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
points viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace and mans will and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papists In both of them it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncertaine found for Tradition tels the Jesuites this is truth That the will is determined to good actions not by Gods grace but by its own inclination and agency Tradition tels the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a grosse falsity So for the Church if you enquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility resides for that is the great question Tradition tels the Jesuites it is in the Pope Tradition not long since told the Councels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Councell not in the Pope and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day And I will tell you a thing in your eare both these are Apostolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary It is true that S t Iames saith No Fountaine can yield both Salt-water and Fresh Chap. 3. 8.12 But that is to be understood onely of the Fountaine of the Scripture but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh both bitter and sweet You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible for you see it can work wonders and reconcile contradictions If this seem strange to you you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M r VVhites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera to be dedicated to the Defenders of Transubstantiation but to returne What say our masters to this difficulty why I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies and what their pretences are I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadfull shock 1. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles not of any great consequence to Christians Thus the controversies between the Jesuites and Dominicans about Gods free grace and mans free-will they say are but Scholasticall niceties wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned So for that point of Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter The dissenters onely seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know which be our Articles of Faith whether by the Popes or Councels or both which is not much materiall saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. § 9. to our purpose whatever the truth be supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descendâ—d to us from Christ and his Apostles For Answer I would know whether a private Christian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the decision of Pope or Councell or not If they say he can know it then it followes that private Christians may be Infallible of themselves and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Councels for what need any more then Infallibility If they say he cannot then an Infallible guide judge and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible and consequently if it be doubtfull and disputable who this Judge is it must be also doubtfull whether the Tradition be right and therefore Tradition cannot make me Infallible It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so materiall as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider should say this amongst themselves is not materiall for as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controversies and not to be agreed who it is according to that known maxime of the Lawyers Idem est non apparere non esse As for the other points between the Jesuites and Dominicans how materiall they are we will take their own judgments If we may believe either one or other of them the points are of great moment If you aske the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuiticall Doctrine they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pelagian Heresy yea it is worse then Pelagianisme that they are contemners of Grace such as rob God of his honour taking halfe of it to themselves that it is here disputed Whether God alone be God or whether the will of man be a kind of inferiour yet in part an Independent Deity These are M r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae quaest Theolog. in Epis in parag 7. And for the Jesuites they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine which say the Jesuites brings back the stoicall paradox robs God of the Glory of his goodnesse makes God a lyer and the Author of sinne and yet when we tell them of these divisions the breach is presently healed these savages are grown tame their differences triviall and onely some School niceties wherein Faith is not concerned And now both Stoicks and Pelagians are grown Orthodox and the grace glory soveraignty and holinesse of God are matters but of small concernment and so it seems they are to them else they durst not so shamelesly dally with them But it is usuall with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters which in computation sometimes stand for pounds sometimes for pence as interest and occasion require And it is worth Observation These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants between Calvin and Arminius they are represented by our Adversaries as very materiall and weighty differences but when they come to their share they are of no moment 2. It may be said Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible not particular Doctors For Answer let it be remembred that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors but the points alledged are controverted amongst as learned and devout men as they call Devotion as ever the Church of Rome had here is Order against Order University against University Nation against Nation all of them pretending Tradition for their contrary opinions with greatest confidence and eagernesse Premising this I Answer That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedst Romanists may deceive ten thousand That which deceives the Jesuites in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others the Franciscans in others If it deceive the French Papists in some points it may deceive the Italians in others and so is not Infallible in any Or else what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition Will they say Tradition is only Infallible in France and those of the same perswasion who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Councell above
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
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
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
