he is Peters successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably followes that the Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered â—x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in it self and hath no strength nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peters chair but had ascribed the same priviledges which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this then wee have gained thus much That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or credible for it self that it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Councels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can shew that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Councels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Popes Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self without the Interpretation Testimonie and Authority of thâ— Church is not a sufficient foundation oâ— Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plaine so often asserted bâ— them so universally owned so vehemently urged in aâ— their Treatises that if there were not an horrible perâ—versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men whâ— indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to saâ— and unsay give and recall affirme and denie the samâ— things as occasion requires and the strength of an Arâ—gument forceth them I might supercede from anâ— further paine or trouble therein I shall therefore onely observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either oâ— which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian cannoâ— know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witnesse and Authority 2. That the sencâ— of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without thâ— Churches interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present tâ— mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuite in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop oâ— Burdeaux puts this Question To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables the Cardinall Hosius replies That these words may be taken in a pious sence For in truth saith he unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tels us That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Churches assertion and declaration Andradius in expresse termes denies That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which bindes us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the highâ—st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fidâ—s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a lyar that is no impiety but to mak the Church a lyar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome then the grossest transgressions of Gods Laweâ— because there is more impiety in them and so more sevâ—rity should be exercised against them And Pighiâ— useth no lesse freedome telling us That the Scripturâ— have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authours but meerly from the Churches Testimonâ— Thus you see that according to the systeme of Popisâ— Theology the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to bâ— the Word of God nor oblige my faith unlesse it brinâ— along with it the Churches Letters of credence Anâ— whereas in St Pauls dayes neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials froâ— Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austine in his dayes in hiâ— Controversies with the Donatists batters down theiâ— Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie And as Tertullian argued of old God shall not be God without mans consent It is here as in dealings between manâ— and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but onely my friends Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that
to be true which I read in my Book that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I beare to your deep judgment and great abilities Here it is plaine the reading in his book is not the foundation of his faith or perswasion but onely the reverence he bears to his teacher And just this say they is the case of the scripture to which purpose they alledge and own those words of Austin though they pervert the sence I should not believe the Gospell unless the Churches Authority did move me Which if true in their sence then the Churches Authority is the sole foundation of my faith and without it the scripture is a meer Cypher or at least not sufficient to command or ground my faith which was the thing to be demonstrated The truth is the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King Iehoram 2 Kings 3.14 and bespeake it in the same language were it not that I regard the presence the testimony and the authority of the Church I would not look towards thee not believe nor reverence thee Sect. 3. If it be said that although the Churches Testimony was necessary before yet since the Church hath long agoe consigned the Canon of the scripture my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches testimony but upon the scriptures Authority To this I answer 1 That now as well as formerly the faith of a Christian acted by Romish principles doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches testimony which I shall make plain by an instance I do not believe supposing I were a Papist the Popes supremacy because I read these words Thou art Peter for if I read those words in Tacitus I should not draw an Argument from them unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of Plato Cicero and Virgil But because the books wherein I read those words Thou art Peter is a book of Canonicall scripture and a part of the word of God there lies the whole stress of the argument And this I cannot know say our Catholick masters and am not bound to believe but for the Churches Testimony Which testimony as it is the onely cause which makes the scripture in generall Authenticall Quoad nos saith Stapleton so it must be that alone which makes this place Thou art Peter Argumentative quoad nos that is all the force that Argument hath to perswade or convince me is from the Church and not from the scripture and the scripture makes it Canonicall to me and its being Canonical gives the whole weight to the Argument and quod est causa causae est causa causati Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words but sence of Scripture where the strength of the argument lies And that sence say they wee cannot understand nor