the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9. CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of St Austins judgment § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in generall § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours 3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as 1. That they be generall § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Councels Fathers Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of Oâ—all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing against the judgment of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers § 9. â— Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. â— Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19. 2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From Gods just judgment § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The oâ—inion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fallâ—bility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles onely prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19. 4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from Gods providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Proâ—â—stants Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fouâ—â—dation of Faith in the Scriâ—â—tures the Papists themselves 〈◊〉 ing judges Sect. 〈◊〉 Their Learned men acknowleâ— 1. That the Scripture is 〈◊〉 may be known to be the 〈◊〉 of God without the Church Testimony and by its owâ— light Sect. 〈◊〉 2. That the Books of Scriptuâ—â— are not corrupted in essentiaâ— and necessary points Sect. 〈◊〉 3. That the sence of Scripture 〈◊〉 things necessary may be uâ—â—derstood Sect. 〈◊〉 Except Protestants 〈◊〉 upon an humane Translaâ—tion answered Se. 5 6 7 â— Protestants freed from the preâ—â—tended circle of proving Scripâ—â—ture by the spirit and the spiâ—rit by the Scripture Sect. 9â— 10 11 12â— A consideration of that pretenâ— ostered at by some Romanists That the Churches Authority 〈◊〉 a sufficient foundation foâ— faith without infallibility Sect. 13â— The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to
de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the Anathema's of Councels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alledged either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered pag. 45. Everards arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies examined answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissentâ—rs p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonicall books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sence of Scripture p. 57. 5. About fundamentall points p. 59. 4. Protestants have not the Originals but onely Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes p. 68. 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great apâ—plauded aâ—guments in his Daâ—â—alogues refuted The first taken from the greaâ— uncertainâ—y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88. The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued onely from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Councels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence the Reader will easily discerne The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decisâ—on p. 9. l. 7. r. Gretâ—â—â—â—â— p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. least p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because for best p. â—0 l. 8. r. least p. â—5 l. 26. r. Grill. â—â—â— acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. â—â—d there for â—y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4 r fricat â—b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosiâ—â— p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the citâ—tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apotaâ—â—ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iuâ—â— read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuallâ— p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Tâ—stimonie and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her then they sall into diverse opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimonie and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie and this present Churh too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a generall Councell and others the Pope and a Councell together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universall or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proofe For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome then the Bishop of York the onely plea is that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabrick of Popery There is no man so grosly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion that
he is Peters successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably followes that the Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered â—x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in it self and hath no strength nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peters chair but had ascribed the same priviledges which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this then wee have gained thus much That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or credible for it self that it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Councels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can shew that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Councels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Popes Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self without the Interpretation Testimonie and Authority of thâ— Church is not a sufficient foundation oâ— Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plaine so often asserted bâ— them so universally owned so vehemently urged in aâ— their Treatises that if there were not an horrible perâ—versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men whâ— indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to saâ— and unsay give and recall affirme and denie the samâ— things as occasion requires and the strength of an Arâ—gument forceth them I might supercede from anâ— further paine or trouble therein I shall therefore onely observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either oâ— which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian cannoâ— know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witnesse and Authority 2. That the sencâ— of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without thâ— Churches interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present tâ— mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuite in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop oâ— Burdeaux puts this Question To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables the Cardinall Hosius replies That these words may be taken in a pious sence For in truth saith he unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tels us That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Churches assertion and declaration Andradius in expresse termes denies That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which bindes us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the highâ—st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fidâ—s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a lyar that is no impiety but to mak the Church a lyar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome then the grossest transgressions of Gods Laweâ— because there is more impiety in them and so more sevâ—rity should be exercised against them And Pighiâ— useth no lesse freedome telling us That the Scripturâ— have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authours but meerly from the Churches Testimonâ— Thus you see that according to the systeme of Popisâ— Theology the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to bâ— the Word of God nor oblige my faith unlesse it brinâ— along with it the Churches Letters of credence Anâ— whereas in St Pauls dayes neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials froâ— Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austine in his dayes in hiâ— Controversies with the Donatists batters down theiâ— Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie And as Tertullian argued of old God shall not be God without mans consent It is here as in dealings between manâ— and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but onely my friends Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that
infallibly true Adrianus the sixth by the name of the Popes and prelates We have all turned after our own wayes there is none that doth good no not one The famous Chancellor of Paris Gerson complaines that Learned and godly Bishops were chosen no where but carnall men and ignorant of Spirituall things And so proud saith he that they do not know themselves to be men Duarenus speaks home to this purpose Most of the Bishops of our time are greater strangers to Religion and Holy things then any of the secular Nobles and they mind nothing but how to defend their possessions by right or wrong Ferus cries out Who doth not see the insatiable avarice and impostures of the Popes and religious men with these all things are vendible And Stella informs us There were few possessors of Benefices who had them otherwise then either by begging or paying for them And yet these were the good men of the Church of Rome these are they who acted in Councels sincerely from love to God and his truth not seeking their own things but the things of Christ and therefore without doubt infallible And for the state of Councels take one testimony for all of one that was an eminent part and member of them Cardinal Iulian who in his Epistle to Eugenius the fourth in the councel of Basil in plain terms tels him that all Councels since that of Chalcedon which was above a thousand years ago were instituted not for the discovery of truth but for the defence and increase of the power of the Romane Church and the liberty of Churchmen Should I descend to particulars and open the several impostures and palpable frauds which the Popes and their Partisans have successively used in the packing of councels and making voices and forging decrees and ingaging the Bishops by hopes and fears and interests to give up their votes and consciences to the advancement of the Romish power and magnificence I should engage my self to transcribe whole volumes and cut out work for the whole terme of my life The transactions of the councel of Trent are fresh in memory And he that shall peruse the words of their own Historians the Protestations of Princes the Censures of Universities relating to it c. will easily be satisfied whether Clara's non constat de opposito be true or no. And therefore notwithstanding this frivolous excuse it remaines a truth that according to the principles of Papists themselves and because of those evident defects in them acknowledged by their own Authors whatever Councels regularly called and ordered may pretend to their councels must lay down their claime to Infallibility and so their faith hath no solid foundation as not in the Pope's authority so not in Scripture nor in the testimony of the Fathers nor yet in the infallibility of general councels And therefore I may safely conclude they have no solid foundation for their Faith 26. There is only one thing which may seem to retard the passing of the sentence that is this That although each of these taken asunder may not be sufficient yet all put together make a cord which is not easily broken Quoe non prosunt fingula juncta juvant and therefore forasmuch as the Church stands upon four Pillars Authority of Scriptures Tradition of Fathers Infallibility of Councels and the Pope their Faith is like Mount Sion that cannot be removed And if it be deemed an absurd and unreasonable thing as we poor fallible creatures have thought to prove the Scriptures from the authority of the Church Councels or Pope and circularly to prove the authority of the Church Councels or Pope from the Scripture The Jesuits have found out the Quadrature of the Circle and they tell you that it is no more absurd that Scripture should lean upon the Churches authority and the Church on the authority of Scripture then that St. John the Baptist should give testimony to Christ and Christ to him again or that the Old Testament should be confirmed by the New and the New Testament by the Old This is one of their last pleas we find them now retired to their Fort-royal beat them out of this and upon the matter all is lost and truly that will be no hard matter to do if the Reader please to consider 1. The great disparity of the alledged Instances Iohn and Christ might give testimony one to another but neither of them did simply depend upon each other's testimonies supposing that Christ had given no express testimony concerning Iohn yet I say the mission of Iohn was not only true in it self but sufficiently evident to the Jews as plainly appears from hence That the Pharisees when asked by Christ whether the Baptisme of Iohn was from Heaven or of men were afraid to deny its Heavenly original as being against the common sentiment of the Jewes and Christ chargeth the Pharisees with rejecting the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized of Iohn Luk. 7. 30. And much more true is it of Christ that he did not depend upon the testimony of John but had other and better testimony Ioh. 5.36 But I have greater testimony then that of Iohn And it is enough for my purpose if either Christ or John had an authority independent upon the others evidence though the other had not And the like may be said of the Old and New Testament well may they give testimony one to another for neither of them doth totally depend upon the other The Old Testament did sufficiently evidence its authority before ever the New Testament was written and the New Testament too did carry other convincing evidences of its divine original and authority besides the testimony of the Old Testament such as the voice from Heaven This is my well beloved Son 2 Pet. 1.17 and the glorious miracles he did Ioh. 5.36 The works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me the holiness of his life power of his doctrine patience of his death But now to apply this to our present purpose it is here far otherwise for the Scripture say they doth not evidence it self any other way to us but by the Churches testimony as we have heard from their own words and Councels Fathers and the Pope we say and have proved cannot evidence their Authority and Infallibility any other way but by the Scripture which according to their principles is impossible or by their own Testimony which is ridiculous 2. Let it be considered that the Romanists do not make these four Scripture Fathers Councels and Popes coordinate and collateral foundations of their Faith as if each of them did contribute a distinct and independent support unto the Romish Faith but indeed they make one of them totally to depend upon another and at last reduce them all to one and to speak properly to none For the Fathers and Councels and the splendid name of the Church however they are pretended to put a
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
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
when the Image of Diana dropt down from Heaven she brought this Tradition along with her The like might be shewed in â—undry other particulars In the caelibacy of Priests which is onely de jure humano not divine by the confession of Thomas Durandus Lombardus and Scotus four principall pillars of the Papall Church and Turrianus was noted by Cassander as the onely man of all both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it But if it were an Apostolicall Tradition it was de jure Divino and the Councell of Nice would never have dispensed with a divine Injunction So in the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Purgatory and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing because it hath been so fully cleared by diverse Learned Protestant Writers particularly by Iewell Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge Moulins Novelty of Popery Dallaeus in severall pieces Rainolds de Libris Apoâ—ryphis Whitaker Chamier and innumerable others But manum de Tabulâ This I hope may suffice for the refutation of this novell invention concerning the Infallibility of Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church where I have been more large because it is a late plea and lesse hath been said of it by Protestant Authors And so it remaines unshaken That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in orall Tradition and the present Churches Authority which was the businesse of this Proposition CHAP. 8. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility Sect. 1. BUt we are not yet come to the end of our journey And although the Arguments urged by Protestants against their resolution of Faith have probably convinced the consciences of diverse of them yet have they not stop'd their mouths We have shewed in the former Chapters how they have been driven from post to post and as in a besieged City when the Walls and Works of it are battered down they raise new fortifications so having seen their former pretences batter'd about their eares some of them have devised one shift more for finding themselves yet in that ridiculous Circle of believing the Scripture for the Churches sake and the Church for Scriptures sake notwithstanding all the attempts of their Brethren to get out Some of them have taken up their rest in the markes of a Church and the motives of credibility This though rejected by former and learneder Papists yet of late hath been taken up by Turnebull in his Tâ—tragonismus a discourse about the Object of Faith and after him by the late Answerer of Bishop Lauds Book called Lawa's Labyrinth whose words are these We prove the Churches Infallibility not by Scripture but by the motives of Credibility and signes of the Church which are these Sanctity of life miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophâ—cies succession of lawfully sent Pastours Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick Then saith he having thus proved the Churches Infallible Authority and by that received the Scripture we confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture proofs are not Prime and Absolute but onely secondary and ex suppositione ad hominem or ex principiis concessis against Sectaries This is their plea concerning which I shall need to say the lesse because the Book wherein it is revived and urged called Labyrinthus Cantuariensis is so solidly and Learnedly Answered by my worthy friend M r Stillingfleet Yet having finished this Discourse long before that excellent work came forth and having twisted it into the method of the present Treatise and designe I thought not fit wholly to supersede it whereby the body of the work would be renderd lame and incompleat but rather to be shorter in it and as far as I can to cut off such passages as happily may be coincident with what is said by Mr Stillingfleet in that particular for I do not desire actum agere § 2. Answ. 1. Let it be observed how shamelessely these men abuse their Readers when they pretend the Infallibility of the Church is solidly demonstrated from Scripture and this they generally do Here you have reum confitâ—ntem they confesse the imbecillity of those Arguments For say they they are but secondary proofs and Argumenta ad hominem Now such Arguments are not cogent and concluding in themselves but onely do conclude against some particular Adversary from his own principles So they acknowledge that although their Arguments may perswade one that is docible yet they cannot convince a gainsayer And the strength of their Argument depends upon the Courtesy of the Protestants § 3. 2. In vaine are these Marks of a Church pleaded for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome when other Churches have a juster claime to them and so little colour have the Romanists for their monopoly of them that upon enquiry it will be found they have no considerable interest in them This I shall shew in the principall and most important of them 1. The first in dignity though not in order is the glory of Miracles The most eminent in this kind are confessed to be those which were done by Christ and his Apostles Those Miracles were done in Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches not of the Church of Rome which appeares thus These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures but the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is repugnant thereunto Ergo These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches The Major our adversaries dare not deny The Minor hath been undeniably evidenced so much to the conviction of our Adversaries that they dare not owne the Scripture for their Judge and instead of submitting themselves to its sentence bend their wits to except against the judge and decline its Tribunall following that Counsell which was given to Pericles when he was studying how to give up his accounts to the Athenians that he should rather study how to give up no account at all And some of them whose words are recited in this Treatise acknowledge the folly of their brethren who would manage their cause by Scripture Arguments But whether the Protestant Doctrine hath been solidly evinced from Scripture or not thus much undoubtedly followes that if any miracles be pretended against that Doctrine which Christ sealed by his miracles they are not to be regarded and the miracles done by Christ c. are infinitely to be preferred before them And consequently the glory of Miracles is more ours then theirs § 4. The like I may say secondly for the efficacy of Doctrine which they so confidently appropriate to themselves But if the efficacy of their sword were not greater then that of their Doctrine the world would quickly see the vanity of that Argument And how little confidence themselves put in it may be seen by the professed necessity of an Inquisition Next newes I expect
granted that there is an Infallible judge yet it doth not their work for particular Christians are not Infallibly assured of the Infallibility of their Church unlesse they will say that every Papist is Infallible And therefore no particular Papist hath better ground for his Faith upon this score then the Protestants have for they neither have nor pretend to better Arguments upon which they believe their Church to be this Supreme and Infallible judge then what Protestants alledge to prove the Scripture to be judge viz. Texts of Scripture Tradition Fathers Councels Miracles rationall Arguments c. And if a Protestant may be deceived in these when he inferres from them the Infallibility of the Scripture why may not a Papist be deceived when he inferres from them the Infallibility of his Church since he hath no better Arguments nor more Infallible guidance And therefore as to particular Christians of whom the whole Church consists and about whom alone the care of Christ and Gods Providence is exercised God hath not taken more effectuall care for their infallible guidance according to the Romish Principles then according to ours For as they say Protestants have no security for their Faith though the Scripture be Infallible because they cannot Infallibly underitand it or believe this to be the Scripture so say I the Papists have no security of the Infallibility of their Church though the Churches Infallibility be acknowledged true in it self since they cannot infallibly know either that there is such an infallibility or theirs to be the Church to whom it is promised § 28. 4. It is neither necessary nor suitable to the methods of Gods Providence and the declarations of his will that there should be a finall end and infallible judge of all controversies in this life That which these men teil us was fit to be done God hath told us he did not judge fit and who is most credible do you judge 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be Heresies that they which are approved may be made manifest God hath acquainted us that it is his pleasure that Tares should grow with the Wheat unto the end of the World In respect of wicked men it was fit in regard of Gods Justice that there should be stones of stumbling and Rocks of offence for the punishment of those that were disobedient And in regard of elect and sincere Christians who live holily and humbly believe and pray fervently and seek the true way diligently such a judge is not necessary God having provided for them other wayes by giving them the promise of his Spirit and guidance into Truth which is as good security as the Pope himselfe hath or pretends for his supposed Infallibility by that anointing which teacheth them all things 1 Ioh. 2. 27. in confidence of whose conduct they may say with David Thou shalt guide me with thy counsell and afterwards receive me to Glory Psal. 73. 24. They are kept by Gods power 1 Pet. 1. 5. and the care and strength of Christ Ioh. 10. And what need a Christian desire more Truly saith Amesius God hath provided for the safety of the Godly not for the curiosity or perversnesse of other men And therefore this plea must go after all the rest and they are still lest in a Forlorne and desperate because in a faithlesse condition And thus having forced my way through all the obstructions which they laid before us I know not what hinders but I may pronounce the sentence notwithstanding all their big looks and glorious pretences of Infallibility notwithstanding all the noise of Scripture Fathers Popes Councels Tradition Miracles when things come to be scanned it appeares they have no foundation for their Faith and consequently have no Faith Lord be mercifull to them CHAP. VII Of the Solidity of the Protestants foundation of Faith § 1. HAppily they will fay of us as Ierome did of Lactantius that he could facilius aliena destruere quam stabiline sua that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith then make our own good I shall therefore though it be besides my present designe which is onely to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility in few words enquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith then the Papists have And this I shall shew onely by one Argument The Popish foundation of faith is such as many of their own great Doctours are unsatisfied in There being no foundation laid by any of them but it is both denied and disproved by others no lesse eminent of their own communion as I have proved at large and such as is unanimously opposed by all Protestants and solidly disproved But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches of what denomination soever are agreed in yea such as diverse of our most learned Adversaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient You will say if you can prove this the controversy will be at an end and if I do not let the Reader Judge There are but three things that need proof 1. That the Books of Scripture which Protestants build their Faith upon are and may be proved to be the word of God 2. That in the substantials of Faith these Books are uncorrupted 3 That the sence of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary points § 2. For the first That the Protestants Bible is and may be proved to be the word of God It is true when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question as they call it to them How know you Scripture to be the word of God what matters it how I know it seeing they acknowledg it and by granting the thing make their question superfluous But I Answer I know it even by the Confession of our Adversaries So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation and the testimony of an adversary against himself is undeniabe It may be of good use here a little to compare the several discourses of learned Papists to different persons and how prettily they contradict themselves and confute their own arguments When the Papists dispute against us they tell us It is impossible to know the Scripture to be the word of God but by the Churches Testimony But if you take them in their lucid intervals and their disputes against Atheists or Heathens then you shall have them in another tune then Bellarmine can say Nothing is more evidâ—nt and more certain then the Sacred Scriptures so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them Here he can furnish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture distinct from and independent upon the Churches authority the verity of Prophecies harmony of writers works of Providence glory of Miracles consent of Nations c. Either then these arguments do solidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures or they do not if they do not then
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
