last I am with you allwaies to the end of the World Answ. 1. Whatsoever this promise containes the Papists have no part in it because it depends upon a condition which they have so grossely violated Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and loe in so doing I am with you Christ commanded his Disciples to search the Scriptures Papists teach the Contrary Christ commanded all his Disciples that partook of the Bread to drink also of the Cup Papists teach otherwise and the like may be instanced in an hundred particulars 2. Put this Argument into forme and it is this They whom Christ promiseth to be with are Infallible But Christ promiseth to be with his Church
was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and veneration and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into and consequently writing is a sure and orall Tradition an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels decrees of Courts Acts of Parliament though the importance of them were many times so great and evident that according to this new notion writing was superfluous and verball Tradition Infallible And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly concernments shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it Let Papists do so who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargaine But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this grosse absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines meerly speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise then could be by books VVritten their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronouncing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly have been more securely propagated and more clearly and intelligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy daringly asserts See Exomolog Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery O the tremendous judgment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprobate sence Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeall sence or this bread is converted into the very substance of this body which you now see These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a posture of adoration viz. kneeling with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concernes himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse both the absurdity of their Arguments and assertion and the solidity of this second Answer and the advantage of writing above unwritten Tradition § 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in it selfe else an infallible Authoritie is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Hereticks recede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines as we have seen But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition Here all the doubt lies and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperatenesse of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confesse to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians saith Iustin Martyr This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M r VVhite shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in publike Preaching For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apostles and so transmit them to their Posterity which is the thing now denied It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them but also propheticall of the Papists When Hereticks are reproved out of the Scripture they begin to accuse the Scripture as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors particularly they named Origen Dionysius Alexandrinus and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them as Baronius acknowledgeth Epiphanius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men The Doctrine of
byassed or the contradiction being speedily suppressed which is very possible and hath been usuallâ— it could not probably fall out otherwise but that their opinion should be transmitted to their Successors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day neither in a civil nor in a Spirituall notion And de facto that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees hath been so fully demonstrated that I need onely point the Reader to those Authors who have done this worke especially to Momeys mystery of Iniquity and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean 2. I answer particularly and in opposition to the first branch I lay down this position That the following Age or the Major part of those called Christians might easily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age of which many rationall accounts may be given 1. There was no certaine way whereby for example the particular Christians of the third Age might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the second Age. Remember the question is not how probably they might believe but how infallibly they might know it for nothing will serve the Romanists turne short of Infallibility It is true the Christians of Antioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there and they of Ephesus what was there delivered but no Christian could without miracles infallibly know what were the Doctrines delivered to the Christians in those innumerable places where the Gospell had got sooting Hence then I offer this Argument Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition that the Christians in severall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in such places and would not deceive their posterity in it or it is not sufficient but it is necessary that Traditions should be compared and the Truth discovered in a generall Councell If they say the former then they assert the Infallibility not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome or of a generall Councell or of the Catholick Church but of every particular City And to say Truth Either this plea of Tradition is fallacious and absurd or every particular Church is Infallible For to use their own words if the Christians suppose of Ephesus could be deceived then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered or they did willingly deceive their posterity but neither of these were possible Ergo The Church of Ephesus was Infallible If they will eat their own words as they will do any thing sooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth and say the Church of Ephesus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity then so might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria and so the rest and what then becomes of Infallibility If they say the latter viz. That there is a necessity of a generall Councell to compare Traditions and declare the Truth then they are desired to remember that as yet there had been no generall Councell and consequently no Infallibility and therefore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding yea many mistakes What else will they say Will they say that a Christian might Infallibly know the Truth by travelling to all places and companies of Christians and hearing it from their own mouths This though it might give satisfaction to such a Christian yet it could not satisfy others who had no such evidence Or will they say the Christians knew it by Testimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions Why such Testimonials are not so much as pretended to have been required or given and if they had been given yet that could satisfy none but those few eyewitnesses of them It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Christians of the third Age might be assured of the genuine Traditions of the second which was the thing to be proved And the solidity and satisfactorinesse of this one Answer if there were no more appeares plainly from hence that the great Architects of this devise make it essentiall to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles so Mr White informes us since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostle\`s we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently nâ—ither is Tradition Apology for Tradition Encounter 6 elsewhere his reply to our instance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this That it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some countries not all Encounter 2. Hence then I thus argue The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a generall Councell of all the Churches severally taught by the severall Apostles but such generall Councell there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolicall Traditions delivered in the second which was the thing to be proved § 14. 