of God and the fearfull Apostacy of these men that rather then recant their errours will in effect renounce Christianity and justifie the murderers of Christ I prove it thus If the Jewes in that Act did nothing but what by vertue of this place they were obliged to do then they did not sin But the Jewes did nothing in the murdering of Christ but what by vertue of this place If the Popish sence bee true they were obliged to do Ergo The Major they do and must grant for it cannot be a sin to obey Gods command The Minor I prove if this law did require absolute obedience to their Priests and was in force at that time then the Jewes did nothing but what they were obliged to do But this law did require such obedience say the Papists and it was in force at that time say I Ergo The consequence no man will deny but he that doth not understand it The Minor I prove it in its two branches 1. This law bound the Jewes to absolute obedience to their Priests This is known to be their opinion But because I have no great confidence in the ingenuity of these men I will prove it out of 2 or 3 of their most eminent authors Becanus hath these words the whole people in matters of religion were commanded to follow that which the High-Priest enjoyned them What more plain Thus Melchior Canus one of great Authority with them Moses doth not command that they should believe the Priests if they judged according to law but rather that they should take that for law which the Priest taught them Bellarm disputes against the assertion of Brentius That the people were to stand to the Iudgment of the High-Priest's only upon condition they judged according to law and argues that they were absolutely bound to follow it And that you may see it is a resolved case Gretser defends Bel in it and tell 's us plainly the people were bound to stand to the High-Priests judgment whatsoever their sentence was I think an Adversary will not require more for the proofe of the first branch of the Minor The second branch of the Minor is that this law was then in force which I prove thus If Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished this Law it was in force But Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished it The Ceremoniall Law which was to expire yet in the judgment of all intelligent Divines Antient and Modern Popish and Protestant did not expire till the death of Christ and consequently while Christ lived this Law was in force which being considered quite invalidates the last and most plausible evasion of the Papists to this instance as Becanus delivers it Synagoga fere expiravit The Synagogue was almost expired He should have said the precept Deut. 17. was altogether expired and instead of it here is the Synagogue was almost expired And what then it was not yet expired nor dead A man that is almost dead is yet alive and while the Law lives it hath its force over us as the Apostle argues Rom 7.1 Else it is a pretty device of Becanus and will do fine feats for by the same Argument I will prove that the Jewes were not then bound to observe their Passeover quia Synagoga fere expiravit And if that Law which enjoyned the observation of the passeover was in full force to the Jewes notwithstanding the nearnesse of its expiration then the same must be acknowledged of this Law which required absolute obedience to the High-Priests sentence and consequently the Jewes were then bound by it and therefore Horresco referens did not sin in it And because the conclusion is divilish and detestable to all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity therefore the principles from which it flowes are rotten and that Popish cause which cannot stand without such prodigious blasphemies ought to be abhorred by all that pretend to Christianity And therefore the Popish glosse upon the place is false and their Argument from it is wicked and the true sence is this they were bound to hearken to the Priests if they delivered sentence according to the Law and not if they did grosly contradict it And the rejection of this exposition and the assertion of the peoples implicit faith hath forced severall of them who passe for sober men amongst our Adversaries into such expressions as these That this action of the Priests in condemning of Christ was indeed contrary to Christ but their sentence was most true and most profitable yea that it was a Divine Oracle So Canus That at that time the Priests had the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth So Petrus a Soto That the Arts of that Councell were wicked but the sentence whereby they condemned Christ was just and true So Harding Really Protestants must be tender in pressing their Arguments too farre for the Papists like wild Horses when they are chased will venture over hedg and ditch We have already made them turne Jewes I am afraid next remove we shall dispute them into Paganisme if they be not there already § 13. And thus I have dispatched the Romanists pretensions from Scripture for the Popes Supreme and infallible Authority If infallibility have any foundation in Scripture it is in these places And how far they are from giving any countenance or support to their opinion I leave to that reader to judge who hath either sence or conscience or any care of his Salvation But I must not do them wrong I confesse there is one Argument behind and that is taken from S t Peters prerogatives And Bellarmine reckons up no lesse then twenty eight Prerogatives which all undoubtedly belong to the Pope yes that I confesse strikes all dead and therefore I must crave the Readers pardon and Bellarmines mercy if I once do as the Papists do ordinarily passe over in silence what I cannot Answer for who can resist these Evidences Peters name is changed Ergo the Popes nature is changed from fallible to infallible Peter is oft mentioned in the first place therefore ought to have the first seat and is the chiefe Bishop Peter walks with Christ upon the Water and therefore the Pope must raigne with him upon earth and Divisum imperium cum Iove Papa tenet Peter payes Tribute and therefore the Pope should have a power of levying Tribute to reinburse him Christ teacheth in Peters Ship and therefore to quit scores the Pope should rule in Christs Church Christ bids Peter let down his Net therefore the Pope must catch the Fish of Supremacy Christ washeth Peters feet therefore all men must kisse the Popes Toe These and diverse other such prerogatives Bel hath collected together and vehemently argues from them for the Popes Supremacy but for these I must desire some time to give in my Answer I hope I have said enough to prove the second Proposition viz. That the Scripture in it selfe is not a