prove the Spirits testimony but by the Scripture This is counted one of the hardest knots and therefore it will be worth the while in few words to unty it though it may seem a little heterogeneous to my present design § 10. 1 They have no reason to object this circle to us that they cannot free themselves from I speak not now of the other famous circle of the Church and Scripture which their most learned Authors of late have ingenuously confessed but here is another Circle The Papists have Circulum in Circulo For they professe a man cannot know the Church but by the Spirit nor the Spirit but by the Church That a man cannot know the Spirit nor the mind of the Spirit nor distinguish it from false and counterfeit ones but by the Church is their great principle He cannot know it say they by the Scripture unlesse he read it with the Churches spectacles Revelation they do not pretend to therefore this is known onely by the Church to whom the discerning of Spirits belongs and by others onely from the Churches authority and infallible testimony But that is a clear case the onely doubt lies about the other branch viz. That a man according to their principles cannot know the Church but by the Spirit and that you shall have under the hands of their great Masters Stapleton's words are these This secret testimony is altogether necessary that a man may believe the Churches judgment and testimony about the approbation of the Scriptures neither will Faith follow without this inward testimony of the Spirit of God although the Church attest commend publish approve the Scripture a thousand times over So Canus tels us that Humane authority and other moâ—ives are not sufficient inducements to believe but there is moreover a necessity of an inward efficient cause i.e. the special help of God moving us to believe What can be more plain let them answer themselves and that will serve our turn Either they must leave themselves in the Circle or help us out Iam sumus ergo pares And it is unreasonable that they should urge that as a peculiar inconvenience of our Resolution of Faith to which their own is no lesse obnoxious § 11. 2. It is false that we have no other way to prove the Scripture to be the word of God but the Spirits internal Testimony They cannot be ignorant that we have diverse arguments of another nature and independent upon that Testimony of the Spirit by which the authority of Scripture is solidly proved And Papists as well as Protestants have substantially defended the cause of the Scriptures against Pagans and Atheists Either those arguments are solid rational and convincing or they are not if they say they are not then Be it known to all men by these presents that the Assertors of Popery are the Betrayers of Christianity If they be then is the Scripture proved other wayes then by the Spirits testimony How can our Adversaries vindicate themselves either from shameful Ignorance if they do not know or abominable malice if they wittingly bely us that we have no argument to prove the Scripture but the Testimony of the Spirit What are those glorious miracles by which the Scripture was sealed and propagated now become no argument Is the Transcendency of the Matter and Majesty of the Style and admirable Power of the Word of none effect to prove the Scriptures Divinity Are not the patience of Martyrs the concurring testimony of Jewes and Heathens to the truth of Scripture-relations the verity of predictions and the like as solid arguments now as they were in the Primitive times when the Fathers confounded the learnedest Pagans by these and such like arguments If they be as they must affirm unlesse they will turn perfect Pagans as they are in the half way to it already then their Assertion is false That we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scripture but by the Spirits Testimony and the Circle which they impute to us is indeed in their own Brain and their Argument is the fruit of their Vertigo § 12. 3. Here is no Circle because although the Spirit and Scripture do mutually prove one another yet they do it in diverso genere in diverse wayes and several capacities but a Circle is when a man proceeds ab eodem ad idem codem modo cognitum when a mans knowledg proceeds from the fame thing to the same thing in the same way But in this case though the thing be the same yet the way of knowledg varies and that breaks the Circle The Scripture proves the Spirit per modum objecti argumenti objectively and by way of argument by suggesting such truths to me from which I may collect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Spirit and prove its Divinity But the Spirit proves or rather approves the Scripture per modum causae effectivae instrumenti as a Divine instrument infused into the soul whereby I am enabled to apprehend such verities as are contained in the Scripture The Papists indeed cannot get out of their Circle of Church and Scripture because each of them is the argument by which they prove the other the argument nay the onely argument say they for which I believe the Scripture is the authority of the Church testifying it and the argument for which they believe the Church is the authority of the Scripture And here the Circle is so grosse and evident that it is acknowledged by diverse of their own late learned Authors Holden confesseth in expresse terms that they who resolve their Faith in this manner and so do almost all the learned Papists in the world do unavoidably fall into a Circle So the late Answerer of Bishop Lawd confesseth it is a vitious Circle to prove Scripture from the Churches Tradition and the Churches Tradition from Scripture as they generally do some few Excentrical spirits excepted nor can he get out of it but by returning to that Vomit which his former Masters had discharged themselves from viz. to prove Infallibility by miracles and the motives of credibility But in our case it is quite otherwise for the Spirit works ut instrumentum by way of Instrument the Scripture ut argumentum by way of Argument It were an absurd aspersion to call this a Circle if any man should say I believe the Sun to be bigger then the Earth because my reason tels me it is so and I believe my reason saith true because Mathematical arguments convince me it must needs be so That which frees this discourse from the Circle is that the Mathematicks prove it ut argumentum Reason proves it ut iustrumentum and the same may be said in the present case I shall farther illustrate this by a similitude or two It is here as when a man through the infirmity of his eye apprehends a thing to be lesse then it is There are three wayes whereby this man may be convinced of his error 1. By
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
appointed by Christ as a part of that ground upon which we were to build our rule by which we were to try particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith but was necessary notâ— ex instituto Christi but ex natura rei and from the condition of humane affaires there being no other way without a new revelation possible or imaginable to convey the Gospell and Scriptures to those that were to live so many hundred years after the first publication of it Tradition being to us that which Eyes and Eares were to them that were Eye-witnesses of his convincing miracles and Eare-witnesses of his irrefragable discourses that is neither their Eyes and Eares were nor to us Tradition is the Argument and ground of our Faith but a necessary meane or instrument to convey those Arguments and grounds of Scripture which were convincing and satisfactory 2. This Tradition is no Act of Authority but onely of testimony not at all peculiar to the Church or generall Councels but common to all antient VVriters Yea let it be observed as a very materiall consideration in this point so far is the Capacity of a Church from being necessary to the validity of this Tradition and Testimony concerning the great rule of our Faith the Holy Scriptures that the Testimony and Tradition of such as neither are the Church nor any part of it but enemies to it I meane Jewes and Heathens are in some respects more considerable according to that known maxime Testimonium adversarii contra se est validissimum It being one of the best Arguments and at this day so urged both by Protestants and Papists for the truth of the Holy Scriptures and particularly of the Gospell that the truth of those Historicall relations of Christs miracles was acknowledged by the most Learned Jewes and Heathens that lived in antient times And by those considerations we may discerne the vanity of that triviall calumny of the great differences among Protestants about the rule of Faith and judge of Controversies whereas by what hath been said which is no other then the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches and Writers however sometimes they seem to differ in modo explicandi it appeares how all these severall things concurre like so many Stones fitly compacted together to make up the building of our Faith which that I may in few words present it to the Readers review is this The Scripture is the Object the onely rule and standard of Faith by which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged the res creditae and the ratio credâ—ndi Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh this rule to us and our times Reason is the instrument by which I apprehend or the eye by which I discerne or see this rule The spirit of God is the Eye-salve that anoints mine Eye and inables it to see this rule The Church is the interpreter though not infallible and authentick the witnesse the guardian of this rule and the applier of the generall rules of Scripture to particular cases and times and circumstances And things being thus stated which is really the sence of Protestants in this great point as it were easy to shew from the confessors of our Churches and the Treatises of our most and choicest Authors is it not at all difficult to blow away with a breath those pitifull cavils whereby they indeavour to perplex the mind of ignorant or prejudiced persons lest the light of the Gospell should shine into their minds One thing is worth our Observation That diverse of the Popish arguments do wholly arise from and depend upon either some in commodious expressions of some Protestant Writers or some false exposition put upon them by the adversaries As for instance when they argue against the Scripture from the nature of a Judge that a Judge must heare parties must not be mute but passe sentence c. All these and many such cavillations are thus silenced by saying that which is true that it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and figurative expression when we call Scripture a Judge in as much as it is the voice or writing of our Judge and indeed it is a rule So their Arguments against the judgment of reason either have no weight in them at all or else depend upon a scandalous and untrue suggestion as if the Protestants made reason the Judge in a Socinian sence So their Arguments against the Spirits being judge do proceed I doubt from a willfull mistake for in their Learned Writers it cannot be ignorance as if the Protestants submitted Scripture and reason and all to the judgment of the spirit in themselves in an Enthusiastick notion which is so farre from being true that they try and judge of the spirit by the Word according to Apostolicall prescription This being premised I come now to treat with my Captaine and weigh his Arguments that have any colour or appearance of truth in them And first he argues against reasons being the judge of Controversies Concerning which let me be bold to say thus much That the Papists themselves do make reason judge of Controversies as farre as the Protestants do though both the one and other tye up this judge to a rule If it be said the Protestants make the reason of every particular man judge which indeed they do in the sence forementioned and for their own actions so do the Papists make the reason of the Pope or a Councell the judge For when they say the Pope or Counsell is the Judge of Controversies I would know what it is in them if not their reason which is the judge as it is their reason which examineth and heareth and considereth so sure it is the same reason which concludeth and judgeth so that the question between the Papists and Protestants is not whether Reason be the judge but whether the reason of particular persons or the reason of the Pope or Councell The Arguments which he urgeth against the judgment of reason are so irrationall that it is sufficient confutation to mention them 1. Saith he Reason must submit to the Judge E. it is not the Judge Answ. It is true supreme Judge it is not but subordinate and tied to rule Protestants assert no more 2. The Judge must be Infallible but reason is Fallible Ergo Answ The Major is a pitifull petitio principii They that help'd him to make his Book will tell him what it meanes 3. If reason were Judge a man might please God without Faith for reason would teach us sufficiently how to please God Answ The same Argument will overthrow his Church If the Church be the Judge then a man may please God without faith for the Church teacheth us sufficiently how to please God 4. If Reason be Judge we must not believe what we do not understand Answ Non sequitur For this Judge is tied up to a Law and rule which commands us to believe what we do not understand But I am sick of such wofull Arguments though the
rule of Faith which must be so true and cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soule upon This is the summe of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and cleare and so evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and cleare and evident c. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtfull that it is not onely rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the VVorld men so absurdly scepticall that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equall Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concernes onely one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no speciall occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and Deâ—th and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine They are the Authors words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casuall to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not onely to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned untill the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Thâ—s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least diverse of them were written upon speciall occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproâ—fe c. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use no man that knowes any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them sorth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proofe but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turne for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been allready handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tels us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Hereticks the Jewes at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and
Iuly 20. 1665. Imprimatur ROBERT SAY VICECAN The Nullity of the Romish Faith OR A BLOW At the Root of the Romish Church BEING An Examination of that Fundamentall Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME concerning the Churches INFALLIBILITY and of all those severall Methods which their most famous and approved Writers have used for the defence thereof TOGETHER WITH An APPENDIX tending to the Demonstration of the Solidity of the PROTESTANT FAITH wherein the Reader will find all the materiall Objections and Cavils of their most considerable Writers viz. Richworth alias Rushworth in his Dialogues White in his Treatise De fide and his Apology for Tradition Cressy in his Exomologesis S. Clara in his Systema fidei and Captaine Everard in his late account of his pretended Conversion to the Church of Rome discussed and Answered By MATTHEVV POOLE late Minister of the Gospell in London OXFORD Printed by Hen Hall Printer to the UNIVERSITY for Ric Davis 1666. To the Right Honourable ARTHUR Earle of DONEGAL Lord Viscount Chichester of Carickfergus Baron of Belfast one of his MAJESTIES most Honourable Privy Councellors for his Kingdome of Ireland My LORD HOw much it concernes every man to be rightly informed in the Controversies between Rome and Us is sufficiently evident from the great importance they have in reference to our everlasting state The Papists think the Protestant Doctrine is dangerous to Salvation and the Protestants know the Popish Doctrine to be so For although they use confidently to give it out to their Partisans that their Religion is a safe way in the judgment of Protestants themselves and though in former times of ignorance God might wink at some members of the Church of Rome that held the Foundation although they built a great deale of Hay and Stubble upon it Yet since the late Edition of severall new Articles of their creed and since the contempt of that clear and glorious light of Gospell discoveries shining in the discourses and Writings of Protestant Authors I cannot and I fear God will not excuse them from that hainous crime of rebelling against the light or with holding it in unrighteousnesse and as Christ said to the Jewes they have now no cloake for their Sinnes What the portion is of the followers of Antichrist we may more safely understand from the Testimony of God then from the conjectures of men of them we read that they shall be damned 2 Thes. 2.12 That their names are not written in the Book of Life Rev. 13.8 That they shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God and shall be tormented with Fire and Brimstone and the smoke of their Torment shall ascend evermore and they shall have no rest day nor night which worship the beast and his image Rev. 14.9 10 11. The onely doubt is whether the Papists be followers of Antichrist or which comes to one whether the Pope be Antichrist which seemed so probable to the famous Lord Bacon that being asked by King JAMES whether he thought him so to be it was no lesse truly then wittily answered by him That if an hue and cry should come after Antichrist which should describe him by those Characters by which he is deciphered in the Bible he should certainly apprehend the Pope for him and I desire all Papists who would not venture their Eternall Salvation upon uncertainties to doe our cause and their own Soules that justice as to peruse the Author 's of both sides viz. Whitaker and Downham on the one and Bellarmine and Lessius on the other and then I doubt not but they will conclude the notorious weaknesse of their cavils or pretended Answers to our Allegations to be at least an high presumption of the truth of our Assertion if not sufficient to put an end to all further doubtings My Lord It is no small evidence of a good cause and felicity of our Protestant people that they are permitted to see with their own Eyes and are both allowed and warned by their teachers not to take matters of Salvation upon trust but to enquire and search the Scriptures and other Authors whether those things be true or no whil'st unhappy Papists like the Andabatae of old must winke and fight and are obliged with an implicit Faith to follow their guides in spight of Christs caution used upon the like occasion If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 Protestant Ministers bespeak their hearers in S t Pauls language I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10. 15. While Popish Priests if they would speak out must say I speak as to Fooles believe all that I say A plaine signe their Gold is adulterate because they dare not suffer it to come to the Touchstone My Lord In the handling of these Controversies I thought it most prudent and ingenuous to follow the Councell which Benhadad gave to his Souldiers to fight neither with small nor great but with the King of Israel and therefore I did not mind the branches but have indeavoured to strike at the Root For such is the Doctrine here discussed viz. The Doctrine of the Churches Authority and Infallibility and so it is acknowledged by all the Romanists and we are advised by them if we mean to do any good to attaque them in this point I like the Counsell and therefore have resolved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arcem petere to attempt their strongest hold All the Controversies of the Church of Rome have what Caligula wished all the people of Rome had one work and that is this of the Churches Infallible Authority while this is safe we do but paire their Nailes and cut their Haire which will quickly grow againe but if this failes all falls wound them here and it goes to the heart Whether I have done this here or no I shall not be so absurd or arrogant as to give judgment in my own cause this onely I shall be bold to say that I have faithfully represented the strength of the Popish cause in this great point out of their most famous and approved Authors and such of whom it might be truly said Si moenia Romae Defendi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent and therefore if all the plausible pretences of their most considerable Writers be here removed and destroyed which I willingly referre to the judgment of the serious intelligent and impartiall Reader I may without injustice conclude that their Doctrine is indefensible and their cause desperate My Lord The reason why I devolve the patronage of this work upon your Lordship is not onely the consideration of your reall worth and those honourable qualities resplendent in you that true generosity sincere friendship obliging sweetnesse impartiall valuation of persons accâ—rding to their merit not their party or opinion in little things and other conspicuous vertues which they that have the happinesse of your acquaintance are witnesses of nor is it onely the known excellency and exemplary piety of your
to be true which I read in my Book that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I beare to your deep judgment and great abilities Here it is plaine the reading in his book is not the foundation of his faith or perswasion but onely the reverence he bears to his teacher And just this say they is the case of the scripture to which purpose they alledge and own those words of Austin though they pervert the sence I should not believe the Gospell unless the Churches Authority did move me Which if true in their sence then the Churches Authority is the sole foundation of my faith and without it the scripture is a meer Cypher or at least not sufficient to command or ground my faith which was the thing to be demonstrated The truth is the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King Iehoram 2 Kings 3.14 and bespeake it in the same language were it not that I regard the presence the testimony and the authority of the Church I would not look towards thee not believe nor reverence thee Sect. 3. If it be said that although the Churches Testimony was necessary before yet since the Church hath long agoe consigned the Canon of the scripture my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches testimony but upon the scriptures Authority To this I answer 1 That now as well as formerly the faith of a Christian acted by Romish principles doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches testimony which I shall make plain by an instance I do not believe supposing I were a Papist the Popes supremacy because I read these words Thou art Peter for if I read those words in Tacitus I should not draw an Argument from them unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of Plato Cicero and Virgil But because the books wherein I read those words Thou art Peter is a book of Canonicall scripture and a part of the word of God there lies the whole stress of the argument And this I cannot know say our Catholick masters and am not bound to believe but for the Churches Testimony Which testimony as it is the onely cause which makes the scripture in generall Authenticall Quoad nos saith Stapleton so it must be that alone which makes this place Thou art Peter Argumentative quoad nos that is all the force that Argument hath to perswade or convince me is from the Church and not from the scripture and the scripture makes it Canonicall to me and its being Canonical gives the whole weight to the Argument and quod est causa causae est causa causati Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words but sence of Scripture where the strength of the argument lies And that sence say they wee cannot understand nor attain but by the Churches interpretation which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists viz. That the sence of scripture which is indeed the very Soul of scripture and the onely ground of faith and Arguments is in many matters of faith so obscure and ambiguous that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentick and infallible Interpreter and Judge to acquaint us therewith that is the Church or per aequevalentiam Iesuiticam the Pope And it is absurd to expect and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts and dceision of controversies of faith from the scripture which is but a dead letter unless the Church animates it This is so notoriously owned by them all that it is needless to quote Authors for it That which I inferre from hence is this that according to this Hypothesis the scripture in it self I say in it self for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove is no solid foundation for my faith and indeed that it is a meer Cypher which if your Church be put to it may have some signification and value butelse none at all And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in it selfe but the Churches interpretation which gives weight to this argument And this plainly appears from that saying of their great Master Stapleton which deserves to be often men tioned in rei memoriam and the rather because Grotserus owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion Gretsers defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in se ex parte rei but onely quoad nos in respect of us and so saith Gretser it is very true for that I believe that Christ is God and that God is one and three I do it being induced by the Authority of the Church testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered are divine and dictated by God a I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mysterie of the Romish Cabal and discovering the dreadfull tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ for as he was beholden to Christ for his Authority so now Christ is beholden to his vicar for his Divinity and saith hee it was truely said by Tannerus nor needed Pappus to wonder at it that without the interpretation and testification of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone that God is one and that there are three persons Who is it that dare charge these Jesuites with Equivocation I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se quoad nos viz. They acknowledg the Scripture in it self to be true and Canonicall and it is a Truth in it selfe that Christ is God but so far as concernes me I am not bound to believe either the one or other but for the Churches Testimony which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted That the Scripture in it self is no foundation of my Faith And this is the more weighty because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one mans Pen but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors each of whose works where that passage was is set forth with the approbation of severall Romish Doctors of principall note § 5. But peradventure Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant Although neither the Popes Authority nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith and the Popes Authority being asserted in and demonstrated by the Scriptures is a sure sooting for my faith To which though it might suffice to object the circle which is here most palpable
Successors And therefore it unavoydably followes either that all their Successors are infallible or that S t Peters Successor is fallible at best for any thing that appeares from this Text whether the Popes infallibility hath other foundations we shall examine in their order 8. It may be said That although this place may not seem to be cogent to one that considers it in it selfe yet if you take it according to the exposition of the Fathers it proves what it is alledged for But 1. The Fathers generally did understand this Rock to be not Peters Person but his confession or Christ as confessed by him and this you shall finde proved to have been the minde of S t Cyrill Hilary Hierom Ambrose Basil Augustine yea and the whole Councell of Chalcedon in that incomparably learned and Irreffragable Discourse of Moulins called The Novelty of Popery Lib. 2. cap. 4. 2. That the Fathers are not infallible guides of Faith and Religion I shall prove in the next Proposition 3. But howsoever They that assert the infallibility of the Fathers when they relate the Churches Judgment yet allow their Fallibility in expounding Scripture Caietan and Maldonate both acknowledge it and practise accordingly that a man may in many cases preferre a new exposition though it be repugnant to the expositions of most of the Antient Fathers And S r Kenelme Digby speaking of the infallibility of the Fathers expressely saith he understands it onely of the Traditions or Doctrines delivered by them as the Faith received from their Ancestours not of their Comments or Sermons upon Scripture which are to have no more weight then the reasons they give for them Letters between Lord Digby and S r Kenelme Digby pag. 10. § But if all these and other difficulties were cleared yet do two things remaine behind in which this Text and all others are wholly silent and for them they are forced to fly to Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers of which in the next place The first That all this Supreme Authority and infallibility which they suppose to have been in Peter was transmitted to his Successor and consequently Linus S t Peters Successor was Superiour to the Apostle and Evangelist S t Iohn which he had need have no squeamish Conscience that can digest and yet all this amounts to nothing unlesse another thing be proved viz That the Bishop of Rome is S t Peters Successor and here the scripture failes them and the Coronis or Apex of the Argument without which it is both impertinent and impotent as to the probation of the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is fetched solely from Tradition and the Testimony of the Fathers And so their Argument stands like the Angell in the Apocalypse with one foot on the Earth another on the Sea one Leg of it in Scripture the other in History an◠because conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem the conclusion cannot be de side or rather to speak the truth The whole Syllogisme is extra Scripturall The prerogative of St Peter are transmitted to S t Peters Successors Bu◠the Bishop of Rome is S Peters Successor where it appeares from what hath been said that neither propositio◠is to be proved from Scripture but wholly from Tradition and that is all at present I am concerned to make good And yet if all this were over they have not done◠Behold the misery of a desperate cause for whereas it is known and granted by the Papists that S t Peter had two Seas he was Bishop of Antioch for seven Years saith Baronius and Bishop of Rome it must be further evin◠ced That the Bishop of Antioch was excluded from and the Bishop of Rome invested with S t Peters Prerogatives And would you know the proofe of this position which is the very Foundation Stone of the Popes Supremacy You shall have the Argument in Bellarmines words 〈◊〉 had its rise à facto Petri from S t Peters fact Peter leave◠Antioch and comes to Rome and there he dies and so hi◠Holinesse got the day Here I desire the Reader to observe that all the Faith of the Romanists concerning the Popes Infallibility depends upon and is resolved into a matter of Fact and an uncertain Historicall relation 〈◊〉 Nay to speak truly there are severall matters of Fact every one of which must be solidly demonstrated before their Faith can have a firme Foundation 1. That Peter was at Rome 2. That Peter was Bishop of Rome properly so called 3. That S t Peter died at Rome 4. That it was Christs or Peters intention that Peters Successor should enjoy all his Priviledges 5. That Christ or Peter appointed his Romane not his Antiochian Successor to be this person to whom such priviledges were to be transmitted If there be a flaw in any one of these their whole cause in this point is lost And all these are matters of fact And such is the nature and uncertainty of matters of fact that the Papists confess those persons whom they suppose infallible in matters of faith are fallible in matters of fact Excepitng that modern dotage of some of the Jesuites who have lately asserted the Popes infallibility in matters of fact But that is such a piece of drollery and impudence that their own brethren who have not forsworn all modesty are ashamed of it now to assume as some of these assertions are apparently false so there are none of them but are disputable points and denied by divers learned men not without a plausible appearance of authorities and arguments And if the Jesuites opinion be true concerning the doctrine of probability that a man may satisfie his conscience and venture his salvation upon the opinions of two or three learn'd Doctors Then a Protestant may satisfy his conscience and venture his salvation upon it that all these propositions are false being denied by far more then that number of learned Doctors At least this must be granted that it renders the forementioned positions dubious and uncertain And so the Papists build their divine faith upon a dubious historicall faith yet again what if Peter dies there must the universall headship needs go to the Bishop of the place where he dies and not to another where he lived Charles the fifth was King of Spain and Emperour of Germany if he die in Spain must all the Kings of Spain be therefore Emperours of Germany Haply they will say no because the Empire is elective not hereditary and if that were granted which the Papists will never be able to prove that there was such a thing as this universall headship and that this was to continue will they pawne their soules on it for so indeed they do that this universall headship was hereditary not elective How will they prove it Christ dies at Ierusalem by this rule the Bishop of Ierusalem must be universall head Suppose the Pope should leave Rome and go to Avignon a◠once he did and settle and die there by this rule
sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith according to their Principles and that the popes pretended Infallibility hath no solid foundation there But when they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to the Fathers and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers And therefore that must be considered in the next place CHAP. III. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Fathers Prop. 3. Sect. 1. THe third Proposition then is this The Faith of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers This the rather deserves consideration because they make their great boast of it and urge it as a principall Pillar of their Faith It is asserted in their Cannon Law That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion yet they generally agree in this That the Authority of the Fathers especially where they consent is a solid Foundation for their faith to rest upon Hence those expressions of their great Doctors Take away the Authority of Fathers and Councels and all things in the Church are doubtfull and uncertaine Eccius From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities have the certainty of their assertions and Councels have their decrees Sixtus Senensis Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Romanists laies down this Conclusion That the common sence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certaine Argument to confirme Theologicall assertions For saith he the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of Gods Spirit And a little after Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophicall Conclusion yet in the exposition of Holy Scripture you are bound to believe your Ancestors though they give you no reason for it and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them of the Law of faith and of Religion And a little after All those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faith All the Fathers together do never erre nor can they agree in one error saith Bell. The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined when all or almost all do agree in one opinion saith Salmeron That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is Infallibly true saith Gregory de Valentiá from all which we plainly see that according to their opinion the judgment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith That is it which I am now to disprove and to shew That the Writings of the Fathers neither are nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith § 2. Onely let me premise two things 1. I would not be misunderstood as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiquity ability and integrity but onely to denie that pretended infallibility which none did more dislike then themselves as we shall see hereafter Let them have all the honour which is due to the most worthy men not acted by divine inspiration but let them not have that Honour which belongs to God onely and his inspired ones We grant their Testimony is highly credible especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended but seldome proved viz. an universall consent but their Authority is not infallible 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgment of the Fathers of the first 600 years or suspecting their partiality on the Popes side I know sufficiently and so may any man whom the God of this World hath not blinded that doth but read what our Learned Divines have said in this particular or with his own eyes look into the Fathers that there is is not one considerable point in controversie between us and the Romanists but if judgment were to be given by any impartiall person from the Fathers excepting those who are evidently demonstrated to be spurious Authors their mouths would presently be stopped and their cause and confidence lay'd in the dust onely because that work is so thoroughly done by others and would swell this into a voluminous bignesse I shall forbeare that and proceed to handle what I proposed and P shall prove the proposition by foure Arguments 1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Papists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture for the decision of controversies do no lesse overthrow all the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers When they attempt to disprove the Authority of the Scriptures considered in themselves these are then Arguments universally owned and urged God would not have his Church depend upon Paper-Books saith Costerus Scripture say they cannot decide controversies because it cannot summon and heare both parties it cannot compell trangressours to obedience it doth not particularly condemne Hereticks It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere Gretser you are in an errour It speaks doubtfully and men dispute about the sence of Scripture and so controversies will be endlesse Hence I thus argue Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority or they are not If they be not then the Scripture must be owned as Judge of Controversies notwithstanding all those Arguments If they be valid against the Authority of Scriptures why are they not as strong against the Authority of the Fathers Or what difference is there in this particular between the writings of the Scripture and of the Fathers Are the writings of S t Paul deaf that they cannot hear parties and dumbe that they cannot deliver sentence and can the Writings of St Austine heare and speake Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an errour And do the writings of Ierome or Ambrose say Luther you are in an error Cannot S t Paul condemne Hereticks and compell transgressors to obedience and can S t Cyprian do it What offence hath St Paul done that Peters Successors should thus degrade him sure Manet altâ mente repostum they bare him a grudge for reproving S t Peter Gal. 2. And so now they are even with him In short forasmuch as the Arguments and premises are wholly the same concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers either the authority of both of them must be receaved as Judges of Controversies or else both must be rejected For in pari causâ idem jus say the Lawyers in the same cause there is the same right Againe another of their Arguments Why the Scripture cannot of it selfe be a ground of Faith is this because without the Church we cannot know which books of Scripture are genuine and which are spurious This is the great Argument of Stapleton and all other Romish Doctors In like manner I argue the writings of the Fathers cannot in themselves be a solid ground of my faith because without the Churches judgment I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine
and which are spurious For that there are great multitude of spurious Writings masked under the names of the Fathers is acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis Bel. and others and the Fathers themselves oft complained of that practise in their daies So again Scripture is obscure and ambiguous and full of seeming contradictions and there are many disputes about the true sence and therefore it cannot be the rule of my faith say Bellarm. Becanus Costorus and the rest The same may be more justly said against the Authority of the Fathers Their obscurity and ambiguity appeares from the very same Arguments which they bring to make good their charge against the Scriptures even from the multitude of Comments which Learned men have made upon the darke passages of the Fathers in which no lesse then in S t Pauls Epistles are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things hard to be understood which men of corrupt minds wrest to their own destruction and from the great disputes which are at this day fervent in the World concerning the judgments of the Fathers and their meaning in severall passages ' about which there are as fierce contests as about any passages of the Scripture it having been truly observed by indifferent persons that both Papists and Protestants have fortified their severall and contrariant assertions with plausible allegations from the Fathers Nor are there onely seeming contradictions in the Fathers as there are in Scripture but most reall and direct ones and if it be not enough that one of them contradicts another many pregnant instances are given of the same Father in one place contradicting himselfe in another But for this and other things concerning the Fathers Authority I must refer the Reader to those Learned Authors that have exemplified this in severall Instances Once more The Scripture they say is corrupted and falsified in severall places and so unfit to be a rule And have the Fathers Works seen no corruption Yes we have it under the hands of Possevinus Sixtus Senensis Bellarm. and others who confess their hard hap in this particular and how wofully they are corrupted in multitudes of places and needs must the Fathers fare worse then the Scriptures herein because they were never preserved with that care and conscience which was exercised about the Holy Scriptures Therefore either they must quit their Arguments against the Scriptures Authority or else renounce the Authority of the Fathers which is obnoxious to the same inconveniencies §. 4 2. That the Fathers whose writings are extant for of them this proposition treats are not infallible may be undeniably evinced from the Hypothesis of our Adversaries and the supposed subject of that Infallibility which is pretended Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church say all the Papists The onely question is What this Church is Some make it the Pope others a Councell others the whole body of the faithfull but they generally agree that it must be some one or all of those But the Fathers I am here discoursing of are not one or all of these and therefore they cannot pretend to the supposed infallibility nor can the Papists by their own principles ascribe it to them to which may be added That if the Pope himselfe notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility may erre as a private Doctor either in speaking or writing which all the Papists grant how can either any or most of them who have no other capacity but that of a private Doctor be exempt from a possibility of erring And consequently the Fathers are not infallible nor a solid foundation for a Papists faith Sect. 5. Again if they will needs obtrude upon us this upstart Infallibility of particular fathers I demand whether this infallibility belongs to all the fathers that lived in one Age or only to the Writers of that Age or only to those of the Writers whose works have had better hap then others to come to our hand and whether to all them together or onely to a part of them For one of these they must unavoydably assert If they say the first that this Infallibility was in all the fathers that lived in one Age or the Major part of them as in reason they must for what Scripture or Reason had one to pretend Infallibility more then another excepting alwayes the Bishop of Room of whose Infallibility it must bee confessed there was never any quaestion namely in those dayes none had the impudence to assert it if that be granted yet those few whose writings are extant of whom alone our controversie is might all be fallible though the Major part of the Fathers be acknowledged infallible If it be said those Fathers do not onely speak their own sence but the sence of the Church of their Age and in that respect they are infallible which is the common plea and most plausible Argument they use in this point The Fathers are infallible not in their expositions but in their traditions and the Doctrines they deliver as received from their Ancestors Thus Sr Kenelm Digby White Holden and the Papists of the new Modell This I shall have occasion to handle more largely afterward At present it may suffice to answer two things 1 That it is most certain they are so far from delivering the sence of the Church of that Age in the controversies between us and the Romanists that they seldom touch upon the most of them and when they do it it is obiter and by accident not ex professo and solemnly they being then taken up with other matters as disputing against Jewes and Gentiles and the hereticks of that Age 2 However that being purely matter of fact to understand and report the History of the Churches Doctrine in their Age if they were infallible in matters of Faith yet in point of fact they were not infallible For the Pope himself is allowed to bee fallible in such matters and as it is confessed the Pope may erre through fear or hope or humane passions as Liberius Marcellinus and others did at best for a season so doubtlesse might the Fathers either through weaknesse misunderstand or through favour or prejudice misreport the sence of others of which it were easy to give many Instances If the second thing be asserted that this Infallibility belongs only to the Writers of each Age wee would desire them to set theâ—r inventions on work to devise a reason why the Writers were infallible â—and not the Preachers seeing the Apostles who had and all others that pretend to Infallibility as the Pope and Councell challenge it equally in their Sermons and Writings in their verbal and written decrees and much lesse can they with any colour assert that this Infallibility belongs only to those Writers which are come to our hands as if it were not sufficient for the rest that they lost their Writings but they must also lose their Infallibility And yet such is the impudence of these men and the desperatenesse of their cause that
should not be admitted to the vision of God before the day of judgment So much Perron confesseth and Sixtus Senensis That the Saints should raigne with Christ a thousand years that Pamelius grants In all these and severall others it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary how truly and justly I dispute not nor is it materiall to my purpose which is onely to shew how upon all occasions where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any whom they most traduce for so doing But would you know the mistery of this why The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church saith Duraeus In earnest that saying deserved a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuite seconds him in it where putting this question Whether the Authority of the Doctors Fathers ought to be admitted he answers Yes as fâ—r as the Church approves of them The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please I will adde a third that you may see it is a ruled case and that is Gresserus A Father saith he is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine but if instead of corne he give chaff or tares he is not now a Father but a step-Father not a teacher but a seducer When the Fathers say any thing which seems to countenance their positions then they are Fathers uncorrupt judges infallible interpreters and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall goe one haires breadth from them But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them and contradict his interest or opinion then it is time to take them a peg lower then they call them Fathers but make children of them They had better have held their Tongues for now all comes out and the Papists are the Chams as they call the Protestants who uncover their Fathers nakednesses Then Eusebius who when he is Orthodox in the Romane account passeth for a most famous Writer a most learned man and a Catholick with Lindanus Sixtus Senensis and others is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretick with Costerus and Baronius Then poor Tertullian who when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers with Lindanus is not so much as a man of the Church nay he is an hereticall Author an heresiarch a Montanist say Azorius and Bellarm Then Origen who when he is a good boy passeth for a witnesse beyond exception with Duraeus another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus is a meer schismatick saith Canus the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate Then Constantine himselfe that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor then Doctor saith Bellarm. Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine Nay I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages which might have been done with one Blot provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages What need I trouble my selfe and the Reader with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sence of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture and preferring new interpretations before them not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt That no man should dare to interpret Scripture against the common consent of the Fathers For which I shall onely referre the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied that this was the opinion and practise of the Learned and approved Romanists as Cajetan Pererius Maldonate and severall others § 9. In short to strike the businesse dead you shall have the positive judgment of the principall pillars of the Romish Church Sacred Doctrine saith Aquinas useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church onely as a probable Argument for our faith leanes upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets not to other Doctors The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith saith Biel It is the property of the Holy Scriptures that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius The Writings of the Fathers saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis are not a rule and have not authority to oblige me And not contented to assert he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the Fathers without and their perfect subjection to the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome The Fathers execute the office of Doctors but Counsels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God And againe The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church but all are his sonnes No wonder then that the sonnes are subject to the Father not the Fathers to the Sonnes Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out the Pope may use his Authority Really these Jesuites are most ingenious fellowes they are resolved never to be at a non-plus when they saw the Scripture was not for their turnes they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the â—athers destructive to their Hierarchy then it must be consent of the Fathers Now because they know they cannot make out the consent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith Here is a Salvo for that the Popes Authority is evident It is but saying that is a first Principle and all controversies are at an end By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fathers is neither ex veritate rei in truth nor ex opinione Pontificiorum in the judgment of the Papists a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved I shall dismisse this with two Observations 1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principall foundation of Faith viz. the Authority of the Fathers 2. I shall leave this Syllogisme taken out of their own Authors to the consideration of the prudent Reader If you take away the authority of Fathers and Councels all things in the Church are uncertaine saith Eccius as you saw before But Bâ—llarmine and
others have here taken away the Authority of the Fathers And in the next Chapter you shall see they take away the Authority of Councels Ergo There is nothing certaine in the Romish Church Thus I have shewed that the Faith of the Papists hath no sure ground or foundation in the Authority of the Pope Scriptures or Fathers Now I come to the fourth particular the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels which is the sacra anchora the principall refuge of a languishing cause CHAP. IV. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Sect. 1. LEt us therefore examine in the next place whether the Councels will stand them in better stead Whether the splendid name and Authority of the Church be a solid and sufficient foundation of Faith In order to which I shall lay down this proposition That the Authority of the Church and Councels is no sufficient foundation for a Papists faith This I shall more fully discusse because here it is that very many of the Popish Doctors do build their hopes and lay the foundation of their faith And here indeed they have greatest appearance of probability A general Councel rightly congregated cannot erre in the faith saith Alphonsus de Castro Councels represent the Catholick Church which cannot erre and therefore they cannot erre saies Eccius and Tapperus The decrees of general Councels have as much weight as the Holy Gospels saith Costerus Councels approved and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre say Canus and Bellar Councels being the highest Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories cannot erre saith â—annerus The decrees of Councels are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost saith Stapleton Surely now I may cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the ground and pillar of truth and at least spes altera Romae § 2. 1. Then I would know whence comes this Infallibility of Councels It must be from Gods promise for they do not pretend it is any natural inhaerent property of any man or men single or conjunct And this promise must be made known to us by divine Revelation i.e. either by Scripture or Tradition for other revelation they do not pretend to Thus farre they and wee are agreed Now I assume That the Infallibility of Councels is not revealed to us neither in the one nor in the other § 3. 1. Not in the Traditions of the Fathers for among all the Traditions mentioned by them you shall not find this concerning the Infallibility of Councels Nor have our Adversaries that I know of alledged one considerable antient Father asserting that such a Tradition was conveyed to them from the Apostles though there had been such a Tradition they who were so carefull to enumerate all the Traditions of far lesse consequence which pretended to an Apostolicall Original neither should nor would have omitted to acquaint the Church with so important a Tradition as this is now supposed to be And this might suffice for Answer till our Adversaries give us an instance of some such Tradition § 4. But because Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers is their chiefe Pillar of the Infallibility of Councels the wiser sort of them being sensible of the impertinency of their Scripture allegations I shall consider this a little more largely then at first I intended and shall indeavour to make good foure things which if proved will give a deadly stroke at the root of infallibility 1. If there were such a Tradition among the Fathers as is pretended it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith 2. If the antients did believe the infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition 3. It doth not appear that the Antiens did believe the Infallibility of Councels 4. It doth appeare that the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels § 5. The first proposition is this That if some of the Fathers did tell us they had such a Tradition among them as is pretended concerning the Infallibility of Councels it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith because the Fathers were subject to errours and mistakes as we have now proved and as the Papists confesse at least they might erre in matters of fact for in such things they acknowledge the Pope himselfe to be fallible And this was purely a question of fact whether such a Tradition were delivered to them And that the fathers were ofttimes deceived in the point of Traditions and in matters of fact is acknowledged by severall of the most learned Papists and Baronius gives us diverse examples of their mistakes in sundry parts of his Annals and that too amongst the first Fathers who had farre greater opportunities to know the truth then their followers and greater integrity to deliver nothing contrary to their knowledge and much more there might mistakes be committed by those that came after them If it be said That although some particular Fathers might mistake in the matters of Tradition yet the Fathers consenting therein are infallible This is already answered in the former Chapter to which I shall here adde that it is impossible for us at this distance to understand the consent of the Fathers e.g. of the first or second Age there being such a small and inconsiderable remnant left of them like two or three planks after a common shipwrack Gregory de Valentia confesseth even of the Doctours of the age we live in that it seldome happens that we can sufficiently understand the opinion of all the Doctors that live in one Age How much more hard nay impossible must it needs be to understand the minde of that Age which is gone 1500 years agoe And Melchior Canus confesseth That the Authority of most of the Holy Fathers if a few did contradict them will not afford a Divine a solid Argument So that if such a tradition had been delivered by some yea the major part of the Fathers if some others though fewer had contradicted it Faith hath lost its foundation and this might be done and such things in all probability were oft done though no footsteps of it are come to the memory of Posterity As Austin speaks of Cyprian when he was pressed with his Authority he answers Happily he did recant though we know it not For neither were all things doneâ—among the Bishops at that time committed to writing nor do we know all things that were committed to Writing And if this was considerable in Austins dayes who lived within two hundred years of those times how much more weighty must it be to us that come twelve hundred years after him Now then to put a case because this consideration shakes the very pillars of Popery and overthrowes almost all their pretensions from Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers Suppose the Major part of the Antient Fathers had said in terminis that the Bishop of Rome was supreme head and infallible governour of the Church though
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
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
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
though it be easy in this and all other resemblances to devise several dissimilitudes and disproportions yet in the maine there is an agreement That the carelesnesse of posterity may blast the most powerful and important Traditions If it be further pretended that there is a disparity because God hath promised his Spirit to guide the Christians into truth and to preserve them from mistake I shall only say two things having fully answered this before 1. Whatever promise or priviledge of the Spirit is made to Christians surely it is a most absurd and unreasonable thing to pretend the donation of this priviledge and the performance of this promise unto such as we have now described concerning whom the Scripture expresly tels us that they are sensual not having the spirit Jud. v. 19. and they cannot receive the spirit of God Joh. 14.17 Where the Spirit of God is it brings light with it it turns men from darknesse into a marvelous light it rowseth men out of the sleep of carelesnesse and makes them give all diligence to make their calling and election sure And therefore where ignorance and profanesse are allowed and predominant as apparently they were in this age we may safely say such have not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them for where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty especially that which is the principal part of it a liberty from the bondage of sin and Satan by whom that age was so wofully captivated that we need not many arguments to shew that they were not influenced by God's Spirit but acted by the rulers of the darkness of this world the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience 2. This is impertinent to the present argument which is drawn not from the efficacy of a divine promise but from the nature of the thing and the common prudence of men and that natural principle of self-preservation as you will plainly see if you look back upon Mr. White 's words This argument proceeds as if it were morally impossible for men wilfully to deceive themselves and their posterity which is not from the influence of a divine promise but from an instinct of nature and so this evasion is insufficient To return therefore having removed this rub out of the way and to make good what I have said concerning the carelesnesse and wickednesse of the age that this disease had overspread the whole body Civil and Ecclesiastical the Pope himself not excepted you shall hear from the approved Authors of the Romish Church Platina cals several of those Pope's Monstra portenta hominū monsters of men Iohn the 11 th is called by Cardinal Baronius one who we may be sure would do the Popes no wrong and the Protestants no right rather a defiler then ruler of the Romane seat They were prodigious Popes saith Genebrardus Pope Sergius saith Baronius was a slave of all vices and the wickedest of men And of Iohn the 10 th he saith Then whom none was more filthy And such characters they give to diverse of the Popes of that age and these are the supreme Heads of the Church the prime subjects and fountains of Infallibility And conformable to the head were the generality of the members of that politick body the ministers and governours as well as the people of that age as you heard acknowledged by their own most approved Authors Now compare this with their argument for Tradition and you will be able to judg of the solidity of it The two Pillars upon which the infallibility of the argument from Tradition is built are these I shall give you them in the words of Rushworth in his applauded Dialogues 3. § 15.1 It was no hard matter for the Church to conserve the truth of her doctrine if she were carefull which histories plainly bear witnesse she was 2. That nature forceth men to have care of Religion and therefore it was impossible any error should creep into the Church And elsewhere saith he Nature permits not men to be sleepy in Religion § 8. To which discourse I reply three things which plainly evince the folly of this opinion 1. That the infallibility of Tradition by these arguments depends upon the faith of some few Historians whom all confesse to be fallible which is a contradiction 2. That the supposed carefulness upon which the infallibility of Tradition depends being the effect of thatnature which is equally in all men if it make any person or Councel infallible it must make every particular Church nay every Christian infallible at least such ashave common konwledge and prudence in them 3. Observe the impudence of this sort of men that dare avouch those Histories for witnesses of the Churches care which have so expresly and unanimously recorded her carelesnesse both in this and other ages See ch 4. § 19. 3. There is another thing very considerable in this matter viz. There was a great scarcity of writers which cuts the sinews of that grand objection which they urge in all their Treatises That there could be no change in doctrine without schism and a notorious tumult as White saith and they prove there was no change because we cannot shew the Authors times and places of them As if one that had got the plague might say he is free from it because he knows not how nor where nor from whom he got it Now here appears the unreasonableness of their demand and the absurdity of their argument how can it be expected that we should give an account of all the occurrences and mutations of that age when they confesse so few books were written and those that were were written by such as were either wholly or in part leavened with the corruption of the time and therefore for their own honour obliged to conceal all such changes and defections as themselves had an hand in And if any reputed Heretick durst venture to betray any of the secrets of the mystery of Iniquity which was then working his book was presently suppressed and he and it both confuted by an argument fetched out of the fire or rather thrown into it So the Papists do by us as if a man should blow out all the Lights and then blame me for not finding what I was making inquest after or as if one should burn my principal evidences and then charge me that I cannot make out my Title And yet notwithstanding all the frauds and force of the Romish Sea God hath not left his Truth without witnesse nor us without notable testimonies even from among themselves of the successive depravations and corruptions in religion by them foisted into the Church but that hath been fully proved by others and therefore I shall say nothing of it I shall adde onely this that although I have instanced but in one age yet indeed there were several other ages overspread with the same deluge of ignorance and carelesnesse and loosnesse and consequently lyable to the same mistakes such