attain but by the Churches interpretation which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists viz. That the sence of scripture which is indeed the very Soul of scripture and the onely ground of faith and Arguments is in many matters of faith so obscure and ambiguous that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentick and infallible Interpreter and Judge to acquaint us therewith that is the Church or per aequevalentiam Iesuiticam the Pope And it is absurd to expect and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts and dceision of controversies of faith from the scripture which is but a dead letter unless the Church animates it This is so notoriously owned by them all that it is needless to quote Authors for it That which I inferre from hence is this that according to this Hypothesis the scripture in it self I say in it self for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove is no solid foundation for my faith and indeed that it is a meer Cypher which if your Church be put to it may have some signification and value butelse none at all And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in it selfe but the Churches interpretation which gives weight to this argument And this plainly appears from that saying of their great Master Stapleton which deserves to be often men tioned in rei memoriam and the rather because Grotserus owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion Gretsers defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in se ex parte rei but onely quoad nos in respect of us and so saith Gretser it is very true for that I believe that Christ is God and that God is one and three I do it being induced by the Authority of the Church testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered are divine and dictated by God a I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mysterie of the Romish Cabal and discovering the dreadfull tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ for as he was beholden to Christ for his Authority so now Christ is beholden to his vicar for his Divinity and saith hee it was truely said by Tannerus nor needed Pappus to wonder at it that without the interpretation and testification of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone that God is one and that there are three persons Who is it that dare charge these Jesuites with Equivocation I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se quoad nos viz. They acknowledg the Scripture in it self to be true and Canonicall and it is a Truth in it selfe that Christ is God but so far as concernes me I am not bound to believe either the one or other but for the Churches Testimony which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted That the Scripture in it self is no foundation of my Faith And this is the more weighty because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one mans Pen but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors each of whose works where that passage was is set forth with the approbation of severall Romish Doctors of principall note § 5. But peradventure Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant Although neither the Popes Authority nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith and the Popes Authority being asserted in and demonstrated by the Scriptures is a sure sooting for my faith To which though it might suffice to object the circle which is here most palpable
and evident yet I shall at present forbeare that answer and referre it to another place and shall here consider whether the Scriptures assert the Popes infallible Authority as it is pretended And first in generall whereas severall Texts of Scripture are pleaded by the Romanists in favour of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility as Feed my sheep Thou art Peter I have prayed for thee and the like I demande whether these words or Texts of Scripture in and for themselves without the interpretation and testification of the Romish Church do bind me to believe the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility or no◠If they deny the validity of these Texts without the Churches Testimony and Authority as needs they must according to their Principles then it followes that there is nothing in Scripture considered in it selfe that bindes me to believe the Popes Supremacy and consequently I do not sin when I do not believe and own their Arguments drawn from these Texts and that the Scripture in it selfe is no sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith If they affirme it then let all the Papists in the World give me a reason why these Texts The Word was God Joh. 1. He thought it no robbery to be equall with God Phil. 2. This is the true God 1 Joh. 5. Should not in themselves and without the Churches Authority as solidly prove the Divinity of Christ as the other mentioned Texts are affirmed to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope § 6. If they persist still to say that the alleadged Texts are in themselves a solid foundation for my faith although such an aspersion is contrary to their universall profession and overturnes the whole fabrick of Popery yet because I know those Proteus's will turne themselves into all shapes and indeavour to slip all knots and because I observe all their writings are stuffed with severall Texts of Scripture as if they would make their deluded Proselites believe they made them the foundation of their faith I shall therefore make some briefe remarks upon the chiefe of their Scripture allegations in pursuance of the Proposition under consideration and shew that the faith of a Papist hath no foundation at all in the sacred Scripture in the great and fundamentall point of the Popes Infallibility Onely that you may understand the diffidence which some of their own great Rabbies have in their Scripture Arguments I shall minde you of a remarkable saying of Eminent Doctor Pighius who perswading his Catholicks in their Disputations rather to argue from Tradition then Scriptures he breaks out into these memorable expressions Of which Doctrine if we had been mindfull that Hereticks are not to be convinced out of Scriptures our affaires had been in a better posture but whilest for ostentation of wit and learning men disputed with Luther from Scripture this Fire which alas we now see was kindled as if he had said You may as soon fetch water out of a stone as prove the Romish cause