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 not contented to deliver the assertion he addes a reason Is it not absurd that when you are to receive mâ—ny you do not trust other men but examine it your selves and when you are to judge of things then to be drawn away by other mens opinions And this saith he is the worse fault in you because you have the Scriptures That brings in the second Herely of Chrysostomes The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture and the mischiefe too is he cals it a perfect rule you have saith he an exact standard and rule of all things and he concludes thus I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks but enquire all things of the Scriptures I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one if I might advise them the next Jesuite that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostomes works by the Protestants and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of Chrysostome in the Vatican What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully then Origen It is necessary saith he that we should alledge the Testimony of Scriptures without which our expositions do not command faith Or then Cyrill Do not believe me saying these things unlesse I prove them out of the Scriptures Or then Ambrose thus speaking to the Emperour Gratian I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation let us aske the Scriptures aske the Prophets the Apostles S t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration then Cyprian and Ambrose yet heare how he speaks of them of Cyprian thus I am not obliged by his Authority I do not look on his Epistles as Canonicall but I examine them by the Scriptures and what is repugnant thereunto with his good leave I reject it Would the Papists give us but this liberty we should desire no more and of Ambrose he saith the like Peradventure it will be said in this point as it is in the generall That although it is confessed by the Fathers that particular Doctors are liable to error yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree they have an infallible Authority and are a sufficient foundation of Faith To this I answer 1 If this were granted it doth not in the least secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us wherein such unanimous consent can be produced but in every one of them there are pregnant allegations out of some of the Fathers repugnant to their opinions and assertions This their learned men cannot but know and if they have any ingenuity in them they cannot deny 2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea What a silly thing is it to deny that that which happen'd to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them And with Gerhard the Testimonies of the Fathers collectively taken cannot bee of another kind and nature then they are distributively Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition if he apprehends the meaning of it for how can the same persons being onely considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time And if Austin Ambrose Cyprian supposing these were all the Fathers be each of them fallible how can a meer collective consideration of them render them infallible 3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth That the Fathers deny this Infallibility not onely to one or two of them dispersedly but to all the Antients collectively considered and this I shall prove onely by one Argument They that make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writer deny the Infallibility of the Fathers eitheir collectively or distributively considered But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writers and abjudicate it from all other Writers S t Ierome is expresse Except the Apostles whatsoever else is afterward said let it be cut off for it hath no Authority And againe I make a difference between the Apostles and other Writers those alwaies said Truth but these in somethings as men did erre St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scriptures and all other Writings That those are to be read with a necessity of believing but these with a liberty of judging What living man can expresse the Protestant Doctrine in more evident termes then the same Father elsewhere doth That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other witnesses and testimonies whether more or fewer agreed or divided all is one to S t Austin you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge they have more or lesse weight And again when he was pressed by Ierom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers he thus Answers I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture to believe there is no error in them But as for others how Learned or Godly soever they be I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures To conclude so evident is St. Austin's judgment in that point that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist Occam by name who speaking of a passage of St. Austins about this point hath these words It is to be noted that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the pen-men of the Scripture makâ—s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers and therefore whether they be Popes or others whether they writ in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed upon them You see St. Austin's mind is plain and doth our Adversaries themselves being judges directly overturne that great fundamental point of the Infallibility of Councels and Popes which if you will believe them is not only true but necessary to salvation and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths These are they that maintaine no doctrine but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great article of Transubstantiation viz. to tell us we must not believe our selves when we read such passages in the Fathers and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons and Consciences we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal And this doctrine of Austins if you will believe the Romanists when delivered by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine never heard of in the world till Luther's dayes and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge when the like is said of our other doctrines I might fill up a Treatise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this purpose but this is enough for any but those who are resolved to sacrifice
