he is Peters successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably followes that the Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered â—x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in it self and hath no strength nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peters chair but had ascribed the same priviledges which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this then wee have gained thus much That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or credible for it self that it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Councels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can shew that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Councels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Popes Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self without the Interpretation Testimonie and Authority of thâ— Church is not a sufficient foundation oâ— Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plaine so often asserted bâ— them so universally owned so vehemently urged in aâ— their Treatises that if there were not an horrible perâ—versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men whâ— indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to saâ— and unsay give and recall affirme and denie the samâ— things as occasion requires and the strength of an Arâ—gument forceth them I might supercede from anâ— further paine or trouble therein I shall therefore onely observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either oâ— which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian cannoâ— know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witnesse and Authority 2. That the sencâ— of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without thâ— Churches interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present tâ— mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuite in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop oâ— Burdeaux puts this Question To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables the Cardinall Hosius replies That these words may be taken in a pious sence For in truth saith he unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tels us That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Churches assertion and declaration Andradius in expresse termes denies That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which bindes us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the highâ—st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fidâ—s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a lyar that is no impiety but to mak the Church a lyar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome then the grossest transgressions of Gods Laweâ— because there is more impiety in them and so more sevâ—rity should be exercised against them And Pighiâ— useth no lesse freedome telling us That the Scripturâ— have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authours but meerly from the Churches Testimonâ— Thus you see that according to the systeme of Popisâ— Theology the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to bâ— the Word of God nor oblige my faith unlesse it brinâ— along with it the Churches Letters of credence Anâ— whereas in St Pauls dayes neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials froâ— Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austine in his dayes in hiâ— Controversies with the Donatists batters down theiâ— Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie And as Tertullian argued of old God shall not be God without mans consent It is here as in dealings between manâ— and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but onely my friends Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that
to be true which I read in my Book that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I beare to your deep judgment and great abilities Here it is plaine the reading in his book is not the foundation of his faith or perswasion but onely the reverence he bears to his teacher And just this say they is the case of the scripture to which purpose they alledge and own those words of Austin though they pervert the sence I should not believe the Gospell unless the Churches Authority did move me Which if true in their sence then the Churches Authority is the sole foundation of my faith and without it the scripture is a meer Cypher or at least not sufficient to command or ground my faith which was the thing to be demonstrated The truth is the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King Iehoram 2 Kings 3.14 and bespeake it in the same language were it not that I regard the presence the testimony and the authority of the Church I would not look towards thee not believe nor reverence thee Sect. 3. If it be said that although the Churches Testimony was necessary before yet since the Church hath long agoe consigned the Canon of the scripture my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches testimony but upon the scriptures Authority To this I answer 1 That now as well as formerly the faith of a Christian acted by Romish principles doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches testimony which I shall make plain by an instance I do not believe supposing I were a Papist the Popes supremacy because I read these words Thou art Peter for if I read those words in Tacitus I should not draw an Argument from them unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of Plato Cicero and Virgil But because the books wherein I read those words Thou art Peter is a book of Canonicall scripture and a part of the word of God there lies the whole stress of the argument And this I cannot know say our Catholick masters and am not bound to believe but for the Churches Testimony Which testimony as it is the onely cause which makes the scripture in generall Authenticall Quoad nos saith Stapleton so it must be that alone which makes this place Thou art Peter Argumentative quoad nos that is all the force that Argument hath to perswade or convince me is from the Church and not from the scripture and the scripture makes it Canonicall to me and its being Canonical gives the whole weight to the Argument and quod est causa causae est causa causati Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words but sence of Scripture where the strength of the argument lies And that sence say they wee cannot understand nor attain but by the Churches interpretation which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists viz. That the sence of scripture which is indeed the very Soul of scripture and the onely ground of faith and Arguments is in many matters of faith so obscure and ambiguous that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentick and infallible Interpreter and Judge to acquaint us therewith that is the Church or per aequevalentiam Iesuiticam the Pope And it is absurd to expect and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts and dceision of controversies of faith from the scripture which is but a dead letter unless the Church animates it This is so notoriously owned by them all that it is needless to quote Authors for it That which I inferre from hence is this that according to this Hypothesis the scripture in it self I say in it self for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove is no solid foundation for my faith and indeed that it is a meer Cypher which if your Church be put to it may have some signification and value butelse none at all And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in it selfe but the Churches interpretation which gives weight to this argument And this plainly appears from that saying of their great Master Stapleton which deserves to be often men tioned in rei memoriam and the rather because Grotserus owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion Gretsers defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in se ex parte rei but onely quoad nos in respect of us and so saith Gretser it is very true for that I believe that Christ is God and that God is one and three I do it being induced by the Authority of the Church testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered are divine and dictated by God a I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mysterie of the Romish Cabal and discovering the dreadfull tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ for as he was beholden to Christ for his Authority so now Christ is beholden to his vicar for his Divinity and saith hee it was truely said by Tannerus nor needed Pappus to wonder at it that without the interpretation and testification of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone that God is one and that there are three persons Who is it that dare charge these Jesuites with Equivocation I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se quoad nos viz. They acknowledg the Scripture in it self to be true and Canonicall and it is a Truth in it selfe that Christ is God but so far as concernes me I am not bound to believe either the one or other but for the Churches Testimony which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted That the Scripture in it self is no foundation of my Faith And this is the more weighty because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one mans Pen but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors each of whose works where that passage was is set forth with the approbation of severall Romish Doctors of principall note § 5. But peradventure Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant Although neither the Popes Authority nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith and the Popes Authority being asserted in and demonstrated by the Scriptures is a sure sooting for my faith To which though it might suffice to object the circle which is here most palpable
when the Image of Diana dropt down from Heaven she brought this Tradition along with her The like might be shewed in â—undry other particulars In the caelibacy of Priests which is onely de jure humano not divine by the confession of Thomas Durandus Lombardus and Scotus four principall pillars of the Papall Church and Turrianus was noted by Cassander as the onely man of all both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it But if it were an Apostolicall Tradition it was de jure Divino and the Councell of Nice would never have dispensed with a divine Injunction So in the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Purgatory and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing because it hath been so fully cleared by diverse Learned Protestant Writers particularly by Iewell Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge Moulins Novelty of Popery Dallaeus in severall pieces Rainolds de Libris Apoâ—ryphis Whitaker Chamier and innumerable others But manum de Tabulâ This I hope may suffice for the refutation of this novell invention concerning the Infallibility of Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church where I have been more large because it is a late plea and lesse hath been said of it by Protestant Authors And so it remaines unshaken That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in orall Tradition and the present Churches Authority which was the businesse of this Proposition CHAP. 8. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility Sect. 1. BUt we are not yet come to the end of our journey And although the Arguments urged by Protestants against their resolution of Faith have probably convinced the consciences of diverse of them yet have they not stop'd their mouths We have shewed in the former Chapters how they have been driven from post to post and as in a besieged City when the Walls and Works of it are battered down they raise new fortifications so having seen their former pretences batter'd about their eares some of them have devised one shift more for finding themselves yet in that ridiculous Circle of believing the Scripture for the Churches sake and the Church for Scriptures sake notwithstanding all the attempts of their Brethren to get out Some of them have taken up their rest in the markes of a Church and the motives of credibility This though rejected by former and learneder Papists yet of late hath been taken up by Turnebull in his Tâ—tragonismus a discourse about the Object of Faith and after him by the late Answerer of Bishop Lauds Book called Lawa's Labyrinth whose words are these We prove the Churches Infallibility not by Scripture but by the motives of Credibility and signes of the Church which are these Sanctity of life miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophâ—cies succession of lawfully sent Pastours Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick Then saith he having thus proved the Churches Infallible Authority and by that received the Scripture we confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture proofs are not Prime and Absolute but onely secondary and ex suppositione ad hominem or ex principiis concessis against Sectaries This is their plea concerning which I shall need to say the lesse because the Book wherein it is revived and urged called Labyrinthus Cantuariensis is so solidly and Learnedly Answered by my worthy friend M r Stillingfleet Yet having finished this Discourse long before that excellent work came forth and having twisted it into the method of the present Treatise and designe I thought not fit wholly to supersede it whereby the body of the work would be renderd lame and incompleat but rather to be shorter in it and as far as I can to cut off such passages as happily may be coincident with what is said by Mr Stillingfleet in that particular for I do not desire actum agere § 2. Answ. 1. Let it be observed how shamelessely these men abuse their Readers when they pretend the Infallibility of the Church is solidly demonstrated from Scripture and this they generally do Here you have reum confitâ—ntem they confesse the imbecillity of those Arguments For say they they are but secondary proofs and Argumenta ad hominem Now such Arguments are not cogent and concluding in themselves but onely do conclude against some particular Adversary from his own principles So they acknowledge that although their Arguments may perswade one that is docible yet they cannot convince a gainsayer And the strength of their Argument depends upon the Courtesy of the Protestants § 3. 2. In vaine are these Marks of a Church pleaded for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome when other Churches have a juster claime to them and so little colour have the Romanists for their monopoly of them that upon enquiry it will be found they have no considerable interest in them This I shall shew in the principall and most important of them 1. The first in dignity though not in order is the glory of Miracles The most eminent in this kind are confessed to be those which were done by Christ and his Apostles Those Miracles were done in Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches not of the Church of Rome which appeares thus These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures but the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is repugnant thereunto Ergo These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches The Major our adversaries dare not deny The Minor hath been undeniably evidenced so much to the conviction of our Adversaries that they dare not owne the Scripture for their Judge and instead of submitting themselves to its sentence bend their wits to except against the judge and decline its Tribunall following that Counsell which was given to Pericles when he was studying how to give up his accounts to the Athenians that he should rather study how to give up no account at all And some of them whose words are recited in this Treatise acknowledge the folly of their brethren who would manage their cause by Scripture Arguments But whether the Protestant Doctrine hath been solidly evinced from Scripture or not thus much undoubtedly followes that if any miracles be pretended against that Doctrine which Christ sealed by his miracles they are not to be regarded and the miracles done by Christ c. are infinitely to be preferred before them And consequently the glory of Miracles is more ours then theirs § 4. The like I may say secondly for the efficacy of Doctrine which they so confidently appropriate to themselves But if the efficacy of their sword were not greater then that of their Doctrine the world would quickly see the vanity of that Argument And how little confidence themselves put in it may be seen by the professed necessity of an Inquisition Next newes I expect
