Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentenee As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuity or ignorance For pag 33 34 35 36 3â— more likâ— a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumnious invective against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Catholick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Denister against the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question
words relate also if not principally to questions of fact for he subjoyns aequum justum est ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi crimen admissum est It s just that every mans cause be heard in that place where the crime was committed so that the perfidy of which Cyprian speaks may be expounded of unfaithfulness in judging of crimes and in examining of such questions of Fact I suppose Romanists will grant Popes may erre yea Cyprian a little after pleads the Authority of the African Bishops to be no less then of the Italian Bishops for judging in such cases Thirdly does not Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeium accuse Pope Stephanus not only of error but as mantaining causam haereticorum the cause of Hereticks against the Church Unless therefore St. Cyprian be made to contradict himself he cannot here assert the infallibility of the Romish Church Fourthly and lastly these words non potest habere accessum cannot have access must not be strained as excluding a possibility of erring Non potest being frequently taken for that which could not readily or easily be as matters then stood Examples might be brought from Sacred and prophane Writings yea and from Cyprian himself Luk. 11. 7. when the man said I cannot rise he meant not impossibility of rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impadent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder in necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatiean Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are
propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
ductis tecta columnis Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility as in the state of the Question it hath been described Ergo it ought not to be believed The sequel is evident especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Adversary is propositio per se nota or carries with it an intrinsick Evidence Nay Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authority where no Divine Authority is interposed there can be no assent of Faith The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith according to this Pamphleter If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge ought he not to have confirmed it by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fathers none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church would it not then appear that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge Though this Argument need no further confirmation till I come to canvase his objections yet for his conviction I will use this Induction If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be proved then either by Scripture or by Reason or by Fathers or by Tradition or by Miracle or by Enthusiasm or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word but by none of these can it be proved ergo not at all If my enumeration be defective let him or any for him supply it for confirming the Assumption I shortly run through the particulars 1. Not by Scripture for according to him I can neither know the Divine Original nor sense of Scripture but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius Nor 2. By Reason this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule as shall appear Cap. 3. Natural Reason can neither be expected nor is it alledged by him to prove it Nor 3. By Fathers ought not the infallibility of the Fathers to be first proved before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony And how shall this be done seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fathers Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous dark and obnoxious to various constructions Are there not in them not only seeming but real contradictions Is it not beyond controversie that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture and the genuine sense thereof how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers and their genuine sense consequently the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers then none of the multitude should ever believe it Are they able in such a thorny question to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers or this Pamphleter is most unhappy for in all his Farrago of testimonies from Fathers there is not one asserting this thing as shall appear when I come to consider the objections Nor 4. By Tradition for besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here debated by Universal Tradition are there not as great debates concerning genuine Traditions and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures Is there not need of an infallible visible Judge to discriminate genuine Traditions from spurious How was the Church imposed upon by pretended Tradition concerning the Millennium and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition or if this Position can receive sufficient evidence from Traditions why may not other Articles of Faith also and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge Hence the great Sticklers for the Traditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists are they not very uncharitable who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland Do they judge us so credulous as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles pretended to be wrought in the Indies or in Vtopia I sincerely profess one real Miracle should have more weight with me than a million of their Pamphlets Of Miracles I hope to speak more Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge instance who can 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false I the rather enquire this because Bell. lib. de not Eccles cap. 14. positively affirms that genuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge Then sure the infallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniquity Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible because himself says so Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity Ye can have no ground according to them to believe Scripture or Christ or any Article of Religion but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge that is saith the Jesuited party the Pope of Rome But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible Ye must forsooth take this upon his own word Is not this to make Christianity ridiculous Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome is not this prodigious impiety The Testimony of God speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which