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
White 's mind Did not the Apostles decide that controversie Act. 15. from antient Scriptures and from such places as seem as irrelative to the matter debated as any which are urged by any considerable Protestant against the Popish errors And why then may not we tread in their steps why may not a Protestant as well confute the opinion of Justification by works in the Popish sense from that Scripture we conclude we are justified by Faith without the works of the Law as S. Paul might and did confute the same doctrine when held by the Jews from that passage of Davids Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven Rom. 4 If these words long before delivered Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Deut. 6.13 were sufficient to decide the controversy between Christ and the Devil to confute the opinion of Devil-worship why may not the same words as urged by Christ be as sufficient to decide the controversy between the Papists and us to confute the opinion of Image-worship But I am not at leisure to transcribe all the New Testament I cannot think of Mr. White as it is said of many Popish Doctors that he never read over the Bible but I would desire him once more to read it and to put on his Spectacles and then tell me if he be still of the same mind If this will not do let him reflect upon the Fathers whether it was not the universal practice of the Fathers to confute later Heresies out of the Scripture this they did either pertinently or solidly and then it may be done still or impertinently and fallaciously and then Mr. White makes them meer Juglers In a word as upon supposition that Aristotle was authentick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it were no hard matter out of him to confute all the new opinions of the Modern Philosophers So the Scriptures being confessedly such it may suffice for the confutation of later Heresies Lastly if all this will not serve turn it is to use his own words a shameless proposition to say the Scripture doth not speak of the matters now in controversy between us and the Papists and whoever asserts it either understands not what he saith or must be presumed never to have read any of our Protestant Controvertists who have fully confuted all the Popish errors and heresies from express Scriptures or which is all one from genuine consequences evidently deduced from them Nor doth it matter at all to say the Scripture treats not of the controversies at large since it is by all acknowledged that every part and parcel of Scripture is Canonical and Authentical and the Papists make this the difference between the Divinity of the Scriptures and Conciliary Decrees That these are Divine in the main Conclusion but not in the premises or mediums but the Scripture they say is Divine in all every verse every word being Divine and consequently if but one verse of Scripture speak against an error it doth as solidly though not so fully confute that error as if a whole Book were written against it For instance that Text This is the true God if the sense of the words be agreed and if they be not it would do nothing though an whole Epistle were written about it and so far there is no difference doth as substantially confute the Socinian Heresy in that point as a larger Discourse upon it would do and therefore Mr. White 's argument is empty and inffectual and must go after its fellows And so all their arguments of any note against the Scriptures being Rule or Judge of controversies are I hope sufficiently answered and the Protestant doctrine or Truth of Christ viz. The Scripture is a sufficient rule or judge of controversies stands-like a Rock at which their Waves are dashed in pieces And now I should come to the other part by positive Scriptures and arguments to prove the Scriptures authority and sufficiency but this is fully done by many learned pens onely because our principal arguments for it are assaulted by the Adversaries I now have to do with I shall therefore consider their pretensions against the evidence of those places alledged by us in defence of the authority and sufficiency of their Scriptures for I am forced by them against my own desire and inclination to confound found these two heads and treat of them together I know there are several Texts rightly urged by the Protestants and vainly cavilled by the Papists but because the handling of this point was not my first nor is my main design at present and one solid argument or convincing Scripture is as good as a thousand and both parties are upon the matter willing their cause should stand or fall by the verdict of one place as it doth or doth not convincingly prove the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures and because above all places the Romanists most eagerly combate this I shall therefore more largely insist upon it and clear up the force and evidence of it notwithstanding all the clouds they cast before it The place is 2 Tim. 3.15 16. From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Iesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to all good works To ingenuous and dis-interested persons the very reading of these words is a sufficient confutation of the Popish opinion but that you may see the Romanists have if no conscience yet some wit they are able to darken the clearest Texts and to perplex what they cannot answer Our arguments from this place are plain and cogent 1. That which can make a man wise unto Salvation is sufficient for Salvation 2. That which is sufficient for the conferring of all those things which are necessary to salvation is sufficient for salvation but so is the Scripture For there are but two things necessary to salvation viz. knowledg of the Truth and practice of righteousness and holiness and for both these the Scripture is said to be sufficient 3. That which is sufficient for a man of God or Minister is much more sufficient for a private Christian but so is the Scripture Ergo. But let us see what our Adversaries pretend against this evident place Excep 1 It is able indeed but that is through faith E. it is not of it self sufficient saith our Captain It speaks not of making Timothy a Christian by the Bible since it supposeth Timothy's being already made a Christian by Paul's institutions vivâ voce but it speaks of the perfecting of his faith not the first choice of it and this faith is a belief of Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition saith Mr. Cressy sect 2. cap. 6. And consonantly to him Mr. White thus glosseth upon the place The Scriptures will contribute to thy salvation
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
attain that end and be unconvincing nay more Scripture is not profitable for doctrine if it onely beget conjectures and opinions and doth not give solid and satisfying evidence of its doctrines and if it do evidently assert or prove a Truth it must by consequence as evidently convince and consute the contrary error For example if any Scripture positively assert that Christ is the true God and equal with the Father as de facto it doth doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Hereticks who make Christ but a Creature and inferior to the Father Neither let him tell me of their cavils against such places for so Anaxagoras did cavill against those that said Snow was white and gave a reason for it saith Tully because the water of which it had its rise was black yet no man I think will deny that there is convincing evidence even in foro contentioso of its whitenesse 3. The Scripture was convincing formerly and therefore it is so still for I do not know that it hath lost any of its vertue Christ proved himself to be the Messias out of the Scriptures in sundry places and I think Mr. White will not deny that all Christ's arguments were convincing So Christ proves his Lordship and Divinity out of the Scriptures and I think convincingly for his Adversaries were not able to answer him a word out of the Psalmes Read Mat. 22.42 c. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jewes out of the Scripture and proved as they did out of the scriptures that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ I would know whether their scripture-proofs were solid and convincing or no if they deny it they make the Apostles deceivers and wresters of the scriptures if they affirm then scripture is convincing Once more we read Act. 18.28 of Apollos that he mightily convinced the Jewes shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. I am ashamed to mention more arguments in so clear a cause and yet we must believe these men against our senses and reason and conscience that the scriptures are not able to convince men in foro contentioso and Mr. VVhite who sometimes writes as if he believed an everlasting state dares hazard it upon such false and frivolous suppositions Excep 4. This word All Scripture must signify either every Scripture as the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred and then all Scripture save one Book is uselesse or all the Scriptures that ever were and then we have them not or all that were then written and then all since written are superfluous or all that we now have Epist. pag. 29.30 Ans. The Text speaks not of every scripture but of all the scriptures that then were As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two things are evident enough 1. That it may be taken collectively and the use of the word will warrant it I see the Captain is grown a Graecian therefore I shall desire him to look onely into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectivè not distributivè Mat. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole herd not every herd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole city v. 34. 2. That it must be so taken here our Adversaries being judges for else this confessed inconvenience will follow That any one verse of the Scripture is profitable and sufficient to all these purposes nor doth it at all follow that all the rest are superfluous because not precisely necessary The Pentateuch alone was a sufficient law for the Jewes yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous Excep 5. He sayes not the Scriptures are sufficient but onely profitable Cressy Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every good work and what is so is undoubtedly sufficient 2. He saith they are profitable so far as to make one wise to salvation and I think that is sufficient 3. He saith they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation which are acknowledged to be onely two Faith and Life and they are profitable to both of them 1 for doctrine i. the demonstration of the Truth 2. for conviction or reproof i.e. the consutation of errors 3. for correction i.e. the reproof of sins 4. for instruction in righteousnesse or the discovery of Duties And what is thus every way profitable cannot with any colour be charged with insufficiency Excep 6. It is a clear case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and applyed by a Preacher Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various elogiums which are here so emphatically given to all the Scripture do as truly belong to any one verse of Scripture By this those two words Dic Ecclesiae Tell the Church are able to make one wise to salvation and furnished to every good work c. for so they are or may be through God's blessing if explicated and applied by an able preacher So those words Abraham beg at Isa ac are able to all these mentioned purposes viz. if explicated and applyed So you see the Church of Rome is grown superlatively orthodox for they who ere while would not allow all the Scripture to be sufficient are now so abundantly satisfied in the point that they allow any one verse in the Bible not excluding Tobit went and his dog followed him to be sufficient This I hope may suffice for the vindication of this Text wherein I have been the larger because it is most plain and impregnable to our purpose and sufficient of it self to decide the whole controversy I shall not concern my selfe or trouble the Reader with the vindication of other Texts to the same purpose which are many and considerable and with great facility defensible against all the Romish assaults because to him that submits to the authority and self-evidencing light of this Text that labour is superfluous and to him whose Conscience will suffer his wit to quarrel against such forcible and clear expressions and arguments as this Teâ—t affords it is frustraneous And therefore upon the evidence that hath been delivered I shall take the boldnesse to conclude That not the Church but the Scripture is the sufficient Rule and Infallible Guide by which we are to be regulated in all things pertaining to Faith or Godlinesse FINIS Doctor Jesuita Ad quem peâ—â—inet de libris Canonicis Determinare Catholicus Papista Ad â—cclâ—siam sine cuâ—us authoritate non plus fidci aâ—hiberem Maâ—thaeo quam Tito Livio par 1 â—â— 12. (b) Poâ—uit illud pio sensu dici Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. (c) Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem nullum pondus nullam vim erga nos nostram fidem nisi
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
the Bishop of Avignon must succeed in the universall headshipâ— But I need say no more of so absurd a fancy Sect. 10. A second place of scripture is Ioh. 21. Peteâ— feed my sheep And this feeding must denote ruling as welâ— as teaching and this rule forsooth must needs be the supreme power and that power must bee attended withâ— infallibility and these sheep must be all the sheep in the world nay shephards too exceept the Pan or princepâ— pastorum at Rome Tantae molis erat Romanum conderâ— papam And this rope of sand must be called an argument by which one may see the intollerable confidence they have in themselves and their shamelesse contempt of the Readers whom they think obliged to receive all their dictates without enquiry I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome knew what they did when they invented the doctrine of an implicit faith and a blind obedience to all the Churches decrees for if men should once dare to open their eyes and examine their assertions all their craft would be in danger to be set at nought and the Temple of Dominus Deus noster papa as the Canon Law calls him would be despised and his magnificence would be destroyed whom so great a part of the world worshippeth But if indeed they will by Transubstantiation turn this handfull of straw into a pillar of their Church as I cannot blame one near drowning for catching at every twig then I shall offer these things to their consideration 1 That Bellarmine as his manner is bestowes seaven arguments to prove that which none ever denied that those words were spoken to Peter alone and neglects that which he should have disproved viz. the reason thereof given by Aug. Cyril Ambrose and others and after them the Protestants which was not the collation of a new dignity superior to that of the other Apostles but his restoration to his former dignity of the Apostleship from which by his great transgression he might seem to have fallen as Iudas really did fall by his Transgression Act. 1. 2. If this Text afford them any support they must have it either from the Act or the word Feed or from the object or phrase my sheep For the first By what Arts can the Supremacy of the Pope he drawn from that word or precept This feeding in the judgment of the Romanists themselves implies nothing but teaching and ruling and both those are ascribed to all the Apostles without any discrimination Mat. 28.19 20. Mat. 18. Iohn 20. And Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that not onely the power of Rule but the supreme power was conferred upon all the Apostles Nay they are ascribed to inferiour Ministers Heb. 13. Obey them that have the rule over you and 1 Tim. 5.17 The elders that rule well and to such the very same Precept is given 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders I exhort Feed the flock of God which is among you Doth Feeding in one place argue superiority and in another place imply subjection or rather in both places it seemes it signifies what the Pope pleaseth But you must know the Romish Doctors having called â—he Scripture a Lesbian Rule and a Nose of Wax they were bound in honour aut invenire aut facere either to finde it so or to make it such if it be said their charge 〈◊〉 limited to the Flock of God among them whereas Peters extends to all the sheep the Answer is easie if that â—e granted for then the difference doth not lie in the act of Feeding but in the object of which I now come to speak that is the second thing the phrase my sheep Granting therefore what Bellar. desires that he speaks of all the sheep yet herein S t Peter had no prerogative above the other Apostles who are equally commanded to teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19 to preach the Gospell to every Creature Mar. 16.15 And Peters Diocess surely cannot be larger unlesse happily Utopia be taken in or that which is in the same part of the world I meane Purgatory But you will say surely they have somewhat else to plead for themselves from this Text Why yes These good masters of the feast have reserved the best Wine to the last Here comes in a rare notion not fit to be prostituted to vulgar apprehensions you shall heare it upon condition you will not put them to the proofe of it which they are not bound to do for nemâ— tenetur aâ— impossibilia No man is obliged to do more then is in his power Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary Pastour the rest as extraordinary Ambassadors and with a certaine subjection to Peter If you ask doth this Text say so or any other Text or is there one syllable from whence this may be deduced you must remember the condition which I told you And what if this be granted how comes the ordinary power to be greater and higher then the extraordinary In the Old Testament generally the extraordinary officers the Prophets whom God raised were superior to the Priests And in the New Testament the Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary officers were superior to Pastors and Teachers which are the ordinary How come the Tables to be turned and the ordinary agent to be advanced above the extraordinary Ambassadors And what if all this be granted it edifies nothing unlesse two things be superadded of both which the Scripture is wholly silent and their proof failes them 1. They must prove that this power of feeding is transmitted to Peters Successors in a more peculiar manner then to the Successors of the other Apostles and that whatever power Peter had is deposited in their hand 2. That the Pope is this Successor to whom these things are concredited And these they do not pretend to prove from Scripture So that still the conclusion remaines intire That the Scripture is not to the Papists a solid and sure ground of Faith § 11. A third place alwaies in their mouths is Luke 22.31 Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith faile not A man would not believe if he did not see it with his own eyes that such Learned men as diverse of the Papists are should put any confidence in such broken reeds and shatter'd Arguments as this is Truely saith a learned man Hoc non est disputare sed somniare This is rather a dreame then an Argument What thoughts the Papists have of our English Sectaries is sufficiently known but I must needs do them this right to professe I do not know that Sect among us the Quakers excepted so absurd and impertinent in the all gations of Scripture for their most irrationall opinions as in sundry particulars and this especially the Papists are But because they shall not complaine of us as we do justly of them that we rather condemne them then confute them I shall shew the ridiculousnesse of this allegation to their purpose 1.
their consciences to the Pope's ambition and for them it is too much § 7. The fourth and last argument is this The Papists themselves whatever sometimes they pretend yet indeed do not make the Fathers the ground foundation of their Faith but acknowledg them fallible 1. This appears from what hath already been discoursed concerning their avowed Doctrine That Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church and consequently belongs not to the Fathers in their single capacities 2. It appears from the acknowledged novelty of several Romish doctrines which their most learned men confess cannot be proved from the Fathers Such are 1. The doctrine of forbidding the reading of the Scripture to Lay-men as they are called We confess in their dayes viz. of â—erome and Augustine Lay-men were conversant in the reading of the Scripture saith Azorius And whereas many Popish Authors expound those words Ioh. 5 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indicatively as if they did only acquaint us with the practice of the Jewes and not containe a command of Christ to his hearers to read the Scriptures Tolet and Maldonaete both witnesse that Chrysostome Theophylact and Augustine and all weighty authors except Cyrill do understand it imperatively for a command of Christ. 2 They acknowledg the novelty of Transubstantiation The words of Scotus are these Before the Lateran Councell the doctrine of Transubstantiation was no point of faith and the first Laeteran Councel was above 1100 years after Christ's birth And Alphonsus de Castro delivers this memorable assertion Many things are known to later Authors which the Antient writers were wholly ignorant of for these seldome make any mention of Transubstantiation 3 The doctrine of Indulgencies and Purgatory I joyn them both together as being neer of kin of which Bishop Fisher hath this remarkable passage No orthodox Christian now doubts whether there be a Purgatory though the Antients seldome or never mentioned it And a little after Considering that Purgatory was for a good while unknown and again seeing then Purgatory was known and received in the Church so lately who can wonder that Indulgencies were not used in the primitive Church So Gabriel Bi el Before the times of St. Gregory that was 600 years after Christ there was little or no use of Indulgencies but now they are used frequently because the Church without doubt hath the spirit of Christ and therefore cannot erre That sine dubio did his worke for I was about to dispute against his assertion but that phrase quite took away my courage You see it is a courtesy that the Papists will condescend to prove their doctrine from Scripture and Fathers whereas if they would stand upon their termes they might argue thus The conclusion without doubt is true that the Church cannot erre therefore a fig for the premises So Durandus Concerning Indulgencies little can be said with any certainty because the Scripture speaks not expresly of them and the holy Fathers Aug Ambrose Hilary Ierome do not at all mention them And Cajetan expresly No sacred Scripture no authority of antient Fathers either Greek or Latine hath brought the rise of Indulgencies to our knowledge And yet if you please to believe it this and all the doctrines of the Romish Church are no other then such as have been handed to them from the Apostles by all the antient Fathers in an uninterrupted succession I believe I could instance in twenty several Articles of the Romish Church for which they have no colour of authority from any of the Fathers But this may suffice for a Specimen of that respect which the Papists have for the Fathers when they do not comply with their humors The Fathers were so ignorant for a thousand years together that they did not understand or so negligent that they did not instruct their people in that great mystery of Transubstantiation then which none was more necessary to be taught because none more difficult to believe The Fathers were so hard-hearted and cruel that they would suffer souls to fry in Purgatory for hundreds of years together whom they might have certainly released by the help of Indulgencies The Fathers were so indiscreet that they allowed their hearers to read the Scriptures and have them in a vulgar tongue But now it is not fit to be granted saith Sixtus Sinensis The Church of Rome hath got a monopoly of all knowledg fidelity tender-heartedness which you will wonder at discretion and all good qualities and Infallibility into the bargain This is the excellency of the Romish faith that it is calculated for any Meridian Are any of their doctrines seemingly favoured by the Fathers why then you shall have large Harangues concerning the authority of the Fathers and their adherence to them Are there any of their points wherein the Fathers are either silent of opponent why they are furnished with another strain that the Fathers were but private Doctors and had their failings The chief of the Fathers had their falls saith Bellarmine In the books of the Antients which the Church reads as authentick sometimes are found wicked and heretical passages saith Sixtus Sinensis And so long as the Church of Rome reserves to her self alwayes a liberty of determining what passages are wicked and heretical I trow she is out of Gun-shot I do not value Origens judgment saith Pererius And that you may see the Papists do insanire cum ratione I pray you take notice that what they want in conscience and honest dealing they make up in wit and therefore have devised several ingenuous shifts whereby they can elude the most pregnant testimonies of the Fathers levied against them Sometimes they answer that the Fathers speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to the present Adversary they were disputing with not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as laying down their own positive opinion thus Perron and Sixtus Senensis Sometimes they say the Fathers speak declamatorio more by perbolically and by excess thus Sixtus Senensis answers our allegations from the Fathers for reading the Scripture Thus Petavius answers a clear passage of Chrysostomes against Auricular Confession At other times they tell us the Fathers did not alwaies speak what they thought but what they saw necessary to confute their Adversaries thus Perron answers the citations from the Fathers against creature-worship If you alledge the Epistles of the Fathers they tell you the Fathers did not use fully to open their minds in those writings So Perron answers a Testimony of Austins against Transubstantiation Sometimes they plead that the Fathers speak the opinion of others not their own as Bellarmine answers a place out of Hierom. If you bring any passage out of their Poems they say the Fathers did use Poetical liberty as Bellarmine answers to Prudentius So just was the judgment of the University of Doway upon Bertram's Book of the body and