from the the Scripture Oh the power of truth Oh the desperatenesse of the Popish cause His Councell indeed was good but they could not follow it for having once been sumbling about some Scriptures though they saw well enough how impertinent they were to their purpose yet having once begun they were obliged to proceed and make good their attempts for of all things in the World they hate retreating and recanting left they should put an Argument into our hands against the infallibility of the Church from her actuall mistakes and errours in the exposition of Scriptures § 7. The principall places of Scripture upon which the Popes Supreme Authority and infallibility is founded are as follow The first is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it Ergo The Pope is Supreme Head and Infallibe I shall forbear actum agere and therefore shall omit severall Answers allready given and onely point at some few of those many allegations by which the ridiculousnesse of this collection may appeare and the desperatenesse of that cause that can find no better supports 1. This promise concernes onely the invisible Church of elect persons which appears thus because he speaks of that Church against which the gates of Hell do not prevaile but the gates of Hell do prevaile against all reprobates and therefore the meanest sincere Elect Christian in the World hath a juster claime to infallibility from this place then many Popes of Rome had whom their own Authors confesse to have been reprobates 2. This promise secures the Church as well from damnable sins as damnable errours I prove it The Church is here secured against the prevalency of the Gates of Hell But the Gates of Hell may prevaile as surely and do prevaile as frequently by damnable sins as by errors Ergo If therefore notwithstanding this Text Popes have fallen into damnable Sins they may consequently fall into damnable Heresies 3. The Infallibility here promised extends onely to damnable Heresies and such as lead to and leave a man under the gates of Hell and therefore if it were intended of the Pope and Church of Rome Christ promiseth no more infallibility to him then he hereby promiseth and generally giveth to all persevering Christians 4. This promise is spoken of and made to the whole Church and therefore belongs to all the parts and members of it alike So that if it prove the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop and Church it proves also the same of the Bishops and Churches of Corinth Ephesus Philippi c. which may further appeare thus That if we should grant the Papists their absurd supposition that this work was not Peters confession but his person yet since the Bishops of Corinth and Ephesus and indeed all the Bishops in the World according to this supposition were built upon Peters person as well as the Bishop of Rome and the infallibility supposed is here promised equally to all that are built upon the Rock it must either prove all of them infallible or leave the Pope fallible 5. Whatsoever Authority or Infallibility is here promised to Peter is in other places promised and given to the rest of the Apostles and therefore what is collected from this place for S t Peters Successors may be with equall truth and evidence pleaded from other places for the Successors of the rest of the Apostles The same Keyes which are here promised to Peter are actually given to all the Apostles Math. 18.18 and Ioh. 20.22 23. And if infallibility be here promised to Peter as much is promised to all the Apostles John 16.13 He will guide you into all Truth And if St Peter be here called a Rock so are the other Apostles called Pillars Gal. 2.9 and Foundations Eph. 2. Apoc. 21.14 And that 16 th of Matthew speaks not one syllable more of transmitting S t Peters Authority to his Successors then those other places do to their
should not be admitted to the vision of God before the day of judgment So much Perron confesseth and Sixtus Senensis That the Saints should raigne with Christ a thousand years that Pamelius grants In all these and severall others it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary how truly and justly I dispute not nor is it materiall to my purpose which is onely to shew how upon all occasions where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any whom they most traduce for so doing But would you know the mistery of this why The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church saith Duraeus In earnest that saying deserved a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuite seconds him in it where putting this question Whether the Authority of the Doctors Fathers ought to be admitted he answers Yes as fâ—r as the Church approves of them The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please I will adde a third that you may see it is a ruled case and that is Gresserus A Father saith he is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine but if instead of corne he give chaff or tares he is not now a Father but a step-Father not a teacher but a seducer When the Fathers say any thing which seems to countenance their positions then they are Fathers uncorrupt judges infallible interpreters and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall goe one haires breadth from them But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them and contradict his interest or opinion then it is time to take them a peg lower then they call them Fathers but make children of them They had better have held their Tongues for now all comes out and the Papists are the Chams as they call the Protestants who uncover their Fathers nakednesses Then Eusebius who when he is Orthodox in the Romane account passeth for a most famous Writer a most learned man and a Catholick with Lindanus Sixtus Senensis and others is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretick with Costerus and Baronius Then poor Tertullian who when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers with Lindanus is not so much as a man of the Church nay he is an hereticall Author an heresiarch a Montanist say Azorius and Bellarm Then Origen who when he is a good boy passeth for a witnesse beyond exception with Duraeus another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus is a meer schismatick saith Canus the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate Then Constantine himselfe that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor then Doctor saith Bellarm. Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine Nay I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages which might have been done with one Blot provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages What need I trouble my selfe and the Reader with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sence of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture and preferring new interpretations before them not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt That no man should dare to interpret Scripture against the common consent of the Fathers For which I shall onely referre the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied that this was the opinion and practise of the Learned and approved Romanists as Cajetan Pererius Maldonate and severall others § 9. In short to strike the businesse dead you shall have the positive judgment of the principall pillars of the Romish Church Sacred Doctrine saith Aquinas useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church onely as a probable Argument for our faith leanes upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets not to other Doctors The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith saith Biel It is the property of the Holy Scriptures that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius The Writings of the Fathers saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis are not a rule and have not authority to oblige me And not contented to assert he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the Fathers without and their perfect subjection to the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome The Fathers execute the office of Doctors but Counsels and Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed to them by God And againe The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church but all are his sonnes No wonder then that the sonnes are subject to the Father not the Fathers to the Sonnes Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out the Pope may use his Authority Really these Jesuites are most ingenious fellowes they are resolved never to be at a non-plus when they saw the Scripture was not for their turnes they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the â—athers destructive to their Hierarchy then it must be consent of the Fathers Now because they know they cannot make out the consent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith Here is a Salvo for that the Popes Authority is evident It is but saying that is a first Principle and all controversies are at an end By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fathers is neither ex veritate rei in truth nor ex opinione Pontificiorum in the judgment of the Papists a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved I shall dismisse this with two Observations 1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principall foundation of Faith viz. the Authority of the Fathers 2. I shall leave this Syllogisme taken out of their own Authors to the consideration of the prudent Reader If you take away the authority of Fathers and Councels all things in the Church are uncertaine saith Eccius as you saw before But Bâ—llarmine and
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
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
they are found to attribute this Infallibility not onely to all conjunctly but to the most of that smal remnant of surviving Writers as you saw from their expressions which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert I shall take the boldnesse to aske by what right shall five Fathers vid. Dionysius Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and Hermes supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age I say by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name or priviledge of the whole Catholick Church of that Age for it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made in what Scripture or Father or Lexicon do five Fathers make up the whole Church True it is the Pope hath a peculiar priviledge in this point and is by the Jesuites invested with the name of the Church The Church Virtuall And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title for having swallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church he ought to have the Name into the bargain But setting aside that prodigious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would know why I might not as well say that five of the Romish Doctors viz. Salmeron Canus Costerus Stapleton and Bellarmine are the Church of Rome or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England nay all the Protestant World as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age Yet againe forasmuch as they ascribe infallibility not onely to all but also to the major part of the Fathers of these five then two may erre by their own confession And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions Well then to keep to this particular instance It is granted that Dionysius may erre and so may Ignatius then the Infallibility is preserved in Clemens and Polycarpus and Hermes But they also or any two of them may erre in other things and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius and Ignatius and Hermes Thus it seems Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball from one to another and they have it by turnes Such monsters must be in the Conclusion if Infallibility be in the premises That is enough for the second Argument § 5. The third Argument is this The Fathers professe they are not infallible either they say true or false if true then they are not infallible if false then they erred in that assertion and therefore are not Infallible So the Papists are gone by their own Argument and rule too For here we have the consent of the Fathers It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose I shall onely suggest some few which are evident and undeniable in this particular Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets by the Gospell and by the Apostles and he addes If any man think this Principle needs another Principle he doth not indeed keep that Principle But the Papists say the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it viz. the Churches Authority Ergo the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostacy And he addes that the standard by which things are to be examined is not