his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Oecumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15. until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Lateran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Oecumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Oecumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jansenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a Prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostoloâ— aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be noted saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith
cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28. 20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after-times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peceat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8. 7. to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17. 8. c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High-Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17. 8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33. 4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16. 11. or what meant these general complaints Isai 56. 10. Jer. 6. 13. Jer. 14. 14. Hâ—s 9. 8. Ezek. 22. 25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v. 9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they
confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4. 42. Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoncret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the praeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Scrm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14. 18. 21. which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence these two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28. 16. Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praefat. ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie shake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should
the City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Albertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append. ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 396. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Confutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensu potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they prefer the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wiâ—tily checked by Hierom Epist 102. ad Marcellam Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—aenosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not containing all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mot. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesiâ— si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy Doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is
which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our assent to the Divine Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Applicaâ—ion is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae inrespect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 16. say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18. 28. mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or as in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Featly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a
Enumeration ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture cap. 4 5 6. Is not Jerom so explicite for us in this matter in Prol. Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebrae's non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Canon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicea else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autorisati Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praeâ—at in Proverb and Ruffin in expos Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non omnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to layclaim to Scriptures To this common Cavil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all Hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scriptur arum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scriptur arum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Breerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euclids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some account was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given
the infallibility of Pope or Council never had but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare word Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour Joh. 5. 43. I am come in my Fathers Name and me ye receive not if another come in his own name him ye will receive Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences or else be great Masters of their Reason that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation Now 7. I know nothing that remains except with the Quaker they run to Enthusiastical Revelations for this their pretended infallibility And he may remember how in a like case I minded M. Demster of a discourse of Cloppenburg the Title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave to desire a sight of their Credentials else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion Perhaps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E W. in his vain discourse entituled Protestancy without Principles against two eminently Learned Persons D. Stillingfleet and M. Poole That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge but I must advertise him to distinguish betwixt our Faith and the rejection of their