bloud of Christ Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers and extenuate and excuse them and oft times by some divised fiction we deny and put a convenient sense upon them when they are opposed against us in disputations with our adversaries we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity and diligent recognition And thus they deale with the Fathers when they displease their humor and oppose their doctrines But if the Fathers deliver any thing that seems to countenance their conceits then every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical and every word an argument then the Fathers have done playing and quibling then they have opened their minds fully and given us their most serious and last thoughts § 8. And lest you should think it was only the opinions of several Fathers which they despised I shall acquaint you with their practice in case of consent of the Fathers or the major part of them That the Angels were corporeal was the opinion of most of the Fathers saith Pererius For this opinion Sixtus Senensis reckons up Origen Lactant Athenas Methodius Hilarius Damascinus Cassianus and the secound Councel of Nice to whom Maldonat addes as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexan Theodoret Tertullian Ambrose Augustine c. such a Constellation one shall seldome find in any controverted opinion Yet hear what Senensis saith I think the contrary opinion is the trust If a Protestant had said as much what tumults and tragedies would it have raised in the Romane Court how would all the world have rung with it So again that I may further lay open this Romish imposture I shall represent to the reader's consideration that controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin what is the common and current doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day is sufficiently known from the decree of the Councel of Trent concerning Original sin in which decree they expresly tell us they would not have her included and from the severe constitutions of Sixtus the fourth and Paul the fifth and Gregory the fifteenth Popes against those that should presume to teach this Doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin and from the practice of divers Popish Universities who have not only received the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin but bind their members by solemn oath to own it and from the writings of multitudes of the most eminent Popish writers who positively assert it as Delrio Henriquez Azâ—rius Suarez Vasquez Salmeron Acosta Abulensis Canus Navarrus and a world of others Now let us see whether in this point they made the consent of Fathers their rule or which is equivalent what was the judgment of the antient Fathers therein which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves then which they cannot desire a fairer tryal Hear Canus All the antients that make any mention of this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as Ambrose Aug Chrys c. and none of them contradicted that assertion and then he addes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Romish opinion That the argument from authority is weak and the contrary doctrine is probably and piously defended in the Church of Rome And he confesseth he knew no other way to confute this argument of Erasmus against the authority of the Fathers then by saying the opinion was not de fide or no matter of faith A remedy as bad as the disease 1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine is not de fide till the Pope or Councell have determined it from whence would follow amongst many other grosse absurdities 1. That it was not de fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias no Councell having determined it 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not de fide before the Councell of Nice 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Councell revealing it in their Decrees But I need say no more of this because it is rejected by diverse of their own most Learned Authors It is the common opinion of Doctors that a Councell doth not make a thing to be of Faith but denies or declares that such a thing is or formerly was de fide as the Holy Fathers abundantly confirme saith White 2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine For the Councell of Basil had positively defined and determined it as pious and agreeable to Faith reason and Scripture to be embraced by all Catholicks and that it should be lawfull to no man to teach the contrary This put S Clara so hard to it that he is forced to this horrible shift that they onely defined it tanquam piam consonam fidei Now the termes tanquam consonam are termes of diminution But to returne Salmeron treating of this point tels us that his Adversaries reckon 200 others 300 Fathers against his and the Romish Doctrine of the immaculate conception Well what is his Answer Really it is so full of Heresy that I fear they will chide me for translating it he tels you The Argument from Authority is weak I Answer saith he from Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not speak in a cause to incline after many to wrest judgment as Augustine answered the Donatists it was a signe that a cause wanted truth which leaned upon Authority That the younger Doctors see further then the antients that is to say the Romish Doctors are wiser then the Antient Fathers I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors the next time the purging humour takes them they richly deserve a roome in the Iudex expurgatorius And yet these are the onely adorers of the Antient Fathers that tell you We do not receive part of the Doctrine of the Fathers and reject part but we embrace it all saith Duraeus We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian These are they that hold the Fathers to be uncorrupted judges of Controversies whom God would not suffer to fall into error and lead others into it saith Costerus Will you see more of this mistery of iniquity I shall onely name the rest Diverse Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the generall opinion of the Fathers That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought to be given to Infants So Maldonate The Opinion of S t Augustine and Innocent the first a Pope and therefore his opinion infallibly true flourished in the Church for 600 years that the Eucharist was necessary to Infants That the Lords Supper should be receaved by the people in both kinds For the Councell of Constance in that very place where it takes away one kind the Cup do acknowledge that the use of both kinds by the people was instituted by Christ and enjoyed by the people in the antient Church That the Saints departed
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
That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels which is common to those that deny their Infallibility but the calâ—ing of those Hereticks who do not acquiesse in the sentence of Councels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Councels for the Protestants themselves have branded and censured and sometimes put to death as Hereticks such men as in fundamentall points of Religion have receded from their publick Confessors of Faith and the decrees of their Synods without ever pretending to Infallibility But that I may improve the Cardinals Argument for him to the highest Put case the Fathers had said that men were bound to believe all the assertions of their generall Councell yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible I prove it plainly thus The Papists maintaine that people are bound to believe their Pastours and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or haesitation according to that which Stapleton so largely and frequently defends That Pastours are simply to be heard in all things and yet they do not hold these Pastours to be Infallible So they tell us by vertue of that Text Mat. 23. 2. The Jewes were bound to believe all the Doctrines publikely taught by the Scribes and Pharisees and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharisees of whom that Text speaks were infallible And the Fathers might justly say all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Councels which then were past not that they thought Councels were Infallible but because they judged all their decrees true and consonant to the Scripture otherwise how little they valued the decrees of Councels when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be sufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Councels 3. There is in this argument the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or error which was through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Fathers pretended in this cause viz. they argue from the authority of Councels to their infallibility and how invalid the consequence is appears from this undeniable argument Masters Magistrates Parents Bishops and Provincial Councels have Authority but not Infallibility If all that the Fathers say to that purpose were put upon the rack it would prove nothing but this that they thought what the Protestants grant that general Councels were the supreme judicatories of the Church from which was no appeal and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquesce but that doth not infer Infallibility as we have seen § 9. Bellarmine's third argument is this The Fathers teach that the Decrees of general Councels are Divine and from the Spirit of God from whâ—nce follows that they were not subject to error And this he confirms by the testimony of Constantine who now he is orthodox is grown considerable though when he was alledged against him he was a greater Prince then Doctor as we heard even now Greg. Nazianz. Cyrill and Leo who call the decrees of the Councel of Nice divine and say they were ordered by the Spirit of God and so say I too And it is true of all the decrees of all Councels nay of all the Sermons of Ministers which are collected from Scripture and conformable to it such as the Nicene Decrees were that they are divine Oracles But then their Divinity and that which is the consequent of Divinity Infallibility ariseth not from the Authority decreeing them which being but humane could not make the decrees divine but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture as Bellarmine confesseth and therefore divine But if Bellar thinks from this particular case to draw a general conclusion I must make bold to stop him in his careere till he hath told me whither he think this argument solid The Fathers held the decrees of the Councel of Nice to be divine and say it were infallibly true Therefore they thought the decrees of all Councels divine and infallible and consequently the Anti-Nicene and Arrian Councels If he can disgest this I will say he hath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad § 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Cardinal and come to the Fryar S. Clara who being an ingenuous person and coming last hath doubtlesse selected the best weapons and his great argument I find to be this That the Fathers did generally own the Infallibility of the Catholick Church and consequently the Infallibility of general Councels which are the same with the Church and their definitions are the determinations of the Church this he largely prosecutes cap. 20 21 22. For Answer let me premise what I have proved that if this were the opinion of the Fathers yet seeing that they confesse themselves to be men subject to like passions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin Neither do you think that because we are Bishops we are not liable to irregular motions but rather let us conceive that we live dangerously amongst the snares of temptations because we are men And seeing the Papists confesse they have erred in many things therefore this if it were true will afford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith but I shall forgive them that infirmity The argument however he glories much in it hath nothing sound from head to foot how can they expect this argument should prevaile with us when it is rejected by themselves who deny the consequence from the Infallibility of the Church unto that of Councels So doth Camâ—racensis as S. Clara notes in these words A general Councel may erre in the faith because if it should erre yet it would remaine that others without the Councel did not erre and by consequence that the faith of the Church did not faile The like saith Panormitanus A Councel may erre as it hath errâ—d nor doth this hinder it that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre because although a general Councel represent the whole Church yet in truth it is not the whole Church All the faithful do constitute that Church whose head and husband Christ is and that is the Church which cannot erre The very same thing and almost in the same words saith Antonius where he adds an instance That the saying of Ierome was preferred before the decree of a Councel Thus you see the consequence is denied by three famous Authors of their own Nay what say you if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence I am greatly mistaken if it doth not follow from hence that he makes Gouncels infallible no further then they are afterwards received and owned by the Church and allowes them to be fallible where that reception doth not follow as we shall see hereafter and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholick Church not in the Councel and consequently the Church may be infallible and yet the Councel remain fallible as those Papists that assert Councels to have their
given c. And a little after he would have yielded to a general Councel if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced and declared and confirmed by a general Councel And he gives the reason of his yielding Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the truth much more to a general Councel In all which it is plain that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Councel but the clearness of the truth and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in St. Austin's judgment 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence that St. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture by which it is distinguished from and advanced above all the opinions decrees or writings of all Bishops in or out of Councels that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it The words are express and brought in with a Quis nesciat Who knowes not that the holy Scripture is so preferred before all the letters of after-Bishops that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Councels if they swerve from the truth and Provincial Councels must yeild to General Councels and former general Councels are oft corrected by the latter where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial and thence to General Councels but all of them are in this respect postposed to the Scripture that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees and where they swerve from the truth reject it And nothing more evinceth the strength of this argument then the silliness of our Adversaries evasions He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony not of Faith saith Bellarmine and Stapleton whereas the question there disputed was whether persons Baptized by Hereticks should be rebaptized which the Fathers formerly made and the Papists now make a question of Faith But by emendantur saith Stapleton he means perfectiùs explicantur If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is so taken you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus that if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faith which diverse Papists professe they may much more may they devise new significations of words But I would know of these Doctors what they would think or at least what discreet and sober men would think of that Author that should say Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apostolis emendantur and yet if Stapletons Lexicon may be used it were an harmlesse expression But if these men will give St. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words he hath sufficiently open'd his mind by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions and by speaking of such an Emendation as follows after or is conjoyned with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Councel This may serve for the third Proposition § 12. And here I might give my self a supersedeas having shewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers but ex abundantis I shall adde the fourth Proposition which is this That it doth appear the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels The former proposition shewed that they could not prove their Assertion and this I hope will disprove it But because what hath been already said may serve for that end also I shall be the briefer in this and shall only mention three arguments to prove it 1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so did the Fathers Ergo. The Major is evident from hence because one infallible Authority is sufficient and the addition of another though it may tend ad melius esse yet it cannot be necessary ad esse for then the former were not sufficient And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Councels do professe eo nomine that Scripture-proof is not necessary and that the Churches authority without Scripture evidence is sufficient When Whitaker urged the necessity of Scripture-proof to shew the Church for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church Stapleton roundly answers That such proof is not necessary to a Christian man and a Believer For the Minor That the Fathers did judge Scripture proof necessary hath been already shew'd and will hereafter be made good and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it 2 They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men since the Apostles say do not believe the Infallibility of Councels but so do the Fathers The major is evident from the confession and practice of our Adversaries who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels do injoyn the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination A Christian ought to receive the Churches doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine The Minor hath been proved from the expresse words of the Fathers 3. They that derogate Faith from all men without exception beside the Apostles do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so do the Fathers Ergo. The Major needs no proof for the Councels are made up of men and such too as are confessed to be each of them fallible Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasme or immediate revelation The Minor also hath been fully proved to which I shall adde one out of Austin◠If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture we are to believe it without all doubting but for other witnesses or their testimonies a man may believe or not believe as he apprehends what they say hath weight or not It is true S. Clara sayes that St. Austin doth only prefer Scripture before particular authors which how false it is sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Austins which I have even now discussed wherein you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgment St. Austin positively took away all difference between Councels and private Doctors in this particular and equally denied all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both of them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers in reference to the Infallibility of Councels This is the first Branch The Infallibility of Councels is not made known to us by Tradition the next Proposition must shew That it is not revealed in Scripture § 13. This therefore is the Second branch That the Infallibility of Councels hath no foundation in Scripture◠1. I might justly insist upon what hath been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency by the Scripture to ground my faith without the Churches authority And surely they that professe they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ were it not for the
testimony and interpretation of the Church i.e. the Pope or a Councel which is their assertion must needs give us the same liberty to assert that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture saith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels but for the testimony of the Pope and Councels that is we have no reason to believe their Infallibility but this that they tell us they are infallible we have their word for it so it seems the Disciple is better then his Master and the Pope's word will go further then the word of God for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause saith Bellarmine as the Churches Testimony is When the Papists would presse the Scripture to the service of this notion it may say to them as Iepthah did to the Elders of Israel Iud. 11.7 Did not je hate me and expell me out of my fathâ—r's house and why are you come unto me now when ye are in distress And upon condition they will reply with the Gileadites Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou mayest be our head I will overlook that otherwise unpardonable fault by which they have rendred the Scripture unserviceable to their purpose and once more they shall have a fair tryal whether the Infallibility of Councels can be demonstrated from Scripture Sect. 14. The first and principall support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3. 15 where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth This is their Ajacis ctypeus which you shall find used upon all occasions and infinitely repeated by every impertinent scribler of the Romish party For Answer to passe over that notion of our acute Chillingworth that it is not the Church but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth and so there is onely an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very frequent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Gataker observes and there are diverse instances of either of them So the sence is that thou mightest behave thy selfe in the House of God the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar And he gives this notable reason for it because it was heterogeneous to call that Church a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house And this I am sure would puzle our masters to answer But to wave that I answer 1 The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome but the Church in which Timothy was placed And whether it be spoken of the Church in generall or in particular what is this to Rome Here wee find a notable piece of the Romane mystery of iniquity If there be any reproofes or censures applied to any other Churches there every Church must bear its own burden But if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations promises priviledges that presently belongs to Rome and they have a commission to seize it for their own use but how unjustly we shall here discover for if you understand these words of the Catholick Church or of the Church in generall then the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church which may consist with the errour and Apostacy of several which then were eminent Churches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia which notwithstanding this promise fell away and consequently Rome though then her faith was famous throughout the World might fall with them or after them And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed And if my memory faile me not exceedingly that was not Rome but Ephesus which notwithstanding this Caracter did fall away And moreover it was not the Church ruling but the Church ruled in and over which Timothy was set which is here called the pillar and ground of truth And so the Argument runs thus The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth Therefore the Pope of Rome is infallible The Consequence is thus proved the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleaseth and though he may erre in the premises as Stapleton confesseth yet he is alwayes infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton asserts Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments 2 The terme of Pillar notes the solidity but not the infallibility of the Church it notes the difficulty of its removall but not the impossibility Every stout Champion of Gods Truth is a pillar of the truth and such are frequently called by that name in the fathers but yet they are not infallible Athanasius was a pillar of the truth but not infallible The great Osires a pillar of the truth and Nicene faith yet fell fowly as appears by the story Musonius Bishop of Neocaesarea is by Basilius Caesariensis invested this very title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo by the Romane Logick Basil thought him infallible or if he did not then Basil did not think those words implyed infallibility Gregory Nyssen tells us not onely Peter and Iames and Iohn are pillars not only Iohn Baptist is a light but also all that build up the Church are pillars and lights Therefore it seemes all Ministers are infallible Male Children are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillars of their families among the Greek Poets and Getae a faithfull servant in Terence is called Columen Familiae the pillar of the family For ought I know if those men would go to Rome and upon the credit of this word sue out a Writ of priviledge they might be as infallible as the Pope himselfe 3. This Phrase The Church is the Pillar of Truth may note the Churches duty not her practice and what she ought to be not what she alwaies is They shall not say this is gratis dictum I will make it good by parallel Instances wherein they shall see the absurdity of their argument Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evill Rom. 13.3 If this argument be good The Church is a Pillar E. she cannot eâ—re then this also is good That Rulers cannot be a terror to good works None but one that comes from Bedlam would assert the latter and none but one that comes from Rome would conclude the former Thus our Saviour saith of his Ministers Ye are the salt of the world ye are the light of the world Matth. 5. Ergo by this argument this Salt could not loose its savour and no Minister can be in the dark but every one must be infallible Thus Prov. 16 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgment Ergo Kings are infallible If the Pope had such a Text in the New Testament The Pope's mouth transgresseth not in judgment you may easily imagine what triumphs the Assertors of Infallibility
would have made who can build a towring confidence upon such pittiful foundations and yet this doth not informe us of the practice of Kings but acquaints them with their duty as Interpreters agree 4. This Phrase The pillar and ground of Truth notes the necessity of the Churches ministry quoad nos but not the infallibility of her Authority those are two distinct things and the one no way consequent upon the other The utmost which can be squeezed from that phrase is this that the Church doth support the truth and Gospel of Christ in the world and so doth every sincere zealous defender of the truth and especially the Ministers and prime champions of the truth not only when met together in a general Councel but also in their single capacities which I think will be undeniably proved by this argument The Church was the pillar and ground of truth for the first three hundred years after Christ and the Apostles never did it more deserve that name nor did it ever more discharge that office but all that time there was no oecumenical Councel and that is the only Councel to whom Infallibility is ascribed by the Papists therefore either that phrase doth not evince infallibility or the several pastors of those ages were infallible 5. The consequence of the argument is false and frivolous The Church is the pillar of truth Ergo she is infallible for the same Church may be a pillar of truth and a seat of Error For what is it to be a Pillar of the Truth if we draw aside the curtain of the Metaphor but to be a Defender of the Faith And who knows not that the same persons may defend the truth and maintain errors with them unlesse he be one that never read the Bible nor Ecclesiastical History Who knows not that the same persons which defended the truth of Christianity against Jewes and Pagans did also maintain the Doctrine of Iesabel and the Heresy of the Nicolaitans Rev. 2. and that those very men that owned the foundation did build the hay and stubble of false doctrines thereupon 1 Cor. 3. and that diverse of the stoutest defenders of the truth of the Gospel among the Fathers had their errors as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Else if they will stand to the consequence it will follow by vertue of it Such a Minister preacheth the truth Ergo he is infallible and cannot preach false doctrine Such a Judg is the Pillar of Justice in the land Ergo it is impossible he should make an unjust Decree Proclamations are hanged upon such a pillar Ergo a Libell cannot be fastned there 6. Their argument proceeds from a declaration of the Churches present state for that is all that place asserts viz. that the Church then was a Church and Pillar of truth to an assurance of its perpetual continuance in that state which is quite another thing Which kind of argumentation if it might pass for currant it would work brave exploits for then it would follow The city of Sion was an habitation of righteousnesse a pillar of truth and justice Ergo the Prophet Isay was mis-informed when he said The faithfull City is become a Harlot it was full of judgment righteousnesse lodged in it but now murderers Isa 1.21 Nay then the Church of England is orthodox in the Romane sence Probatur It was the Pillar of truth viz. when it was the Pope's Asse Ergo it is so still and the Papists slander us when they say we are fallen away The Church was a Virgin in the Apostles dayes saith Egesippus Ergo she is not now corrupted nor indeed can be for I must tell you the Pope can do more then all the Apostles either pretended or did for they could not even while they lived wholly keep the Church from actual corruption but the Pope keeps her from all possibility of corruption Thus the Pope is omnipotent and it is no marvell he is infallible § 15. The Second place of principal moment alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Mat. 18.17 where all are commanded to hear the Church and they that hear her not are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans Ergo the Church of Rome is Infallible for this is the comfort whatever is in the premises Romes infallibility is in the conclusion and the Church of Rome that can dispence with Gods lawes may well dispense with Syllogistical rules by which there ought not to be more in the conclusion then in the premises but that Law was made for Subjects but not for our Sovereign Lord the Pope To this may be added another place they vehemently urge Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ergo the Church is infallible Ans. 1. Whatever these texts prove what right hath the Church of Rome to her monopoly of the priviledges here conveyed Or why may not the Greek or English Churches and their Ministers claime the benefit of them The words have an indifferent aspect to all of them 2. The consequence is false Christians must hear the Church and Ministers Ergo they are infallible which I thus prove Children must obey their Parents and if they do not they must dye for it Deut. 21. are parents therefore infallible Subjects must obey their Magistrates or dye for it Ios. 1.18 Whosoever will not hearken unto thy words he shall be put to death it seems then Magistrates are infallible For this is the argument by which the Romanists pretend to prove the Infallibility of the High-priest of the Jewes because they that would not hear him were to be put to death Deut. 17. Nay this very text Luc. 10. destroyes that sense which the Romanists would fasten upon it for seeing it is not the Apostles but seventy disciples and they too not as met in a Councel but as preaching the Gospel severally or at most by pairs whom they are under such dreadful penalties commanded to hear if it be conclusive for infallibility it proves the infallibility of every Minister or at least of every pair of them 3. It is agreed between them and us that Christ speaks of the Censures of the Church Mat. 18. and therefore surely if it prove the Churches Infallibility in any thing it must be in the matter there spoken of viz. in Church-censures But they grant the Church is Fallible in her censures as depending upon Testimony and matters of fact And therefore it is ridiculous to infer from thence her Infallibility in other things which are not spoken of in this place 4. The Church and Ministers are to be heard not simply and in all things but onely in the Lord and what they speak according to his word This is denied by the Papists who positively assert that they are to be heard in all things and without examination as we have seen from their own words It is therefore necessary to say something to overthrow this lawlesse liberty and boundlesse authority ascribed by them to the Church for this is their