Infallibility from the Pope which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do confess Councels without the Popes confirmation and in themselves to be but fallible for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara and all the Authors he cites to that purpose What say you further if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion let the intelligent Reader judg His Conclusion is Therefore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Councels now I assume St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held that Councels are fallible This I prove from his own words In this sense Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin whether they be Popes or others whether they wrot any thing in Councel or out of Councel the same judgment is to be passed upon them that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true certain because they wrot so but onely because they could prove it by Scripture or reason or miracles or the approbation of the universal Church Thus far Occham Now follows S. Clara's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which doctrine of his I judg most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Councels in lesser things though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain and a distinction foisted into the text which St. Austin never dream'd of and he is reduced to such straits that he hath no other way to evade but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another viz. that it is sufficient for him that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Councels Ergo they thought them Infallible It is Bellarmine's argument and I have already answer'd it And so this block being removed the Conclusion remains firme That St. Austin thought not Councels infallible For farther confirmation whereof I shall from hence collect two Arguments plainly proving that St. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Councels 1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Councels then to particular Synods nay then to private Doctors This I prove because St. Austin and the Papists themselves and indeed all men allow each of them so far infallible and their assertions to be infallibly true as they can prove them by Scripture or irrefragable reasons or miracles or the approbation of the whole Church and not one syllable more doth Austin give to general Councels 2. Because the Papists will not and cannot according to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there speaks and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think unlesse they will make him one of those who seldome speak as they think It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church however disowned by some few of them whom they look on as Extravagants and Schismaticks that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope say some of the Councel say others of the Pope and Councel together say almost all upon the credit of their own assertion without any further reason This is evident from Stapleton Gregory de Valentia Tannerus and Bellarmine in several pâ—aces one I shall instance in It is one thing saith he to interpret a law as a Doctor that requires Learning another thing to interpret it as Iudge that requires Authority a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed farther then reason induceth us but a Iudg propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it The Fathers â—xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes And now let S. Clara himself judg if he will deal candidly whether St. Austin and Bellarmine were of a mind or which is all one whether St. Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes barely upon the credit of their authority or assertion as the Papists say he did or only as Doctors because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason as St. Austin in terminis asserts § 11. But because it is of some concernment to understand Austin's mind in this point whose authority is so venerable both to them and us and whom both Parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy I shall further consider what S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose the passage he pleads is this Vntill that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed by a general Councel Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels Put it it into a Syllogism and it is this That which so confirms a truth as to remove all doubts is Infallible But a general Councel so confirmes a truth as to remove all doubts Ergo. The Major is denied for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reason so confirme a truth as to remove all doubt from the hearers and yet is not therefore infallible There are then two wayes whereby doubts may be removed 1. By the infallibility of the authority Thus when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason this should remove all doubt 2. By the evidence of arguments and so their argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativè thus a general Councel removeth doubts Ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority it followeth not for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument And this Answer might very well suffice But that I may give them full satisfaction if possibly the interest of these men would suffer their consciences to open their eyes I shall prove that it was so and that St. Austin speaks of this latter way of removing doubts i.e. by their convincing arguments not by their infallible authority This plainly appears by considering the contexture of the words Lest I should seem saith he only to prove it by humane arguments because the obscurity of this question did in former times before the schisme of Donatus make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves untill by a General Councel that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments Where you plainly see that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority and that he acknowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa certain or infallible as is evident from the Antithesis 2. This appears most undeniably from a parallel place where St. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian That holie man sufficiently shewed that he would have changed his opinion if any had demonstrated to him that Baptisme might be so