Errours as no part of our Faith It suffices a Protestant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge and to declare that to be no part of our Faith and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility or this infallible visible Judge is not assignable therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera The sequel I prove Had God appointed an infallible visible Judge upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Christian world should be resolved he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was else as M. Poole says well in his Appendix against Everard pag. 16 God should deal with the World as Alexander the Great who when he was asked to which of his Captains he left his Empire answered the best but not defining who was best this became a Seminary of contention or as another makes the comparison like the dying Father who having two Sons Leon and Pantaleon and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon the two Brethren fell by the ears the one alledging that he lett 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon the other that all was left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pantaleon Were it not Blasphemy to say that God hath dealt so with his Church assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge but not revealing who he is if it be not known who he is people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority than if he were not if therefore God had intended such a way surely he would have determined who he is It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent for which I need no more but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable could not Romanists at least who talk so much of him agree upon him But who is such a stranger in the world as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. who affirms that infallibility is potestas gratia personalis a personal power and grace given by Christ personae Petri successorum ejus to the person of Peter and his Successors and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council and that it is not only false but Heretical to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei in defining an Article of Faith Yea the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Romish Treasons emitted Theses Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infâ—llible Judge of Controversies not only extra Concilium without a Council but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact as well as of Faith which is more than Bell. durst aver as shall appear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less considerable Doctors Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope but in the General Council only and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors Gerson Almaynus Alphonsus à Castro yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say that all Romanists agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err But this is both false on the matter and a perfect Cheat. First I say false on the matter for there be yet a third sort of great Authors among Romanists who do affirm that both Pope and General Council may err in matters of Faith and that the subject of infallibility is multitudo fidelium the diffusive Body of Believers Of this Opinion were Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Waldensis Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus de Clemanges The places ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron in Apodixi Catholica Tract 5. cap. 19. 21. and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will only cite one short sentence of famous Occam Part. 1. Dialog lib. 5. cap. 29. 31. where he lays down this conclusion and maintains it Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholicam errare per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia quae contra fidem errare non potest That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church which cannot err in matters of Faith But secondly those Romanists who say they do agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err do put a Cheat upon the world as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron Apodixi Catholica tract 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this infallibility is partly seated in the Pope and partly in the Councils nor are they at all agreed concerning the seat of this infallibility for the one half of them namely the Jesuited
that are approved and those that are not approved those that are partly approved and partly disapproved and those that are neither approved nor disapproved Hence Vives in lib. 20. August de civit Dei cap. 28. Itaque illa Demum iis videntur edicta concilia quantum in rem suam faciunt reliqua non pluris aestimant quam conventum muliercularum in textrina vel thermis By this it may be judged whether we or Romanists defer most respect to Councils That Councils have erred may be demonstrated by sad instances It were easie to shew that late Popish Councils are patched up of as many gross errours as there be points in difference betwixt Romanists and us I only mention three of those so luculently repugnant to clear Scriptures and the Ancient Church that he who runs may read And first What wit of men can clear from errour the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. wherein the hals Communion was enacted and that with a non obstante both to Christs Institution and to the practise of the Primitive Church Secondly Is it possible for any man to reconcile the Decree of the Council of Trent Sess 22 Can. 9. of celebrating the Worship of God in an unknown tongue with 1 Cor. cap. 14. v. 