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one of their radicall mistakes 1. That which Christ denies to the Apostles is not to be ascribed to the Church but Christ denies this absolute Authority to the Apostles Matt. 23.10 Be ye not called masters for one is your Master even Christ where it is not the name but thing which is prohibited even magisterium fidei or the usurpation of an absolute authority in teachers and the exaction of an universall beliefe and blinde obedience in hearers which was the errour of the Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour for so they said You are to believe all the sayings of our Rabbines in their Homilies no lesse then the Law of Moses And again All their words are the very words of God are their expressions in the Thalmud It cannot be denied that Christ derogates that authority from the Apostles which he ascribes to himself but if the Popish opinion were true the Apostles had as great authority as Christ himselfe for the height of Christs authority is expressed in these words nor can more be said of God himself him shall ye hear in all things Act. 3.22 This indeed the Popish Doctors most blasphemously arrogate to themselves as you have seen but so did not the Apostles they had not so learned Christ they allwaies observed their Distance Be followers of us as we are of Christ. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered S t Paul denies that he had dominion over their Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Not that we have dominion over your Faith I 'le warrant you Paul denied it to himselfe because it was Peters Prerogative for it is certaine St Peters Successors challenge it for Dominion and Subjection are Relatives And if the people owe an absolute subjection of their Faith to their teachers the Teachers have an absolute dominion over the Faith of the people In short This sottish Doctrine of an implicit Faith must needs be Apocryphal so long as the Epistle to the Galatians is Canonicall and especially Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Gospell let him be accursed And he is not contented with a single assertion but addes as we said before so say I now againe let him be accursed Which if the Reader compare with that abominable passage of Bellarmines If the Pope should erre in commanding Vices and forbidding Vertues the Church were bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evill He will be able to judge whether the Faith of the present Romish Church be the same with that of the Apostles dayes or not and whether they who are so liberall in dispensing their Anathema's to all that differ from their sentiments do not justly fall under the Anathema here denounced 2. If Pastours are to be heard in all things then people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours else they should sin in doing their duty but people may sin in obeying their Pastours Methinks this should need no proofe but I finde this to be the temper of our Adversaries they who give the hardest measure to us expect the highest measure from us and they of whom we may say as Galen did of Moses multa dicunt nihil probant they say much and prove nothing will yield us nothing but what we must win by dint of Argument Therefore I shall prove it briefly The Jewes sinned in following Aarons Doctrine These be thy Gods O Israel So the Prophet Ieremy frequently condemnes them for obeying the decrees of their Priests in his time And our Saviour hath put this out of doubt speaking of the Jewish Teachers Matt. 15. If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch And S t Peter assures us if his Successors will please to give him credit that the Jewes were guilty of a great sinne in Christs death though they did it in obedience to the decrees of their Rulers Acts 3.14.17 3. If people are allowed to examine the Doctrines of their Teachers by the word ere they receive them then they are not to be heard in all things But people are allowed so to examine All the doubt lies about the Minor and yet who can doubt of that who ever read these following places Take heed that no man deceive you for many shall come in my name Math. 24.4 5. Prove all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes. 5.21 Prove the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 It is true Bellarmine saith These precepts belong onely to Learned men And Gretserus gives this reason for it because the unlearned people are not able to examine very good It seemes then none but the Learned can have their sences exercised to discerne between good and evill Heb. 5.14 And it is the priviledge of shephards onely which Christ made the Character of all his sheep That they knew his voice and could distinguish it from the voice of Strangers Joh. 10.4 5. It seems Christ spoke to the learned only when he said Search the Scriptures Ioh. 5.39 It seems the learned Thessalonians only were bound to hold fast that which is good for that goes with their proving and proving was in order to holding fast It seems the Bereans whom Paul commends for examining his doctrine by the Scriptures Act. 17. were Masters of Arts and Berea was an University and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies that they had Academical education and the Apostle meant it only of the University when he writ to the city of Corinth I speak as to wise men judg ye what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 Nay the mischief is if this be granted their work is not done for if the learned may examine that is sufficient for our purpose for such are many Lay-men as they are called and diverse of the Clergy who have no share in the Churches government and therefore are as much bound to subjection as any of the people and consequently the Rulers are not simply to be obeyed nor their doctrine blindly received upon their own credit But saith Bellarmine Inde d doubtful doctrines are to be examined but the doctrine of lawful Ministers is not doubtful but openly good I see the Cardinal intended to shew his wisdome reserving the discovery of his honesty to another time Bellarmine was resolved to take a post which he might be sure to keep he knew the Hereticks would be nibling about the premises and therefore he leaves the guarding of them to others and resolves to hold the conclusion which he knew was not good manners to deny But if such doctrine as our teachers deliver be eo nomine evidently good and true then these commands of trying are both dangerous seeing they suppose and allow of doubts and frustraneous since I may safely receive them without tryal § 16. A third place alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Joh. 16.13 When the Spirit of truth his come he will guide you into all truth Hence Bellarmine thus argues Christ speaks not of the
one as soone as the other 2. The utmost importance of this phrase is that they made this decree by the direction of the Holy Ghost d. d It seemed good to us by the direction of the Holy Ghost And for this there is no need to devise a new Phaenomenon of infallible assistance to be afforded to all Councels of which there is not one syllable in the whole Chapter seeing there are other waies mentioned in that place in respect whereof they had the Holy Ghosts direction and might say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us and by which the Holy Ghost did give its Testimony to their decree directed against those that urged the necessity of Circumcision upon the Gentiles 1. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost inasmuch as when the Gospell was preached to the Gentiles by Peter God bare them witnesse giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us v. 8 so making no difference between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost who in the Scripture had foretold the conversion of the Uncircumcised Gentiles to the Faith and their reception into the Church And for asmuch as it is exceeding plaine that the controversy was debated in that Councell principally if not solely by Scripture Arguments and the conclusion deduced from Scripture evidence they might very well say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost if it was conformable to the Scripture there being nothing more familiar then this that what is said in Scripture is ascribed to the Holy Ghost as Act. 1.26 The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David Heb. 3.7 Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith to day if ye will here my voice 3. If that phrase doth imply Infallibility yet the consequence doth not hold from Apostles to Bishops I appeale to any Papist whose candour is not gone with his conscience whether this follow A Councell wherein were severall persons even in their single capacities Infallible had infallible direction when they were met together Ergo Those Councels wherein there is not one person but is confessed in his single Capacity to be Fallible are Infallible If any or every Apostle had singly said It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me would this have inferred the Infallibility of every single Bishop They say No Then let them shew a reason why the Argument proceeds not as well from single Apostles to single Bishops as from Apostles conjoyned in Councell to Bishops conjoyned 4. There is also another inconsequence The Apostles and Councell had the direction of the Holy-Ghost in a conclusion regulated by Scripture and collected from it Ergo All following Councels have the direction of the Holy-Ghost and cannot erre in all their conclusions whatsoever Is not this a goodly Argument This Councel did not erre Ergo No other Councel can erre The words are onely assertive of a present case viz. of the direction of this Councell in that point not at all promissive of any thing for the future and therefore can give us no security at all for the Infallibility of Councels for the future it would make fine work if every assertion were turned into a promise I might as well argue David was guided by the Spirit of God in the ordering of Gods house as you read I Chron. 28.12 19. Therefore all succeeding kings of Iudah were Infallible Moses was faithfull in all Gods house Heb 3.5 Ergo None of Moses's Successors could be unfaithfull Nothing can be replied but this That David and Moses had a speciall assistance not communicated to all their Successors And the same may as truly be said of this Councell and the Apostles here assembled But saith Bellarmine Infallibility being granted to this Councell as being necessary for the conservation of the Church against Herestes the same reason and necessity continuing the same Infallibility must consequently be granted to following generall Councels I Answer 1. If this Councell by reason of the Apostles was Infallible yet this Infallibility was purely accidentall because persons indued with Infallibility for other ends were there present and not conferred upon them for the decision of the present controversy and the reason why Infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles was not common to all but particular to that age and season viz. because they were to lay a solid foundation for and to give a sure rule to all the Churches in after ages and therefore Infallibility was their peculiar priviledge It is but a lame inference Infallibility was necessary in the first founders of Christianity for the Plantation and constitution of the Gospell Church Ergo It was necessary for the constant and perpetuall government of the Church in all after ages Upon the same warrant a man may argue thus Miracles were necessary in the first erecting and laying the Foundation of the Church Ergo they were necessary for the edification of the Church in all successive ages In both cases the consequence is repugnant to common sense and reason and confuted by experience For 2. That such generall Councels and their Infallibility are not so necessary as the Papists would perswade us plainly appeares from hence that God who is never defective in necessaries left his Church for three hundred years together wholly without them and yet the Church since the dayes of the Apostles never had more stability in the Faith and a greater plenitude of every grace and good work then in those times 5. That you may see how little reason there is that Protestants should be convinced by this place take notice that diverse of the Learned Papists are unsatified with this Argument among which are Ockam Cameracensis Ferus and M r White in his Treatise De fide Theologia where he thus Answers the Argument Nor is it materiall that in that Apostolicall Councell they use those words It seemed good to the Holy-Ghost and to us For first it was a Councell of Prophets in each of which Gods spirit dwelt in a speciall manner at least in the Apostles And he addes If they acted with reason doubtlesse they acted by the instinct of Gods Spirit although not such as Divines feigne to be assistant to Councells A fifth place they urge is Mat. 28. vers the last I am with you allwaies to the end of the World Answ. 1. Whatsoever this promise containes the Papists have no part in it because it depends upon a condition which they have so grossely violated Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and loe in so doing I am with you Christ commanded his Disciples to search the Scriptures Papists teach the Contrary Christ commanded all his Disciples that partook of the Bread to drink also of the Cup Papists teach otherwise and the like may be instanced in an hundred particulars 2. Put this Argument into forme and it is this They whom Christ promiseth to be with are Infallible But Christ promiseth to be with his Church
Councel that Pope Gregory the great said he reverenced as one of the four Gospels and a Decree of theirs against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome he answers roundly that that Decree is of no force because it was made in the absence of the Pope's Legates who afterwards did protest against it Where by the way we may take notice what opinion that oecumenical Councel had of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility who first passed and afterwards ratified that decree notwithstanding all the solicitations and protestations of the Romane Legate in the Pope's name to the contrary In like manner saith Andradius That Councell erred in as much as it did rashly and without cause prefer the Church of Constantinople before that of Alexandria and Antioch And Gregory de Valentia being assaulted with a Canon of the Synodus Trullaena defends himself with this answer That Synod is of no authority because its Canons were not confirmed by the Pope § 21. It is true the Papists perceiving the danger of their cause from this difference between the Pope and Councels have at last found out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that means they pretend they are all agreed the Pope and Councell joyning together are infallible And in this sense their doctrine is true that general councels are infallible viz. if they are called and confirmed by the Pope For answer whereunto I commend four things to the Readers observation 1. Observe the non-sense of this opinion The question is whether general councels lawfully called have an infallible assistance and guidance of the Spirit in the forming of their decrees The Papists affirm we deny now comes in a condition in their affirmation which overthrowes the affirmation it self They are infallible say they if the Pope confirms them well then the Councel meets considers decrees here is their work done hitherto say our Masters they are fallible they send them to the Pope for confirmation for ubi desinit Concilium incipit Papa if the Pope confirms them they are infallible if he disapprove them they are fallible And so it seems the councell receives infallible direction from God for their work after their work is done and it ceaseth to be before it be infallible in spight of the old maxime of the Logicians Ab est tertii aâ—jecti ad est secundi adjecti valet consecutio Really the councels have an hard bargain of it that cannot get Infallibility till they have lost their existency 2. Observe the hypocrisy and self conviction of this opinion The infallibility of councels is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast before the eyes of those who cannot penetrate into the depth of things Several Scriptures are pretended which are said evidently to prove this infallibility now we see they themselves deny the thing they pretend to prove and councels are infallible no further then the Pope pleaseth And with this key you must open all the alledged Scriptures you must hear the Church i. e. unlesse the Pope shut up your eares Christ is present where two or three are met together in his name viz if they have the Pope's approbation The Spirit will lead you into all rruth viz. if you follow the instructions of his Holinesse And if a councel may say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us it signifies nothing if it be not added and to our Lord the Pope Thus Councels are meer cyphers except the Pope adde his figure and Councels are joyned with Popes only as Bibulus was with Caesar to fill up a vacancy and make a noise in vulgar eares Nor is the wound of the Popish cause healed by this device but only skinned over for as the assertors of the infallibility of councels deny infalliblity to the Pope further then he adheres to such councels so the assertors of Papal infallibility allow to councels no infallibility but what they have in dependence upon and by influence from the Pope So Bellarmine in terms saith Infallibility doth not come partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel but wholly from the Pope And Stapleton is expresse The Pope receives no new power nor authority nor infallibility from the addition of a Councel What need I say more such contemptuous thoughts hath Bellarmine of the infallibility of councels that he spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That general Councels may erre if they do not follow the Pope's instruction if they have not the Legates consent nay more if it be in a point wherein the Legates have no certain instructions from the Pope and he gives us amongst many instances of erring Councels this remarkable one The Councel of Basil by common consent and with the Legates concurrence concluded that a Councel is above the Pope which certainly is now judged erroneous You see how hard it is for Councels to carry their dish eaven By what hath been said it appeares what a sorry foundation the Infallibility of Councels is when from their principles it unavoidably followes That a colledge of Jesuites is as infallible as a generall Councel for they confesse a provinciall Councell which in it selfe hath no more Authority to oblige the whole Church then such a Colledge is Infallible with the Popes concurrence and without it generall Councels are Fallible 3. Observe the insufficiency of this evasion For if Infallibility were granted to such a combination of Pope and Councell this gives them no reliefe save onely during the Session of the Councell for when the Councell is dissolved their Writings must indure the same fate with the writings of the Apostles of being unable to Judg or decide controversies For all the Papists most vehemently plead for the necessity of a living Judge that can heare both parties and determine all emergent controversies Thus Infallibility is not so much as res unius aetatis Nay ofttimes it is but res unius anni like Ionah's gourd it comes up in a night and withers in a night And the Church for three hundred years after Christ had no Infallibility and since the Councell of Trent the Papists have not had an Infallible judge and at this day their Church hath no Infallibility and consequently no solid Foundation for their Faith 4. Observe the preposterousnesse of this opinion If Councels come to the Pope for Confirmation he may say to them as Iohn the Baptist said to Christ Mat. 3 14. I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me So may the Pope say I have need to be confirmed by your Authority and without you am but magni nominis umbra and do you come to me But I confesse wanus manum feriat If the Pope have any Infallibility he had it from Councels for Scripture ownes it not as we have seen and the particular Fathers could not give what they never had and now it is good manners to requite them and so he comunicates to them that Infallibility he receives from
them To conclude this consideration It is sufficient for my purpose which is acknowledged by the greatest and most considerable part of the Romish Church at this day That generall Councels in themselves are not Infallible and consequently are no solid Foundation for a Papists Faith which is all this Proposition pretended to make good though you see I have given them an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. A third consideration is this If the Infallibility of general Councels rightly called constituted and ordered were granted yet this would give no Advantage to the Romish cause nor security to their Faith and that for such reasons as diverse of the most Learned Papists themselves do stamp with their approbation And here I might insist upon sundry particulars but I shall confine my selfe to a few and for the rest refer you only to one of their own Authours White in the oft mentioned Treatise who thus breaks out his doubts concerning this Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councels If you assert an unknown and invisible influence of Gods Spirit it is so uncertaine and doubtfull that it is fruitlesse to contend about it Seeing it is matter of strife rather then evidence to what Councels and when this assistance is given whilest some quarrell with the calling others the absence of nations or Patriarchs and others dispute about thâ— praesidency and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions others about the number weight or degree of suffrages others about Confirmation and others require the Churches consent ere it can be known whether this Assistance belong to the Councell or no Where you may observe no lesse then ten severall causes of doubting and yet all these uncertainties they will rather run upon then acknowledge the Authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which are called a more sure word 2 Pet. 1.19 then that which had another kind and far higher degree of certainty then the decrees of Councels can ever arrive at but I must not rest in generals I shall particularly acquaint you with some of the Intrigues of the Romish Church and their own requisites to the legitimation of Councels I shall pick out three 1. They confesse the Councell which is Infallible must be oecumenicall 2. And its decrees must be ratified by the consent and approbation of the whole Church 3. They must proceed sincerely and faithfully and piously in it Now in all these things there are notorious defects in the Church and Councels of Rome § 23. 1. Most Papists grant that that Councell to which Infallibility is promised must be generall or oecumenicall and they that pretend to assert the Infallibility of Provinciall Councels when confirmed by the Pope do indeed utterly reject the Infallibility of all Councels and ascribe it wholly to the Pope and to Councels onely by participation from him and in dependence upon him If then any Councels be Infallible they must be generall to which purpose they alledge the saying of St Austin That those onely are Concilia plenaria full and general Councels which are collected out of all the Christian World Hence the seaventh Synod disowned the Constantinopolitan Councell and their decrees against Images because they were not a generall Councell and had not all the Patriarchs there And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church and cites severall Authors of great note to that purpose Now to assume The Councels pretended by the Romanists were no generall councels To say nothing of former Councels which in their greatest plenitude were onely conventions of the Churches in the Romane Empire The later Councels on whom the weight of the Popish cause principally depends were not oecumenicall Councels There is one acknowledged defect in them all to wit the absence of the Greek Church Cardinal Cusanus complaines At present Alas the Catholick Church and the Parochial Church of Rome have but one Councell seeing the whole Church is now reduced to one Patriarchate And as the Objection is really unanswerable so that which is offered in stead of an Answer is very considerable which S. Clara. represents out of Cusanus and Barlaam That it matters not that onely the Romane Patriarch and those united to him are there and that the Schismaticall Patriarcks are absent for generall Councels are not to be collected out of Hereticks and Schismaticks but out of the Orthodox and such as are united to the Church From whence I gather two things 1. That if the Church of Rome cannot assoile her self from the imputation of Heresy which by the leanenesse of their replies to the inditements of Protestant Authors sufficiently appeares they are not able to do their Councels are constituted ex Indebitâ materiâ of undue materials and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility if there were any such thing in rerum natur â. 2. That we are not to believe the Orthodoxy and much lesse the Infallibility of Councels upon the credit of their naked assertion and absolute Authority as the Papists affirme seeing the most Hereticall and Schismaticall Councels have ever asserted themselves to be Orthodox but it is the right and priviledge of Subjects to examine and judge of the legitimatenesse of Councels and consequently of the validity of their decrees § 24. The second particular is this That Councels are not infallible nor their decrees unquestionable unlesse they have the tacit consent and approbation of the whole Church This position is laid down by S. Clara in the forementioned Treatise There is required a tacit or interpretative ratification of the whole Church to compleat the definition of a Councell Nor is this his private opinion but he there confirmes it from the words of Panormitanes Turnball Pope Leo Petrus â Soto Castillo Mirandula Gersonius and others And afterwards he quotes these words out of Petrus D' Aliaco That generall Councells may erre unlesse when they are accepted by the Vniversall Church and then they are Infallible And in another place himselfe expressely tels us We are not presently to pronounce a thing de fide by reason of some expressions of Councels or their Canons but we must diligently inquire the constant judgment of the Church else we shall finde many Canons of Faith which doe not agree with the truth according to the opinion of many And Coltius hath these words As wee have seen before the common dâ—ssent of the Church hath rendred the decrees of Popes and Councels invalid I mention this the more fully because it is a pretty devise It must be confessed the Religion of Rome cannot easily be mistaken for a piece of Piety but he that shall denie it to be an Art of Policy will quickly be confuted and here is an instance will put him to silence There is a double discovery of the Romish subtilty in this businesse 1. You see how handsomely they make a vertue of necessity now they manage it as a Principle taken up
on choice whereas S. Clara himself sufficiently insinuates that they were forced to it se defâ—ndendo and took it up at a forced put for speaking of the former rules of discerning a generall Councell he confesseth That their businesse is very intricate and liable to many troublesome objections against the lawfulnesse of their Councels but here is a short way to obviate those difficulties by arguing from the reception of the Church for if the Church receive it for a generall Councell we need not trouble our selves about little matters since this reception is sufficient evidence 2. Here is an excellent Antidote against the saucy decrees of severall Councels repugnant to the Popes Supreme Authority If the sixth Councell of Carthage be pleaded that there should be no appeales to Rome from beyond the Seas if that of the Councell of Chalcedon be urged wherein they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same honours and priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to the Bishop of Rome If the later Councels of Constance and Basil be alledged wherein the Popes subjection to Councels is positively determined Now here is an Answer ready to this and to all that former Councels said and to all that any Councell shall ever say to the Worlds end viz. The Canons of these Councels were not received by the whole Church but opposed and rejected by the Church and Bishop of Rome a great and eminent part of it Thus I think they have brought off their master the Pope with honour and as he was Infallible so now they have made him invulnerable Scripture cannot hurt him for he hath the key of Interpretation Fathers cannot reach him for they are his Children saith Bellarmine As it is no newes for the Pope to be well stored with Children And now Councels cannot touch him for he will hinder their universall reception And if the Romish Doctors be beaten out of this conceit it is but studying some new device which is easily done by men that want no wit and have no conscience for it is resolved to hold the Conclusion though the poore premises may be put to hard shifts Well then to allow them their supposition and all the benefits of it they must remember the rule of the Lawyers Qui sentit commodum debet sentire onus Benefit and inconvenience must goe together And this is the inconvenience and mischiefe which they are still forced into notwithstanding all their tricks and stratagems even to eat their own words and to pull down with one hand that Infallibility which they build up with another For how can the Councell or the Pope either be said to have that infallible guidance which is pretended in the making of their decrees if the Churches non-reception may prove their Fallibility But here is the wonder-working power of the Church of Rome do not think strange when you read that passage in the Councell of Lateran delivered in an Oration before the Pope and Councell That the Pope-hath a power above all power in heaven or earth For he can do that which the Schoolmen unanimously put out of the reach of every power in Heaven or Earth viz. factum infectum reddere recall things that are past and by this Argument prove that that Councell which was Infallible while it sat after its dissolution is become Fallible But to returne This is to precipitate themselves into those absurdities which they charge upon us This is to make the Church judge of her Judges This is to take away all the security of their Faith if we may believe their own famous Councell of Basil whose words are these Nor let any man presume to say that a generall Councell may erre for if once this pernicious errour were admitted the whole Catholick Faith would stagger and we should have nothing certaine in the Church for by the same reason that one may erre the rest may erre also Besides hereby they run into a new Circle as if all their former Circles were not sufficient If you aske what it is which makes the Faith of the Romish Church and people sure and Infallible It is the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell If you aske againe what it is which makes the decrees of Pope and Councell Infallible It is the Churches reception of them and yet all this if granted will not relieve them for that the decrees of their Popes and Councels have no such reception of the universall Church appeares sufficiently from the publick dissent of so many famous and flourishing Churches in the World I meane the Greek and Protestant Churches which do not therefore cease to be members of the Catholick Church because the Papists disowne them no more then the Popish Churches become true members by their pretending to that Title § 25. 3. There is another assertion of the Papists That Councels are not Infallible unlesse they be rightly constituted and ordered for this I shall deale with them as the Apostles did with their Kinsmen the Cretians I shall implead them with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay not one but many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their opinion Councels say they may erre if they do not proceed Conciliariter i.e. in a regular manner saith S. Clara his words are these The most Learned Corduba in Quaestionario lib. 4. qu. 1. quoting Roffensis in his Prologue against Luther and Horantius in his places lib. 2. cap. 17. saith that God hath promised his assistance to a Councell whâ—n they do what in them lies If they be Bishops and Learned and prudent men selected out of the whole Church if they proceed without Carnall affections and with a love to the Truth then and not otherwise it is gathered lawfully and in Christ name Thus Bellarmine pressed with the Authority of the Councell of Chalcedon against the Popes Supremacy saith A lawfull Councell may erre in those things wherein it acts not lawfully And Petrus à Soto a man of great account amongst them tels us this is the sence of their assertion That Councels cannot erre They understand it saith he of Councels lawfully congregated and acting without fraud and deceit And Pope Leo speaking of the causes of the errours of the Councell of Ephesus assignes this because they did not proceed with a pure conscience and right judgment So Malderus in his Treatise against the Synod of Dort saith In vaine do Synods assemble and men go to them when they do not remove all sinister affection and onely seek that which is Christs and he addes Then indeed they are gathered together in Christs name then Christ is in the midst of them The summe is this Infallible assistance is not a gift dispensed promiscuously to Pope or Bishops howsoever they demeane themselves but only upon their good behaviour being the priviledge of those alone who act with diligence fidelity sincere love to the Truth and good conscience that is to say to such persons as few Popes and