doctrine of Predestination the Papists confesse is no fundamental since their own Doctors are divided about it yet if any man from St. Paul's assertions of the efficacy and immutability of Predestination should infer the unnecessarinesse of Sanctification to Salvation as some have done doubtlesse this man would wrest the Scriptures to his own destruction But the Captain is not contented with a general imputation of darknesse to the Scripture but pretends several Instances of things necessary to Salvation which are not plain and clear in the Scriptures his Instances are these 1 The nature and number of the Sacraments 2 The number of the Canonical Books and that the Scriptures are the word of God 3. The incorruption of the Scripture 4. The understanding the true sence of Scripture which is literal which mystical 5. The number of fundamental points 6. The doctrine of the Trinity and 7. other doctrines concerning the baptizing of Infants and womens receiving the Eucharist and the observation of the Lords day and the doctrine which condemnes Rebaptization All these saith he are necessary to Salvation and yet Scripture is not plain and clear in them So that here are two assertions and both of them false in most of the Instances and all are false in one of them It pitties me to trifle away time in the particular answer of such impertinent allegations did not the weaknesse of some in believing all that is boldly asserted make it necessary For the 1. The Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of those two Sacraments which Christ hath instituted as the Captain might easily have informed himself if in stead of going to Knot and Fiat Lux c. he had looked into almost any of our Protestant Systems or common places of Divinity whither I refer the Reader having somewhat else to do then to transcribe common places And for the other 5 Sacraments I cannot say they are delivered in Scripture more clearly then the others but I may say they are lesse darkly because indeed not delivered there at all being onely a fiction of their own of which God may say They never came into my mind For the 2. It is a crude and false assertion which the Captain layes down That it is necessary to salvation to believe all the books of the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to believe nothing to be the word of God which is Apocryphal If the latter part be true woe to the Church of Rome that now is which hath owned those writings for the word of God in the Councel of Trent which by the judgment of so many most learned Fathers and grave Councels and the Church of so many successive ages have ever been held for Apocryphal as no rational man can doubt that shall take the pains to read either of those excellent pieces Raynoldus de libris Apocryphis or Bishop Cousens his Scholastical history of the Canon of the Scripture And if the former part be true then we must damne all those Fathers and Churches who as both Papists and Protestants acknowledge did sometimes doubt of some books now universally received nay farther we must damne all the former ages and Churches and innumerable holy and learned writers and even many of the most famous Papists themselves who did all disown and disbelieve some at least of those Books which if we take the judgment of the Trâ—nt Councel are and were a part of the word of God The truth is and so it is generally owned by Protestant writers That the belief of those Truths conteined in the Scriptures is necessary to Salvation though happily a man through ignorance or error should doubt about some one Book It is necessary that I should believe the history of Christs life and death but it is not necessary to Salvation simply and absolutely to believe that the Gospel of St. Mark for instance was written by Divine inspiration This may appear from hence because Faith is sufficient for Salvation and faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. as well as by reading now as Faith might be and really was wrought by the hearing of the doctrine and history of Christ when preached by such Ministers as were not divinely inspired so might it be wrought by the reading of such things when written by the very same persons and consequently it was not and is not necessary to the working of Faith and therefore to the procuring of Salvation to believe That St. Marks Gospel was written by Divine inspiration And yet I do not assert this as if I thought that it were not a very great sin especially in and after so much light about it to disbelieve any one book of the Scriptures there being so many evident characters of a Divine inspiration upon the particular books besides the general assertion 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by divine inspiration and other convincing places but onely to shew That which is a certain and evident Truth it is not simply and absolutely and ex natura rei necessary for every person to believe every particular Book to be the word of God but a serious and practical beliefe of the Truths conteined in those Books may be sufficient to Salvation even where there is an ignorance if not wilful and affected of the Divine Authority of some book or books of Scripture 3. For the Third thing the incorruption of the Scripture I Answer 1. The Scriptures incorruption in substantial and considerable points besides that it is confessed by the learned Papists as I have shewed before doth sufficiently appear from it self by the collation of one place of Scripture with another as also by the collation of several copies And one great argument of it may be fetched from that which seems to twhart it viz. the various readings which learned men have observed out of diverse copies let any man look into them as he finds them collected in the late Polyglotte Bible and his own eyes shall witnesse that howsoever the differences of Readings are numerous yet they are not of any moment and indeed the differences in lesser matters are a considerable evidence of the Scriptures uncorruptednesse in greater wherein the copies do wonderfully consent 2 If the Scripture not evidencing its own incorruption hinder its being a rule then neither can the Scripture be so much as a part of our Rule which yet is granted by the most insolent of our Adversaries for so the argument will carry it if there be any strength in it nor was the Decalogue a rule of life to the following generations of the Israelites nor can the old and unrepealed Acts of Parliament be a Rule to England nor yet can Tradition be a Rule to the Papists for the Papists not onely confesse its insufficiency to evince its own uncorruptednesse but acknowledge its actual corruption in several points as hath been shewed before nor can the Decrees of Popes and Councels be a rule which being writings must needs be lyable to the
sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith according to their Principles and that the popes pretended Infallibility hath no solid foundation there But when they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to the Fathers and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers And therefore that must be considered in the next place CHAP. III. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Fathers Prop. 3. Sect. 1. THe third Proposition then is this The Faith of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers This the rather deserves consideration because they make their great boast of it and urge it as a principall Pillar of their Faith It is asserted in their Cannon Law That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion yet they generally agree in this That the Authority of the Fathers especially where they consent is a solid Foundation for their faith to rest upon Hence those expressions of their great Doctors Take away the Authority of Fathers and Councels and all things in the Church are doubtfull and uncertaine Eccius From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities have the certainty of their assertions and Councels have their decrees Sixtus Senensis Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Romanists laies down this Conclusion That the common sence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certaine Argument to confirme Theologicall assertions For saith he the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of Gods Spirit And a little after Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophicall Conclusion yet in the exposition of Holy Scripture you are bound to believe your Ancestors though they give you no reason for it and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them of the Law of faith and of Religion And a little after All those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faith All the Fathers together do never erre nor can they agree in one error saith Bell. The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined when all or almost all do agree in one opinion saith Salmeron That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is Infallibly true saith Gregory de Valentiá from all which we plainly see that according to their opinion the judgment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith That is it which I am now to disprove and to shew That the Writings of the Fathers neither are nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith § 2. Onely let me premise two things 1. I would not be misunderstood as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiquity ability and integrity but onely to denie that pretended infallibility which none did more dislike then themselves as we shall see hereafter Let them have all the honour which is due to the most worthy men not acted by divine inspiration but let them not have that Honour which belongs to God onely and his inspired ones We grant their Testimony is highly credible especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended but seldome proved viz. an universall consent but their Authority is not infallible 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgment of the Fathers of the first 600 years or suspecting their partiality on the Popes side I know sufficiently and so may any man whom the God of this World hath not blinded that doth but read what our Learned Divines have said in this particular or with his own eyes look into the Fathers that there is is not one considerable point in controversie between us and the Romanists but if judgment were to be given by any impartiall person from the Fathers excepting those who are evidently demonstrated to be spurious Authors their mouths would presently be stopped and their cause and confidence lay'd in the dust onely because that work is so thoroughly done by others and would swell this into a voluminous bignesse I shall forbeare that and proceed to handle what I proposed and P shall prove the proposition by foure Arguments 1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Papists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture for the decision of controversies do no lesse overthrow all the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers When they attempt to disprove the Authority of the Scriptures considered in themselves these are then Arguments universally owned and urged God would not have his Church depend upon paper-Paper-Books saith Costerus Scripture say they cannot decide controversies because it cannot summon and heare both parties it cannot compell trangressours to obedience it doth not particularly condemne Hereticks It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere Gretser you are in an errour It speaks doubtfully and men dispute about the sence of Scripture and so controversies will be endlesse Hence I thus argue Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority or they are not If they be not then the Scripture must be owned as Judge of Controversies notwithstanding all those Arguments If they be valid against the Authority of Scriptures why are they not as strong against the Authority of the Fathers Or what difference is there in this particular between the writings of the Scripture and of the Fathers Are the writings of S t Paul deaf that they cannot hear parties and dumbe that they cannot deliver sentence and can the Writings of St Austine heare and speake Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an errour And do the writings of Ierome or Ambrose say Luther you are in an error Cannot S t Paul condemne Hereticks and compell transgressors to obedience and can S t Cyprian do it What offence hath St Paul done that Peters Successors should thus degrade him sure Manet altâ mente repostum they bare him a grudge for reproving S t Peter Gal. 2. And so now they are even with him In short forasmuch as the Arguments and premises are wholly the same concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers either the authority of both of them must be receaved as Judges of Controversies or else both must be rejected For in pari causâ idem jus say the Lawyers in the same cause there is the same right Againe another of their Arguments Why the Scripture cannot of it selfe be a ground of Faith is this because without the Church we cannot know which books of Scripture are genuine and which are spurious This is the great Argument of Stapleton and all other Romish Doctors In like manner I argue the writings of the Fathers cannot in themselves be a solid ground of my faith because without the Churches judgment I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine
Bellarmine is a Baffler to use fallacious arguments and a Lyar too having said nothing is more evident nothing more certain if they do then the Scriptures may be evidenced to be the word of God without the Churches Testimony which they so boldly deny at other times The like might I shew out of Gregory de Valentia who musters up diverse convincing arguments whereby even Heathens may be satisfied that the Scripture is the word of God without the aid of the Churches authority And the like is done by several of their learned and approved Authors from which it plainly appears That the foundation of Christianity and Protestancy is one and the same and that we have the same arguments and evidences for the ground of our Faith as Protestants viz. for the Divine authority of the Scriptures independently upon the Churches testimony which we have as Christians and that the Papists cannot say nor do any thing towards the subversion of the Faith of the Reformed Churches herein but at the same time and by the same art and arguments they must oppugne the Christian cause and acknowledg it untenable against a subtle Pagan or Atheist And I desire the Reader to consider that this is not an answer or argument ad hominem which I now insist upon but fetched from the nature of the thing the verity of the Christian Religion And for what they pretend That without the Churches Testimony we cannot know that S. Mathews Gospel was written by him and so the rest they shall take an Answer of a very eminent and approved Author of their own Melchior Canus It is not much material to the Catholick Faith that any book was written by this â—r that Author so long as the Spirit of God is bâ—lieved to be the Author of it which Gregory learnedly delivers and explaines For it matters not with what pen the King writes his Letter if it be true that he writ it § 3. The second thing is That the Books of Scripture are not corrupt in the essential and necessary points of Faith This a man may easily discern by looking into the nature and quality of those various lections which are pleaded as evidences of corruption where he shall quickly find them generally to be in matters of lesse moment and such upon which Salvation doth not depend But because the examination of this would be a tedious work I shall save my self and Reader the labour and shall prove it in general as at first I proposed from the confession of the Papists themselves who condemn the rashnesse of those of their own Brethren which out of a preposterous respect to the vulgar Translation assert the malitious coâ—ruption of the Hebrew Text and positively maintain the incorruption of the Bible in matters of importance Of this opinion are among the Papists Bellarmine Arias Mâ—ntanus Driedo Bannes Tena Acosta Lorinus and diverse others If you please we will hear the fore-man of the Jury speak for the rest I confesse saith he that the Scriptures are not altogether pure they have some errors in them but they are not of such moment that the Scripture is defective in things that belong to faith and mannâ—rs For for the most part those differences and various lections consist in some wâ—rds which make little or no difference in the Text To whom I shall adde the acknowledgment of a late Author S. Clara whose words are these Considâ—ring a moral thing morally it is altogether impossible that the Books of the New Testament were or are consiâ—erably adulterated And so he goes on proving what he had asserted This may suffice for the second thing § 4. For the third particular which alone now remains in doubt concerning the sense of Scripture My assertion is this A Protestant hath or may have a sufficient assurance of understanding the sense of Scripture in things necessary to salvation This I shall briefly prove by this argument God's promise is sufficient assurance the Papists do not pretend an higher assurance for their Churches Infallibility but a protestant is or may be assured of this by God's promise as appears from Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God Protestants have the assurance of Reason and whatever the Papists talk they have no other It is true they talk of several things Fathers Councels Tradition Motives of Credibility c. but in these and all other arguments both Papists and Protestants agree in this that when they go to settle and satisfie their consciences though they hear many things yet reason weighs them all and rejects what it judgeth false and holds fast what it esteemeth true and good if that will not do they have the assurance of the Spirit which God hath promised to those that ask it Luk. 11.13 and this is as much as the Church her self pretends In a word to strike the businesse dead you shall see the perspicuity and evidence of the Scriptures in things necessary to salvation acknowledged by our Adversaries from whom the force of Truth extorted these confessions That part of Scripture is plain and evident which conteins the first and chief principles of things to be believed and the principal rules of living so Sixtus Senensis We deny not that the chief articles of faith which are necessary to salvation to all Christians are plainly enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles so Costerus And Salmeron having said that all Doctrines and Traditions are to be examined by Scripture he saith The Scripture is so framed and ordered by God that it might be accommodated to all places times persons difficulties dangers diseases to drive away evil to procure good to overthrow errors to stablish truths to instil vertue to expel vice And Hieronymus ab Oleastro saith We are to praise God for it that those things which are necessary to salvation he hath made easy From all these things put together I think I may say it undeniably follows which I proposed to evince That the foundation of a Protestants Faith is solid and sufficient our adversaries themselves being Judges § 5. Onely I must remove one block out of the way Peradventure they will say that if all these things be true concerning the word of God in its own language yet there is one notorious defect in the groundwork of the Protestants Faith viz. That they build it upon the credit of a Translation made by persons confessedly fallible This because they make such a noise with it amongst ignorant and injudicious persons however to men of understanding it is but an impertinent discourse it will be convenient to say something to it and but a little To this then I Answer 1. The Papists cannot in reason charge us with that fault of which themselves are equally guilty nor can they accuse our Faith of that infirmity to which their own is no lesse obnoxious for the generality of unlearned
severall matters should be under severall Chapters or divisions and not one piece here another there and things must be plaine and distinct From which it is evident enough that the Scripture was never intended for a Law or Iudge of Controversies because the Book is so large and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our beliefe as Historicall Epistolar Mysticall and so many repetitions and lastly it is left to a meer conjecture what may be the meaning of it Thus Rushworth Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Is this the Mathematicall man Is this the rigour of Mathematicks This is enough to make a man forsweare the study of the Mathematicks if it produce no better demonstrations We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Lawes of these men for you see they give Lawes to God himselfe and it is allready enacted in the conclave of Rome that if God do not speak in Mood and Figure he shall not be heard and that if he put forth any Law-book wherein he doth not rigorously observe the orders and methods of a Systeme it shall not be received Believe me it was a good turne that Mr Cowell Writ his Institutiones Iuris Anglicani wherein he reduced the English Lawes to a Method for else woe had been to the poor statute-Statute-Books and all Records of our Lawes for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Lawes nor Judges of Controversies between men and men for so saith our Theologicall Euclide that scornes to speak under a Demonstration for we know how much more large a book they make then the Bible and how many things are mingled unappertaining to the substance of our estates and lives c. The summe of the Argument is this The Scripture was not intended for the Law because it is so large so miscellaneous so full of repetitions c. Shall I need to say any more for the answer of such an Argument wherein there is nothing evident but the disputers confidence and the Papists credulity and the desperatenesse of their cause Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jewes But this is false and it was a Law to the Jewes Ergo the principle is false from which such a conclusion is deduced The Major I prove from his own words and besides he particularly disputes against the Old Testaments being a Law The Minor I hope I shall easily prove Where to prevent equivocation or mistakes take notice I meddle not with the ambiguous terme of JUDGE wee are now disputing whether it were a Law nor do I meddle with that question whether it be a Law to us But to the Jewes This then I assert that the Old Testament notwithstanding this objection was a Law to the Jewes and a man would think the very mention of the proposition should cut off all necessity of proof It is so absurd and portentous a thing to Christian eares to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned I prove it onely by this Argument That Book by which both people and Priests and Princes of the Jewes were to be guided and ruled and commanded in their decisions was certainly a Law to them But such was the Old Testament 1. For the people it is plaine They are commanded to observe to do all the Words of this Law that are Written in this Book Deut. 28.58 And Moses makes bold to call it a Law-book notwithstanding all the mixtures repetitions c. and a curse is pronounced to every one that continued not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 and for the guidance of the people those Books were to be read by or to the people Deut. 31.9 Ios. 8.35 Neh. 8. and diverse other places 2. For the Princes it is no lesse evident that it was a Law and rule to them Ios. 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is Written therein And Deut. 17.18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall Write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them Thus it is undeniable it was a Law both to Prince and People and that is sufficient to overthrow the whole argument But I adde 3. It was a law to the Priests too I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tyed to follow the Priests decisions I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced but my present assertion is onely this The books of Scripture were a law to the Priests by which they were to be ordered and regulated in their proceedings The sentence which the Priests were to pronounce it must be the sentence of the Law Deut 17.11 and the Priests are oft censured and condemned for neglecting or transgressing the Law which plainly shews it was the law and rule of their proceedings Ans. 2. But what shall we say if the Papists themselves deny their own Conclusion which here they indeavour tanto molimine to prove You will say we have little reason to believe those that do not believe themselves or to assent to that Conclusion which they deny To make good this you must remember the question is not about the Judge properly so called but about the Rule or Law to which we suppose the Judge to be tyed for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisitenesse this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuites but there must have been another and that a living Judge of controversies This premised I thus proceed Either they of the Church of Rome have a Law by which they regulate all their Decrees and decisions or they have none if they say they have none then they act lawlessly and arbitrarily and we have found Antichrist by his character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lawlesse 2 Thes. 2. but if they say as they all pretend and professe they are guided by a law then I enquire what that law is Here it is true they are divided while some make the judgment of the antient Church and Fathers their law others the Popes Decrees others the Acts of Councels but all of them pretend some law or other and which opinion soever of their Church they take for they have good choice either their argument hath no force against the Scriptures being our Law or it equally militates against their own Laws As for instance if they make the judgment of the Fathers their Law are not they lyable to the same exceptions with the Scripture of largenesse aliene mixtures repetitions c And the like may be said of Popes Decretals and the Acts of Councels which