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice I shall be to him that speaketh a Barbarian and he a Barbarian to me Then sure the Council of Trent establisheth a barbarous Worship in the Church insomuch that their own Cajetan on 1 Cor. 14. saith Ex hac Pauli Doctrina habetur quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur dici lingua communi clericis populo quam dici Latinè Thirdly Doth not the Decree of the second Council of Nice and of Trent concerning the Religious Adoration of Images directly contradict the Scripture Exod. 20 5. yea and the Universal practise of the Ancient Church They may see this from their own Picherell in dissert de imag but these and such like instances would ingage me upon the prosecution of other Controversies I shall therefore now hint at a few other examples and first I would have Romanists resolve whether the General Council of Chalcedon did err when it enacted Act. 15. Can. 28. and Act. 16. that the Patriarchs of Constantinople have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome If it did err then General Councils may err if not then the Supremacy of the Pope of Rome falls to the ground I know Baronius Binnius and Becanus alledge that Act to be of no force as not being approved by the Pope of Rome and his Legats But it rather follows that the Fathers of the Primitive Church were not of the present Romish Faith concerning the Popes Supremacy and the dependance of the force of Decrees of General Councils upon the Popes approbation For though the Popes Legats who had withdrawn themselves from the Council at the first making of this Canon did desire the Act to be rescinded and represented the dissent of the Bishop of Rome and spared not to suggest that it was carried on in a disorderly and factious way the whole Council unanimously adhered to the Act and cryed out Haec justa sententia hoc omnes dicimus quae constituta sunt valeant omnia recte Decreta sunt Sure either this Council destroys the Popes Supremacy or if it erred the infallibility of Councils falls to the ground Did not the second Council of Ephesus err grosly in giving sentence for the Eutychean Heresie And the Councils of Sirmium Ariminum Antioch Tyre c. who did approve or at least interpolate the Arrian Heresie Nor will it salve the matter to say that they were unlawful Councils For what made them unlawful Not the want of a due Authority they being Convocated by Imperial Edicts as well as the four famous uncontroverted General Councils and some of them were very numerous only they were unlawful because they pronounced erroneous Decrees Perhaps it will be replyed that they were not approved by the Bishop of Rome if that rendred them invalid how came it that the Ancient Fathers when they were urged with the Authority of those Councils did not cast them on that account Can a Post-nate approbation of the Pope make that true which in it self was false What a goodly infallibility of a Council is that which arises from the Ratification of the Pope as if a Council began to be infallible after it had ceased to be I can imagine no tolerable sense in this but that the Council of it self is fallible and that the whole infallibility is to be refounded on the Pope But that Popes have erred both in the Chair and out of the Chair I hope I have already proved What need I more Have not Councils also approved by Popes erred Was it not an absurd errour in the Council of Neo-Caesarea approved by Pope Leo the 4. as appears by Gratia dist 20. cap. de libellis to condemn Can. 7. second Marriages Was it not a Cyclopick errour in the Roman Council approved by Pope Nicolas the 2. to hold the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament sensualiter tractari frangi dentibus atteri to be sensually handled broken and torn with teeth Was it not an errour repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity in the Lateran Council under Pope Alexander the 3. Can. 1. de conjugatis to give leave to persons solemnly and lawfully married to recede from their Vow so as the one without the consent of the other may enter into a Monastick life declaring thereby the Marriage to be dissolved The evasions whereby Romanists would cloak these impious errours are judiciously refuted by the Learned Davenant de Jud. controv cap. 23. Was not the sixth General Council and the Canons thereof which by some are termed Canones Synodi quin Sextae approved by Pope Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Tharasius in Act. 2. Concil 2. Nic. Doth he not there call them Canones Jure ac Divinitus ab ipsis promulgatos or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it cannot be denied but several of these Canons are erroneous as Can. 2. approving the Council of Carthage under Cyprian which established Rebaptization and the â—2 Canon which dissolves Marriage betwixt persons of different perswasions Yea Romanists now ordinarily condemn these Canons and the rather because some of them so little favour their interest especially Can. 36. which equalizes the Bishop of Constantinople to the Roman Might not instances be given of Councils confirmed by Popes decreeing contradictions Were there not contradictory Councils at Constantinople in the ninth Century concerning Photius and Ignatius approved by the Legats of the Popes of Rome and both declared Oecumenical by no less testimony than the Latin or Greek Church Did not Bell. lib. de Imag. cap. 8. Sect. ultimo probatur say that the Council of Trent did admit the picturing of God the
and Popes It is alledged thirdly that there be to the number of 800 various Lections in the Hebrew Text if he speak of the Keri and Kethib according to which one word is written in the Line and another in the Margin the Vowels whereof are attributed to the word in the Line this can be of no advantage to him unless he could make out that these various Lections were introduced since Jerom's time But all the Hebrew Doctors saith the Learned Buxtorf Anticrit Part. 2. cap. 4. affirm them to be of no latter date than the days of Ezra I know Lud. Capell Crit. sac lib. 3. cap. 15. maintains them to be introduced by the Post-Talmudioue Masorites after Hierom But Buxtorf lâ—c cit is at great pains to confute them And among other reasons he useth this as one to prove the great Antiquity of those various Lections that not only the Chaldee Paraphrasts but also because the Septuagints in their Version sometime follow the Keri rendring according to the word in the Margin Indeed Buxtorf doth not affirm all the various Lections which go under the name of Keri to be of equal Antiquity but that Learned Author lays down Rules how the latter may be discerned from the more Ancient For answer therefore I shall remit this Pamphleter to Bell. lib. 2. de verb Dei cap. 2. who says that tota discrepantia variarum