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
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
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
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
infallible And it is considerable that he writes thus to the Pope by which we may sufficiently understand what was Cyprian's judgment and the faith of that age concerning the infallibility of Tradition as also of the Pope and Church of Rome And conformable to Cyprians was the decision of the whole Councel of Carthage When truth is manifâ—st say they let custome yield to truth and although hitherto none did baptize Hereticks in the Church now let them begin to baptize them And in another place Cyprian speaking of the custome of mixing wine and water in the Sacrament hath these words Nor should any one think that the custome of some is to be followed for we are to enquire whom they followed for onely Christ is to be followed and he addes that we are not to râ—gard what others have done before us but what Christ who is before all first did for we must not follow mens customes but Gods Truth And in another place he positively asserts that when any thing is out of order the onely way to be satisfied is to go to the fountaine to the head and originall of Divine Tradition to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Tradition From all which it undeniably followes that Cyprian and his brethren did not judge the Tradition of the next preceding Age Infallible nor the Testimony of the present Church sufficient as these Gentlemen now do and consequently thought it might introduce opinions contrary to what they received from their Ancestors when by these allegations it appeares as plainly as if it were written with a Sun beame they judged it lyable to mistakes and errours and this is the very Doctrine of the Protestants § 23. 3. There might be an agreement and designe amongst many persons and eminent members of the Church to corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors for their wordly interest and carnall ends of which almost all Ages afford us wofull and innumerable instances With the Readers leave I will exemplify this Proposition in a notorious instance in a Doctrine of great concernment which is the prora puppis The foundation stone and corner stone of the Romish Religion and if you will take Bellarmines word necessary to Salvation I meane the Popes Supremacy I beg the Readers pardon if I do a little more largely insist upon it then my manner is because the story is remarkable and strikes at the root of this novel conceit concerning the impossibility of a wilfull deception Mr White tels us the Church cannot be deceived in Tradition and especially the Church and Bishop of Rome who by the consent of all the Papists have been the most faithfull conservators of Tradition The Papists generally agree that they have an authentick and universall Tradition on the behalfe of the Popes Supremacy of which the right of appeales is a principall branch and the greatest evidence And this Tradition say they came to them from the Apostles by the Fathers of all Ages successively Well then to come to the story In the year 417 There was a famous Councell at Carthagâ— owned by Bellarmine and Baronius by the name of The generall Councell of Carthage consisting of 217 Bishops among whom was Alypius and St Austin Zosimus being Pope at that time sends his Legates thither and pretends a right of appeales from the African Churches to himself at Rome and to make this good he alledgeth for it some of the Canons of the Councell of Nice for he ascends no higher the more silly wretch he for if the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome be true he might have brought that which was more evident and irresistible then 100 Canons of Nice which now all the World rings of and all their discourses are full fraught with viz. The institution of Christ the supremacy of Peter devolved upon him the universall Tradition of the whole Church But of all these here is altum silentium for you must conceive these were Arguments laid up in store like the Treasure in S t Markâ— Chest for some high future exigencies or wisely reserved for a season wherein the World should wonder after the beast and be most capable of such impressions Well The Fathers consider his Petition for as yet the Popes were not masters of their Art and had not Learned their lesson of volumus statuimus mandamus and marvell at the proposition and tell Faustus and his collegues that they find no such Canons in their Copies of the Councell of Nice as were alledged and had indeed been forged at Rome as is acknowledged even by that Popish Councel of Florence Hereupon a motion is made and agreed that they send forthwith to the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch for their Copies of the Acts of that Councell A sawcy trick it was not onely â—o deny the Popes Infallibility but also to question his verity when they receive them they finde that the pretended Canons were not there and so conclude there should be no appeales from Africa to the Roman Bishop A strange boldnesse in this Councell to reverse the institution of Christ and usurpe upon S t Peters jurisdiction and provoke him upon whom they wholly depended for the Confirmation of all their decrees it is great pitty they were not better advised Well you may imagine what sad tidings this was at Rome You will desire to know what their Answer is why then for your satisfaction I pray you take notice They have a Tradition at Rome it is part of that inscription upon Seth's Pillars erected before the flood which Iosephus mentions the Counterpart whereof they have in the Vatican that when ever his Holinesse is gravel'd with an hard Argument and can do no good about the premises it may be lawful for him or others pleading for him to deny the Conclusion Bellarmines words are expresse The African Fathers were deceived through ignorance What pitty was it that Bellarmine was not their Secretary to informe them better The African Fathers did rashly and departâ—d from the example and obedience of their Ancestors saith Stapleton q d. they were naughty boyes and deserved to be whipped into better manners The more inexcusable the Pope that did not thunder them into order by his Excommunications But why do I mention these Behold a greater then Bellarmine or Stapleton is here Enter Boniface the second who thus VVrites in his Epistle to Eulabius an Epistle owned for his by Pighius Lindanus Sanderus Turrianus Alanus Copus and Harding though Bellarmine being urged with it pretends it is suspected but dare not say it is forged Aurelius with his collegues whereof S t Austin was one by the instigation of the Devill began proudly to exalt themselves against the Church of Rome So it seemes these Fathers were wickedly resolved against the Supremacy of the Pope with a Flectere si nâ—queo superos Acheronta movebo and they whom so many of the Learned Papists affirme to be infallibly guided by the
is to hear this Argument pleaded on the behalfe of the Alchoran I am sure it may upon as good grounds their religion being much of the same complexion and the Popish cause being managed most commonly by Mahumetan weapons But on the contrary let a man consider with himselfe the miraculous successe of the Protestant Religion in the late Reformation how strangely speedily generally it diffused it self in the very same manner as the Gospell did in its first Plantation in the World notwithstanding the great disadvantages it was to grapple with the horrible ignorance and perversenesse of the Age the mighty power of long custome and inveterate prejudice the craft of Polititians the learning of the whole World the might of Princes and Emperors the threats fires inquâ—siâ—ions of Persecutors the great offers and multiplied allurements to Apostacy I say he that shall review all these things as they are recorded by the Historians of both parties will quickly understand to whom this Character belongs § 5. For the purity and excellency of their Doctrine If their and our Doctrines were to be tried by that test the controversy would speedily be at an end The Word of God is the palace and rule of purity and that Doctrine which hath most of conformity therewith hath most of purity Howsoever it is too grosse a begging of the question to alledge that for a note and evidence of their Church which is more doubtfull then the Church it selfe And for the Sanctity of their Lives we are heartily glad to hear of it if the reports were as credible as the newes is good it would rejoyce our hearts because their own Authors in severall Ages have successively acknowledged and bewailed the horrible and universall wickednesse of their own Church Clergy Popes c. All stories are full of their monstrous filthinesse though ordinarily masked under the pretence of externall holinesse And for the holinesse of their Church of late times I shall onely say this Of all men they have least cause to dispute against faith alone for he that can believe their sanctity had need be a Solifidian and have neâ—ther sence nor reason But you must know the Church of Rome lives upon her old stock it is the holinesse of their Ancestors which they intend Bellarmine is forced to go farre back for his proofs for he alledgeth the Sanctity of the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Antients Fathers as arguments of their Holinesse so the Church of Rome is all on a sudden grown Orthodox in the doctrine of imputation with this proviso that they allow the imputation of the righteousnesse of their Ancestors to the present Church but not of their wickednesse you may as farre as you please even to Adam nay if you will even to theFather of the Praeadamitae impute to them the Holinesse of their Ancestors but for the prodigious filthinesse the Sorceâ—ies Adulteries Murderers Heresies of their Fathers and former Bishops and Popes that ought not to be imputed to them § 6. And for the other grand Character of consent with Antiquity which they vaunt so much of among those that either have not learning to search into the Antients or wit to judg of what they read to say nothing of this that the hoary head of Antiquity is not to be respected if it be not found in the way of righteousnesse evill doctrines or habits the more Antient the worse and the inveteratenesse of a disease is no commendation to it He that shall please to look into the Fathers with his own eyes or peruse the Discourses of our Learned Authors upon this point such as Rainolds Iewell Whitaker Chamier Dallaeus Albertinus Vsher Morton Morney Rivet and multitudes more will soon discover the impudence of this plea and the fruit of their labours would quickly appeare in the World but for that piece of their imposture that as they deny the reading of the Scripture to lay-men so they forbid the reading of our Protestant Authors to their Scholars excepting such whose consciences they find to be of a Jesuiticall complexion and free from the heresy of tendernesse § 7. I know it will be said that we want diverse of those marks which they have as Duration Amplitude Visible succession Union among our selves and with the Pope But alâ—though the Papists have no colourable pretence to those Characters among such as will inquire into the verity of their Assertions and not greedily swallow down all of them though in point of duration divers of the most materiall Doctrines of the present Romish Church are so far from it that they stand convicted of Novellisme by the confession of their own Authors And for Amplitude notwithstanding all their intolerable boasting with the credulous vulgar the learned know the Church of Rome containeth not one third part of the Christian World And for Succession their own Authors have acknowledged frequent and long interruption yea even in the Papall See Yet if all that might be said upon those points were superseded If they grant us or we can prove the former viz. That the miracles confirme our Doctrine the Fathers profâ—sse our Faith that the efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine belongs to us we do not much matter the rest nor will the Reader who is satisfied in the former be at all startled at the latter § 8. 3. Consider what rotten Pillars most of these are upon which the Church of Rome leanes and you will find they need no Sampson to pull them down one of them excepted which Bellarmine therefore puts in the first place and that is from the name of Catholick as being grounded upon that infallible Maxime Conveniunt râ—bus nomina saepe suis That therefore cannot be resisted onely I blame Bellarmines oversight that being so hard put to it to prove the Sanctity of his Church he did not prove it from the Title of Holinesse given to the head of it And then here had been a paire of Demonstrations not to be paralleld in all Euclid § 9. And for severall other marks there is this inexcusable errour in them that they alledge those notes to prove the Church which are altogether impertinent and ridiculous if you do not presuppose the Church so they wisely suppose what they see they cannot prove I instance in Duration Antiquity Unity Amplitude Succession against which I thus argue Either these do prove the being of the Church where ever they are and the want of a Church where they are absent or they do not if they do not then they are absurdly brought to prove their Church if you say they do then where those Characters are found there is a true Church and where they are wanting there is no Church But neither one nor the other is true not the first for there is not one of those now mentioned but have agreed to Pagans or Hereticks Who knowes not the Antiquity Duration Amplitude and Unity of the Pagan Religion All those were the Arguments of the Heathens against the Christians
though far short in number and commonly lesse notorious for observation and lesse bebeneficial for use God permits to be done and justly may having forewarn'd the world of such impostures and forestall'd the minds of men with such clear irradiations of his truth and such illustrious glory of miracles that in comparison of them the following wonders were no more then the glimmering light of a Gloworm to the splendor of the Sun in his Meridian Of which we have eminent Instances in the wonders of Iannes and Iambres after Pharaoh had hardned his heart against the word of God and his glorious works and afterward in the wonders of Apollonius Tyanaeus when men had wickedly rejected the offers of grace by Jesus Christ and resisted the glorious light of his most excellent doctrine and inimitable works To make this more clear I shall shew it under the hands of the greatest champions of the Romish Church Estius writes thus The Fathers and Historians do every where witnesse so that here you have a multitude of testimonies in one that true miracles may be done without the Church by false Prophets Hereticks and Schismaticks and he quotes among other witnesses Hilary and Austin and Gregory the great a Pope and therefore infallible in this assertion and a little after he doth so positively assert our doctrine and so strongly batter down the pillar of the Papacy that if you did not know the Author you would judg him to be an absolute Protestant in that point for after he had said that wonderful works may be done by hereticks and Devils in confirmation of false doctrine he addes but against this decâ—it Christ hath forewarned his faithful ones saying Do not go forth do not believe It is to be noted that he doth not say Examine diligently whether they be true miracles for the principal confirmation of the faithful ought to be the doctrine of the Church of old confirmed by Christ and his Apostles by undoubted miracles And Maldonate though as seldome guilty of ingenuity as most I have read is forced to confesse that Hierom. Chrysost. Euthymius and Theophylact do prove by many examples that true miracles may be done by unbelievers and saith he Christ admonisbeth us that we do not believe false Prophets even when they work true miracles So little reason had the Author of Lawd's Labyrinth to call it a strang Paradox that true miracles may be marks of a false doctrine and to say that all Divines confess that true miracles are not feasible but by an extraordinary power of God and that God thereby seales to the truth of a doctrine chap. 9 sect 5. and then to run away as if he had throughly done his work when you see his bold assertion confuted by more learned persons of his own party Then again the said Maldonate puts a question Whether no argument can be drawn from miracles to prove the truth of a doctrine and answers It follows not that no argument can be drawn from them but no certain argument that is the argument from miracles is next door to none it is probable but not undeniable it is conjectural but not certain And yet these new Doctors dare lay the foundation of all viz. the Churches infallibility upon meer conjectures and probabilities One would think the Jesuit had borrowed this as he hath done hundreds of his best passages out of Calvin and unadvisedly transcribed it into his commentary And Andradius the great defender of the Tridentine faith is leaven'd with the same heresy for he saith S. Augustine contendeth that sure and certain tokens of the Church are to be fetched out of the sacred Scriptures because they are free from all suspition of falsehood but miracles may be done by the help of the Devil And Gregory de Valentiâ tels us plainly that miracles of themselves do not beget infallible certainty of the truth of a doctrine and Church but on the contrary the true and lawful Church gives us assurance of the truth of miracles as S. Austin shews To conclude this answer I shall onely adde Bellarmine's words Before the approbation of the Church it is not evident nor certain by a certainty of faith concerning any miracle that it is a true miracle And therefore the Churches infallibility cannot be proved by miracles because it must be presupposed before these miracles can give us any certainty § 21. Ans. 5. If all the former difficulties were removed it profits them not for when a man comes to look into the pieces of their argument from miracles he shall find such horrible mistakes and woful impostures that indeed it makes their cause the worse and gives prudent men occasion to discern that these are the Badges of the Antichristian faction that they are the very signes and lying wonders foretold 2 Thes. 2. I shall briefly look upon some of the parts of the argument 1 They alledge for themselves the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and the first Fathers which being done in confirmation of a doctrine as repugnant to theirs as Heaven is to Hell are so far from proving their Infallibility that they demonstrate their falshood and heresy 2. They plead all those miracles as testimonies to the present doctrine of the Romish Church which were done by such as though they lived in the communion of the Church of Rome yet did complain of their corruptions and condemn diverse of their present doctrines as appears in Bernard particularly in the great doctrine of Merit 3. They alledge such miracles as were done by Papists in order to the conversion of Heathens to Christianity which if really done by the cooperation of the divine power do prove no more but this That God thereby bare witnesse to the common cause of Christianity for confirmation whereof such miracles were done â— and not to their particular opinions wherein they stand divided from other Christians 4. They alledge such miracles as for the generality of them their own Authors such of them as have not sacrificed to Impudence acknowledg to be fictitious and ridiculous What should I tell you of that known censure of Melchior Canus concerning the Legends of the Saints which are the great treasuries of Popish miracles and received by the poor besotted Papists with the same veneration as the four Gospels That the lives of the Saints were written with lesse integrity and faithfulnesse then the lives of the Heathen Emperors were written by Heathen authors A dear sentence it cost him the loss of a Cardinals Cap. Agâ—eeable to this was that of Vives that the Legends were written by a man of a Brasen forehead and a Leaden wit I shall forbear further particulars for it were endlesse to enumerate all the complaints amongst their own Authors in whom there were any relicks of candor and conscience of the fictions in this kind and the many notable instances of those impious frauds discovered upon the reformation of Religion which before that
time were reputed such certain miracles that it was sufficient to make a man an Heretick to doubt of the truth of them I shall adde onely this that our Adversaries could not possibly do a greater spight to Christianity nor a greater dishonour to those illustrious and unquestionable miracles done by Christ and his Apostles in the face of all the world so as their greatest enemies were forced to acknowledge the verity of them then to compare with them and equal to them their fabulous relations concerning some seeming wonders commonly done in a corner and by such who served their own interest in them and whose evidence was so dark that the truth of them was questioned by their own friends as you have now heard as if their design were to make good that passage of one of their holy Fathers who called the Gospel Fabula Christi the fable of Christ in that known expression How great riches hath this Fable of Christ procured to us But if every syllable of what their Fabulists have recorded of their miracles were true it will stand them in little stead for the reasons before alledged and proved And therefore I conclude that the miracles pretended or done by Papists are no certain and sufficient evidence of their Infallibility and no solid foundation for their Faith § 22. Ans. 6. To which I shall onely adde this word at parting that if miracles must passe for arguments I know no reason but Protestants have as good a Title to them as the Church of Rome For although we do not use to boast of wonders nor indeed have any need to use that Argument having such solid evidence and sufficient ground for our Faith in the Holy Scriptures yet if our adversaries will force us to it I think our plea is as just as theirs and we could very easily fill a Volume not with such fictitious narrations as they stuffe their Legends with but with undoubted Histories of Protestant wonders If the Antients esteemed the first propagation of Christianity by such contemptible meanes against such potent and universall opposition an eminent miracle why may we not reckon this for a miracle that the reformation of Religion should be carried on by a despicable Monk in despight of all the power policy cruelty flattery learning of the last Age we can tell them of miraculous cures of Diseases and dispossessions of Devils by the Prayers of Gods people of certaine praedictions of future contingencies by Protestant Ministers of miraculous preservations and deliverances of Protestant Princes and Ministers from the bloody rage and deep designes of Papists of eminent and unusuall judgments of God upon Popish Persecutors of all these there are remarkable instances already extant in Print and such as the Papists were never able to disprove to this day so that the Protestant cause is not inferiour to the Romish in this particular but onely here are two things evident in Protestants which are not so in their Adversaries viz. 1. The Modesty of the Protestants that they do not boast of what they might justly plead 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self sufficiency of the Protestant cause that hath evidence enough in Scripture and hath Arguments enough and to spare whereas the penury of the Popish cause forceth them to catch at shadowes for want of substance § 23. Thus I have considered the severall pretences of their great Doctors and all the Pillars upon which this vast structure of the Churches Infallibility depends I have stated the severall pretensions in the words of their own most approved Authors I have weighed I think I may say all their considerable Arguments by which they seek to maintaine them in the ballance of the Sanctuary and have found them light I shall close this particular with a briefe reflection upon the whole matter and the diverse and repugnant courses of their Learned Authors in the resolution and foundation of their Faith wherein we shall see these miserable creatures running like the false Prophet in Ieremy from chamber to chamber to hide themselves 1. They made a bold venture at Scripture and fairly offerd to try their cause by it for which they deserve this Motto Magnis tamen excidit ausis But their own brethren pull'd them by the eare and told them that would not do their work Gainsayers can never be convinced out of Scripture therefore you must confound them with Tradition saies their great Salmeron And they soone found that to be true which once a Popish Clergy man said when he had found a Bible He knew not who was the Author of it but sure he was it was some pestilent Heretick for he every where condemnes the Doctrines of our Church 2. They fly to the Fathers and their Infallible Authority There upon a faire triall they are beaten out of the field Upon debate they find the Fathers so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so uncertaine in some things so positive against them in other things that they presently cry Crucifige to those whose ears had rung with Hosanna's before and down goes the Infallibility of the Fathers and to fetch in miracles that they may not want Arguments 3. Then they flie to Councels and by all meanes they must be Infallible well the Protestants follow them thither That point comes to be scann'd Instances are given of the errours of Councels if either Papists or Protestants may be Judges And which had the greatest hand in the deposing of Councels severall notable passages are alleadged out of Councels against the Popes Supremacy and diverse of the present Doctrines of the Romish Church And upon the hearing of the cause the Pope himselfe and the most of the learned and considerable Papists now in the World are resolved to trust Councels no longer with this jewell and not content to deny they dispute down the Infallibility of Councels as I have shewed 4. Then they flie to the Pope for help and Jesuites cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have found the man that is infallible Now saltat senex salva res est well the Protestants joyne issue with them upon that give many shrewd instances of the errours of Popes alledge the expresse words of Adrianus Sextus a Pope confessing the Fallibility of Popes whom Bellarmine himselfe reckons among those who hold that the Pope may be an Heretick and teach Heresy And besides all this two Popish approved Councels are pleaded viz. Constance and Basil who absolutely deny the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility Well what shall they do next 5. Then there must be another device a coalition of Pope and Councell and those meeting together are Infallible Thus Infallibility is but a short-lived businesse and dies at the expiration of the Councell for when they are dissolved their Writings as well as those of Holy Scripture are uncapable of being a judge And thus they have devised an Infallibility made of a commixtion of two Fallibles an ingenious invention it is by which one may
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