Popish Bishops have been so that if any Popes or Bishops violate the conditions on their parts required they may lose the priviledge on Gods part promised If they be unsincere in their intentions and biassed with humane affection if ambition or covetousnesse be in their hearts and sway their actions actum est de Infallibilitate their infallibility is laid in the dust It is true S. Clara saith We are to suppose that a Pope and Councell do thus proceed unlesse the contrary be evident But I Answer 1. Thus the Doctrine of Infallibility and the whole weight of the Romish Church and cause depends upon a meer supposition and which is far worse upon such an one as can never be proved for who can know the sincerity of another mans intentions but himselfe What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man that is in him 1 Cor. 2. 2. I note that these men craftily shift off the proofe to us when it belongs to them for Asserenti incumbit probatio He that saith a Pope or Councell proceeding sincerely and piously is infallible is bound to prove two things 1. That such an one is a lawfull Pope or Councell 2. That such a lawfull Pope or Councell proceed lawfully as Bellarmine himselfe requires and piously And as it were an absurd conceit if I require a proof that such a man is lawfull Pope to say Supponendum est c. We must suppose him to be the lawfull Pope unlesse the contrary be evident so is it also when I expect a proofe of the sincerity of his intentions instead of a Probandum to tell me supponendum est which is to tell me that I must venture my Salvation upon a prooflesse assertion And it is a new straine of Popish Logick that suppositions must passe for Arguments 3. I observe the desperate issue of Popish principles the foundation of their Faith and Hope is the Infallibility of Pope or Councell This Infallibility they can have no assurance of which I thus prove No man can have assurance of the performance of a conditionall promise unlesse he have assurance of the performance of the condition but the promise of Infallibility is a conditionall promise depending upon the honesty and sincerity of mans intentions which another man can never be assured of Here we have a remarkable evidence of the perverse Spirit of our Adversaries and the indefensiblenesse of their cause Those very men that are so curious and criticall that they will not allow a man to be sure of his own sincerity now will needs have us to rest assured of the sincerity of another man But how are we assured Why with a non constat de opposito An Ingenious device which will serve for many excellent purposes Thus I may be assured that the present great Mogul is turned Christian because the contrary is not evident Thus I may be assured of the vertue wisdome and piety of every person that now lives at Rome because the contrary is not evident to me In a word according to their Doctrines and Answers A Papist hath no greater assurance of the Popes or Councels Infallibility then I have That there is a World in the Moon That the day of Iudgment shall be next year Or that I shall die to morrow Or that a thousand soules shall be converted by the next Sermon I preach because in all these I may say non constat de opposito the contrary is not evident Really the Protestants ought not to be envious at the assurance of the Papists for they are contented with very moderate termes for it If they would be satisfied with the same kind of assurance in conveyance of worldly estates as they are in the Salvation of their Soules I believe they would get away all good bargaines from their neighbours but you will finde them wiser there 4. But alas for them I fear I shall be cruell to them for I cannot allow their non constat de opposito They tell us we must suppose that Popes and Councels have allwaies acted sincerely and honestly because we do not know the contrary an assertion which whosoever will undertake to make good must combat the Faith of all History I shall say nothing of the censures of Protestants upon them whose interest and opinion may render them suspected of partiality But I hope they will not take it amisse if I represent some few of those innumerable Testimonies which their own most learned and approved Authors have given concerning the hypocrisy impiety fraud ambition avarice of their infallible Gentlemen the Popes and Popish Bishops And were it not that the Pope hath a power of turning vice into vertue at his pleasure according to that saying of Bellarmines In a good since Christ hath given to Peter a power of making sinne to be no sin it were impossible to mistake the Pope for a Saint let us here some few of the expressions of such as lived and died in their communion For the Popes he that reads their own Historians would think the name of Holinesse were given to them by Antiphrasis and that in meer pity they were allowed the name who did not pretend to the thing The Papall chaire is called by themselves Cathedra pestilentiae a pestilentiall chaire Genebrard himselfe though a sworn vassall of the Popes confesseth as I observed before that for 150 years together the Popes were Apostatici Apostates not Apostolicks as if they succeeded Peter onely in the denying of his master and yet these are our infallible masters who doubts but they can worke miracles at Rome that can make Apostacy and Infallibility dwell together in the same person and however our Saviour said No man can serve two masters and St Paul What communion can there be between Christ and Belial yet the Papists are infallibly sure of the contrary for if their most approved Authours may be credited diverse of the Popes have had infallible guidance of Gods spirit and undoubted communion with the Devill at the same time for so faith Platina sometimes the Popes library keeper All the Popes from Sylvester the second even to Gregory the seventh inclusively which were about 18 Popes were Magitians But I confesse all the Popes were not conjurers for some of them were such silly wretches that they did not understand Grammer according to the report of their own Authors And yet these too were infallible Doctors And Ludovicus Vives dealt too hardly with poore Bullardus for saying The better Grammarian the worse Divine for here it seemes The worst Grammarians were the best nay the infallible Divines All Histories are full of the ambition frauds forgeries even of those who were accounted some of the best of their Popes to say nothing of more abhominable vices Nor did this corruption rest in the head but from thence dispers it selfe into all the members the Cardinals Bishops Governours of the Romish Church It was acknowledged by the Pope and therefore