Lectionum in dictionibus quibusdam posita est quae sensum aut parum aut nihil mutant or if he will take it in the words of Learned D. Owen in his Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture cap. 6. Sect. 4. The difference in the sense taking in the whole Context is upon the matter very little or none at all at least each word both that in the Line and that in the Margin yield a sense agreeable to the Analogy of Faith which that Judicious Author illustrates by examples where there would appear the greatest dissonancy whether as some Hebrew Doctors conceives the Scripture was at first delivered with that variety of reading or as others rather judge that they came from the men of the great Congregation Ezra Nehemiah Zechary Haggai all persons acted by Divine Inspiration they argue no depravation in the Original Hence it is that in our last Translation of the Bible the word in the Margin is often used yet so as that the word in the Line is also noted where there appears any considerable difference which the Translators would not have done as D. Owen Judiciously observes had they not conceived that both the word in the Margin and in the Line had an Authoritative Original beyond the impeachment of any man in these days The Pamphleter fourthly alledges the differences of reading by Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Aaron and their respective Followers These appear to be the differences betwixt the two Famed Rabbins Ben-Asher and Ben. Naphtali For Cappellus in his Critica Sac. lib. 3. cap. 18. Sect. 1. thus describes their names from Elias Levita that the name of the one was Jacob the Son of Naphtali the name of the other Aaron the Son of Asher Who please may find a large discourse of them in Buxtorf Fol. de punct Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 15. It may be enough for my purpose to note that these two Rabbins are said to have been the Heads of the two Famous Schools of the Masorites the one in Palestine and the other in Babylon and to have spent their whole time in the exact consideration of every Letter Point and Accent of the Bible nor is it denied but that they found out some varieties The Occidental Jews in Palestina and Europe following Rabbi Aaron Ben-Asher the Oriental or Babylonian Jews following Rabbi Jacob Ben-Naphtali I find indeed debates among the Learned concerning the time when those Rabbi's flourished Buxtorf de punct Antiq. Part. 1. cap. 2. from some Jewish Authors affirms them to have lived in the eleventh Century and thereupon accuses Genebrard of a great Errour in Chrouology for saying they flourished in the fifth Century yet Calovius de Lingua Originali veteris Testamenti Sect. 56. contends earnestly that they lived before the time of Post-Talmudique Masâ—rites by whom this Pamphleter fancies the Bible to have been corrupted This I must say if Ben-Asher and Ben Naphtali lived so timely as Genebrard and Calovius affirm and if they found the Bible corrupted to their hands it will be an hard task for Romanists to clear how their Vulgar Version escaped the Contagion But the truth is whatever were the time wherein those Rabbins lived it is a manifest falshood which this Pamphleter says that they did put in Vowels into the Text which made most different readings For as is observed not only by Buxtorf Anticrit Part. 2. cap. 5. but also acknowledged by Capell Crit. sac lib 3. cap. 8. Sect. 4. who yet has scrued the various Lections of the Bible to as great an height as any These differences of Ben-Asher and Ben Naphtali are of no moment being all about Accents and Points whereby significatio vocis ne vel hilum mutatur the signification of the word is no whit altered And the same Author cap. 17. Sect. 18. after he had given a large account of the different readings betwixt the Oriental and Occidental Jews concludes thus Ex quibus videre est quam nullius momenti sit omnis illa varietas perinde enim omnino est utram libet sequaris Lectionem Yea Buxtorf loc cit from those differences draws as he phrases it Argumentum fortissimum an invincible Argument for the purity of the Hebrew Text. For by the Collection of those various readings of Ben Asher and Ben-Naphtali it appears how studious religious yea and superstitious the Jewish Doctors were in observing the least varieties which did steal into the Copies of the Holy Bible if therefore there had been any material differences they had undoubtedly been Recorded by them consequently those of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali being rather scrupulosities about Orthography than Orthodoxy it appears evident they found the Scriptures entire and incorrupt as to the matter Thus the Pamphleters Objection has furnished us with an Argument against himself It 's fifthly alledged by the Pamphleter that the Hebrew Vowels were added to the Text 500 years after Christ by his professed Enemies the Jews Answer This story of the late invention of the Hebrew Vowels is not so certain and uncontroverted that we must believe it upon this Pamphleters naked Assertion It is too daring boldness in Jesuits to push at the Authority of the holy Scriptures upon meer conjectures It 's true Elias Levita a Jewish Rabbin and skilled Grammarian who lived in Germany about the time of the Reformation affirmed that the Hebrew Vowels were invented by some Rabbins at Tiberias after the perfecting of the Talmud some 500 years after Christ Hereupon Morinus Gordon of Huntly and other Jesuits whom this Pamphleter implicitly follows