attain that end and be unconvincing nay more Scripture is not profitable for doctrine if it onely beget conjectures and opinions and doth not give solid and satisfying evidence of its doctrines and if it do evidently assert or prove a Truth it must by consequence as evidently convince and consute the contrary error For example if any Scripture positively assert that Christ is the true God and equal with the Father as de facto it doth doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Hereticks who make Christ but a Creature and inferior to the Father Neither let him tell me of their cavils against such places for so Anaxagoras did cavill against those that said Snow was white and gave a reason for it saith Tully because the water of which it had its rise was black yet no man I think will deny that there is convincing evidence even in foro contentioso of its whitenesse 3. The Scripture was convincing formerly and therefore it is so still for I do not know that it hath lost any of its vertue Christ proved himself to be the Messias out of the Scriptures in sundry places and I think Mr. White will not deny that all Christ's arguments were convincing So Christ proves his Lordship and Divinity out of the Scriptures and I think convincingly for his Adversaries were not able to answer him a word out of the Psalmes Read Mat. 22.42 c. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jewes out of the Scripture and proved as they did out of the scriptures that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ I would know whether their scripture-proofs were solid and convincing or no if they deny it they make the Apostles deceivers and wresters of the scriptures if they affirm then scripture is convincing Once more we read Act. 18.28 of Apollos that he mightily convinced the Jewes shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. I am ashamed to mention more arguments in so clear a cause and yet we must believe these men against our senses and reason and conscience that the scriptures are not able to convince men in foro contentioso and Mr. VVhite who sometimes writes as if he believed an everlasting state dares hazard it upon such false and frivolous suppositions Excep 4. This word All Scripture must signify either every Scripture as the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred and then all Scripture save one Book is uselesse or all the Scriptures that ever were and then we have them not or all that were then written and then all since written are superfluous or all that we now have Epist. pag. 29.30 Ans. The Text speaks not of every scripture but of all the scriptures that then were As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two things are evident enough 1. That it may be taken collectively and the use of the word will warrant it I see the Captain is grown a Graecian therefore I shall desire him to look onely into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectivè not distributivè Mat. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole herd not every herd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole city v. 34. 2. That it must be so taken here our Adversaries being judges for else this confessed inconvenience will follow That any one verse of the Scripture is profitable and sufficient to all these purposes nor doth it at all follow that all the rest are superfluous because not precisely necessary The Pentateuch alone was a sufficient law for the Jewes yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous Excep 5. He sayes not the Scriptures are sufficient but onely profitable Cressy Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every good work and what is so is undoubtedly sufficient 2. He saith they are profitable so far as to make one wise to salvation and I think that is sufficient 3. He saith they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation which are acknowledged to be onely two Faith and Life and they are profitable to both of them 1 for doctrine i. the demonstration of the Truth 2. for conviction or reproof i.e. the consutation of errors 3. for correction i.e. the reproof of sins 4. for instruction in righteousnesse or the discovery of Duties And what is thus every way profitable cannot with any colour be charged with insufficiency Excep 6. It is a clear case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and applyed by a Preacher Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various elogiums which are here so emphatically given to all the Scripture do as truly belong to any one verse of Scripture By this those two words Dic Ecclesiae Tell the Church are able to make one wise to salvation and furnished to every good work c. for so they are or may be through God's blessing if explicated and applied by an able preacher So those words Abraham beg at Isa ac are able to all these mentioned purposes viz. if explicated and applyed So you see the Church of Rome is grown superlatively orthodox for they who ere while would not allow all the Scripture to be sufficient are now so abundantly satisfied in the point that they allow any one verse in the Bible not excluding Tobit went and his dog followed him to be sufficient This I hope may suffice for the vindication of this Text wherein I have been the larger because it is most plain and impregnable to our purpose and sufficient of it self to decide the whole controversy I shall not concern my selfe or trouble the Reader with the vindication of other Texts to the same purpose which are many and considerable and with great facility defensible against all the Romish assaults because to him that submits to the authority and self-evidencing light of this Text that labour is superfluous and to him whose Conscience will suffer his wit to quarrel against such forcible and clear expressions and arguments as this Teâ—t affords it is frustraneous And therefore upon the evidence that hath been delivered I shall take the boldnesse to conclude That not the Church but the Scripture is the sufficient Rule and Infallible Guide by which we are to be regulated in all things pertaining to Faith or Godlinesse FINIS Doctor Jesuita Ad quem peâ—â—inet de libris Canonicis Determinare Catholicus Papista Ad â—cclâ—siam sine cuâ—us authoritate non plus fidci aâ—hiberem Maâ—thaeo quam Tito Livio par 1 â—â— 12. (b) Poâ—uit illud pio sensu dici Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. (c) Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem nullum pondus nullam vim erga nos nostram fidem nisi
the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9. CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of St Austins judgment § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in generall § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours 3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as 1. That they be generall § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Councels Fathers Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of Oâ—all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing against the judgment of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers § 9. â— Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. â— Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19. 2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From Gods just judgment § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The oâ—inion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fallâ—bility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles onely prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19. 4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from Gods providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Proâ—â—stants Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fouâ—â—dation of Faith in the Scriâ—â—tures the Papists themselves 〈◊〉 ing judges Sect. 〈◊〉 Their Learned men acknowleâ— 1. That the Scripture is 〈◊〉 may be known to be the 〈◊〉 of God without the Church Testimony and by its owâ— light Sect. 〈◊〉 2. That the Books of Scriptuâ—â— are not corrupted in essentiaâ— and necessary points Sect. 〈◊〉 3. That the sence of Scripture 〈◊〉 things necessary may be uâ—â—derstood Sect. 〈◊〉 Except Protestants 〈◊〉 upon an humane Translaâ—tion answered Se. 5 6 7 â— Protestants freed from the preâ—â—tended circle of proving Scripâ—â—ture by the spirit and the spiâ—rit by the Scripture Sect. 9â— 10 11 12â— A consideration of that pretenâ— ostered at by some Romanists That the Churches Authority 〈◊〉 a sufficient foundation foâ— faith without infallibility Sect. 13â— The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to
de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the Anathema's of Councels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alledged either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered pag. 45. Everards arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies examined answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissentâ—rs p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonicall books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sence of Scripture p. 57. 5. About fundamentall points p. 59. 4. Protestants have not the Originals but onely Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes p. 68. 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great apâ—plauded aâ—guments in his Daâ—â—alogues refuted The first taken from the greaâ— uncertainâ—y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88. The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued onely from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Councels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence the Reader will easily discerne The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decisâ—on p. 9. l. 7. r. Gretâ—â—â—â—â— p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. least p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because for best p. â—0 l. 8. r. least p. â—5 l. 26. r. Grill. â—â—â— acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. â—â—d there for â—y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4 r fricat â—b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosiâ—â— p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the citâ—tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apotaâ—â—ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iuâ—â— read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuallâ— p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Tâ—stimonie and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her then they sall into diverse opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimonie and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie and this present Churh too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a generall Councell and others the Pope and a Councell together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universall or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proofe For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome then the Bishop of York the onely plea is that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabrick of Popery There is no man so grosly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion that
and not contented to deliver the assertion he addes a reason Is it not absurd that when you are to receive mâ—ny you do not trust other men but examine it your selves and when you are to judge of things then to be drawn away by other mens opinions And this saith he is the worse fault in you because you have the Scriptures That brings in the second Herely of Chrysostomes The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture and the mischiefe too is he cals it a perfect rule you have saith he an exact standard and rule of all things and he concludes thus I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks but enquire all things of the Scriptures I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one if I might advise them the next Jesuite that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostomes works by the Protestants and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of Chrysostome in the Vatican What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully then Origen It is necessary saith he that we should alledge the Testimony of Scriptures without which our expositions do not command faith Or then Cyrill Do not believe me saying these things unlesse I prove them out of the Scriptures Or then Ambrose thus speaking to the Emperour Gratian I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation let us aske the Scriptures aske the Prophets the Apostles S t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration then Cyprian and Ambrose yet heare how he speaks of them of Cyprian thus I am not obliged by his Authority I do not look on his Epistles as Canonicall but I examine them by the Scriptures and what is repugnant thereunto with his good leave I reject it Would the Papists give us but this liberty we should desire no more and of Ambrose he saith the like Peradventure it will be said in this point as it is in the generall That although it is confessed by the Fathers that particular Doctors are liable to error yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree they have an infallible Authority and are a sufficient foundation of Faith To this I answer 1 If this were granted it doth not in the least secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us wherein such unanimous consent can be produced but in every one of them there are pregnant allegations out of some of the Fathers repugnant to their opinions and assertions This their learned men cannot but know and if they have any ingenuity in them they cannot deny 2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea What a silly thing is it to deny that that which happen'd to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them And with Gerhard the Testimonies of the Fathers collectively taken cannot bee of another kind and nature then they are distributively Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition if he apprehends the meaning of it for how can the same persons being onely considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time And if Austin Ambrose Cyprian supposing these were all the Fathers be each of them fallible how can a meer collective consideration of them render them infallible 3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth That the Fathers deny this Infallibility not onely to one or two of them dispersedly but to all the Antients collectively considered and this I shall prove onely by one Argument They that make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writer deny the Infallibility of the Fathers eitheir collectively or distributively considered But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writers and abjudicate it from all other Writers S t Ierome is expresse Except the Apostles whatsoever else is afterward said let it be cut off for it hath no Authority And againe I make a difference between the Apostles and other Writers those alwaies said Truth but these in somethings as men did erre St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scriptures and all other Writings That those are to be read with a necessity of believing but these with a liberty of judging What living man can expresse the Protestant Doctrine in more evident termes then the same Father elsewhere doth That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other witnesses and testimonies whether more or fewer agreed or divided all is one to S t Austin you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge they have more or lesse weight And again when he was pressed by Ierom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers he thus Answers I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture to believe there is no error in them But as for others how Learned or Godly soever they be I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures To conclude so evident is St. Austin's judgment in that point that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist Occam by name who speaking of a passage of St. Austins about this point hath these words It is to be noted that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the pen-men of the Scripture makâ—s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers and therefore whether they be Popes or others whether they writ in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed upon them You see St. Austin's mind is plain and doth our Adversaries themselves being judges directly overturne that great fundamental point of the Infallibility of Councels and Popes which if you will believe them is not only true but necessary to salvation and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths These are they that maintaine no doctrine but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great article of Transubstantiation viz. to tell us we must not believe our selves when we read such passages in the Fathers and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons and Consciences we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal And this doctrine of Austins if you will believe the Romanists when delivered by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine never heard of in the world till Luther's dayes and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge when the like is said of our other doctrines I might fill up a Treatise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this purpose but this is enough for any but those who are resolved to sacrifice