byassed or the contradiction being speedily suppressed which is very possible and hath been usuallâ— it could not probably fall out otherwise but that their opinion should be transmitted to their Successors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day neither in a civil nor in a Spirituall notion And de facto that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees hath been so fully demonstrated that I need onely point the Reader to those Authors who have done this worke especially to Momeys mystery of Iniquity and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean 2. I answer particularly and in opposition to the first branch I lay down this position That the following Age or the Major part of those called Christians might easily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age of which many rationall accounts may be given 1. There was no certaine way whereby for example the particular Christians of the third Age might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the second Age. Remember the question is not how probably they might believe but how infallibly they might know it for nothing will serve the Romanists turne short of Infallibility It is true the Christians of Antioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there and they of Ephesus what was there delivered but no Christian could without miracles infallibly know what were the Doctrines delivered to the Christians in those innumerable places where the Gospell had got sooting Hence then I offer this Argument Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition that the Christians in severall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in such places and would not deceive their posterity in it or it is not sufficient but it is necessary that Traditions should be compared and the Truth discovered in a generall Councell If they say the former then they assert the Infallibility not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome or of a generall Councell or of the Catholick Church but of every particular City And to say Truth Either this plea of Tradition is fallacious and absurd or every particular Church is Infallible For to use their own words if the Christians suppose of Ephesus could be deceived then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered or they did willingly deceive their posterity but neither of these were possible Ergo The Church of Ephesus was Infallible If they will eat their own words as they will do any thing sooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth and say the Church of Ephesus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity then so might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria and so the rest and what then becomes of Infallibility If they say the latter viz. That there is a necessity of a generall Councell to compare Traditions and declare the Truth then they are desired to remember that as yet there had been no generall Councell and consequently no Infallibility and therefore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding yea many mistakes What else will they say Will they say that a Christian might Infallibly know the Truth by travelling to all places and companies of Christians and hearing it from their own mouths This though it might give satisfaction to such a Christian yet it could not satisfy others who had no such evidence Or will they say the Christians knew it by Testimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions Why such Testimonials are not so much as pretended to have been required or given and if they had been given yet that could satisfy none but those few eyewitnesses of them It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Christians of the third Age might be assured of the genuine Traditions of the second which was the thing to be proved And the solidity and satisfactorinesse of this one Answer if there were no more appeares plainly from hence that the great Architects of this devise make it essentiall to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles so Mr White informes us since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostle\`s we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently nâ—ither is Tradition Apology for Tradition Encounter 6 elsewhere his reply to our instance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this That it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some countries not all Encounter 2. Hence then I thus argue The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a generall Councell of all the Churches severally taught by the severall Apostles but such generall Councell there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolicall Traditions delivered in the second which was the thing to be proved § 14. 2. There are many instances which may be given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age We have one instance among our selves concerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding â—ge in the Quinquarticular points The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us that she maintained their Doctrines Their Adversaries tell us she held the contrary and there are Books written and Arguments urged on both sides he that doubts of this let him look into M r â—rin on the one side and D r Hâ—ylin on the other And why might it not be thus in former ages And seeing there are great mistakes daily committed and fresh disputes managed about the opinions of those Authors who have left us their mind as plainly as words can make it in books which are alwaies present to our perusal how can it be sense for a man to say that one may infallibly know their mind by a transient hearing of them what tedious controversies are there about the judgment of S. Augustine and others of the Fathers in sundry points of great moment wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do or useth to do Suppose now the Fathers preach the same things and words which they have left us in writings as diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons can any man without nonsence say that the diligent Reader may be mistaken and the attentive Hearer is infallible We all know the five Propositions of Iansenius condemned lately at Româ— The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of Iansenius his words which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them both parties are agreed in his words which seldome happens in Orall Traditions and consequently makes the argument stronger yet they differ in the sense which one side saith is Heretical the other aver it is innocent Why might not in like manner several parties though it be supposed they perfectly remembred the words
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