2. There are many instances which may be given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age We have one instance among our selves concerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding â—ge in the Quinquarticular points The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us that she maintained their Doctrines Their Adversaries tell us she held the contrary and there are Books written and Arguments urged on both sides he that doubts of this let him look into M r â—rin on the one side and D r Hâ—ylin on the other And why might it not be thus in former ages And seeing there are great mistakes daily committed and fresh disputes managed about the opinions of those Authors who have left us their mind as plainly as words can make it in books which are alwaies present to our perusal how can it be sense for a man to say that one may infallibly know their mind by a transient hearing of them what tedious controversies are there about the judgment of S. Augustine and others of the Fathers in sundry points of great moment wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do or useth to do Suppose now the Fathers preach the same things and words which they have left us in writings as diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons can any man without nonsence say that the diligent Reader may be mistaken and the attentive Hearer is infallible We all know the five Propositions of Iansenius condemned lately at Româ— The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of Iansenius his words which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them both parties are agreed in his words which seldome happens in Orall Traditions and consequently makes the argument stronger yet they differ in the sense which one side saith is Heretical the other aver it is innocent Why might not in like manner several parties though it be supposed they perfectly remembred the words
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
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
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
the quality of the Hebrew and Greek Tongues He computes how many erroâ—s probably might be in the Copies of the Bible we may well allow saith he 336 errors in one Copy which admitted you will find the number of errors in all the Copies made since the Apostles time fifteen or sixteen times as many as there are words in the Bible and so by this account it would be 15 or 16 to one of any particular place that it were not the true Text These are his words Dialog 2. Sect. 5. VVhen I read these and other things of the same tendency I began to reason with my selfe Are these the Discourses of William Rushworth a Romish Priest Are these the Arguments which must make men Christians or which in their sence is all one Roman Catholicks Is this the man that affected the rigour of Mathematicall discourse even in his Controversies as we may perceive by this worke for so M r White is pleased to tell us Is this the Book that so learned so ingenious a man as M r White must commend to the VVorld as that which was very satisfactory to diverse judicious persons Surely it is a mistake these are not Rushworths but Vaninus his Dialogues or it is a newfound remnant of Iulian the Apostate which some unlucky Heretick hath set out under the name of a Romish Priest May I be so bold as to aske our Holy Mother the Church of Rome Num haec est tunica filii Is this thy sonnes voice No sure It is some Priest of Apollo bidding defiance to the Christian cause and striving to render the Holy Scriptures contemptible and ridiculous But you see what desperate men will do in a desperate cause rather then not maintaine the Papall Authority they will subvert the very foundations of Christianity The Jesuites tell us that in order to the comming of Antichrist Rome shall turne Pagan I am perfectly of their mind and I think the turne is halfe wrought allready Ecce signum for none short of a Pagan could talke at this rate The insolency of the Discourse and confidence of the Disputer and the applauss of his party makes it necessary that I should say something farther by way of Answer The first Answer which alone may silence this impudent Objection is this Either this Argument proves nothing against us or it proves more then the Papists at best such of them as are not quite out of their wits and consciences too would have it let us reflect a little upon the premises and then forecast the Conclusion Take all his discourse for granted that by reason of the many mistakes corruptions doubts difficulties there is nothing but incertitude that it is fifteen to one of any particular place that it is not the true Text that it is as ridiculâ—â—s to seek the decision of Controversies out of the Bible as to â—ut with a Beetle or to knâ—ck with a straw These are the Authors words Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Go say these are faint-hearted fellowes if you can Give me those honest soules that tell us plainly what they think of the Scriptures and how little they value them It were an hard case if all the the Churches Adversariâ—s were crafty companions Now say I if these things be true then certainly it was not without cause that the Papist forementioned said that without the Churches Authority the Scriptures were of no more value then AEsops Fables Their Father Costerus had good reason to say it was a Sheath that would admit any Sword and Pamelius did rightly call it a Nose of Wax If this were true we might throw all our Bibles into the Fire for Controversies cannot be decided thence nor errors detected nor truth evinced there 's nothing there but uncertainty and darknesse and consequently our sins cannot be reproved nor duties pressed from the Scripture for the same reason unlesse these men will say who we see will not stick at small matters that the Copists or Translators errors did happily hit onely upon such places as concercerned Controversies that the Church alone might rule there not at all on such as concerne duties and sinnes But if this be true whence come those high Characters and ample Testimonies which the most learned Papists and their Councels have given to the Scripture that they acknowledge the Scriptures or Bible and they spake of that which we have to be the word of God as much to be reverenced as Tradition it selfe How came Bellarmine to say of those Books of the Prophets and Apostles which we have Nibil notius nihil certius c. i. e. nothing is more evident nothing more certain then that they are the Word of God and none but a fool can denie them credit de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2. Whence is it that the Papists accuse the Protestants of slander for saying they exauctorate the Scripture How is it that they all pretend the Church may not contradict those very Scriptures which we have In my opinion the Church of Rome was wofully overseen in disputing with the Protestants out of the Scripture or troubling themselves to answer the Scriptures which Protestants brought for Mr Rushworth hath furnished them with one Answer which will serve for an universall Plaister therefore I would advise them thus to Answer once for all when a Protestant argues against merit from that Text When you have done all that you can say you are unprofitable servants Luk. 17.10 Let them say it was the error of the Copist should have been profitable servants So when it is made a Character of the Apostacy of the latter times forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4.3 It is but saying it was an error of the Copist that put forbidding instead of commanding a familiar mistake at Rome and then I think the Hereticks are paid home And so when Christ bids the people Search the Scriptures say the Copist left out the word not it should have been Search not for so Tradition assures us And so in a thousand other cases I need no more then give the hint A word is enough to the wise as doubtlesse they at Rome are in their generation In short what do these men and such Arguments tend to but debauch the consciences of men and depreciate the Scriptures that if men have not so much grace as to abhorre such heathenish discourses it is enough to make the Scripture as insignificant a VVriting as the most contemptible Pamphlet that ever the VVorld was pester'd with I easily apprehend there is one subterfuge that the Adversaries of the Holy Scriptures will think to make an escape at They will say all this is true there neither is nor would be any thing at all certaine or credible or clear in the Scripture and the Sacred VVritings we now have but for the Infallibility of the Church which from Infallible Tradition receives them and delivers them to us But I Answer 1. Woe to us Christians if all the validity of the Scripture depended
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