nothing was further from their thoughts and suppose a lesse number of the Fathers did in that age contradict it though the contradictours happily either did not commit their opinion to Writing or if they did their Writings might be suppressed by the major part as hath been the lot of most Ages or by the injury of time are lost which the Papists cannot say was impossible for the Writings of the Fathers seeing they tell us that de facto some of the Books of Holy Scripture are lost The next age comes and understands the truth of what I have now supposed The question is Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a sufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and infallibility Melchiôr Canus saith No Now then the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions which the Age immediately next remembred The question is whether that foundation which was insufficient to the precedent Age is now through their ignorance of such contradiction become sufficient to the following Age if they affirme it it would become the Jesuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is it seems not onely the Mother of Devotion but of assurance and certainty of knowledge if they deny it they confesse the weaknesse of their assertion In short he that will lay the foundation of his Faith upon such a quicksand must either prove the negative that there was no such contradiction as we have supposed which is impossible or confesse his Faith relies upon the Sand which is dreadfull And againe admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition I have given severall instances wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers and that there were severall Doctrines which if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine but what they had by Tradition the Fathers receaved by Tradition wherein they were de facto mistaken and why might they not be mistaken in this Wee all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the second and third Centuries though it be said all came from the mistake of Papias an honest but credulous Doctor And dare these men venture their Souls upon it that Papias was the onely credulous Author and that this was the onely mistaken Tradition or that it was impossible for those Fathers who were so many of them imposed upon by one credulous person in one point to be imposed upon by another in other points All these and many other uncertainties must not onely be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility § 6. The second particular is this That if the Antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition for they might believe it upon other grounds It is evident they believed many nay to speak the truth all Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures and why might it not be so with this Why might not the Fathers believe this if they did believe it upon the same misapprehensions and mistakes which the Papists at this day runne into concerning the sence of those Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels And consequently the Fathers opinions of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles but only that this was their opinion wherein no lesse then in other points they were subject to errors as I have proved § 7. The third Proposition is this It doth not appeare that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels For triall hereof I shall refer my self to those Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary position Bel brings three Arguments to shew that the Antient Fathers held that generall Councels could not erre and not one of them speak to the point His first Argument is this They affirme that the sentence of a generall Councell in the cause of Faith is the last judgment of the Church from which thâ—re lies no appeale and which cannot be made void or retracted Hence it evidently followes that such Counsels cannot erre because else it were a very unjust thing to compell Christians that they should nâ—t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious I Answer 1. S t Austin did hold that the sentence of a generall Councell might be retracted though not by private Christians yet by a â—ollowing generall Councell former generall Councels saith he are corrected by the later of which more by and by and that is enough to shew he did not believe it infallible 2. The Consequence is weak and denied by the Protestants and therefore might be denied by the Fathers If the consequence be infirme now it could not be strong then and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara who tels us that Calvin and Robertus Baronius and all the Protestants and some others who deny the Infallibility of generall Councels do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Councell hath a detâ—rmining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme Nor is it unjust but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefes that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority beyond which there might be no appeale And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civill affaires though he be confessed to be Fallible so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible provided it be granted which the Protestants with the Fathers do assert and have proved that such Judicatories do not bind the conscience but onely regulate the outward Acts and prevent visible Confusions § 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmines second Argument which is this The Fathers and Councels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of generall Councels are Hereticks and deserve excommunications and therefore they thought such Councels could not erre Answer 1. I deny the Consequence againe for the now mentioned reason The civill cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrates Infallibility as the Ecclesiasticall cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Councell doth prove the Councels Infallibility 2. The Fathers did not account men Hereticks meerly because they rested not in the sentence of a Councell as such for then they should have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels but because the Doctrine which they opposed and the Councels asserted was true and so it was the verity of the Doctrine not the Conciliarity if you will pardon the word of the sentence by which they judged of Hereticks
fair glosse upon a foul cause yet indeed the authority of them all is as vigorously disputed against by the most and learned'st Romanists as by any Protestants in the world You remember what their great master Bellarmine told you That Infallibility and Supreme Authority is not partly in the Pope partly in the Councel but wholly in the Pope what need we trouble our selves further Those four are now reduc'd to two Scripture and the Pope and those two must mutually prove one another There is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Scriptures but the testimony of the Pope say the Papists and there is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Pope but the testimony of the Scriptures For the Fathers and Councels receiving all their authority and infallibility from the Pope cannot give him the infallibility and authority they received from him Now how senslesse a resolution of Faith this is though most of the Papists have no better and no other you may perceive by some few instances It is as if a Sudent should say thus I should not believe such a book to be an excellent book but for my Tutor's testimony who tels me so And again I should not believe my Tutor's testimony to be of any validity but for the testimony of that book concerning him Who would not laugh at such an assertion Or as if a man should say I should not believe the honesty of Richard were it not for the testimony of Thomas And I should not believe the honesty of Thomas were it not for the testimony of Richard Where is there a man that will accept of such security in a trivial worldly bargain And yet the Papists are content to venture their souls upon it From all that hath been said I conclude that the pretended authorities we have discoursed of do neither severally nor yet jointly afford a solid foundation for a Papist's Faith nor prove that Infallibility which they pretend to and consequently there is no solid foundation for a Papists faith And here I might discharge my self from further trouble having discovered the nullity of all the pretences which have been hitherto owned by the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of Orall Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church § 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors where the authors are any whit considerable and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility There is then another shift which some subtle Romanists have lately invented who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of the field by strength of Scripture and argument in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Councel come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition and the authority of the present Church This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues Mr. White and Holden and Sr. Kenelm Digby and S. Clara. Their defence and discourse is this for I shall give you their opinion in their own words A man may prudently believe the present Church for her self and ought so to do A man needs not nor is not obliged to enquire further there he may safely fix saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary That society of Christians which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers and they from theirs and so from the Apostles they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered for if they could teach falsehoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity neither of which is credible But the Church of Rome and they only pretend to teach nothing else c. Ergo they must needs hold the truth The acute Mr. White explains the opinion more exactly and fully and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words 1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles and practised it and highly valued it as most necessary for them and their posterity and to be preferred before all other things 2. Those first Christians even at their death both could and would and therefore doubtlesse did most vehemently commend this doctrine to their Children and the Fathers did alwaies deliver the same doctrine which they received from their Parents and under that notion because they had received it 3. If any delivered another doctrine he could be proved a lyar by the rest of the world or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine under that notion scil of a doctrine delivered from their Parents that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide and should agree to murder themselves which is impossible 4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors who took care of Faith and manners and it is evident that the Pastors and people had the same faith 5. And there arose heresies by which the truth might be more cleared and they that maintained the antient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators which Innovators did not publickly reject the Apostles doctrine but pleaded it was not rightly understood and the other part kept the name of the Catholick Church 6. It is necessary that that congregation which alwaies kept the antient discipline should alone profess that she received her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Canon of their Faith under another notion 7. As certainly therefore as one may know that the congregation of believers which at this day is called Catholick is animated with a number of learned and wise men so certainly will it be known that she is not conscious of any newness of doctrine and therefore there is no new doctrine 8. Following ages cannot be ignorant what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons Catechisms Prayers and Sacraments and such are all things necessary to the Catholick Faith 9. This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was confirmed by long custome diverse laws rewards and punishments both of this and the following life monuments of writers by which all would be kept in it 10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schisme and notorious tumult in the Church as dayly experience proveth To the same purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the resolution of Faith This is a new Plea and deserves special consideration § 2. For Answer 1. I give Mr. White and his worthy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or rather justice done by them to the Protestant cause For whereas this is the perplexing question wherewith they think to puzzle us How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority and from the supposed impossibility thereof
