the Pope Or will they say the Infallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alpes among the Italian Doctors who urge Tradition for the Popes Supremacy above Councels But what security will they give us That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot passe over the Alpes and get from one side to the other Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains But Fallibility can travell to all parts and at all times In short it being certaine that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest Nor can this be any way prevented but by pretending the promise of Infallibility but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition and that is hereby disproved and for the fiction of a promise I have discovered that before But the third and last pretence is most frequent That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divided yet they are agreed in all that is de fide in all points of Faith that is in such things as have been decided by Pope or Councell I answer in few words and thus I reinforce my Discourse If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision it might deceive them afterwards because the Decision of a Councell doth not alter the nature and property of Tradition It is true according to the opinion of some Papists such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied because he may judge the Churches Authority so infallible and obliging to him that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike saile to it But the decision of a Councell cannot make that a Tradition which was no Tradition nor can it hinder but that Tradition did deceive me before and consequently might deceive me afterwards For instance If the Pope determine the controversie between the Jansenists and Jesuites about Predestination Grace Frewill c. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgments because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the Infallible Judge of Controversies to whom they must all submit But supposing that the Popes decides according to the verity of Tradition and that must alwaies be supposed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had untill that time been deceived by Tradition So it seemes Tradition in that point was Fallible for above 1600 yeâ—rs together after Christ and now upon the Popes determination An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible but neither will this do their work for the nature of Tradition being the same either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages or else it must now be acknowledged Fallible § 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to shew the impossibility of any mutation or corruption where Tradition is pretended viz. that it is apparent there have been severall mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alledged to prove that there was no motion when his Adversary walked before him though happily the other brought some Arguments that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer which in that point is not hard to doe Or if any man should urge a subtile Argument to prove the impossibility of Sins comming into the World because neither could the understanding be first deceived nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding it were sufficient to alledge the universall experience of mankind to the contrary So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called which no man that hath the use of his Eyes and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it yet because I will use all possible means to convince them if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Divell I shall proceed farther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case and point at some of those many fountaines of corruption from whence the streames of errour might flow into the Church notwithstanding the pretence of and adherence to the Doctrine of Tradition And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches If saith he a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach could teach falshoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity but neither of these are credible I shall apply my Answer to him first in generall and then to the severall branches of his Argument § 12. In generall the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide as if it were impossible that the Tares of Errour should be sowne in the Church while men slept and never dreamed of it The basis of this Argument lies in an assertion of the impossibility of that which the nature of it shewes to be most rationall and probable and the experience of all ages shewes to be most usuall i. e. that corruption of Doctrines and manners for in this both are alike should creep in by degrees As Iasons ship was wasted so Truth was lost one piece after another Nemo repente fit turpissimus Who knowes not that errours crept into the Jewish Church gradually and why might it not be so in the Christian Church We know very well Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa One error will breed an hundred yet all its Children are not borne in one day S t Paul tels us the mystery of iniquity began to worke in his daiâ—s but was not brought to perfection till many ages after The Apostle hath sufficiently coâ—suted this sencelesse fancy whilest he tels us that Heresy eats like a cankâ—r or a gangreen i. e. by degrees and is not worst at first but encreaseth to more ungodlinesse 2 Tim. 2. 16 17. As that cloud which at first appearance was no bigger then a mans hand did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens so those opinions which at first were onely the sentiments of the lesser part might by degrees improve and become the greater or at least by the favour of Princes or power learning of their advocates become the stronger untill at last like Moses's Rod they devoured the other Rods monopolizing to themselves the liberty of writing professing their Doctrines and suppressing all contrary Discourses Treatises their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholick Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages which was frequently pretended by severall Hereticks and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons which in some Ages were few and those easily
byassed or the contradiction being speedily suppressed which is very possible and hath been usuallâ— it could not probably fall out otherwise but that their opinion should be transmitted to their Successors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day neither in a civil nor in a Spirituall notion And de facto that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees hath been so fully demonstrated that I need onely point the Reader to those Authors who have done this worke especially to Momeys mystery of Iniquity and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean 2. I answer particularly and in opposition to the first branch I lay down this position That the following Age or the Major part of those called Christians might easily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age of which many rationall accounts may be given 1. There was no certaine way whereby for example the particular Christians of the third Age might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the second Age. Remember the question is not how probably they might believe but how infallibly they might know it for nothing will serve the Romanists turne short of Infallibility It is true the Christians of Antioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there and they of Ephesus what was there delivered but no Christian could without miracles infallibly know what were the Doctrines delivered to the Christians in those innumerable places where the Gospell had got sooting Hence then I offer this Argument Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition that the Christians in severall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in such places and would not deceive their posterity in it or it is not sufficient but it is necessary that Traditions should be compared and the Truth discovered in a generall Councell If they say the former then they assert the Infallibility not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome or of a generall Councell or of the Catholick Church but of every particular City And to say Truth Either this plea of Tradition is fallacious and absurd or every particular Church is Infallible For to use their own words if the Christians suppose of Ephesus could be deceived then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered or they did willingly deceive their posterity but neither of these were possible Ergo The Church of Ephesus was Infallible If they will eat their own words as they will do any thing sooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth and say the Church of Ephesus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity then so might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria and so the rest and what then becomes of Infallibility If they say the latter viz. That there is a necessity of a generall Councell to compare Traditions and declare the Truth then they are desired to remember that as yet there had been no generall Councell and consequently no Infallibility and therefore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding yea many mistakes What else will they say Will they say that a Christian might Infallibly know the Truth by travelling to all places and companies of Christians and hearing it from their own mouths This though it might give satisfaction to such a Christian yet it could not satisfy others who had no such evidence Or will they say the Christians knew it by Testimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions Why such Testimonials are not so much as pretended to have been required or given and if they had been given yet that could satisfy none but those few eyewitnesses of them It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Christians of the third Age might be assured of the genuine Traditions of the second which was the thing to be proved And the solidity and satisfactorinesse of this one Answer if there were no more appeares plainly from hence that the great Architects of this devise make it essentiall to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles so Mr White informes us since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostle\`s we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently nâ—ither is Tradition Apology for Tradition Encounter 6 elsewhere his reply to our instance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this That it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some countries not all Encounter 2. Hence then I thus argue The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a generall Councell of all the Churches severally taught by the severall Apostles but such generall Councell there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolicall Traditions delivered in the second which was the thing to be proved § 14. 2. There are many instances which may be given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age We have one instance among our selves concerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding â—ge in the Quinquarticular points The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us that she maintained their Doctrines Their Adversaries tell us she held the contrary and there are Books written and Arguments urged on both sides he that doubts of this let him look into M r â—rin on the one side and D r Hâ—ylin on the other And why might it not be thus in former ages And seeing there are great mistakes daily committed and fresh disputes managed about the opinions of those Authors who have left us their mind as plainly as words can make it in books which are alwaies present to our perusal how can it be sense for a man to say that one may infallibly know their mind by a transient hearing of them what tedious controversies are there about the judgment of S. Augustine and others of the Fathers in sundry points of great moment wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do or useth to do Suppose now the Fathers preach the same things and words which they have left us in writings as diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons can any man without nonsence say that the diligent Reader may be mistaken and the attentive Hearer is infallible We all know the five Propositions of Iansenius condemned lately at Româ— The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of Iansenius his words which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them both parties are agreed in his words which seldome happens in Orall Traditions and consequently makes the argument stronger yet they differ in the sense which one side saith is Heretical the other aver it is innocent Why might not in like manner several parties though it be supposed they perfectly remembred the words
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