and the Papists have these arrowes out of their quiver and to say truth it is but reasonable that they that have borrowed so much of their Religion and Worship from the Pagans should also borrow their Arguments for you know the accessary followes the principâ—ll the onely wonder is how those Arguments which were weak and absurd in the Pagans and so judged and rejected by the Antient Fathers are become strong in the Papists But I know a reason for that too The Pope pretends to a Divinity upon Earth and consequently he can make weake things strong and as the Authority of the Romish Church is Infallible so their Arguments are without all doubt irresistible VVho knowes not that the Arrian Heresy overspread the World That the mistery of iniquity which began to work in St Pauls dayes was not to be finished and destroyed untill Christs second comming 2 Thes. 2. That there was a time when the whole World wonder'd after the beast And for the latter branch who knowes not that the Christian Church was a true Church when it wanted those Characters or at least diverse of them when it was in its infancy and therefore could not have Duration when confined to a narrow roome Act. 1. and therefore had no amplitude and consequently these are no necessary marks nor certain discoveries of the true Church as the Popish Doctors make their simple Proselytes believe So succession of Pastors signifies nothing unlesse you presuppose the truth of the Church whereof they are Pastors which forceth their own Authors to confesse that without true doctrine there is no true succession and that a local succession alone without a profession of sound doctrine is no certain note so Stapleton And Bellarmine ingenuously acknowledgeth that this argument of Succession is brought by them chiefly to prove that there is no Church where there is no succession from whence it doth not follow saith he necessarily that the Church is there where succession is So if this argument should possibly disprove our Church yet it doth not prove theirs § 10. So for Unity it is a shoe will fit every foot and hath been urged by Pagans whose great argument against Christianity was taken from the divisions of Christians and the unity of Pagans in their Religion and the Fathers answered the Pagans as we do the Papists that as the Church of God is one so the Devil 's Babylon is one as S. Austin expresseth it and that Unity without Verity is not to be regarded It was no argument of the verity and infallibility of the Jewish Church that they were united against Christ nor was it an evidence that the Church of Corinth Galatia and others mentioned in the New Testament were not the true Churches of Christ because they were peste'rd with fearful divisions and worse opinions then those which are owned by any Divines of the Protestant confession But if this test were allowed if things be weighed they would have little benefit by it I know there is nothing more familiar with the Romanists then to possesse silly seduced creatures with an opinion of their unity and our divisions I wish the latter were not more evident then the former God open the eyes and humble and forgive those who by causing divisions and offences among us have laid this stumbling block in their way It is no wonder they that cannot examine things are deceived with words But if any discreet person look within the vaile and compare their condition and ours he will find Clodius accus at moechos and that they do as if a man infected with a leprosy should reproach one who was troubled with the itch or as if a man whose hand was cut off should quarrel with another for having a scratch on his finger As for our Churches I know it is usual for the Papists to charge us with the frantick opinions of Quakers the desperate heresies of Socinus and the like but they would take it ill if we should charge their Religion with all the Blasphemous atheistical heretical opinions of some that have liveed amongst them Their own consciences tell them that these though they are among us yet they are not of us He that would judge righteous judgment must take his aestimate from the publick confessions of the Protestant Churches whose Harmony is published and proved to all the world and such of our learned Doctors as adhere to it and there he shall find the diversities of opinion amongst us are onely in some lesser points happily about government or other circumstantiall things but it is most certain and undeniable that all of them do hold the head agree in all the fundamental points of ReligioÌ„ But on the other side what if there be cloven Tongues in Protestant Churches Is Rome a City at unity within it self How come we then to hear the noise of axes and hammers among the builders of their Temple 300 differences have been collected out of Bellarmine's words and works and several of them of greater importance then any of our divisions It is true they have a pretty knack when we tell them of their divisions they say they are not in things de fide I see Duo cùm faciunt idem non est idem It is a woful division among us between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants but the same difference among them between Jesuits and Dominicans that is of no moment Oh ye foolish Papists how long will you be bewitched by such silly impostures how long will you love simplicity So for that great division among them about the very foundation of their faith which is ten times more weighty then all the Protestant differences put together the Pope's Infallibility they tell you it is not de fide although indeed it be their fundamentum fundamentorum and their whole Religion hangs upon it at least in the judgment of all the Jesuits and the far greatest number of the learned Doctors and eminent writers of the Church of Rome of this age It is confessed by themselves that they are divided in this great point so Bellarmine tells you The second opinion is that the Pope as Pope may teach heresy this opinion saith he is defended by Nilus some Parisians as Gerson and Almaine and Alphonsus de Castro and Adrian the sixth a Pope in his question of Confirmation So we have the infallibility of the Pope to assure us that the Pope hath not Infallibility And this opinion saith he is not properly heretical for we see the Church doth still tolerate it yet it is erroneous and very near heresy I will tell you how near it is when the Jesuits have throughly leaven'd the world with that opinion and perfectly destroyed the liberties of the Gallican Churches and the Pope can do it without raising a commotion in his own kingdome then you shall find this Embryo perfected and it is become a compleat heresie In like manner saith Dr. Holden speaking of the Pope's Infallibility We
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