though they be either of Apostolicall or Angelicall originall Gal. 1.18.9 2. The Argument I confesse is right of the Romish stamp viz. The Thessalonians were bound to receive what they heard immediately from St Pauls mouth in such things as for the substance of them were contained in the Scripture Therefore we are now bound to receive all those Traditions which the Church of Rome tell us they had from those that had them from those that had them from those that told them their Ancestors were told by their Ancestors that some of their Ancestors had it from Paul 1600 years agoe risum teneatis amici This may serve for the fourth Answer § 9. Ans. 5. If this Doctrine be true Scripture proof is not necessary for any point in Religion for it asserts the sufficiency of Tradition in it self and without the Scripture But Scripture proof is necessary for confirmation of points in Religion This I might prove from Scripture but that hath been done allready in the former Answer therefore I shall here confute this Argument of Tradition by Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers To pick up all they have to this purpose would fill Volumes I shall therefore single out some few Illustrious Testimonies Nothing can more evidently overthrow this goodly structure then those forementioned words of Cyprian We ought not to regard what others have done before us but what Christ who was before all thought fit to be done For we must follow Gods Truth not mens custome What Protestant can say more in few words then Clemens Alexandrinus in few words We assert nothing without Scripture Therefore he thought not Tradition a sure evidence though so near the Fountaine much lesse can it now give us any certainty having conflicted with hazards and been exposed to the infection of 1300 years S t Basil is expresse It is necessary that every word or thing be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures And else where he tells you It is a manifest defection from the Faith and token of Pride either to rejâ—ct any thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written And Constantine speaking of the rule by which all things were to be examined and judged confines it to the Scripture The Books of the Prophets and Apostles saith he do plainly instruct us what to think of Divine things therefore laying aside hostile discord from the words which were divinely inspired let us take our expositions of quoestions e It is a pitiful shift of Bellarmines to say that Constantine was a better Emperor then Doctor whereas in this particular Theodoret assures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying nor did any of the Antients ever condemne him for it And indeed the practise of the Synod shewes their approbation of the Speech and consequently gives us another Argument for they determined the controversy according to the Scriptures saith Ambrose and Athanasius too whose words are these The Bishops congregated at Nice collecting togâ—ther all things they could out of Scripture to defend their opinion they affirmed that the Son was consubstantiall to the Father And Bellarmine himself confesseth it The Councell of Nice when they defined the Son to be consubstantiall to the Father they drew their Conclusion out of the Scriptures Notable is that place of Chrysostomes because it acquaints us with his own judgment and the judgment of the Christians of that age If any thing be asserted saith he without Scripture the minde of the hearer wavers But when Scripture comes that confirmes the speakers words and settles the hearers mind Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Hermogenes that things were made of prae existent matter with I never read it let Hermogenes shew where it is written or else let him fear the woe denounced against those those that adde to the Scripture e And againe I do not receive what thou bringest of thy own without the Scripture And againe Take away from Hereticks the things they have in common with Heathens that they may referre their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand But the Papists are of another mind for if you will believe them if Scripture alone must judge Controversies Heresies will never fall Theodoret professeth he was not so bold as to assert any thing wherein the Scripture was silent Thus Origen It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of Scripture for without this our expositions have no credit Austin is most full and plaine I will mention but one place Whether they have the Church they cannot shew but from the Canonicall Books of Scripture And yet there is no question wherein Tradition seems more pertinent and where the Papists urge it with more vehemency I might adde a thousand pregnant places more but either these or none will suffice to prove that the Antients did judge Scripture proofe necessary for the confirmation of any Doctrine in Religion which the Romanists now judge not necessary The Fathers pretended Tradition for their opinion and the Papists pretend it now Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then or it deceives the Papists now Either will serve our turne to shew the Fallibility of Tradition If it be said there are no lesâ—e expresse Testimonies alledged by the Papists on the behalfe of Tradition and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalfe of the Scripture I Answer 1. If the Fathers do in some places assert the sufficiency of proof from Tradition and in other places the necessity of Scripture proofe these assertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of Religion For so say the Lawyers most justly and truly Testis pugnantia diceus fidem non facit 2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition especially if you compare them with those alledged for Scripture that they do plead Tradition onely as a secondary Argument to confirme that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture but it is as clear as the Sunne that they ever made Tradition strike faile to the Scripture and made no scruple of deserting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments stood on the other side Answ. 6. The Romanists themselves are undeniable instances of the vanity of their own Argument They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us Why Tradition hath deceived them There are diverse contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome about 300 are reckoned out of Bellarmine The dissenters though never so implacably divided amongst themselves do agree in this That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers and so from the Apostles Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived some of them or both the parts of a contradiction may be true I shall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions nor take notice of pettie differences amongst obscure Authors but shall instance in two materiall
granted that there is an Infallible judge yet it doth not their work for particular Christians are not Infallibly assured of the Infallibility of their Church unlesse they will say that every Papist is Infallible And therefore no particular Papist hath better ground for his Faith upon this score then the Protestants have for they neither have nor pretend to better Arguments upon which they believe their Church to be this Supreme and Infallible judge then what Protestants alledge to prove the Scripture to be judge viz. Texts of Scripture Tradition Fathers Councels Miracles rationall Arguments c. And if a Protestant may be deceived in these when he inferres from them the Infallibility of the Scripture why may not a Papist be deceived when he inferres from them the Infallibility of his Church since he hath no better Arguments nor more Infallible guidance And therefore as to particular Christians of whom the whole Church consists and about whom alone the care of Christ and Gods Providence is exercised God hath not taken more effectuall care for their infallible guidance according to the Romish Principles then according to ours For as they say Protestants have no security for their Faith though the Scripture be Infallible because they cannot Infallibly underitand it or believe this to be the Scripture so say I the Papists have no security of the Infallibility of their Church though the Churches Infallibility be acknowledged true in it self since they cannot infallibly know either that there is such an infallibility or theirs to be the Church to whom it is promised § 28. 4. It is neither necessary nor suitable to the methods of Gods Providence and the declarations of his will that there should be a finall end and infallible judge of all controversies in this life That which these men teil us was fit to be done God hath told us he did not judge fit and who is most credible do you judge 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be Heresies that they which are approved may be made manifest God hath acquainted us that it is his pleasure that Tares should grow with the Wheat unto the end of the World In respect of wicked men it was fit in regard of Gods Justice that there should be stones of stumbling and Rocks of offence for the punishment of those that were disobedient And in regard of elect and sincere Christians who live holily and humbly believe and pray fervently and seek the true way diligently such a judge is not necessary God having provided for them other wayes by giving them the promise of his Spirit and guidance into Truth which is as good security as the Pope himselfe hath or pretends for his supposed Infallibility by that anointing which teacheth them all things 1 Ioh. 2. 27. in confidence of whose conduct they may say with David Thou shalt guide me with thy counsell and afterwards receive me to Glory Psal. 73. 24. They are kept by Gods power 1 Pet. 1. 5. and the care and strength of Christ Ioh. 10. And what need a Christian desire more Truly saith Amesius God hath provided for the safety of the Godly not for the curiosity or perversnesse of other men And therefore this plea must go after all the rest and they are still lest in a Forlorne and desperate because in a faithlesse condition And thus having forced my way through all the obstructions which they laid before us I know not what hinders but I may pronounce the sentence notwithstanding all their big looks and glorious pretences of Infallibility notwithstanding all the noise of Scripture Fathers Popes Councels Tradition Miracles when things come to be scanned it appeares they have no foundation for their Faith and consequently have no Faith Lord be mercifull to them CHAP. VII Of the Solidity of the Protestants foundation of Faith § 1. HAppily they will fay of us as Ierome did of Lactantius that he could facilius aliena destruere quam stabiline sua that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith then make our own good I shall therefore though it be besides my present designe which is onely to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility in few words enquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith then the Papists have And this I shall shew onely by one Argument The Popish foundation of faith is such as many of their own great Doctours are unsatisfied in There being no foundation laid by any of them but it is both denied and disproved by others no lesse eminent of their own communion as I have proved at large and such as is unanimously opposed by all Protestants and solidly disproved But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches of what denomination soever are agreed in yea such as diverse of our most learned Adversaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient You will say if you can prove this the controversy will be at an end and if I do not let the Reader Judge There are but three things that need proof 1. That the Books of Scripture which Protestants build their Faith upon are and may be proved to be the word of God 2. That in the substantials of Faith these Books are uncorrupted 3 That the sence of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary points § 2. For the first That the Protestants Bible is and may be proved to be the word of God It is true when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question as they call it to them How know you Scripture to be the word of God what matters it how I know it seeing they acknowledg it and by granting the thing make their question superfluous But I Answer I know it even by the Confession of our Adversaries So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation and the testimony of an adversary against himself is undeniabe It may be of good use here a little to compare the several discourses of learned Papists to different persons and how prettily they contradict themselves and confute their own arguments When the Papists dispute against us they tell us It is impossible to know the Scripture to be the word of God but by the Churches Testimony But if you take them in their lucid intervals and their disputes against Atheists or Heathens then you shall have them in another tune then Bellarmine can say Nothing is more evidâ—nt and more certain then the Sacred Scriptures so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them Here he can furnish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture distinct from and independent upon the Churches authority the verity of Prophecies harmony of writers works of Providence glory of Miracles consent of Nations c. Either then these arguments do solidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures or they do not if they do not then
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