they infer the necessity of the Churches authority these kind-hearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the bryars for now it seems and it is a truth and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority viz. by tradition And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stript of the capacity of a Judg and retained only the qualification of a witnesse and consequently the Churches authority is not at all necessary And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition it may be said to her according to these mens principles as the Apostle said to the Gentiles Rom. 11. If thou boast thou bearest not Tradition but Tradition thee for so say these Doctors Mr. White spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith and saith that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church or in Councels or in Scriptures in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition And he spends several chapters to shew that neither the Pope nor Councels can give any solidity or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church and so there is still a necessity of her Authority I answer plainly no It followes onely that there is necessity of her Ministery but not of her Authority A Proclamation of the King and Councel could not come to my hands If I live at Yorke but by a Messenger and by the Scribe or Printer But if any from this necessity of his Ministery infer his Authority I may well deny the consequence but because it is unhansome to extenuate a courtesie I hold my self obliged further to acknowledge the great kindnesse of our Adversaries who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foundation of Faith have also overturned their own which that you may the better understand I shall briefly represent to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren and how God hath confounded the language of Babels Builders so that they have little to do but to stand still and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one anothers sides The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right he answers because the whole Church which receives it cannot erre So the late Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholick Church be rejected as erronious and fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority Nay S Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantick strain That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient yet elsewhere confesseth the Churches infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain His words are these The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us is infallible from a Divine Revelation because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible And presently after If the Church were not infallibile it could not produce in me an infallible Faith And this was the constant Doctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of infallibility hard beset and that Pillar shaken they support their cause with a quite coÌ„trary position That it is not the Churches infallibility that renders Tradition infallible as their former Masters held but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible and therefore they say the Church her self is no further infallible then she followes Tradition Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible because the speciall assistance of Gods spirit makes them infallible but because by irrefragable testimony they confirm the succession of their Doctrines and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused Thus Holden having told us that the Popes infallibility is controverted on both sides by just godly and most learned Catholicks as well antient as modern and neither â—svde condemned by Authentick censure which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Soules and rest their faith upon what themselves confesse to be a doubtfull foundation viz. the Popes infallibility All Divines saith he confesse it is not certain with a Divine and a Catholick Faith he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Priviledge granted to the Romans sea or St Peters successeur but from the universall and Catholick tradition of the Church and Councels fare no better then Popes They are saith he not Founders but only Guardians and Witnesses of revealed truths so M r White allowes neither Pope nor Councels any infallibility but what they have from tradition as wee have seen and tels us in expresse termes that Tradition is overthrown if any other principle be added to it for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Tradition § 3. Well what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith Here are two contradictory assertions one of them must unavoidably be false A man may with probability at least assert the falshood of either of them having the suffrage of diverse of their own most learned Catholick Authors for him in either opinion but whether they be true or false their cause is lost 1. If they be true and 1. If that be true that Tradition be the foundation of the Churches Infallibility then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility From Scripture That they utterly disclaime From Tradition Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to it self as well as Tradition And whence hath that Tradition its Infallibility and so in infinitum Is it from the reason of the thing So M r White implies who attempts to prove it by a rationall and Logicall Discourse but himself hath prevented that while he saith To leane upon Logicall inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand And S. Clara gives a check to this It is more reasonable and wise even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Authority of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever And that is largely disproved in the following discourse Is it then from the Churches Infallibility This they deny
was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and veneration and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into and consequently writing is a sure and orall Tradition an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels decrees of Courts Acts of Parliament though the importance of them were many times so great and evident that according to this new notion writing was superfluous and verball Tradition Infallible And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly concernments shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it Let Papists do so who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargaine But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this grosse absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines meerly speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise then could be by books VVritten their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronouncing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly have been more securely propagated and more clearly and intelligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy daringly asserts See Exomolog Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery O the tremendous judgment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprobate sence Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeall sence or this bread is converted into the very substance of this body which you now see These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a posture of adoration viz. kneeling with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concernes himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse both the absurdity of their Arguments and assertion and the solidity of this second Answer and the advantage of writing above unwritten Tradition § 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in it selfe else an infallible Authoritie is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Hereticks recede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines as we have seen But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition Here all the doubt lies and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperatenesse of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confesse to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians saith Iustin Martyr This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M r VVhite shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in publike Preaching For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apostles and so transmit them to their Posterity which is the thing now denied It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them but also propheticall of the Papists When Hereticks are reproved out of the Scripture they begin to accuse the Scripture as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors particularly they named Origen Dionysius Alexandrinus and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them as Baronius acknowledgeth Epiphanius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men The Doctrine of
rebaptisation which the Papists acknowledge to be erroneous was brought in by Cyprian and the African Bishops under a pretence of Tradition The words of Cyprian are these We do not now broach a new Doctrine but one long fince decreed by our Predecessors It is true Pamelius saith he meanes this of his immediate Predecessors Agrippinus and the rest and that will serve my turne if M r VVhites Argument will hold for then no Age and consequently not this could either be ignorant of or knowingly recede from the Doctrine of their Fathers nor they from their Fathers and so upward to the Apostles And indeed Cyprian carries it higher even to the Apostles whiles he calls it The Faith of the Catholick Church and reckons it amongst the Apostolicall and Evangelicall precepts And Firmilian expressely affirmes it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles b And will these mens confidence yet serve them to assert that no error could come into the Church by Tradition If all those Eminent African Bishops and Churches might either misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their posterity as M r White cannot deny they did eâ—â—â—er the one or other why might not the Spanish or French or Romish do it If it be said there was a promise to the contrary at least for the Church of Rome To say nothing of the manifest weaknesse of that pretence I answer two things 1. That M r White expressely rejects this Infallibility by promise 2. However this Argument being of another nature and depending not upon the promise of God but the nature and evidence of the thing is by this instance irrefragably overthrown Answ. 4. That way of proving which was rejected by the Prophets and godly Jewes by Christ and by the Apostles is not to be approved much lesse preferred before that way which they approved and used but this way of proving the truth of a Doctrine by Tradition from their next Ancestours and the Testimony of the present Church was rejected by the Prophets c. and by Christ and the Apostles Ergo It is not now to be approved For the Minor in which all the doubt lies it consists of two Branches The first relating to the old Testament The second to the New The first is That this way was disowned by the Prophets and godly Jewes under the old Testament It is true some of the Jewes did owne this Popish opinion as you may read Iâ—r 44.17 But the Prophets were of another perswasion Ezek. 20.18 Walke not in the Statutes of your Fathers And from Tradition they used to send their people to the Law and Testimony Isa. 8.20 And the godly Kings of Iudah did not make Tradition as the Papists do but the written Law as the Protestants do the rule of their reformation Thus David 1 Chron. 16. 40. to do according to all that is Written in the Law Thus Hezekiah 2 Chron. 31. he did all as it is Written in the Law of the Lord So Iosiah 2 Chron. 