Hieronimi Patribus i. e. that the New Testament which to day is read in the Church is the same which the Greek Church read before and after Hieroms days from the time of the Apostles pure and without corruption Having discussed all those things which he brought to confirm his second Objection I now only take notice of his ludibrious Conclusion that seeing the Scriptures as he falsly alledges are corrupt therefore we have a necessity of an infallible visible Judge A goodly inference Is there no way to shoulder up a Pope but by treading down the Scriptures But supposing the Scriptures to be corrupted what benefit as to this can we reap by their infallible visible Judge Can he dictate to us new pure Original Scriptures When he could not preserve them in their Purity how shall he restore them to it If he declare which is pure Scriptures will he do it by a Prophetical Revelation Then he would look that his Enthusiasms be instructed by better Credentials than the Quakers or if he do it by other solid and convincing Evidences then it 's not the infallibility of the Judge but the evidence of his grounds that will warrant his definitions consequently his pretended Infallibility as to this thing is wholly insignifiâ—ant Objection Pag. 57. The Pamphleter enquires what infallible motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they relye on was ever set down in writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of the Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the innate light of the same Scripture shewing it self to be such to a well dispâ—sed â—iâ—d If the first do not Nicodemus and Thomas Gospels carry the same Tiilâ—s of Matthew and Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three Age werâ— not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authâ—rity of a Council of Câ—rthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther who rejects James Epistle with sâ—me others Answer 1 Doth not this Atheistical Cavil of Jesuits which hath often been confuted by Protestants fall as heavily upon themselves as upon us May not this same Query be made concerning the infallible motive which can prudently perswade Romanists to believe the infallibility of their visible Judge Is it his own testimony calling himself infallible or the innate light of his definitions shewing themselves to be divine If the first do not Quakers assert their own infallibility as well as he Doth not the Turks Alcoran affirm that it is of Divine Original as well as Popes ascribe their definitions to the Holy Ghost If the second how shall an innate light be granted to the definitions of their infallible Judge seeing it 's denied to the holy Scriptures of God It might be sufficient here to leave him only to grapple with his own Cavil But I secondly answer that a well disposed mind may be convinced of the Divine Original of the holy Scriptures both by extrinsick motives of Credibility and by the Intrinseca Criteria or the innate light of the holy Scriptures I say first by extrinsick motives such as the stupendious Miracles whereby it was confirmed which this calumniating Pamphleter would insinuate pag. 59. but with Jesuitical ingenuity that I did undervalue the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church the signal Judgments of God upon Enemies the invincible constancy of Martyrs c. Doth not Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2. by these and such arguments prove the Scriptures certissimas esse verissimas nec humana inventa sed oracula divina continere But besides these extrinsick motives of Credibility the holy Scriptures of God have intrinsick evidences of their Divine Originals as from the sublimity of the Mysteries which yet are wonderfully suited for bringing about the Salvation of Souls the untainted and unparallelled Sanctity of the Doctrine the plenitude of the Scriptures for instruction of the Judgment Reformation of the Life Consolation of the heart in all cases the admirable temperature of Simplicity and Majesty in the stile of holy Scriptures the great variety of Scripture purposes and the wonderful harmony thereof though Scriptures were written in different Ages Places and Tongues So that Bell says of the Pen men of Scripture they would appear non tam diversi Scriptores quam unius Scriptoris diversi calami This self evidencing light of the Scriptures Jesuits themselves are constrained to acknowledge in their lucid intervals Hence Greg. de Valentia lib. 1. de Analys fidei cap. 1. Deus ipse saith he imprimis est qui Christianam Doctrinam atque à Deo Scripturam sacram veram esse voce Revelationis suae interno quodam instructu atque impulsu humaniâ— mentibus câ—ntestatur atque persuadet And cap. 15. Cum multa sint in ipsa Doctrina Christiana quae ipsa per se illi fidem atque authoritatem conciliare possunt tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur ut est à Clemente Alexandrino observatum quod sua nescio qua admirabili vi divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit atque ad virtutem impellit It 's not simply because the Gospels of Matthew and Mark carry their names prefixed that we believe them to be of a Divine Original but as we are strongly induced thereto by the extrinsick motives of Credibility so our Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures with an admirable Soul convincing evidence The Pseudevangels of Thomas and Nicodemus and all Books without the Canon of holy Scripture are destitute both of these motives of Credibility and of that self evidencing light of their Divine Original Nor should it seem strange to any that I say Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures For all Faculties and Sciences must have first principles into which our assent must be terminated else we should run in infinitum I appeal to any that is not willing to be deceived whether it be not more congruous that Faith be resolved into that writing which God himself immediately did dictate by the acknowledgment of the Catholick Church then either into a Papal or into a Quaker Enthusiasm that have no other Credentials but because they say they are infallibly moved by the Spirit of God As for the Pamphleters allegtioan that the Fathers of the first Centuries did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture until the Council of Carthage it is manifest untruth Look to Mâ—lito his Catalogue of the Books of holy Scripture recorded by Eusebius lib. 4. Hist Eccles cap. 25. and Origen's recorded by the same Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 24. or of the Author of the Book de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. whom Papists hold for Denis the Areopagite or of Athanasius in Synopsi S. Script or of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. if they were not conform to the Canon of Scripture received by the Protestant Churches Any little seeming differences in the way of their and our
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession