things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
they confuted hereticks and they made them the measures of right and wrong all that collective body of doctrines of which all Christians consentingly made publick confessions and on which all their hopes of salvation did relye were all contain'd in them and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture And all this is so certain that we all profess our selves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove it self thus prov'd thus descended For we know a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten that 's but accidental and extrinsecal to it for it was first unwritten and then the same thing was written onely when it was written it was better conserv'd and surer transmitted and not easily altered and more fitted to be a rule And indeed onely can be so not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God but we are sure that what is so written and so transmitted is Gods Word whereas concerning other things which were not written we have no certain records no evident proof no sufficient conviction and therefore it is not capable of being own'd as the rule of faith or life because we do not know it to be the Word of God If any doctrine which is offer'd to us by the Church of Rome and which is not in Scripture be prov'd as Scripture is we receive it equally but if it be not it is to be received according to the degree of its probation and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men if it came in after the Apostles if it rely but upon a few Testimonies or is to be laboriously argued into a precarious perswasion it cannot be the true ground of faith and salvation can never rely upon it The truth of the assumption in this argument will rely upon an Induction of which all Churches have a sufficient experience there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life that can pretend to a clear universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches but onely the doctrine contain'd in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament And in the matter of good life the case is evident and certain which makes the other also to be like it for there is no original or primary Commandement concerning good life but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture Now faith being the foundation of good life upon which it is most rationally and permanently built it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure and yet be defective in the foundation Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written and yet those few onely that were written are by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholick Church of the first and all descending ages preserv'd to us and made our Gospel So that as we do not dispute whether the words which Christ spake and the Miracles he did and are not written be as holy and as true as those which are written but onely say they are not our rule and measures because they are unknown So there is no dispute whether they be to be preferr'd or relied upon as the written or unwritten Word of God for both are to be relied upon and both equally always provided that they be equally known to be so But that which we say is That there are many which are called Traditions which are not the unwritten Word of God at least not known so to be and the doctrines of men are pretended and obtruded as the Commandments of God and the Testimonie of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony and particular traditions are equall'd to universal the uncertain to the certain and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient and if they come from we know not whom they are said to come from the Apostles and if postnate they are call'd primitive and they are argued and laboriously disputed into the title of Apostolical traditions by not onely fallible but fallacious arguments as will appear in the following numbers This is the state of the Question and therefore 1. It proves it self because there can be no proof to the contrary since the elder the tradition is the more likely it can be prov'd as being nearer the fountain and not having had a long current which as a long line is always the weakest so in long descent is most likely to be corrupted and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world it follows that nothing can now because nothing of Faith yet hath been sufficiently prov'd 2. But besides this consideration the Scripture it self is the best testimony of it's own fulness and sufficiencie I have already in the Introduction against I. S. prov'd from Scripture that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contain'd that is I have prov'd that Scripture says so Neither ought it to be replyed here that no man's testimony concerning himself is to be accepted For here we suppose that we are agreed that the Scripture says true that it is the word of God and cannot be deceived and if this be allow'd the Scripture then can give testimony concerning it self and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible and all that he says to be true which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversie And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to it self who shall give testimony to it Shall the Church or the Pope suppose which we will But who shall give testimony to them Shall they give credit to Scripture before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible If they be not credible of themselves we are not the neerer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures But if it be said that the Church is of it self credible upon it's own authority this must be prov'd before it can be adâ—itted and then how shall this be proved And at least the Scripture will be pretended to be of it self credible as the Church And since it is evident that all the dignity power authority office and sanctity it hath or pretends to have can no other way be prov'd but by the Scriptures a conformity to them in all Doctrines Laws and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims it must needs be that Scripture hath the prior right and can better be primely credible than the Church or any thing else that claims from Scripture Nay therefore quoad nos it is to be allowed to be primely credible because there is no Creature besides it that is so Indeed God was pleas'd to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word his immediate Word by miraculous consignations and
when it is the method that all men use they that can satisfie the Understanding and they that cannot And is there any thing more ignorant than to think a method or way of proof is nought because some men use it to good purposes and some to bad And is not light a glorious covering because the evil spirit sometimes puts it on Was not our Saviours way of confuting the Devil by Scripture very good because the Devil us'd the same way and so it was a way common to discourses that have in them the power to satisfie the understanding and those which have no such power Titius is sued by Sempronius for a farm which he had long possess'd and to which Titius proves his title by indubitable records and laws and patents Sempronius pretends to do so too and tells the Judge that he ought not to regard any proof of Titius's offering because he goes upon grounds which himself also goes upon and so they are not apt to be a ground of determining any thing because they are Common to both sides The Judge smiles and inquires who hath most right to the pretended grounds but approves the method of proceeding because it is common to the contrary pretender And this is so far from being an argument against my method that in the world nothing can be said greater in allowance of it even because I prov'd upon principles allowed by both sides that is I dispute upon principles upon which we are agreed to put the cause to trial Did the primitive Fathers refuse to be judged by or to argue from Scriptures because the heretics did argue from thence too Did not the Fathers take from them their armour in which they trusted And did not David strike with the sword of Goliath because that was the sword which his Enemy had us'd David prov'd that way apt to prevail by cutting off the Giants head But what particularity of method would I. S. have me to use shall I use reason To that all the world pretends and it is the sword that cuts on both sides and it is us'd in discourses that can and that cannot satisfie Shall I use the Scriptures in that I. S. is pleas'd to say the Quakers out-do me Shall I use the Fathers The Smectymnuans bring Fathers against Episcopacy What shall I bring I know not what yet but it ought to be something very particular that 's certain Shall I then bring Tradition will Oral tradition do it I hope I. S. will for his own and his three or four friends sake like that way But if I should take it I. S might very justly say that I take a method that is common to those discourses which have in them power to satisfie the understanding and those which have no such power Whether this method is us'd or no in discourses satisfactory let I. S. Speak but I am sure it is us'd of late in some discourses which are not satisfactory and the name of one of them is Sure footing And do not the Greeks pretend tradition against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory the procession of the Holy Ghost the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whether right or wrong I inquire not here but that they do so is evident and therefore neither is it lawful for me to proceed this way or even then to call my book a Dissuasive For it is plain to common sense that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unles there be some particularity in the method above what is in others which it is certain can never be because there is no method but some or other have already taken it And therefore I perceive plainly my book is not any more to be called a Dissuasive till I can find out some new way and method which as yet was never us'd in Christendom And indeed I am to account my self the more unsuccessful in my well meant endeavours because I. S. tells us that he sees plainly that in the pursuit of truth Method is in a manner All I. S. hath a method new enough not so old as Mr. White and he desires me to get such another but nobis non licet esse tam beatis and I am the less troubled for it because I. S. his Method is new but not right and I prove it from an argument of his own For saith he it is impossible any controversie should hover long in debate if a right method of concluding evidently were carefully taken and faithfully held to Now because I see that I. S. his method or new way hath made a new controversie but hath ended none but what was before and what is now is as likely as ever still to hover in debate I. S. must needs conclude that either he hath not faithfully held to it or his way is good for nothing Other things he says here which though they be rude and uncivil yet because he repeats them in his Sixth way I shall there consider them altogether if I find cause The fourth Way THis fourth mine hath as good luck would have it nothing of demonstration nor is his reason founded upon the nature of the thing as before he boasted but only ad hominem But such as it is it must be considered The argument is this That though I produce testimony from Fathers yet I do not allow them to be infallible nor yet my self in interpreting Scripture nor yet do I with any infalliable certainty see any proposition I go about to deduce by reason to be necessarily consequent to any first or self evident principle and therefore I am certain of nothing I alledge in my whole book The sum is this No man is certain of any thing unless he be infallible I confess I am not infallible and yet I am certain this must be his meaning or else his words have no sense and if I say true in this then fallibility and certainty are not such incompossible and inconsistent things But what does I. S. think of himself is he infallible I do not well know what he will answer for he seems to be very neer it if we may guess by the glorious opinion he hath of himself but I will suppose him more modest than to think he is and yet he talkes at that rate as if his arguments were demonstrations and his opinions certainties Suppose his grounds he goes upon are as true as I know they are false yet is he infallible in his reasoning and deducing from those principles such feat conclusions as he offers to obtrude upon the world If his reason be infallible so it may be mine is for ought I know but I never thought it so yet and yet I know no reason to the contrary but it is as infallible as his but if his be not it may be all that he says is false at least he is not sure any thing of it is true and then he may make use of his own ridiculous speech he
Church Vide quae supra annotavi eâ— Decreto Gratiani Sect. 1. which are discordant enough and many times of themselves too blameable be yet by them accounted so sacred that it is taught to be a sin against the holy Ghost willingly to break them in the world there cannot be a greater verification of this charge upon them it being confessed on all hands that Not every man who voluntarily violates a Divine Commandement does blaspheme the holy Ghost The End of the First Book THE SECOND BOOK SECTION I. Of Indulgences ONE of the great instances to prove the Roman Religion to be new not primitive not Apostolic is the foolish and unjustifiable doctrine of Indulgences This point I have already handled so fully and so without contradiction from the Roman Doctors except that they have causelesly snarled at some of the testimonies that for ought yet appears that discourse may remain a sufficient reproof of the Church of Rome until the day of their reformation The first testimony I brought is the confession of a party for I affirm'd that Bishop Fisher of Rochester did confess That in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory To this there are two answers The first is that Bishop Fisher said no such words No proferte tabulas His words are these In art 18. contr Luther Who can now wonder that in the begining of the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences And again Indulgences began a while after men trembled at the torments of Purgatory These are the words of Roffensis What in the world can be plainer And this is so evident that Alphonsus a Castro thinks himself concerned to answer the Objection Lib. 8. adv haeres tâ—t Indulgenâ—iae and the danger of such concessions Neither upon this occasion are Indulgences to be despis'd because their use may seem to be receiv'd lately in the Church because there are many things known to posterity which those Ancient Writers were wholly ignorant of Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud priscos nulla sit de iis mentio Indeed Antiquity was wholly ignorant of these things Hâ—stiensis in summâ l. 5. tit de remiss Biel in Canon Missae lect 57. vide Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. de Indul. Sect. Quod ad primam and as for their Catholic posterity some of them also did not believe that Indulgences did profit any that were dead Amongst these Hostiensis and Biel were the most noted But Biel was soon made to alter his opinion Hostiensis did not that I find The other answer is by E. W. That Roffensis saith it not so absolutely but with this interrogation Quis jam de indulgentiis mirari potest Who now can wonder concerning Indulgences Wonder at what for E. W. is loth to tell it But truth must out Who now can wonder that in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences So Roffensis which first supposes this that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences none at all And this which is the main question here is as absolutely affirm'd as any thing it is like a praecognition to a scientifical discourse And then the question having presuppos'd this does by direct implication say it is no wonder that there should be then no use of Indulgences That is it not only absolutely affirms the thing but by consequence the notoreity of it and the reasonableness Nothing affirms or denies more strongly than a question Are not my ways equal said God and are not your ways unequal that is It is evident and notorious that it is so And by this we understand the meaning of Roffensis in the following words Yet as they say there was some very Ancient use of them among the Romans They say that is there is a talk of it amongst some or other but such they were whom Roffensis believ'd not and that upon which they did ground their fabulous report was nothing but a ridiculous legend Dissuasive 1. part Sect. 3. which I have already confuted The same doctrine is taught by Antoninus who confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the Ancient Doctors And that he said so cannot be denied but E. W. says that I omit what Antoninus addes That is I did not transcribe his whole book But what is it that I should have added This. Quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2 Cor. 2. Si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi Now to this there needs no answer but this that it is nothing to the purpose To whom the Corinthians forgave any thing to the same person S. Paul for their sakes did forgive also But what then Therefore the Pope and his Clergy have power to take off the temporal punishments which God reserves upon sinners after he hath forgiven them the temporal and that the Church hath power to forgive sins before hand and to set a price upon the basest crimes and not to forgive but to sell Indulgences and lay up the supernumerary treasures of the Saints good works and issue them out by retail in the Market of Purgatory Because S. Paul caus'd the Corinthians to be absolved and restored to the Churches peace after a severe penance so great that the poor man was in danger of being swallowed up with despair and the subtleties of Sathan does this prove that therefore all penances may be taken off when there is no such danger no such pious and charitable consideration And yet besides the inconsequence of all this S. Paul gave no indulgence but what the Christian Church of Corinth in which at that time there was no Bishop did first give themselves Now the Indulgence which the people give will prove but little warrant to what the Church of Rome pretends not only for the former reasons but also because the Primitive Church had said nothing expresly concerning Indulgences and therefore did not to any such purpose expound the words of S. Paul but also because Antoninus himself was not moved by those words to think they meant any thing of the Roman Indulgences but mentions it as the argument of other persons Just as if I should write that there is concerning Transubstantiation nothing expresly said in the Scriptures or in the writings of the Ancient Fathers although Hoc est corpus meum be brought in for it Would any man in his wits say that I am of the opinion that in Scripture there is something express for it though I expresly deny it I suppose not It appears now that Roffensis and a Castro declared against the Antiquity of Indulgences Their own words are the witnesses and the same is also true of Antoninus and therefore the first discourse of Indulgences in the Dissuasive might have gone on