34.30 31. and 35.12 The like did Ezra long after Ezra 6.18 and Nehemiah chap. 8. They dwelt in Booths as it is Written Here Scripture recovers what Tradition had lost for though God had commanded this yet since the daies of Ioshua they had not done so vers 17. By all which we evidently discerne how different their opinion was from this of the Papists and how little confidence they put in Tradition Iosiah would not so much as make Hezekiahs reformation his rule nor Hezekiah take his patterne from Iehoshaphats reformation but still every one had immediate recourse to the written Word For it seems it was a Language that these Holy men understood not That Scripture was a corrupt writing a leaden rule a dumb master § 7. There is indeed one Objection against the consequence from the Jewes to the Christians and from the Old Testament to the New I shall give it you in the words of one of the acutest of our Adversaries i e. Mr White The Law of the Iewes was delivered in Tables of Stone and the volume of the Law to which it is expressely opposed that God will write the Law of Christians in their hearts I Answer 1. The words are not to be understood absolutely as they sound but comparatively not as if they did wholly deny that the Mosaicall Law was written in the Heart for that is affirmed in other places as Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed or as if they did affirme that the Christian Law was written only in mens hearts and not in Paper which the Papists themselves dare not assert but onely it is a comparative expression like that I will have mercy and not sacrifice Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach i. e. principally and primarily for else the one as well as the other was enjoyned by God And so it is here implied that the Christian Law should be written more eminently upon the hearts of Christians then it ordinarily was upon the hearts of the Jewes and that it should be writ in a more legible Character Answ. 2. If we examine in whose hearts this Christian Law is written we shall find it concernes not the Tradition of the Church by which all things are to be regulated For I demand of them was this promise made and performed to all that are called Christians or onely to the elect and sincere Christians or onely to the Pope and Bishops If they say the first then one Christian as well as another is furnished with this rule of all Controversies and consequently as able to judge of Controversies then lay-men and Ministers have this Law equally written in their hearts if they say the second That it is onely the elect and sincere Christians as indeed it is then it must be something else beside Tradition which is no lesse known to the hypocriticall pretender then to the sincere professor of Christianity If they say the third That this Law was written onely in the hearts of the Pope and Bishops met in Councell As what is there so ridiculous which some of our Adversaries will not say rather then confesse their errours and give glory to God They are evidently confuted by the words of the place Jer. 31.34 They shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every one his brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest for I will forgive their iniquity And besides Mr White himselfe saith This Law is written onely in cordibus sid lium in the hearts of the faithfull Now in what Dictionary we shall find fidelis to be translated Atheist Sodomite Magitian c. Epithetes not without cause given to Popes and Popish Bishops by their own Authors I would gladly be informed Answ. 3. If we enquire what this is which is here said to be written in their hearts we shall see Mr VVhites invention was better then his judgment or his
conscience with what Spectales do these men read this Writing in the heart that tell us this was the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences Invocation of Saints Popes Supremacy the Churches Infallibility But you must know though this Writing was from God yet the interpretation belongs to the Pope whose will stands for his reason and his word for a Law But if we consult the Prophet If with the Popes good leave God may be his own Interpreter He tels you this was the Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know the Lord. The knowledge of God Ier. 31.33 and the fear of God Ier. 32.39 40. And this Law written in the heart was so far from being appointed by God for a rule to walke by much less was it to justle out the word as the Papists now abuse it that the use of this was only to help them to make the word their rule Ezek. 26 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes Hence that in Is. 59.21 My Spirit that is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not deparâ— out of thy mouth So this objection being discharged the consequence remaines in full force and Traditions being disapproved under the old Testament cannot be approved under the new But I shall more fully prove that in the next branch which is this § 8. 2. This way of proving the truth of Doctrines by verbal tradition is disallowed by Christ and the Apostles He knowes nothing of the Pharisees and indeed but little of the New Testament that knowes not that this was the great Doctrine of the Pharisees And from their school the Papists had this Doctrine of the certainty of Tradition So little reason had Du. Moulin to write a book about the novelty of Popery when diverse of their Doctrines have such a venerable Antiquity that they are as old as the Pharisees No wonder the Church of Rome hath diverse Doctrines that Christ never delivered to them for they had a great part of the leaven of the Pharisees left them for a legacy And from them they had their bold expressions by which they advance Tradition above the Scripture The Author of the book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this saying think not that the written law is the Foundation of our Faith but the law of orall Tradition And again in the book Iuchas p. 158. Without this orall law of Tradition the whole law would be in darknesse and again all those things which our Rabbins taught us we are equally to believe as the Law of Moses But this is so known that it is frivolous to multiply testimonies of this kind The footsteps of this principle you may discern in diverse places of the New Testament They made the Tradition of the fathers the rule of their Faith Mat. 15.2 VVhy do thy Disciples transgresse the Tradition of the Elders S t Paul mentions it as one of his Pharisaicall errours that he was exceedingly zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1.14 And S t Peter speaks of it as a part or effect of their redemption by Christ that they were delivered from a vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers 1. Peter 1. this sufficiently shews what their opinion was Now let us hear what reflection Christ and the Apostles made upon it And there you shall find that which would end the controversy with ingenious adversaries viz. That whereas the Romanists tell us that the deserting of Tradition is the true cause and spring of all errours on the contrary our Saviour makes this the Fountain of their errours their forsaking the Scripture not their receding from the Tradition of their Ancestors Mat. 22.29 Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures we are beholden to the Papists that they do not say there is a corruption in the Text and Scripture is put in for Tradition For surely if Christ had been of the mind of those Gentlemen he never had a fitter opportunity to utter it then now for the Sadduces were noted as enimies to Traditions And the Doctrine of the resurrection was but darkely delivered in Scripture at lest in the Pentatuch and more plainly by Tradition So now or never was the time for Christ to say to the Sadduces as doubtlesse M r White would if he had been present and Christ should if M r Whites Argument be good you erre because you take no heed to the Traditions of your Ancestors But here is not a syllable about that but all is cast upon their not knowing the Scriptures Thus in the resolution of that great controversy concerning the Messias Christ doth not confute the Jewes nor stablish the Truth from Tradition though there was eminent occasion for it at that time there being such a Tradition then rise amongst them that the time of the coming of the Messias was at hand Daniels week being nigh exspired and with it a general expectation of him but from â—cripture Christ proves himself to be the true Messias by several Arguments by the Testimony of Iohn who was a Prophet yea and more then a Prophet by his Fathers voice from heaven by his miracles and above all by the Scripture how came Christ to omit that which if those men do not deceive us was more considerable then all the rest viz. Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church A strange oversight you will say but it seemes it was a discovery denied to Christ and all the Apostles and reserved to these last times Answerable to this was the practise of the godly Bereans who did examine S t Pauls Doctrine not by Tradition as the Papists do but by the Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Paul himself evidenceth the soundnesse of his Doctrine not by its conformity with Tradition which our Adversaries lay such stresse upon that S. Clara with severall others affirme that they receive the Scripture onely so farre as they agree with Tradition but by its consonancy to the Scriptures saying That he witnessed none other thing then what was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26.22 and Act. 24.14 15. So then the question now is which is the more rationall way to resolve a Christians doubts and ground his Faith whether that which hath had the approbation of all the Holy-men of God in both Testaments or the ingenious devise of these witty Doctors that come with their quintum Evangelium into the World that is whether Scripture or Tradition I know one thing will be said That the Apostles did urge Traditions as well as Scriptures to this purpose we oft heare of that 2 Thes. 2.15 Hold the Tradition which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle To which I Answer briefly 1. That if the Papists can demonstrate any of their Traditions to be indeed Apostolicall as these were we shall receive them if conformable to Scripture but if they be dissonant from Scripture we have commission from S t Paul to renounce them
as the age before the reformation of Religion was and diverse others wherein learned men were thought to be Conjurers and reading of Greek was counted as hard as the quadrating of a Circle and skill in the learned languages made a man half an heretick and this all records are full of I think I need say no more to prove the firsâ— branch viz. That it was possible for some ages or the major part of them to mistake the mind of their Predecessors in matters of Religion But I must not omit Mr. Whites animadversion upon this consideration which he cals a ridiculous cavill and a slander so palpably absurd that he can scarce perswade himself to think they that use it are not rather blinded with malice thâ—n ignorance You will easily judg his reason runs low because his passion flies so high and what is the reason of this clamor why saith he The Protestants acknowledge the doctrines of the Romanâ— Church which thâ—y call errors were already flourishing some hundreds of years before these times of Ignorance Apolog for Tradition Encounter 1. Shall I return Mr. White his own language What shall I ascribe this intolerable mistake to shall I attribute it to his ignorance I cannot tell how to do so to one of his parts and reading Dare he say that all the present doctrines of the Church of Rome were flourishing some hundreds of years before the tenth age whose ignorance I have represented and proved Or if he say and think so yet dare he say the Protestants are of this mind if he ever looked into any Protestant Author Is it not evident to the whole world that the Protestants do both universally deny and solidly disprove this audacious assertion and evidently prove even by the suffrages of learned Papists the far later novelty of many of their errors Shall I then ascribe it to his malice I am loth to do so although none more frequently guilty of that crime then they that most boldly charge it upon others One may by this such like passages imagine how vain a thing it is to expect sincerity and honesty from these men in the handling of controversies when such a one as Mr. White a person of more repute for candour and ingenuity then most of their writers shall not fear to assert in Print in the face of all the Protestant world That the Protâ—stants do boldly acknowledg the Romane â—hurch hath had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since S. Gregories dayes which is now a thousand years then which nothing can be said more notoriously false and monstrously absurd But againe suppose the age most famous for its ignorance were after S. Gregories dayes who knows not that is not a meer stranger to all Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History that there was in some ages before S. Gregory at least among the generality of Christians and many Ministers so much ignorance as might easily betray them to mistakes in several doctrines and pretended Traditions And finally if all he aims at were granted it signifies not much and cannot pretend to prove any more then this That in the first ages errors did not creep in at that door which may be granted without any considerable prejudice to the Protestant assertioÌ„ since in other ages most of their great errors might come in that way and in all ages they might come in several other wayes § 20. The second Branch is this That as some ages might mistake the doctrines of their Fathers so they might knowingly deliver to their posterity not the doctrine they received from their Ancestors but some other And of this many reasons may be given but I shall confine my self to three § 21. 1. It might be from Gods just judgment giving men up to believe what was false viz. That such doctrines did come from the Apostles by their Ancestors which indeed did not Nay what these men would needs perswade us was impossiible the H. Ghost hath assured us is certain and future 2 Thes. 2.10 11 12. Because they receivâ—d not the truth in the love of it God shall send strong delusions that they should believe a lye a place more consiâ—erable because it is particularly levelled at the Romish faction as might be evidently shewed if it were not extravagant from my present businesse That the character here described suit with the quality of divers ages forementioned viz. that they were such as did not receive the truth in the love of it that they had pleasure in unrighteousnesse he that reviews what hath been here said will find no cause to doubt and therefore that the judgment here denounced should be inflicted upon them is no more then what might be expected from the faithfulnesse of God and the usual course of his providence And if they might believe other lyes of greater importance and more dangerous consequence why might they not believe such a lye as this viz. That a doctrine came from the Apostles which indeed did not And because the generality of the forementioned ages the Clergy and Popes not excepted were apparently guilty of the sins here deciphered and consequently obnoxious to the judgment here predicted therefore it is intolerable impudence to assert that those men were infallibly gâ—ided into all truth whom that God who cannot lye hath threatned to give up to believe lyes of which this is not the least considerable and dreadful to believe such persons to be infallible § 22. 2. The greatest part of the Church in one age might knowingly recede from the doctrine of their immediate Ancestors and deliver another doctrine to their posterity because they might believe that the Chuâ—ches and Fathers of the next foregoing age might fall into some errors for that which is actually believed by Protestants now might possibly be believed by the Fathers then Ab esse ad posse valet argumâ—ntum And this is sufficient for the answer of this argument and the defence of our cause but ex abundanti I adde That de facto this was the faith of the greatest part of the Church and writers in some ages as I have already shewed out of undeniable testimonies To which I shall only adde 2 or 3 passages out of Cyprian by which the Reader may evidently discern how little weight was then laid upon that which is now said to be infallible Tradition and the testimony of the present Church Tradition indeed was the plea urged by the Bishop of Rome against Cyprian and the African Bishops now mark what the reply is Two things Cyprian answers 1. That thâ—y of Rome did not observe all antient Traditions and this saith he appears from their opinion about Easter which by the way discovers the vanity of that supposition which they lay as a basis of the present position viz. That the Church of Rome delivers nothing but what she professeth to have received from her Ancestors 2. He answers That this was but a humane Tradition and therefore not
Spirit of God his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Divell By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blinde may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with othâ—rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles wherein by the Argument I have now in consideration it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors or wittingly to deceive their posterity That which they make impossible to be done the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done it being impossible that the Fathers should make such a decree if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tradition as Bellarmine chargeth them or wilfully and maliciously opposed it as the Pope accuseth them And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome it irresistibly followes that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designes use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages in times of ignorance and carelesnesse when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer wherein I have been the more prolix because it strikes at the root of the Argument not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the wayes and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falshoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will adde but one thing more § 24. Answ. 8. and last If the Tradition pretended give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines but such as they have received from the Apostles But the Romish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles This I might take for granted having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content my self with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largeâ—y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Originall sin The present Doctrine of the Romish Church or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it is for her immaculate conception as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities c. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent sufficiently appeares from their Decree about Originall sin though cunningly and doubtfully delivered as the Devils Oracles used to be in which Decree they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin The sence of which decree according to that favourable glosse which M r White puts upon it was this That the Councell did judge both opinions probable Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true which is an implicit contradiction 2. Seeing in this hot contest not yet ended between the different factions of the Romanists in this point both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tradition Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them Ergo it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers as I have shewed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessâ—d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture according to its genuine meaning But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition therefore he addes presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles But it is evident that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spight of your eyes you shall believe not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fathers to Children even from the Apostles dayes but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scripture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom Canus gives us Origâ—n Damascen Athanasius and Melito a famous and antient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgment and venâ—rable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principall residence and employment to learne out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books and returnes with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolicall Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell within the compasse of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for ought appeares in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seemes by the story
make an infinite of two finites and of two guilty persons make up one innocent But this also is destroyed by themselves For although the divided parties seem to patch up an Agreement yet indeed they are as much at variance as ever For the Jesuites make the Pope alone Infallible and the Councell onely in dependance upon him And their Adversaries ascribe this Infallibility to the Councell alone and to the Pope onely by communication from them And so they are both gone by the Arguments allready mentioned under each of those heads And if we may believe either there is security in neither And besides all these diverse of their late Learned Writers reject the Infallibility both of Pope and Councels as White Holden Cressy S r Kenelme Digby c. who assert that neither one nor other are further Infallible then they keep to the Golden rule of Tradition and in that sence every Christian viz. so farre as he keeps to Tradition is Infallible 6. The next devise is orall Tradition and the Authority of the present Church who are therefore right because they say so So this is a confirmation of their Faith answerable to his confutation who answered all Bellarmines works with saying Mentir is Bellarmine Bellarmine thou liest In like manner do these men confute all the Protestant Writers and maintaine their own Tenets by saying recte dicis Domine Papa or mater Ecclesia That the Pope and present Church are in the right Thus their bare assertion must passe for a solid demonstration their pretence that they hold nothing but what they had frō the Apostles must be admitted as a proof that it is so shadowes must go for substances But this besides the ridiculousnes of begging the questiō craving what they cānot prove is denied by the greatest Pillars of their own Church and such as with whom the Authors of this new and wild fancy will not compare themselves either for number or quality For this is the known and most approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Tradition and Scripture both are two dead letters and partiall rules and there is besides these required a living judge indued with supreme and infallible Authority and without this judge we cannot infallibly understand and are not bound to receive and believe either the one or the other 7. At last they are so hard put to it that they cannot leap out of the Circle nor extricate themselves out of that Labyrinth in which their conceit of Infallibility hath involved them without Miracles In come the marks of the Church and the glory of Miracles And thus farre I shall discharge them from that invincible difficulty of proving the truth of their most famous miracles for if they can prove the Infallibility of their Church I will give it under my hand that they can worke a Miracle for then they can reconcile contradictions and they can do that which the ineffectuall essayes of all their greatest wits have shewed to be above the wit of man or Devill either for doubtlesse those Popes who had familiar acquaintance with the Devill would not faile to take in his advice and assistance for the defence of their Infallibility and therefore must needs be acknowledged for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or workers of Miracles Thus I have dispatched their severall pretences and shewed the nullity of them all and consequently the nullity of their Faith § 24. There is onely one thing to be added They have one Argument more which although if their other cords break they acknowledg this will not hold yet because they use much to insist upon it I shall consider in a few words And that is an Argument taken from the providence of God and his care over the Church It is fit and necessary lay they that there should be some infallible Judge that could finally end all Controversies and therefore there is such an one and they are that Judge I know no man in the world can leap further at three jumps 1. There ought to be 2. There is an Infallible Judge 3. Their Church is it § 25. Answ. 1. Why may not I turne their Argument upon them God hath not provided such a judge Ergo such a judge is not necessary VVhen God thought fit to appoint a judge for the decision of some controversies in the Old Testament he thought fit to expresse the person the place his work his power And if the Popish doctrine be true that this Judge is of such necessity that without him we cannot understand and are not bound to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and that submission to this Judge is necessary to Salvation it is ten thousand times more incredible that God to whom all our present controversies were not unforeseen should not leave us some mention of it in those Scriptures which are written for this end that we might believe Joh. 20.31 and that we might be made wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Then that such a Judge is necessary If God had but said instead of Tell the Church Tell the Bishop of Rome or heare the Bishop of Rome in all things all those infinite and dreadfull distractions divisions persecutions errours and mischiefes which have since risen in the world had been prevented So if reason may be judge who can believe it consistent with the goodnesse of God or Christs care over his Church or Gods designe in giving the Scriptures to omit such a necessary point as this upon which all the rest had depended especially when Doctrines of far lesse concernment are there plainly recorded and often repeated § 26. Answ. 2. If once men suffer their understandings to mount so high as to teach God what is fit and positively to conclude that to be done which they judge fit to be done It opens a gap to Atheisme and to all imaginable Superstition What a fine modell of Divinity should we have if once this doore were open'd It was fit that all the Translators of the Bible should have infallible guidance that they might not mistake in a letter It was fit that the Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility should have been ingraven upon every mans heart or at least plainly revealed in the Bible this being of more use then all the Bible besides since the Pope could have supplied the want of a Bible And as Chillingworth well argues it was as fit that every Minister should have been Infallible that all the Popes should be free from grosse wickednesse as all other infallible persons recorded in Scripture were It was fit that obstinate Hereticks should be consumed with fire from Heaven Therefore by this Argument all these things are done how much better and more becomming is it for a Christian to say with the Apostle who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor Rom. 11.34 Then boldly to measure God by our own fancies and tie him to our fond imaginations § 27. 3. If it be
they too such as are universally esteemed good Catholicks saith Mr Cressy Append. chap 4. num 7. Therefore how durst he say Anathema's are evidences of Infallibility The third Argument is taken from the promises of Infallibility made to this Church This Doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is the most expresse in Scriptures saith Mr Cressy Sect. 2. chap. 26. n. 5. I suppose he told us so upon the same account that the old Painter wrot under his picture This is a Lion for fear some should have mistaken it for a Bull for truely if he had not said it was most expresse there any rationall man would have sworn the contrary I confesse I thought Mr Cressy as well as Mr White and other Traditionall Doctors had been sick of those pretences and sufficiently discovered the impertinency of them to their purpose and really when I read over the Scriptures quoted by him to prove this Infallibility and consider how insignificant they are to his businesse and how plainly and fully and frequently they have been answered by Protestants which he doth not here reply to I must not dissemble that I find a great difficulty to believe his conscience could be satisfied therewith sure I am whilest he was a Protestant if he understood himselfe he would have entertained such proofs with contempt I dare confidently say that most of the Scripture-allegations produced by the Quakers in defence of their absurd and ridiculous opinions are every whit as pertinent as any that are here cited It is true they are materiall to that purpose to which they are cited by the Fathers viz. to prove the Churches perpetuity and just Authority but for Infallibility how far the Fathers were from believing that I hope hath been made sufficiently evident from the foregoing Discourse where also particular Answers have been given to their Arguments from these places which when they solidly vindicate it will deserve and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall have our consideration At present I shall content my self with this generall animadversion Those Scripturall promises pretended for the Churches Infallibility either they do of themselves without the Churches sence and exposition evidently and solidly prove the point they are brought for or they do not if they say they do then other passages of Scripture undoubtedly farre more plaine and positive for diverse doctrines rejected by the Papists do of themselves without the Churches sence and exposition prove those points they are brought for and so Scripture may decide controversies if they say not then the Churches Infallibility must be supposed before it can be proved from those Texâ—s which is I confesse agreeable to the Roman-Catholick way of Disputation and fit for them that cannot endure reason should be judge but I am sure it will never satisfie any man that hath any care of his conscience or Salvation But I can tell the Reader good newes and that which is strange too among Romanists who use to confute Protestants by the meer naming of those Texts that have been substantially vindicated an hundred times Mr Cressy hath one Chapter entitled the Validity of such Texts c. so it is called but I doubt it was the Printers mistake for invalidity as will appeare upon perusall He offers but one Argument for proofe of this Capitall Assertion upon which all the Papacy depends and it is this The Antient Fathers do usually Argue against their Hereticks and Schismaticks from those promises that Christs Church should continue for ever and that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against her Now saith he if these promises of Christ be not Infallible and absolute and that Church Visible What then then woe to the poor Fathers then the Writings of these Fathers will prove to be the most foolish impertinent jugling yea blasphemous and pâ—rnicious discourses that ever were So Cressy Sect. 2. chap 28. that is to say if we take the notion out of this odious dresse they used fallacious Arguments Very good And is this that that satisfied Mr Cressy's conscience O the modesty of the man you see a little thing satisfies him but if he will cheat himselfe let him not think to cheat us with such ridiculous Arguments 1. The utmost of what would follow is that the Antient Fathers whose Writings are extant were Fallible and liable to mistakes A Proposition which I have formerly proved and the Popish Doctors themselves agree with us therein I suppose Mr Cressy will not dissent 2. If upon every impertinent and unconcluding Argument produced by Fathers Councels or Popes against supposed Hereticks I should make this inference that they were all Juglers Blasphemers c. Mr Cressy would think it a very harsh censure When their great Lords and Masters argue at this rate as he knowes who did Arise Peter kill and eat and here are two Swords Ergo the Pope hath civill and Spirituall power over all men They that are in the flesh cannot please God E. Priests should not be married God made man after his own Image E. Images are lawfull Will Mr Cressy now say these were all Juglers Blasphemers c and their Writings the most foolish impertinent pernicious Discourses that ever were either then let Mr Cressy qualify his censure there or apply it here 3. If the Fathers were supposed infallible yet they might use impertinent and unconcluding Arguments You must remember our Masters the Romanists while they assert the infallibility of the Pope and Councell they cautiously distinguish between the conclusion and the mediums or Arguments to prove it I will onely mind you of him whom they all so highly approve and applaud i. e. Stapleton whom Mr Cressy followes and the rest of them who as you saw limits this infallibility to the Conclusion not to the premises or Argument So if the Fathers were infallible as you see and the Papists confesse they are not yet this being onely in the Conclusion it will not at all secure them from impertinency and error in their Arguments or mediums used to confirme the conclusions which is all that this Discourse of Mr Crâ—ssy pretends to prove So now judge whether the Printer was not a knave for sure the Author could not be so since he is a Benedictine to set in the front of this Argument The Validity c. But you know non omnia possumus omnes Peradventure M r Cressy is a better respondent then opponent and though he cannot at all prove his own assertion yet he will at least solidly Answer his Adversaries But alas here he is so jejune that it moves my pitty for when Mr Chillingworth pleaded that these promises were onely conditionall if Christians should make use of Gods means The Church should continue Hereto saith Cressy the answer is very ready Oh the benefit of a ready wit when attended with an easy Conscience 1. There is no warrant from any circumstance in those Texts for such a new interpretation I will not ingage in that Argument onely I will referre
and evident yet I shall at present forbeare that answer and referre it to another place and shall here consider whether the Scriptures assert the Popes infallible Authority as it is pretended And first in generall whereas severall Texts of Scripture are pleaded by the Romanists in favour of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility as Feed my sheep Thou art Peter I have prayed for thee and the like I demande whether these words or Texts of Scripture in and for themselves without the interpretation and testification of the Romish Church do bind me to believe the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility or no◠If they deny the validity of these Texts without the Churches Testimony and Authority as needs they must according to their Principles then it followes that there is nothing in Scripture considered in it selfe that bindes me to believe the Popes Supremacy and consequently I do not sin when I do not believe and own their Arguments drawn from these Texts and that the Scripture in it selfe is no sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith If they affirme it then let all the Papists in the World give me a reason why these Texts The Word was God Joh. 1. He thought it no robbery to be equall with God Phil. 2. This is the true God 1 Joh. 5. Should not in themselves and without the Churches Authority as solidly prove the Divinity of Christ as the other mentioned Texts are affirmed to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope § 6. If they persist still to say that the alleadged Texts are in themselves a solid foundation for my faith although such an aspersion is contrary to their universall profession and overturnes the whole fabrick of Popery yet because I know those Proteus's will turne themselves into all shapes and indeavour to slip all knots and because I observe all their writings are stuffed with severall Texts of Scripture as if they would make their deluded Proselites believe they made them the foundation of their faith I shall therefore make some briefe remarks upon the chiefe of their Scripture allegations in pursuance of the Proposition under consideration and shew that the faith of a Papist hath no foundation at all in the sacred Scripture in the great and fundamentall point of the Popes Infallibility Onely that you may understand the diffidence which some of their own great Rabbies have in their Scripture Arguments I shall minde you of a remarkable saying of Eminent Doctor Pighius who perswading his Catholicks in their Disputations rather to argue from Tradition then Scriptures he breaks out into these memorable expressions Of which Doctrine if we had been mindfull that Hereticks are not to be convinced out of Scriptures our affaires had been in a better posture but whilest for ostentation of wit and learning men disputed with Luther from Scripture this Fire which alas we now see was kindled as if he had said You may as soon fetch water out of a stone as prove the Romish cause from the the Scripture Oh the power of truth Oh the desperatenesse of the Popish cause His Councell indeed was good but they could not follow it for having once been sumbling about some Scriptures though they saw well enough how impertinent they were to their purpose yet having once begun they were obliged to proceed and make good their attempts for of all things in the World they hate retreating and recanting left they should put an Argument into our hands against the infallibility of the Church from her actuall mistakes and errours in the exposition of Scriptures § 7. The principall places of Scripture upon which the Popes Supreme Authority and infallibility is founded are as follow The first is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Ergo The Pope is Supreme Head and Infallibe I shall forbear actum agere and therefore shall omit severall Answers allready given and onely point at some few of those many allegations by which the ridiculousnesse of this collection may appeare and the desperatenesse of that cause that can find no better supports 1. This promise concernes onely the invisible Church of elect persons which appears thus because he speaks of that Church against which the gates of Hell do not prevaile but the gates of Hell do prevaile against all reprobates and therefore the meanest sincere Elect Christian in the World hath a juster claime to infallibility from this place then many Popes of Rome had whom their own Authors confesse to have been reprobates 2. This promise secures the Church as well from damnable sins as damnable errours I prove it The Church is here secured against the prevalency of the Gates of Hell But the Gates of Hell may prevaile as surely and do prevaile as frequently by damnable sins as by errors Ergo If therefore notwithstanding this Text Popes have fallen into damnable Sins they may consequently fall into damnable Heresies 3. The Infallibility here promised extends onely to damnable Heresies and such as lead to and leave a man under the gates of Hell and therefore if it were intended of the Pope and Church of Rome Christ promiseth no more infallibility to him then he hereby promiseth and generally giveth to all persevering Christians 4. This promise is spoken of and made to the whole Church and therefore belongs to all the parts and members of it alike So that if it prove the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop and Church it proves also the same of the Bishops and Churches of Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. which may further appeare thus That if we should grant the Papists their absurd supposition that this work was not Peters confession but his person yet since the Bishops of Corinth and Ephesus and indeed all the Bishops in the World according to this supposition were built upon Peters person as well as the Bishop of Rome and the infallibility supposed is here promised equally to all that are built upon the Rock it must either prove all of them infallible or leave the Pope fallible 5. Whatsoever Authority or Infallibility is here promised to Peter is in other places promised and given to the rest of the Apostles and therefore what is collected from this place for S t Peters Successors may be with equall truth and evidence pleaded from other places for the Successors of the rest of the Apostles The same Keyes which are here promised to Peter are actually given to all the Apostles Math. 18.18 and Ioh. 20.22 23. And if infallibility be here promised to Peter as much is promised to all the Apostles John 16.13 He will guide you into all Truth And if St Peter be here called a Rock so are the other Apostles called Pillars Gal. 2.9 and Foundations Eph. 2. Apoc. 21.14 And that 16 th of Matthew speaks not one syllable more of transmitting S t Peters Authority to his Successors then those other places do to their
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
Ergo This Church is Infallible Here are three propositions and every one of them faulty in one kind or other 1. For the Major it is most falfe For Christ hath promised to be with every single sincere believer Ioh. 14.23 If a man love me wee will come to him and make our abode with him So Ioh. 17.20 21 22.23 And the Holy Ghost by which it is that Christ is present is given to every such person Ergo it seems they are Infallible 2. For the Minor it is true but impertinent Christ hath promised to be with his Church and with his Ministers to the worlds end but not in the same manner and with the same degree of assistance as he was with the Apostles to give them Infallible direction If otherwise then as every single Apostle was so every single Minister must be Infallible which they themselves deny 3. The Conclusion if granted reacheth not to Rome for there being severall Churches pretending to this promise and the Text no more determining it self to one then to the other it may as well be claimed by the Greek or English as by the Romish Church Nay which is more Rome is excluded or rather hath excluded her selfe from it as we have seen and by her disobedience to Christs commands hath cut off her Title to his promise § 19. There is one place more they use to plead it is Mat. 18 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them This I confesse drives the Naile home I see they are resolved to make sure work For now it matters not what becomes of the Infallibility of the Pope or generall Councels or the Universall Church For whereever there are but two or three Jesuites met together pretending Christs name there is Infallibility I think those Hereticks had better have held their Tongues for then the Church of Rome would have been contented to assert the Infallibility of Pope or Councels but now they will not abate them an Ace but will make it good in spight of Scripture Fathers and Councels and all the World that every leash of Popish Priests is Infallible But I need say nothing more in Answer to this ridiculous Argument because the Answers to the last Argument will serve for this also and their own great Doctors confesse the impertinency of this allegation and amongst them two great names Stapleton and Gregory de Valentiâ And these are the Scriptures upon which they ground their Monstrous conceit of the Infallibility of Councels what a sandy Foundation they have for it in Tradition we shewed before And how little countenance they have from Scripture and how absurdly they wrest that to their own destruction hath been now discovered And therefore I may conclude this Doctrine hath no footing in Scripture nor Tradition which was the first branch of the Proposition to be proved § 20. And here I might set up my rest For having pulled down the two Pillars upon which the building of Infallibility stands I know no remedy but it must fall to the ground But for the more abundant demonstration of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Romish Doctors and vanity of their Religion I shall adde a second consideration and shew that however when they discourse with Protestants they make a great noise about the Infallibility of councels yet when they debate the point among themselves none deny it with greater seriousness nor dispute against it with more earnestnesse then diverse of themselves I speak not now of the private opinions of some obscure Doctors among them but of the publick doctrines of their Church the opinion of the Popes Cardinals and all the â—esuites and stoutest champions of the Romish Church and the generality of Italian Spanish and Germane Papists and almost all some of the French faction excepted do expresly deny the infallibility of Councels and which is more they dispute against it particularly Cajetan and Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia some of whose Arguments are these Infallibility is not in the headlesse body therefore a councell in it self is not infallible That from which there is appeal is not infallible but there lyes an appeal from a councell to the Pope Ergo. The Church is committed to Peter not to a councell Ergo. Thus Cajetan The Pope can either approve or reject the decrees of a Councel Ergo the Councel is not infallible The Councel hath its infallibility from its conjunction with her head the Pope Ergo. Many Councels have erred in decrees of faith Ergo. Thus Bellarmine By the way remember this is the Gentleman that even now urged Ioh. 16. to prove that Councels could not erre and now he proves they have erred it were well if the Romanists had either better consciences or better memories God doth nothing in vain but the gift of infallibility would be given to Councels in vain seeing the Pope hath it Ergo. That which is repugnant to our most assured faith concerning the Pope's primacy is not to be admitted But the supreme and infallible authority of Councels is repugnant to the Pope's primacy Ergo Thus Gregory de Valentia So you see by their own argument either the Pope's primacy or the Councels infallibility is lost as the Jesuites on the one side thus strenuously dispute down the infallibility and supremacy of Councels so their Adversaries on the other side do as stoutly overthrow the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope wherein besides the positive testimonies of diverse of the most learned antient Papists they have the suffrage of two late famous Popish Councels Constance and Basil such a spirit of giddiness and division hath God put amongst these Builders of Babel And yet this is the Jerusalem a city united in it self These are the men that reproach the Protestant Churches with their divisions in some petite controversies whilst they themselves are so irreconcileably divided in that upon which the decision of all other controversies depends viz. in the rule and judge of controversies I think I need not say much more For the more antient Papists he that shall look into that excellent discourse of Robert Baronius against Turnbull called Apologia pro disputatione de formali objecto fidei will find the infallibility of Councels expresly denied by Ockam Cameracensis Waldensis Panormitanus Antoninus Cusanus all venerable names in the Romish Church whose words are there recited And for the modern Papists it may suffice to name three authors of principle account whom the rest of the Herd do follow Melchior Canus laies down their doctrine in two Propositions 1. A general Councel which is not called and confirmed by the Pope may erre in the faith 2. Provincial Councels which are confirmed by the Pope cannot erre the rest may erre And Bellarmine saith the same thing almost in the same words and when he was gravel'd with the authority of that famous Councel of Chalcedon a
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
and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition 2. Seeing they grant the Church may erre if she receed from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not erre unlesse I be sure she keep to Tradition And therefore I must examine that and judge of it and so private men are made judges of controversies which they so much dread 3. Hereby the Authority of the Pope and generall Councels of Bishops is rendred unnecessary I prove it thus If these be necessary onely as witnesses to Tradition then their Authority is not necessary For it is not Authority but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witnesse competent A lay hearer of S t Paul may be as competent a witnesse of the Doctrine he heard S t Paul Preach as a Bishop supposing a parity in their knowledg fidelity and converse with the Apostle and another Bishop may be as competent a witnesse as the Bishop of Rome and consequently as Infallible and any congregation of discreet and pious Christians who heard S t Peter Preach are as infallible witnesses as the Church of Rome and if there were a generall assembly of lay men of equall knowledge and experience they are as infallible witnesses what the Faith of the next precedent age was and what the Faith of the present Church is as a Councell of Bishops Nay to speak truth they are more credible witnesses because lesse byassed by interest affection or prejudice These rocks the first branch throwes them upon 2. If they flie from his and make the Churches infallibility the foundation of Traditions as the most Papists do then they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture Fathers or Councels which we have seen they cannot do So that if either of their positions be true their cause is lost But 2. If either of them be false they are gone too For if tradition be not Infallible in it selfe without the Churches Authority as the one side saith then the Papists have no certaine rule for the Church to steere iâ—s course by for the Scriptures they do not own as such and if the Church be not infallible but by vertue of this Tradition as the other side saith then they confesse the insufficiency of all their proofes from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Councels and their Authority is no more then that of any faithfull or credible Historian and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historicall faith I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogisme from the words and assertions of M r White Tradition is overthrown if another principle of Faith be added to it But the most and Learnedest Doctours of the Romish Church do adde another principle to it viz. the Churches Authority and infallibility as I shewed from their own words Ergo either Tradition and all this new devise or the Authority of the Romish Church is overthrown 4. Answ. 2. This new conceit directly thwarts the designe of God in the Writing of the Scripture and indeed the common sence and experience of all mankind for hereby a verball Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing It hath been the Wisdome of God in formeâ— ages to take care that those things might be Written which he would have kept in remembrance Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a Book So little did God trust this now supposed infallible way of orall Tradition that he would not venture the Decalogue upon it though the words were but few and the importance of them so considerable both in truth and in the apprehensions of the Jewes that if M r Whites Argument have any strength in it it was impossible posterity should ever mistake it but write it with his own finger once and againe after the breaking of the first Tables And although whilest the Church was confined to a few families and divine revelations were frequently renewed a verball Tradition was sufficient yet when the Church came to be multiplyed and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Nations and Revelations cease then Writing proves of absolute necessity How farre the first and wisest Christians were from M r Whites opinion appeares from hence that not daring to leane upon the broken reed of Orall Tradition they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing Eusibius reports that S t Peters hearers were not content with this way of Tradition from Peters mouth but for want of M r VVhites presence there to convince them of their folly They earnestly begged it of Marke that he would leave them that Doctrine in VVriting which they had received by word of mouth And Hierome tels us That S t John the Evangelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia who it seems were raw novices that did not understand their Catechisme nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of orall Tradition And S t Luke gives it us under his hand not fearing either M r VVhites anger or his Argument that he wrote his Gospell ad majorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4 When Iob desires the perpetuall continuance of his words he wisheth O that my words were now VVritten Oh that they were Printed in a Book Job 19.23 And David in the same case would not rely upon Tradition but takes this course for assurance This shall be written for the generation to come Psal. 102.18 But because M r VVhite undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or Iob or David were and therefore good reason they should all vaile to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgment he shall do well to remember that God himselfe was of the same judgment Go write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever Isa. 30.8 And to this agrees the common experience of mankind Vox audita perit litera scripta manet verball Traditions quickly vanish onely writings are durable Hence those famous Lawes of Lycurgus institutes of the Druides Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and onely some few fragments reserved because not committed to writing but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind wereby the aierinesse of this phantasme will be discovered and the great difference between Tradition and writing in point of certainty demonstrated Adam and Noah the two successive heads of mankind did doubtlesse deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances which M r VVhite supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospell as a Doctrine of everlasting consequence and they so received it and for a season transmitted it to their Children But alas how soon was all obliterated and in this sense all mankind some very few excepted did agree to murther themselves and they actually did that which M r VVhite saith
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
points viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace and mans will and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papists In both of them it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncertaine found for Tradition tels the Jesuites this is truth That the will is determined to good actions not by Gods grace but by its own inclination and agency Tradition tels the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a grosse falsity So for the Church if you enquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility resides for that is the great question Tradition tels the Jesuites it is in the Pope Tradition not long since told the Councels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Councell not in the Pope and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day And I will tell you a thing in your eare both these are Apostolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary It is true that S t Iames saith No Fountaine can yield both Salt-water and Fresh Chap. 3. 8.12 But that is to be understood onely of the Fountaine of the Scripture but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh both bitter and sweet You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible for you see it can work wonders and reconcile contradictions If this seem strange to you you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M r VVhites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera to be dedicated to the Defenders of Transubstantiation but to returne What say our masters to this difficulty why I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies and what their pretences are I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadfull shock 1. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles not of any great consequence to Christians Thus the controversies between the Jesuites and Dominicans about Gods free grace and mans free-will they say are but Scholasticall niceties wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned So for that point of Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter The dissenters onely seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know which be our Articles of Faith whether by the Popes or Councels or both which is not much materiall saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. § 9. to our purpose whatever the truth be supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descendâ—d to us from Christ and his Apostles For Answer I would know whether a private Christian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the decision of Pope or Councell or not If they say he can know it then it followes that private Christians may be Infallible of themselves and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Councels for what need any more then Infallibility If they say he cannot then an Infallible guide judge and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible and consequently if it be doubtfull and disputable who this Judge is it must be also doubtfull whether the Tradition be right and therefore Tradition cannot make me Infallible It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so materiall as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider should say this amongst themselves is not materiall for as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controversies and not to be agreed who it is according to that known maxime of the Lawyers Idem est non apparere non esse As for the other points between the Jesuites and Dominicans how materiall they are we will take their own judgments If we may believe either one or other of them the points are of great moment If you aske the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuiticall Doctrine they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pelagian Heresy yea it is worse then Pelagianisme that they are contemners of Grace such as rob God of his honour taking halfe of it to themselves that it is here disputed Whether God alone be God or whether the will of man be a kind of inferiour yet in part an Independent Deity These are M r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae quaest Theolog. in Epis in parag 7. And for the Jesuites they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine which say the Jesuites brings back the stoicall paradox robs God of the Glory of his goodnesse makes God a lyer and the Author of sinne and yet when we tell them of these divisions the breach is presently healed these savages are grown tame their differences triviall and onely some School niceties wherein Faith is not concerned And now both Stoicks and Pelagians are grown Orthodox and the grace glory soveraignty and holinesse of God are matters but of small concernment and so it seems they are to them else they durst not so shamelesly dally with them But it is usuall with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters which in computation sometimes stand for pounds sometimes for pence as interest and occasion require And it is worth Observation These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants between Calvin and Arminius they are represented by our Adversaries as very materiall and weighty differences but when they come to their share they are of no moment 2. It may be said Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible not particular Doctors For Answer let it be remembred that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors but the points alledged are controverted amongst as learned and devout men as they call Devotion as ever the Church of Rome had here is Order against Order University against University Nation against Nation all of them pretending Tradition for their contrary opinions with greatest confidence and eagernesse Premising this I Answer That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedst Romanists may deceive ten thousand That which deceives the Jesuites in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others the Franciscans in others If it deceive the French Papists in some points it may deceive the Italians in others and so is not Infallible in any Or else what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition Will they say Tradition is only Infallible in France and those of the same perswasion who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Councell above
delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak what hinders but that they may understand them in contrary senses and so derive from them contrary conclusions and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S. Peter's mouth Are there not sharp contests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points and that too among those who were present upon the place and heard their debates And will these men still undertake to prove that Snow is black or which is equivalent to it that it was impossible to do tâ—at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tels us a man is justified by faith â—thout the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sence Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrot who can say that hath any care what he saith that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book could not as easily have mistaken them when they heard them from his mouth Especially if it be considered that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembring their various expressions might not derive contrary Traditions from them why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as excluding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification and the others have understood Iames as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied then it follows unavioidably that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition which was the thing to be proved Another instance we have in the Sadduces whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel was teaching that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul no resurrection of the body yet we ought to serve God his Scholar Sadok so mis-understood him that he broached a new doctrine and turned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical and asserted that there was no resurrection of the body nor immortality of the soul c. And will these men pawn their souls on it that it was impossible for the Apostles hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee the Evangelist observes that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren that that Disciple should not dye vers 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shews for common hearers to mis-understand the words and mistake the sense of a Preacher when they are but newly come from him and all things are fresh in their memory what a desperate assertion is this that a man can certainly remember the words and infallibly understand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers it may be twenty years ago And if it be granted as it cannot be denied that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks and so of the fourth and further untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome To clear this further consider what I have already intimated § 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remembred and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Trâ—dition of the first age was this That God alone was to be worshipped not men not Angels not Images Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then the Fathers unanimously did in this particular Now comes the next age and they receive indeed this Tradition but then here ariseth a question In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped S. Austin takes it up and saith they meant that God alone was to be worshipped with Latria and the Saints with Dulia And although it is evident enough that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship he appropriates it to God yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his perverse successors gave rise to another controversy viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature And thus as in the throwing of a stone upon the water one circle begets another so doth one controversy ingender another and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition Take one Instance more S. Gregory the great Pope delivers this doctrine to posterity as his doctrine and the doctrine of his Ancestors that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop is proud profane abominable wicked blasphemous and the forerunner of Antichrist This is confessed Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bishop in order to this they start a question where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop For this is a Maxime let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is alwaies orthodox Oh say these Sophi Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor Iohn never dreamed of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholick Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever ought to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to shew how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in
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