poore Captaine hath no better and therefore I will quit that work and come to that which is more materiall viz. To try whether he hath any better against the Scripture And here also I shall do his cause that right as with him to take into consideration what is said by M r Cressy in his Exomologesis which I am the more willing to do because if the Popish cause have any strength in it and if the Doctrine of the Scripture alone being Judge and rule of Controversies be untrue and indefensible as they pretend it is we may expect the demonstration of it from a man of his wit and learning and experience in the Controversy as having thoroughly considered all pretensions and arguments of both parties and taken in the advice of the most famed Doctors of the Romish Church But I must not dissemble that I was wofully disappointed in the perusall of M r Cressy's piece and whereas I expected something solid and substantiall or at least very plausible which I might have some ground in charity to believe might give at least a colour for his change I find little in him worthy of consideration but what hath allready received satisfactory Answers Yet because the cause affords no better Arguments I shall briefly consider what he and the Captaine and his assistants deliver in this matter That the Scripture is not the onely rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies is the Proposition they attempt to prove and their Arguments are those which follow Arg. 1. Scripture cannot be this Judge and Rule because it did not answer its end for they that own this Judge disagree among themselves Everard Epist. p. 33. Scripture doth not reconcile them Thus Cressy by this rule it is impossible that ever Controversies should be ended Sect. 2. chap. 4. n. 1. Answ. Scripture might be as really it was designed instituted and ordained for the ruling of mens Faith and the judging and deciding Controversies though through the depravednesse of men this end might not be obtained If this Argument have any weight in it I may upon the same ground argue thus Preaching of the Gospell was not instituted for the salvation of the World because it doth not answer its end but proves to many a favouâ— of death Or the Law of God was not instituted by God for a rule of life because it doth not obtaine its end and men will not be ruled by it In a word let it be observed If this Argument prove any thing it proves what the very Papists deny that the Scripture is not so much as a part of the rule neither of Faith nor manners for still according to the present Argument it doth not Answer its end for there is no one controversy in Faith which Scripture alone decides so as to silence all differences which is the thing pretended necessary to a Judge of Controversies For the further discovery of the impertinency and vanity of this Argument however it is their Goliah which they boast most of I shall offer them this Dilemma relating to that power of ending all differences among Christians which they suppose was necessary for and by Christ committed to the Judge of Controversies Either I say that power is absolute unconditionall and effectuall and if so there could be no Heresies Schismes or differences in the Christian World which we see is most false or it is a conditionall power sufficient of it self for the ending of differences though frustrable and impedible in its effects by the ignorance or perversenesse of men which is the reall truth And in this sense the Scripture may be judge i. e. there is enough in it said and clearly delivered by which all Controversies might be ended if men would be humble studious and self-denying and in the former sense the Church of Rome is no judge of Controversies Peradventure it will be said that all men are bound to submit and hearken to all the decrees of the Church of Rome and when they do so submit it is an effectuall meane to end all differences In the very same manner and upon farre better grounds I say of the Scripture that all are bound to submit and hearken to all its Councels and decrees and when they do so it will effectually end all Controversies If it be further said that the Church hath a power of coercion to compel dissenters to submit I Answer either that coercion they speak of is spirituall by Church censures excommunication c. or civill by corporall penalties death c. If they understand it of civill coercion that is not at all necessary nor intrinsecall to an Ecclesiasticall judge of Controversies otherwise the Apostles who had not this civill power Nay Christ himselfe who denies that he was judge or ruler should not be such a Judge and the Church for the first 300 years had no judge of Controversies Nay the Papists themselves in pretence at least abjudicate this from the Church and referre it wholly to the Civill Power If they speak of a Spirituall coercion then the Scripture hath such a power of inflicting Spirituall penalties upon its violaters and contemners such as obduration and ejection from the presence of God and such excommunication as the other is but a shadow of it And whether they speak of one or other the Protestant Judge of Controversies is not destitute of either advantage If it be remembred that the Protestants own an Ecclesiasticall Politicall Judge whiâ—h Judge although their modesty will not suffer them to pretend to Infallibility and a power to oblige all people to receive all their decrees though anti-Scripturall without enquiry and though they say with the Apostle they have their power for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 and they can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and though it is their advice to their people which was the counsell of the Apostle to his people 1 Cor. 11.1 Be followers of me even as I also am of Christ Yet they have a power to explaine and maintaine the Doctrines of the Scripture and they acknowledge a power in the Magistrate by civill sanctions and penalties to suppresse and restraine such as shall corrupt the Truth and infect peoples soules with the poyson of Hereticall Doctrines And this may abundantly serve for Answer to their Achilles or principall argument which makes such a noise in the world Arg. 2. Scripture cannot be a perfect rule because some books of Scripture are lost and it is the whole Scripture which is this rule Ans 1. Then Tradition also cannot be a rule for diverse Traditions are lost as Cressy confesseth Sect. 1. ch 8. n. 5. and all the Papists acknowledg Answ. 2. It doth not at all appeare that any one of those Books are lost which concerned controversies of Faith or the rule of Life All which to this day hath been proved is this That some Books Written by Holy men and Prophets are lost But it is a vaine
imagination without the shadow of a proofe that all which was written by such men was a part of Canonicall or Divine Scripture for we read that the Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost which inspired them not at all times but onely when he pleased there being this difference between the spirits inspiration of Christ and all other Holy men that it was in Christ without measure and without difference of time but in the Apostles it was a gift confined to such seasons and proportions as God saw fit for them Is any man so absurd as to think that every letter which a Prophet or Apostle might write about any private affaires was a part of the Sacred Scripture Or if Solomons Herball were extant must it needs be admitted into the Canon of the Sacred Scripture Or how can they prove and if they do not prove it this Argument is impertinent that the Histories which Ioshua or Nathan or Samuel or Gad c. might or did write concerning the Warres of the Lord or the Civill transactions of the Kingdomes of Israel and Iudah must needs be a part of the Canon Or did the temporary transient and extraordinary inspirations of the Holy-Gost deprive them of their common gifts and faculties And was the capacity of a Prophet inconsistent with that of an Historian or because Balaam was once inspired must we needs Canonize all that afterwards he spake if it were extant or because Hannah was once inspired 1 Sam. 2. and Simeon and Elizabeth Luk. 1. did ever any man unlesse in a dream imagine that all their after Discourses were Canonicall Answ. 3. Although fragmenta auri sunt pretiosa the least shreds of Scripture are of inestimable value yet we must distinguish between the essentiall and integrall parts of the rule of Faith every part and parcell of it is a choice blessing for our bene esse and more abundant direction and consolation yet is it not an essentiall part of the rule of Faith for the farre greatest part of those sacred Books is spent in the explication of such general lawes and directions as were of themselves sufficient strictè loquendo or the repetition of the same things which mans dulnesse and backwardnesse to such things made highly expedient and beneficiall The five Books of Moses were sufficient to Salvation before any of the other Books were indited and the following Writings of the Prophets were but Comments upon them which if by Gods providence they had been lost no doubt the first five Books would have been sufficient for Salvation for that state of the Church So when St Matthew had VVritten his Gospell wherein the Doctrine of the person and office and works of Christ who is the marrow of both Testaments and the sole-sufficient object of saving knowledge Ioh. 17.3 is clearly revealed and fully proved I do assert and let any of our Adversaries prove the contrary if they can that that had been sufficient for our Salvation And yet it must be acknowledged a wonderfull favour from God that he hath so plentifully provided for us and so carefully watched by his Providence for the preservation of the severall Books of Scripture that all the wit and learning of Adversaries can only furnish them with two instances of Apostolicall VVritings which they suppose to be lost viz. one Epistle from Laodicea and another to the Corinthians Arg. 3. A rule must be plaine and cleare but the Scriptures are darke and doubtfull and that in things appertaining to Salvation as appeares from 2 Pet. 3.16 things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their destruction Now this could not bring destruction if they were not hard in things appertaining to Salvation And here the Captaine musters up severall necessary Doctrines which he supposeth not to be clearly laid down in Scripture Answ. The Scripture is plaine and cleare in things necessary to Salvation as hath been abundantly evinced by Protestants out of expresse Scriptures and consent of Fathers But that belongs to another point and I do not love to mingle distinct questions together therefore to them I shall referre the Reader onely I shall take notice of such assaults as he hath made upon this Doctrine For the Text 2 Pet. 3.16 I confesse I do not meet with any passage so plausible as this in his whole Book But the solution of the doubt is not difficult If you consider 1. To whom these things are said to be darke even to ignorant unstable ungodly men VVhen Protestants say Scripture is cleare they do not meane it is so to those that are blind or to them that shut their Eyes or have discoloured Eyes and such are they of whom those things are said but unto such as are humble and diligent in the use of means to find out the Truth not onely some passages of St Paul but in generall all Divine and Spirituall Truths are darke to the naturall man and such there is no reason to doubt these were as is positively asserted by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnesse unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned and consequently if the Popish argument from this place have any force in it not onely some parts of Scripture will be dark but not any part of it will be plaine which the most impudent Papist durst never yet assert 2. The wresting of the Scripture in any of its truths or doctrines is so great a sin that it may well be called destructive though the doctrine wrested be not simply necessary to salvation as the disbeliefe and contempt of any Truth or assertion plainly delivered by God is confessed to be damnable though the matter of the assertion be meerly circumstantial and not at all in it self necessary to salvation 3. S. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or difficult passages might be wrested to destruction although the matter of them was not necessary to be known or understood in order to Salvation As for instance That passage of St. Pauls All things are lawful for me scil all indifferent things for he there speaks of the use of meats or observation of dayes This I say is not a fundamental Truth nor is the knowledg of it necessary to Salvation yet when the Libertines do abuse this Scripture to justify themselves in the practice of all wickednesse doubtlesse they wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction Besides the matter of a Text may be of lesser importance and the knowledge thereof not necessary to Salvation and the first and immediate mistake of it may be in it self inconsiderable and yet that may usher in other and those higher mistakes as we see error is fruitful and grows worse and worse and at last end in destruction as that Cloud which at first was no bigger then a mans hand did quickly overcast the whole Heavens The
Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the onely rule when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly Ergo it is not the onely rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Councel combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord. Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Councel Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of Gods Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather then for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equall Avthority the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis affâ—ctu ac reverentia with equall piety and reverence it consequently followes that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sence to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despoticall having dominion over the peoples Faith and being Lords over Gods Heritage but onely Ministeriall not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so farre as it concernes his own actions It is true and that Judgment as I have shewed the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an errour common to the Jewes of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every mans being Judge in words and shew yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captaine for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Councell is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Councell be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captaine or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called Rushworths Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtlesse si Pergama dextrâ Defâ—ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security aâ—quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture yet is onely upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written onely to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written meâ—rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Hereticks had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a