upon the Infallibility of the Pope or a Councell Is not this a rare piece of intelligence for Heathens and Atheists and scoffers at the Scripture Are not these men worthy pillars of the Christian cause 2. Tradition is not at all concerned in the present dispute nor Infallibility neither For suppose the utmost of what can be or is said by the Romanists in this matter viz. that by Tradition we are Infallibly assured that the Scriptures are the VVord of God and that the severall Books reputed Canonicall by them are indeed Canonicall suppose I say we should take all this for granted what is this to our businesse Tradition I hope doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copists committed no errors in Transcribing nor the Translators in Translating Tradition did not infallibly assure Sixtus 5th that his Translation was right for it assured his Successor Clement 8 that it was corrupt in above a thousand places And when those Popes put forth their Translations it sufficiently appeares and they confesse it they were not guided by inspiration but proceeded in all things more humano by collation of Copies advice of learned men as I mentioned before out of the Popes own words And consequently if all Copies be so corrupt that we can have no certainty from them no more could the Pope and his consultors have from those Copies they used and therefore are lyable to the same uncertainties 2. However M r Rushworth pleaseth himselfe in this Argument as if it were unanswerable and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it there is one plaine evidence able to assure any rationall man that there is no weight and force in it because although these things have been formerly and frequently objected against the Scripture for M r Rushworth was not the first Antiscripturist yet diverse of the most learned and discreet and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church who doubtlesse were too wise to let slip any reall advantage and knew very well how much their cause needed it do utterly reject and deny it and together with us do assert the uncorruptednesse of the Books of Scripture now extant among us as I before proved out of their own words 3. Here is not any one convincing reason to perswade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantiall things All that M r Rushworth offers in liew of those solid Arguments to disprove the Authority and purity of our Bible is a collection of probabilities which witty men can easily multiply upon all occasions to shew that errours have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations which no man denies But alas how farre short do they fall in proofe if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person That which seemes to threaten most is the corruption of Hereticks and we are told of the Jewes at Tiberias who pointed the Bible when enemies to Christ and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text as also of the Greek Hereticks I am very willing the cause should be decided by this one point For as it is well argued by the Assertors of the Integrity of the Hebrew Text to whom I refer the Reader such as Buxtorf and Glassius and many others if those Jewes have corrupted the Hebrew Bible malitiously to weaken the Christian cause certainly they have done it in those places which are of greatest importance to evince Christianity But this it is notoriously known they have not done since most of the convincing proofs of Christs being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands And for the Greek and other Hereticks it is very true that some of them did attempt the corruption of some few Texts of Scripture but the very attempt made such a noise in the Christian World and the whole Church took such an alarme at it that it was presently discover'd and abhorr'd and they severely censured for it and even Papists confesse the Doctours of the Church were so vigilant that there could not be any wilfull and materiall depravation of the Greek Testament and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copists The Christians of former Ages had such an high opinion of the Scriptures necessity and transcendent excellency that they kept it with all possible care such exact acquaintance and familiar knowledge of the Scripture that they could not but discover the least considerable error such conscientious strictnesse that they abhorred the least depravation and such jealousy and watchfulnesse to observe and secure that inestimable treasure that it cannot with any probabiâ—ity be imagined that substantiall corruptions should come into the Texts and much lesse can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration 4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bibles corruption so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption Some I have now mentioned to which may be added the generall inconsiderablenesse of those various lections which Popish Writers triumph so much in the samenesse for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of diverse Ages and distant places and severall languages the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of severall other Authors as to materiall points notwithstanding all the different readings which yet were not read with that diligence and observation nor received with that veneration noâ— kept with that Religion nor watched with that jealousy nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatnings nor mens own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity and consequently were farre more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture To all which may be added that which alone is sufficient even the providence and goodnesse of God which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for mans conduct to eternall blisse so it gives us just ground for a comfortable and confident expectation that it would preserve them to our use and not suffer these Holy VVritings to see corruption This is so materiall a consideration even in the judgment of our Adversaries that it is their principall Argument and urged by them with greatest vehemency and pâ—ausibility for the Churches Authority and Infallibility because as they pretend it doth not consist with the providence and goodnesse of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle and differ onely in the application of it whilest they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell which as you have seen their own Authors are not satisfied in and we urge it for the infallibility and incorruptibility of the Scriptures which all Protestants and diverse Papists assert Thus I hope I have fully satisfied that first Argument The other Argument which M r Rushworth suggests is taken from the nature of the Books of Scripture If a law were to be given in Writing it must be thus First the common things must be commanded then by degrees they must descend to particulars still observing that
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