arguments taken from the thing it self 2. By bringing the object nearer to the eye which was at too great a distance whereby it appears in its due proportion 3. By curing the infirmity of the eye Thus the Physitian that removes the distemper of the eye and restores it to its native strength and vigor may be said to convince him Now to apply this The Spirit of God doth not convince a man of the Divinity of the Scriptures the first way as a Philosopher but the last way as a Physitian not by an elucidation of the object by arguments but by the elevation of the faculty or by anointing the eyes with eye-salve and curing its infirmity To which the second may be added viz That the Spirit of God brings his word and the characters of its Divinity impress'd upon it nearer unto us and writes it in the heart according to Gods promise to that purpose and so we see the object better by reason of its approximation to us Or as it is with a Philosopher when he reads a book written in the defence of some Position as suppose the doctrine of the circulation of the Bloud possibly his mind may be discomposed and his braines by reason of some peccant humor much distemper'd and in this case he reads the book but is not at all satisfied by it afterwards Physical means are applyed whereby the brain is restored to its native constitution and purged from those distempers whereby it was clouded now he returns to the book again and reads it over anew and yields himselve captive to the opinion You see here is no change of the old arguments nor any addition of new ones onely the impediments which were in the faculty or the organ are removed Just so it is in the matter now in controversy The Spirit of God doth not prove the Scripture to me by arguments which I never had before but by the illumination of my mind to apprehend the arguments which I did not apprehend before It is with men as it was with Hagar Gen. 21. there was a Well of water but she saw it not till God open'd her eyes vers 19. There is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures onely the Spirit of God cures that blindness of mind whereby the Devil hindred the world from discerning it Thus the Spirit convinced the Jews of the Truth of the Gospel by removing the vaile which was upon their hearts in the reading of Moses 2 Cor. 3.15 16. And so God convinced his elect among the Heathens not by discovering any more arguments to them then he did to the reprobates among them for the same doctrine and arguments were preached to both alike but by opening their eyes to see what others saw not Act. 26.18 and by opening their hearts to receive what others would not receive as Act. 16.14 To conclude forasmuch as the testimony of the Spirit is not the Argument for which but onely the Instrument by which they believe and on the contrary the Testimony of Scripture is the proper argument for which they believe it is most evident that they work in several capacities and so we are fully discharged from that Circle which they causlesly charge us with and notwithstanding this objection the foundation of our Faith standeth sure This is the first particular § 13. The other particular concernes the Popish foundation for some of the Romanists finding themselves so wofully intangled in the business of Infallibility are grown sick of the notion Cressy the English Apostate in his Exomologesis confesseth That Infallibility is an unfortunate word combated by Mr. Chillingworth with too too great success that he could wish the word were forgotten or at least laid by these therefore tell us that if the Infallibility of the Church be denied yet a Papist hath sufficient ground for his Faith in the Churches authority in which he is obliged to acquiesce and whom he must hear in all things and this way some others go This I thought fit to mention that the world may see the complexion of a Romish conscience and the desperate shifts which the wretchednesse of their cause forceth them to But because the absurdity of this new fancy doth suâ luce constare I shall dismiss it with two remarks upon it 1. That it is disclaimed by the Romish Church and it were a frivolous thing to concern our selves in refuting all the wild fancies of their particular Doctors It is true Cressy saith No such word as Infallibility is to be found in â—ny Councel the good man had forgot the definition of the Councel of Basil wherein they call it a pernitious error to say that a Councel can erre the passage I cited before or else he meant to be witty for it is very true that non potest errare is not the same word with Infallibility though it be the same thing Nor do the Papists onely assert the Infallibility of their Church but generally acknowledge That without this their Faith would have no solid Foundation nor their Religion any certainty I shall not multiply instances in so known a thing you have many instances in one in that forementioned passage of the Councel of Basil That if once that pernitious error were admitted that general Councels may erre the whole Catholick Faith would tâ—tter And Bellarmine in a fore-quoted passage confesseth That it is a most unreasonable thing to require Christians to be finally subject to the judgment of that Church which is liable to error And therefore I need not cast away pretious time in confuting those particular fancies of some private Doctors which are directly repugnant unto the confessed opinion of the Pope and the Decree of a general Councel 2. This is so far from mending the matter that it makes it far worse for he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things because she is infallible in all things speaks that which is coherent in it self and the consequence is agreeable to reason the onely fault lies in the Antecedent But he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things though she may erre in many things and none knows how many throws himself and me upon such desperate Rocks as none but a mad-man would run upon When Bellarmine delivers that desperate doctrine That if the Pope should command us to sin we are bound to obey him and when others have said That if the Pope should lead thousands to Hell we must not reprove him their followers mollifie the harshnesse of those assertions with this favourable construction That the Propositions are onely Hypothetical depending upon such conditions as by reason of the promise of Infallibility can never be fulfilled for say they the Pope cannot command sin and cannot lead men to Hell and this if true were a plausible evasion But to tell me that if the Pope or Church may erre yet I am bound to believe obey them in all things this is to make that my
Scripture And although their infallibility be said to be larger or greater extensivè because in them it reached to all sentences and words and Arguments yet the Romanists themselves cannot say it is higher or greater intensivè and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decisions decreed by Councels are in their opinion as infallible as the same are when they are laid down in the Scripture This was the Notion M r Chillingworth combated against with so great successe as Cressy confesseth The second Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Churches infallibility I shall take from the impertinency and feeblenesse of those crutches or reasons wherewith they indeavour to support it I observe the summe and strength of what he hath to say in this point is reducible to five heads The first and great pretence is this Take away Infallibility and you destroy all Authority all Authority that is not Infallible is meer Faction and Rebellion and Authority that reacheth onely to the outward appearance or the purse Cressy Appen ch 7. num 2. And elsewhere Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church Ibid c. 5. n. 14. And the assertions of the Churches Authority which are frequent in the Fathers Mr Cressy urgeth as if they had been directly levelled at the Churches infallibility Exomolog Sect. 2. chap. 19. Nay so daring is this man in his Argument that not contented with his own pretended satisfaction in it he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland which it is sufficiently known he abhorred viz. that if the Catholick Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches must expire The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme c. Append. chap. 6. num 9. For Answer I durst appeale to the conscience of this very man but that Apostates in the Faith do at the same time make shipwrack of a good conscience let any Romanist that is not prodigall of his damnation seriously consider the grosse falshood of this bold supposition What! no Authority without Infallibility Belike there is no Authority in the King because no Infallibility He will say Civill Authority is but externall But Ecclesiasticall reacheth the conscience and commands the beliefe of the inward man Mr Cressy knew this to be a gratis dictum and justly denied by Protestants and therefore he should have proved it but crude suppositions and imperious dictates do passe among Romanists for solid demonstrations Yet againe I would aske Mr Cressy whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Authority over that Church or no If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer If he grant it then Authority may be without Infallibility Againe I aske him whether the Pope without a Councell have Authority over the Church or no If he deny it 't is at his perill if he affirme it then his Argument is in great jeopardy For Protestants are allowed to disbelieve the Popes personall Infallibility And he confesseth I gave you his own words before that good Catholicks deny it and dispute against it Yet once more When generall Councels have been called to determine the pretensions of Anti-Popes or to depose usurping Popes or when they have had differences with the Popes I demand whether these Councels had any Authority or no To say they had none or that their Authority was but an airy fantasme I think Mr Cressy will not dare and if they had then either a Councell without the Pope is Infallible which most Learned Papists now deny and if Mr Cressy be of another mind let him tell us or Authority may be without Infallibility In a word that the World may see the complexion of an Apostates conscience This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convent in every Bishop over his Diocesse in ever Generall over his order and a weighty Authority too as their vassals feel by sad experience yet I hope these are not Infallible E. the more impudent is he that argues fâ—om Authority to Infallibility A second Argument is much of the same complexion taken from the stile and practise of generall Councels which was to propose their Doctrines as infallible truths and to command all Christians under the paine of Anathema and eternall damnation to believe them for such That Authority which should speak thus not being Infallible would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty and usurpation that ever was in the World Append. chap. 4. n. 9. This hath been fully answered before and therefore I shall here content my selfe with these two reflections 1. The utmost of this Argument abstracting from the invidious expressions he here clothes it with that it may have in tenour what it wants in strength would be no more then this That generall Councels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own and I hope well may since the Jesuites so great a part and support of the Roman Church have and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible untill the Popes consent be added yet such Councels as is notoriously known have used to put their Anathema's to their decrees before the Popes assent was given And yet forsooth if you will believe a man that hath cast away his Faith this Argument is more evident then we can produce for the Scripture it selfe for so he saith ibid. 2. These Anathema's do not at all prove that such Councels either were or thought themselves Infallible It is true it is an Argument they thought one of these two things either that the Doctrine proposed by them was Infallibly true as indeed they did or that their Authority was infallibly certaine which they never pretended either of these were a sufficient ground for such Anathema's and therefore his Argument is infirme proceeding à genere ad speciem animal est E. homo They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do so in case of Excommunication of Hereticks Are they therefore infallible If it be said they do it onely in pursuance and execution of the decrees of Councels I Answer If such persons confessedly fallible may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines delivered in Councels because supposed to be Infallibly true why may not the same persons Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines expressely delivered in Scripture which all grant to be infallibly true Againe if we look into the Records of Councels wee shall find that this practise of Anathematizing was not onely in use in generall but also in particular aud Provinciall Councells which are confessed to be fallible E. Mr Cressy look to your Arguments and conscience better once more The Popes Anathemas aâ—l the World rings of yet you have seen his Infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists and
a parallel place to his consideration It is said particularly concerning Jerusalem which never was said concerning Rome I have hallowed this house to put my name therein for ever and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 1 Kings 9.3 And it is again repeated concerning that house that the Lord had said In Ierusalem shall my Name be for ever 2 Chron. 33.4 Then if he have a conscience let him Answer whether there be not as much warrant from these Texts to prove this promise to Ierusalem to be infallible and unconditional which they grant it was not as from the other Texts to prove them to be so to the Church of Rome He need not take day to answer it His second Answer is wholly ad hominem and the other you will say was little ad rem That Mr. Chillingworth applies this to future times onely not to past or present and therefore it concernes not the dispute in hand about the Romane Catholick Church which all English Protestants acknowledg to be a true Church of Christ. Just so they would perswade their Proselytes that all Protestants grant that theirs is a safe way and Salvation to be had ordinarily in the communion of their Church whereas neither the one nor the other are true But what if Protestants do and Mr. Chillingworth did grant their Church to be a true Church doth it therefore follow these Texts were pertinently alledged to prove it or did Mr. Chillingworth say these promises were absolute for time past or present and conditional onely for the future no such matter but these are onely his own dreams and shufflings who pro more when he cannot answer his Adversary indeavours to blind his Reader I have onely one thing more to observe upon that which he tels us Mr. Chillingworth saw it That if there were such promises of Indefectibility none could challenge them but the Romane Church since she onely claims them all others lay down their claime But that also is no more solid then the rest for since this promise of Indefectibility is general and indefinite it no more belongs to Rome then to any other particular Church neither have they any more interest in the promise because they boldly claime the Monopoly of it since an Usurpers claime gives him no just Title to the thing Nor have other Churches the lesse interest in it because their conscience and modesty will not suffer them to appropriate it to themselves for though they extend this promise of Indefectibility to the whole Church yet they reap the comfort and benefit of it in as much as they are true members of that Church and not upon any local or particular consideration There is a fourth argument behind taken from the Tradition or testimony of the present Church but this I have discoursed at large and I hope discovered the folly of that new device thither I refer the Reader A fifth argument there is and that is all I find in Mr. Cressy for I have diligently searched him and God is my witnesse I have indeavoured to single out the strongest and most plausible passages in him which I had not answered before and that is taken from the Churches Unity One Church thâ—re cannot be without one faith nor one faith where differences are irreconcileable and no reconciling of differences but by an Authority and that infallible Append. ch 6. n. 3. And again The Sun shines not more clear I suppose he means in the Cloysters of his Convent then that there is no possible Vnity without Authority nor no Christian Vnity without an Infallible Authority ch 7. n. 2. Ans. Very well it being premised That their onely infallible Authority is as Mr. Cressy states it the Church speaking by a general Councel confirmed by the Pope Appen chap. 4. num 9. then if this argument be solid let Mr. Cressy take what follows Then there was neither one Church nor one Faith for the first 300 years when there was no general Councel then when the Pope dies or his Sea is vacant other wayes as it oft hath been and when there is no Councel as now there is none there is no Unity in the Church of Rome what thinks this man of the Gallican Church which unlesse they be throughly Jesuited do still hold as they used to do that the Pope personally considered is not infallible but onely with a general Councel will he justify it in the Assembly of the French Clergy that they have at this day no unity among them and no way to reconcile their differences because they have no infallible Authority But I shall not wast my time any longer with these impertinent and miscalled arguments I shall leave the point with this short Memorandum That it is a plain evidence of the desperatnesse of their cause that all the great wit and vast learning and deep cunning of the Romish Doctors can furnish them with no better arguments then these And since this is all that Mr. Cressy can pretend for his Apostacy I would intreat him in his next to furnish me with some Answers to those that suspect his Change was not from Conscience but Discontent or Passion or Worldly Interest as affairs then stood for I confesse I am at a losse and know not what to say for him and the rather because the pretended motives of his Conversion are so ridiculously absurd and incredible among which I find two that deserve a special remark One is the scandalous personal qualities of Luther and Calvin which if all that he saith of them were true and material as it is either notoriously false or inconsiderable yet it amounts to nothing against the Protestant cause since though we own them for eminent persons and worthy instruments yet we readily acknowledge they were lyable to error and subject to passions and infirmities no lesse then other men nor did we ever make them the pillars and grounds of the Gospel or the foundation and rule of our Faith But that this should occasion his Change I confesse is beyond the faith of Miracles to believe This is prodigious That the supposed mistakes or miscarriages of two particular Protestant Doctors should really have greater influence to turn him from the Protestant Religion then the real Blasphemies and abominable filthinesses of their Masters and Pillars of their Faith and Church viz. the Popes should have to alienate him from the Popish Religion and these things not feigned by Adversaries as most of their Calumnies against Luther and Calvin are but acknowledged by their own Authors who have left us a particular account of the several sorts of their villanies so many Blasphemers as Iohn 13. Iulius 3. c. so many Hereticks as Boniface 8. Iohn 23. so many Conjurers as Sylvester the second and his Successors for many successions so many Whoremongers so many Sodomites Poysoners Incestuous and what not 150 Popes saith Genebrard rahter Apostatical then Apostolical persons And yet this tender-conscienced man who knew all
13 but because St. Peters successor or the Church injoyns you to believe it but it is no Fundamental that Christ is God if the Church doth not oblige you to believe it Did I say it was not a Fundamental I do them wrong in not speaking the whole truth for so far are they from owning it for a Fundamental Article that they will not allow it to be an article or object of our Faith without such confirmation and injunction from the Church as I shewed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse But this is so grosse a cheat and such a groundless imposture wholly destitute of all appearance of proof that it is a vanity to spend time in the confuting of it If any Papist think otherwise let him give us solid proofs That the Pope or Councel have such dominion over our Faith That Fundamentals are all at their mercy though meâ— thinks the very mention of such a conceit is abundant confutation nor can any thing be more absurd then to say That it is no Fundamental to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them them thaâ— diligently seek him unlesse the Churches Authority command us to believe it and that it is a Fundamental to believe that which so many of the Antients did not believe viz. the falsehood of the Millenary opinion or of the admission of departed Saints to the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement because these are determined by the Church And there is nothing which more essentially overthrowes the Popish conceit of Fundamentals then the consideration of the Pillar upon which they build it which is the Churches Infallible authority as the Answerer of Bishop Land Discourseth whose great argument is this whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a damnable sin but whosoever refuseth to believe any point sufficiently prâ—pounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently prâ—pounded to him for a truth revealed from God this is proved from hence because general Councels cannot erre Where to say nothing of the Major you see this man proves and the Church of Rome hath no better proofs incertum per incertius their notion of Fundamentals from their opinion of Councels infallibility and the infallibility of Councels having been abundantly evinced to be but a Chimaerical Imagination I must needs conclude That the foundation being fallen the superstructure needs no strength of argument to pull it down if any desire to see this wild conceit baffâ—ed he may find it done in that excellent discourse of Mr. Stingfleets part 1 chap. 2 3 4. For the 6. particular the doctrine of the Trinity it is true that is a real Fundamental but to say that is not clearly proved from the Scripture and for one that pretends he was a Protestant to say thus I confesse it is one of those many arguments which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather then to the convictions of his conscience or the evidence of his cause Behold the harmony between Socinianisme and Popery Rather then not assert the Churches authority these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands to confesse that they cannot be confuted by Scripture But the learned Papists are of another mind in their lucid intervals and some of them as Simglecius have sufficiently overthrown the Socinian Heresy from Scripture evidence however I am sure Protestants have abundantly evinced it Let any man read but those excellent discourses of Placaeus about the Praeexistence of Christ before his birth of the Virgin and his Divinity and he will be of another mind But this shews the Captain was prepared to receive any thing that could so easily believe a proposition which he could not but know from his own experience to be horribly false unlesse he were shamefully ignorant 7 For the remaining points they split upon the same Rocks with the former for there is none of them but is sufficiently evident from Scripture as hath been fully proved by those who have treated of those matters but I must forbear digressions And besides in the sense he intends he will find it an hard matter to prove their necessity to salvation if he think otherwise let him try his strength And this may satisfy the third argument concerning the Scriptures darkness in things said to be necessary to salvation A fourth argument urged against the Scriptures supremacy is that we have not the Originals but onely Copies and Translations and these made by fallible men and therefore it cannot be a certain rule to our Faith This hath been answered in the former Discourse it will suffice therefore briefly to suggest some â—ew things 1 This argument if solid and weighty will prove that no Copies nor Translations can be a Rule to us that onely the Original Decalogue which was written by Gods own finger was a Rule to the Jews and consequently that Transcript of it which by Gods appointment the Prince had and was obliged to read was no rule to him which how false it is will appear from Deut. 17 18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein that he may learn to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them By which the Reader will quickly discern what weight is in this part of the Discours That a Copy cannot be a certain rule for the Princes rule is but a Copy and the Transcription of that not limited to an infallible hand When Moses of old time was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Act. 15.21 it is to be presumed each of them had not the Original of God's writing yet was it never rejected from being a rule upon that account What rare work would this Notion make in a Kingdom if throughly prosecuted Belike the Captaine doth not hold his Statute book a rule to him because it is not the Original And observe the horrible partiality of these men The Decrees of the Pope or Councel suppose of Trent are a Rule and a certain one too to our English Papists though they have nothing of them but a Copy and a Translation but the Scripture cannot be a Rule because it is onely a Copy and Translation The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers when it is delivered onely by a Popish Priest and he confessedly fallible by word of mouth and it ceaseth to be a rule when it is delivered by writing by a fallible hand yet surely the one is but a copy as well as the other though made by diverse instruments 2. The copies and Translations of Scripture are a sure and certain rule because they do sufficiently evidence themselves to be the word
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
they generally pretend to own as their Law and it is no lesse true of Tradition of the largenesse whereof one may say as was formerly said of Livy Quas mea non totas Bibliotheca capit for according to the estimate which a learned Author of their own makes Charron by name the Scripture is but minima pars veritatis revelatae the least part of revealed Truth He that pleaseth may see good store of them collected by that great terrour of the Papists Moulin in a Treatise of his in French concerning Traditions Nay to put all out of doubt these very men that argue at this rate though they do not acquiesce in the Scripture as a Judge yet they do own it for a Law they confesse the word of God is their rule and law onely they make as I may say this law to consist of two Tables the written and the unwritten Word which you saw the Councel of Trent receive with equal piety and reverence Now certainly they that subscribe to this as the Papists generally do they own the Scripture for a Law though not for a compleat and sufficient Law nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law devest the Scripture of it any more then the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and statutes that is not at all Much more might be said to shew the folly and absurdity of this argument but if I should spend more words about it I should both question my own and too grosly distrust the Readers discretion And now having done with the Mathematicks let us come to the Politicks the best argument the Church of Rome hath Politick Mr. White who seeing their Scripture arguments in the suds and for the Fathers pila miâ— nantia pilis comes in to succour a falling cause with Politick considerations and moral conjectures and fine-spun probabilities No man can deny that it was politickly done when they saw their Church could prove nothing to assert that her bare saying was sufficient that the testimony of the present Church that she holds nothing but what she hath received from Christ and the Apostles is security enough for a Christian's Faith but this notion I have largely examined and I hope Mr. White will abate something of his confidence in it therefore I have nothing to do here but to consider what he alledgeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies and excepting what hath been before discussed I find onely one argument that can pretend to merit any consideration and it is delivered by him pro more with great confidence and contempt of his Adversaries When the Protestants ask the question as well they may Cannot the Bible make it self be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle a question which all the wits of the Romane Church not excluding Mr. White were never able to answer and thence infer that the Scripture is sufficiently intelligible and able to decide controversies Mr. White 's answer and argument against the Scriptures is this That this depends upon a most false supposition viz that the Scripture was written of those controversies which now are whereas it is a most shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world beginning from Genesis to the Apocalypse let them name one Book whose Theme is any now controverted Point between Protestants and Catholicks Apology for Tradition fifteenth Encounter And consequently the Scripture is no fit Judge for our controversies This you must know is the argument of another Mathematical Papist who cries out of Protestants for resting in probabilities yet can satisfy himself or at least pretends to do so with such absurd and improbable ratiocinations O the power of prejudice or interest for I cannot tell which it is that blinds such men as Mr. White Be of good chear Protestants the Papists are upon their last legs you see their arguments run very low The Answer is this in short for truly it needs no long nor laborious reply how much soever Mr. White is conceited of it It is not a most shamelesse but a most shameful proposition to say the Scripture is unable to decide any of those controversies which are since sprung up in the Christian world Is there any Freshman in the University ignorant of this That Rectum est Index sui obliqui that the assertion of a Truth is sufficient for the confutation of all contrary errors wheresoever or whensover broached I may say to Mr. White as they did to Moses Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men Doth Mr. White think his Readers would have neither wit nor conscience I aske whether those passages of Scripture In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Joh. 1.1 who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 This is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 do not solidly and sufficiently confute the late sprung Socinian Heresy and prove Christ's Divinity and prae-existency before his Incarnation If he say no I will promise him hearty thanks though not from Christ nor peradventure from his Vicar yet from all the Socinians in the world and then he would do well to answer what Placaeus and other of the Protestants or rather as a demonstration of the unity of the Romish Church what Smiglâ—cius and others of his Brother Romanists have argued from those places or else let him give us the reason why his Brethren should play the knaves and own and urge those things for solid arguments which they did not think so If he say yea then down fals all this goodly structure and Mr. White must seek for a new prop to their declining Babel and Scripture is not unable to decide controversies of a later Date Yet again I will prove Jesus Christ was not of Mr. White 's mind for he thought Scripture yea even such parts of Scripture as were not written upon those Themes or controversies nor designed against those errors able to decide supervening controversies Thus he confutes the Pharisaical opinion about Divorce from a Text well nigh as old as the Creation of the world even the institution of marriage Math. 19.4 5 6. So he confutes the error of the Sadduces against the resurrection from a Scripture long before delivered and such an one too as seemed to have no respect at all to such an Heresy Mat. 22.29 30 31 32. May it please this worthy Gentleman to give us leave without offence to prefer our Saviours opinion before his I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so sensless a cavil but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Non-sence passe for an Argument I need onely advise the Reader to read over the New Testament and if he have either reason or conscience it is impossible he should be of Mr.