rule of Faith which must be so true and cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soule upon This is the summe of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and cleare and so evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and cleare and evident c. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtfull that it is not onely rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the VVorld men so absurdly scepticall that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equall Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concernes onely one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no speciall occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and Deâ—th and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine They are the Authors words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casuall to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not onely to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned untill the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Thâ—s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least diverse of them were written upon speciall occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproâ—fe c. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use no man that knowes any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them sorth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proofe but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turne for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been allready handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tels us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Hereticks the Jewes at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and
upon the Infallibility of the Pope or a Councell Is not this a rare piece of intelligence for Heathens and Atheists and scoffers at the Scripture Are not these men worthy pillars of the Christian cause 2. Tradition is not at all concerned in the present dispute nor Infallibility neither For suppose the utmost of what can be or is said by the Romanists in this matter viz. that by Tradition we are Infallibly assured that the Scriptures are the VVord of God and that the severall Books reputed Canonicall by them are indeed Canonicall suppose I say we should take all this for granted what is this to our businesse Tradition I hope doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copists committed no errors in Transcribing nor the Translators in Translating Tradition did not infallibly assure Sixtus 5th that his Translation was right for it assured his Successor Clement 8 that it was corrupt in above a thousand places And when those Popes put forth their Translations it sufficiently appeares and they confesse it they were not guided by inspiration but proceeded in all things more humano by collation of Copies advice of learned men as I mentioned before out of the Popes own words And consequently if all Copies be so corrupt that we can have no certainty from them no more could the Pope and his consultors have from those Copies they used and therefore are lyable to the same uncertainties 2. However M r Rushworth pleaseth himselfe in this Argument as if it were unanswerable and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it there is one plaine evidence able to assure any rationall man that there is no weight and force in it because although these things have been formerly and frequently objected against the Scripture for M r Rushworth was not the first Antiscripturist yet diverse of the most learned and discreet and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church who doubtlesse were too wise to let slip any reall advantage and knew very well how much their cause needed it do utterly reject and deny it and together with us do assert the uncorruptednesse of the Books of Scripture now extant among us as I before proved out of their own words 3. Here is not any one convincing reason to perswade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantiall things All that M r Rushworth offers in liew of those solid Arguments to disprove the Authority and purity of our Bible is a collection of probabilities which witty men can easily multiply upon all occasions to shew that errours have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations which no man denies But alas how farre short do they fall in proofe if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person That which seemes to threaten most is the corruption of Hereticks and we are told of the Jewes at Tiberias who pointed the Bible when enemies to Christ and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text as also of the Greek Hereticks I am very willing the cause should be decided by this one point For as it is well argued by the Assertors of the Integrity of the Hebrew Text to whom I refer the Reader such as Buxtorf and Glassius and many others if those Jewes have corrupted the Hebrew Bible malitiously to weaken the Christian cause certainly they have done it in those places which are of greatest importance to evince Christianity But this it is notoriously known they have not done since most of the convincing proofs of Christs being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands And for the Greek and other Hereticks it is very true that some of them did attempt the corruption of some few Texts of Scripture but the very attempt made such a noise in the Christian World and the whole Church took such an alarme at it that it was presently discover'd and abhorr'd and they severely censured for it and even Papists confesse the Doctours of the Church were so vigilant that there could not be any wilfull and materiall depravation of the Greek Testament and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copists The Christians of former Ages had such an high opinion of the Scriptures necessity and transcendent excellency that they kept it with all possible care such exact acquaintance and familiar knowledge of the Scripture that they could not but discover the least considerable error such conscientious strictnesse that they abhorred the least depravation and such jealousy and watchfulnesse to observe and secure that inestimable treasure that it cannot with any probabiâ—ity be imagined that substantiall corruptions should come into the Texts and much lesse can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration 4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bibles corruption so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption Some I have now mentioned to which may be added the generall inconsiderablenesse of those various lections which Popish Writers triumph so much in the samenesse for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of diverse Ages and distant places and severall languages the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of severall other Authors as to materiall points notwithstanding all the different readings which yet were not read with that diligence and observation nor received with that veneration noâ— kept with that Religion nor watched with that jealousy nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatnings nor mens own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity and consequently were farre more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture To all which may be added that which alone is sufficient even the providence and goodnesse of God which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for mans conduct to eternall blisse so it gives us just ground for a comfortable and confident expectation that it would preserve them to our use and not suffer these Holy VVritings to see corruption This is so materiall a consideration even in the judgment of our Adversaries that it is their principall Argument and urged by them with greatest vehemency and pâ—ausibility for the Churches Authority and Infallibility because as they pretend it doth not consist with the providence and goodnesse of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle and differ onely in the application of it whilest they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell which as you have seen their own Authors are not satisfied in and we urge it for the infallibility and incorruptibility of the Scriptures which all Protestants and diverse Papists assert Thus I hope I have fully satisfied that first Argument The other Argument which M r Rushworth suggests is taken from the nature of the Books of Scripture If a law were to be given in Writing it must be thus First the common things must be commanded then by degrees they must descend to particulars still observing that
they generally pretend to own as their Law and it is no lesse true of Tradition of the largenesse whereof one may say as was formerly said of Livy Quas mea non totas Bibliotheca capit for according to the estimate which a learned Author of their own makes Charron by name the Scripture is but minima pars veritatis revelatae the least part of revealed Truth He that pleaseth may see good store of them collected by that great terrour of the Papists Moulin in a Treatise of his in French concerning Traditions Nay to put all out of doubt these very men that argue at this rate though they do not acquiesce in the Scripture as a Judge yet they do own it for a Law they confesse the word of God is their rule and law onely they make as I may say this law to consist of two Tables the written and the unwritten Word which you saw the Councel of Trent receive with equal piety and reverence Now certainly they that subscribe to this as the Papists generally do they own the Scripture for a Law though not for a compleat and sufficient Law nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law devest the Scripture of it any more then the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and statutes that is not at all Much more might be said to shew the folly and absurdity of this argument but if I should spend more words about it I should both question my own and too grosly distrust the Readers discretion And now having done with the Mathematicks let us come to the Politicks the best argument the Church of Rome hath Politick Mr. White who seeing their Scripture arguments in the suds and for the Fathers pila miâ— nantia pilis comes in to succour a falling cause with Politick considerations and moral conjectures and fine-spun probabilities No man can deny that it was politickly done when they saw their Church could prove nothing to assert that her bare saying was sufficient that the testimony of the present Church that she holds nothing but what she hath received from Christ and the Apostles is security enough for a Christian's Faith but this notion I have largely examined and I hope Mr. White will abate something of his confidence in it therefore I have nothing to do here but to consider what he alledgeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies and excepting what hath been before discussed I find onely one argument that can pretend to merit any consideration and it is delivered by him pro more with great confidence and contempt of his Adversaries When the Protestants ask the question as well they may Cannot the Bible make it self be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle a question which all the wits of the Romane Church not excluding Mr. White were never able to answer and thence infer that the Scripture is sufficiently intelligible and able to decide controversies Mr. White 's answer and argument against the Scriptures is this That this depends upon a most false supposition viz that the Scripture was written of those controversies which now are whereas it is a most shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world beginning from Genesis to the Apocalypse let them name one Book whose Theme is any now controverted Point between Protestants and Catholicks Apology for Tradition fifteenth Encounter And consequently the Scripture is no fit Judge for our controversies This you must know is the argument of another Mathematical Papist who cries out of Protestants for resting in probabilities yet can satisfy himself or at least pretends to do so with such absurd and improbable ratiocinations O the power of prejudice or interest for I cannot tell which it is that blinds such men as Mr. White Be of good chear Protestants the Papists are upon their last legs you see their arguments run very low The Answer is this in short for truly it needs no long nor laborious reply how much soever Mr. White is conceited of it It is not a most shamelesse but a most shameful proposition to say the Scripture is unable to decide any of those controversies which are since sprung up in the Christian world Is there any Freshman in the University ignorant of this That Rectum est Index sui obliqui that the assertion of a Truth is sufficient for the confutation of all contrary errors wheresoever or whensover broached I may say to Mr. White as they did to Moses Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men Doth Mr. White think his Readers would have neither wit nor conscience I aske whether those passages of Scripture In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Joh. 1.1 who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 This is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 do not solidly and sufficiently confute the late sprung Socinian Heresy and prove Christ's Divinity and prae-existency before his Incarnation If he say no I will promise him hearty thanks though not from Christ nor peradventure from his Vicar yet from all the Socinians in the world and then he would do well to answer what Placaeus and other of the Protestants or rather as a demonstration of the unity of the Romish Church what Smiglâ—cius and others of his Brother Romanists have argued from those places or else let him give us the reason why his Brethren should play the knaves and own and urge those things for solid arguments which they did not think so If he say yea then down fals all this goodly structure and Mr. White must seek for a new prop to their declining Babel and Scripture is not unable to decide controversies of a later Date Yet again I will prove Jesus Christ was not of Mr. White 's mind for he thought Scripture yea even such parts of Scripture as were not written upon those Themes or controversies nor designed against those errors able to decide supervening controversies Thus he confutes the Pharisaical opinion about Divorce from a Text well nigh as old as the Creation of the world even the institution of marriage Math. 19.4 5 6. So he confutes the error of the Sadduces against the resurrection from a Scripture long before delivered and such an one too as seemed to have no respect at all to such an Heresy Mat. 22.29 30 31 32. May it please this worthy Gentleman to give us leave without offence to prefer our Saviours opinion before his I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so sensless a cavil but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Non-sence passe for an Argument I need onely advise the Reader to read over the New Testament and if he have either reason or conscience it is impossible he should be of Mr.