Pope and Councel together say a third sort and the several assertors of each opinion confute and destroy the rest and all that hold any of these opinions are universally esteemed good Catholicks saith Mr. Cressy in his Append ch 4. num 7. So they are good Catholicks that dispute down the Pope's Infallibility and they good Catholicks too that dispute down the Infallibility of Councels and for the reason before mentioned they good Catholicks that reject the infallibility of both together And therefore t is a mâ—st impudent position which Mr. Cressy layes down and the Papists are obliged to owne That the doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is so evident that the Protâ—stants are inexcusable and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that do not receive it out of thy own mouth will God judge thee O thou unfaithful Servant who hast thus expressed thy self in another place To my understanding there is some inhumanity in urging Protestants to more then Catholicks will be obliged to or to thinke that to Protestants prepossessed with passion and partiality that can be made evident which is so far from being evident to some Catholicks that they renounce it Appendix to the Exomologesis ch 4. num 7. To this might be added as a farther demonstration of the inevidence of this point even to the Romanists themselves those secret checks which they meet with from their own consciences in the assertion of this supposed Infallibility discovered by their haltings and corrections and tergiversations and self-contradictions in explication of this new phaenomenon For however Mr. Cressy mounts this Infallibility so high that it must not yield to Scripture it self yet both himself elsewhere and their other Authors every where are contented with a far lower proportion Bellarmine whom Mr. Cressy rights and approves in his comparison of the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture gives the preheminence to Scripture in five several respects See Cressy sect 2. ch 21. Truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture then in the decisions of the Church Cressy Appendix chap. 5. n. 2. And this Infallibility of the Church though they will not suffer us to call it humane and moral yet they dare not assert it to be Divine but onely after a sort and in some manner Divine as the Author of Laua's labyrinth informes us And this Infallibility they farther confesse is not in way of immediate revelation or inspiration from God but in the way of argumentation and discourse And here too they are wonderful cautious for it is acknowledged by Bellarmine and Stapleton and subscrib'd by Mr Cressy That the Church is fallible in the premises but infallible in the conclusion Cressy ubi suprà and sect 2. chap. 32. and Append. chap. 5. In the decisions of the Church the simple conclusion decided is onely accounted infallibly true not so the principles upon which it depends or reasons by which it is proved Really these Romish Priests are admirable fellows in all things Admirable Builders Vitruvius himself might learn Architecture from them for they can teach him how to build a solid and durable Edifice upon a rotten foundation Admirable Logitians Aristotle might go to School to them and learn such Lessons as were above his apprehension for it is resolved he must blot out his Axiomes Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem and Non debet esse plus in conclusâ—ne quà m in praemissis and Ex falsis nil nise falsum The Colledge of Jesuites at Rome are ready to make good the contrary against him when Plato's great year shall bring him and them together upon the Stage Admirable Divines that have outdone their Lord and Master and in spight of whatsoever is said by him Luk. 6.43 44. will it he please maintain a dispute with him upon this Thesis That a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit and that of thornes men may gather figs and of a Brambâ—â—bush grapes and this shall be not probably defended but infallibly demonstrated For it were a silly thing to think that they that are infallible Divines should be but fallible Disputants But to return The inevidence of this notion of the Churches Infallibility may sufficiently appear from Mr. Cressy's own expressions which have been observed by others who by the evidence of the Truth was forced to this acknowledgment That Infallibility is an infortunate word that Mr. Chillingworth hath combated it with too great success so that I could wish saith he the word were forgotten or at least laid by whereas all that understand any thing know that it was not the word but the thing which he combated and his arguments were not nominal against the Title but real against the thing it self It is true since this passage was published and taken notice of Mr. â—ressy having doubtlesse been severely school'd by his Superiors for such a dangerous passage is grown more cautious and hath stretched his wit and I fear his conscience too to palliate his assertion and make an honourable retreat and he honestly acquaints us with his design i. e. being crafty to catch the Protestants with guile Sect. 2. ch 21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologesis will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty conscience whilst sometimes you shall find him tacitly denying the Churches Infallibility properly so called and contenting himself with great Probability in the room of it at other times you will meet him crying up this Infallibility in express or equivalent terms and in most places having no salvo for himself but this That his assertion and the Protestants disputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility which the Protestants advanced to an higher pitch then ever the Church of Rome did and so fought against an image that themselves had set up which is so notorious a falsehood that if Mr. Cressy's wit and memory and conscience had not all failed him together he could hardly have run into it since all Protestants of any note ever did and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth dispute against the Churches Infallibility onely in that sense and degree which Mr. Cressy upon maturest advice in this second Edition hath thought fit to expresse in these words That God will preserve his Church in all truth so as to secure all believers that she can neither deceive them nor be deceived her self sect 2. chap. 21. Did ever any Protestant that understood himself or the point pretend to more Not Mr. Chillingworth I am sure They all knew and granted that abolute infallibility was Gods Prerogative and neither pretended by the Church of Rome nor was that opinion by Protestants fastned upon them The onely question was whether God did vouchsafe such infallible guidance to the Church that she could not erre in her decrees and decisions This Papists affirmed and Protestants denied and let me adde that this Infallibility is as high as was ever ascribed to the Prophets or Apostles and Penmen of the Holy
guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Councels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the churches authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures oâ—â—ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universalâ— Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many severall judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction 1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conâ—cience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe tâ— be the alone Law-giver Iam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. â— 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an externall and politicall Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internall and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more then the rest to be for ever suspended and wrapâ— in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne unâ—versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in expresse termes That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sence of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I meane in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe So againe the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
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
so that thou understand them according to the faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally delivered unto thee Apology for Tradition Sixteenth Encounter Ans. 1. The necessity of Faith is no argument of the Scriptures insufficiency The Scripture is sufficient i. e. in genere objecti in respect of the object or doctrine or revelation and yet Faith is necessary in genere instrumenti as an instrument for it is plain enough the faith he speaks of is the grace not the doctrine of Faith By this argument Scripture and Tradition together were no perfect rule for both will not make a man wise unto salvation otherwise then through faith Ans. 2. It is falsly supposed and can never be proved That the Faith here spoken of is the fides quae creditur or the doctrine of Faith not fides quâ creditur or the grace of Faith and that by Faith are here intended Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from St. Paul or the other Apostles and this Supposition is the Basis of their Answer The contrary sufficiently appears from diverse considerations 1. This contradicts the Apostles scope which apparently is to commend the Scriptures as able to make wise to Salvation c. But this were no commendation at all to say they together with such Christian verities are sufficient for salvation for according to this argument it might be said of any one verse in all the Old Testament what is here said of all the Scriptures viz. That that Verse together with Faith i. e. with the Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition is sufficient for Salvation which no Papist will deny and therefore that Answer is absurd 2. Timothy's faith here supposed is of the same kind with the Faith of his Mother and Grandmother 2 Tim. 1.5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee which dwelt first in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice Was the faith of his Grandmother too the Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from the Apostles after she was dead 3. It is not said The Scriptures are able with the faith but through the faith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which plainly shews that this Faith is not another object distinct from the Scriptures but an instrument to apply the Scriptures especially if we consider a parallel place Heb. 4.2 The word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith i e. with the grace of Faith for none can be so senselesse as to think they were damned for want of oral Tradition 4. The Faith here spoken of is together with the Scriptures sufficient for salvation and so is the grace of faith But the Dogmatical belief of Christian Verities deliver'd by Tradition together with the Scriptures is not sufficient for Salvation as the Papists confesse E. the grace of Faith is the thing here spoken of 5. The Faith here spoken of is a thing distinct and totally differing from the Scriptures and not at all coincident with them But the Christian Verities or Traditions delivered by the Apostles were not things so different but coincident with the Scripture as evidently appears from Act. 26.22 where S. Paul in terminis professeth he said preached none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come But I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome know what Paul preached better then himself a plain evidence of their Infallibility Exc. 2. By this argument the Scriptures of the Old Testament for of them he speaks are sufficient for salvation and so the New Testament is not necessary So the Captain p. 29. and Cressy ubi suprà Ans. 1. It is very true the Scriptures of the Old Testament were in those times sufficient for salvation This appears from the place now cited Act. 26.22 compared with Act. 20.27 where S. Paul saith he delivered the whole counsel of God Hence I argue The whole counsel of God was delivered by S. Paul and is sufficient for salvation but all that S. Paul delivered was in Moses and in the Prophets Act. 26.22 If the Old Testament was deficient in any doctrine it was that which the New Testament seems to supply viz. the doctrine of Christ and yet the Old Testament was sufficient to teach Christ for it did both instruct men about the Person and Office and work of the Messias as our Divines do abundantly prove against the Jews to whom I refer the Reader for the proof of it and also did sufficiently prove that Jesus was the Christ as appears undeniably from Act. 18.28 and consequently there was no defect but a sufficiency for that time and condition of affairs even in the old Testament in things necessary to salvation A Third Exception they take against our argument from this place is That it speaks onely of perfection after faith but here is no question about the first choice of faith much lesse is there any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Thus Mr. White 's Apology for Tradition 16. Encounter Ans. Since then all our controversy is about that whether the Scriptures are so convincing it will be worth our while to examine the point for it is not my desire to catch at little advantages but to attaque the Aversary in his strongest Fort. But before I come to the proof let us inquire into the meaning of the Phrase What it is for the Scripture to be convincing in foro contentioso i. e. in way of disputation I take it for granted he is not so absurd as to expect that the scripture should be so convincing as actually to convince and satisfy and silence the most importunate and unreasonable Caviller In that sense the clearest demonstration in the Mathematicks is not convincing but without doubt Mr. White takes his Apology and so his Treatise de fide and Mr. Rushworths Dialogues to be convincing Discourses because though they do not actually convince the stubborn Hereticks yet they are apta nata to convince them there is so much evidence in them as may and ought to satisfy any understanding unconcerned inquisitive and prudent adversary and in this sense I do assert that the scriptures are convinâ—ing in fâ—ro contentioso which is the great thing Mr. White sticks at I prove it thus 1. The scriptures make a man of God i.e. the Minister as they acknowledg perfect and throughly furnished to every work but this is one of his chief works to convince Gain-sayers Tiâ— 1.9 Ergo scripture furnisheth him with convincing arguments 2. The Scripture is here expressely said to be profitable among other things for Conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first for doctrine i.e. for the confirmation of Truths then for conviction for so the Greek word more properly signifies then for reproof which is mentioned in the next particular for correction or for resutation of errors But surely Scripture were not profitable for conviction if it be insufficient to