the testimony of men therefore not the Testimony of Fathers Councels Popes who I thinke are all men save onely that severall of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts but the Word of the Lord. And lest you should understand it of Tradition he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord We do not saith he believe the assertions of men they must not onely say but prove and that too from the Scriptures What can be more expresse So Basil tels us The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers they must receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject those things which are contrary to it Where we plainly see S t Basils direct contrariety to the principles and practise of the Romish Church 1. St Basil allowes his heares to examine their teachers Doctrine so do not the Papists The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastours that if their Pastours shoulderre the people were bound to erre with them saith Tannerus A Christian is bound to receive the Churches Doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine Pastours are simply to be heard in all things nor are we to consider what is said but who said it i. e. if he were a lawfull Pastour as Stapleton bellowes it out for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man And yet these are the men who will not depart a nailes bredth from the Fathers This is the Church the principall note whereof is consent with the Fathers of which you may judge by this and what we shall adde from others 2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined not Fathers not Councels not Traditions but the Papists are of another minde S t Clara. tels us of a Popish Treatise written by a friend of his solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sorbon so you see it is no particular fancy but a received opinion where saith he that Author expresly asserts that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures because and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily i.e. She doth not receive Tradition because and so far as it agrees with Scripture And thus far doubtlesse he was in the right saith S t Clare And consequently Basil was in the wrong That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten That Christ alone is to be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought but what he that was before all Christ first did for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God If the Papists would say as much this controversy would be at an end And it is observable that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and animadversions whereever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions passeth over this place with profound silence as well seeing it was so hot it would have burned his Fingers St Chrysostome is as fully Protestant in this particular as if he had been of Councell in our cause in two points he is positive for us 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude but let us examine things
others have here taken away the Authority of the Fathers And in the next Chapter you shall see they take away the Authority of Councels Ergo There is nothing certaine in the Romish Church Thus I have shewed that the Faith of the Papists hath no sure ground or foundation in the Authority of the Pope Scriptures or Fathers Now I come to the fourth particular the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels which is the sacra anchora the principall refuge of a languishing cause CHAP. IV. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Sect. 1. LEt us therefore examine in the next place whether the Councels will stand them in better stead Whether the splendid name and Authority of the Church be a solid and sufficient foundation of Faith In order to which I shall lay down this proposition That the Authority of the Church and Councels is no sufficient foundation for a Papists faith This I shall more fully discusse because here it is that very many of the Popish Doctors do build their hopes and lay the foundation of their faith And here indeed they have greatest appearance of probability A general Councel rightly congregated cannot erre in the faith saith Alphonsus de Castro Councels represent the Catholick Church which cannot erre and therefore they cannot erre saies Eccius and Tapperus The decrees of general Councels have as much weight as the Holy Gospels saith Costerus Councels approved and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre say Canus and Bellar Councels being the highest Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories cannot erre saith â—annerus The decrees of Councels are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost saith Stapleton Surely now I may cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the ground and pillar of truth and at least spes altera Romae § 2. 1. Then I would know whence comes this Infallibility of Councels It must be from Gods promise for they do not pretend it is any natural inhaerent property of any man or men single or conjunct And this promise must be made known to us by divine Revelation i.e. either by Scripture or Tradition for other revelation they do not pretend to Thus farre they and wee are agreed Now I assume That the Infallibility of Councels is not revealed to us neither in the one nor in the other § 3. 1. Not in the Traditions of the Fathers for among all the Traditions mentioned by them you shall not find this concerning the Infallibility of Councels Nor have our Adversaries that I know of alledged one considerable antient Father asserting that such a Tradition was conveyed to them from the Apostles though there had been such a Tradition they who were so carefull to enumerate all the Traditions of far lesse consequence which pretended to an Apostolicall Original neither should nor would have omitted to acquaint the Church with so important a Tradition as this is now supposed to be And this might suffice for Answer till our Adversaries give us an instance of some such Tradition § 4. But because Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers is their chiefe Pillar of the Infallibility of Councels the wiser sort of them being sensible of the impertinency of their Scripture allegations I shall consider this a little more largely then at first I intended and shall indeavour to make good foure things which if proved will give a deadly stroke at the root of infallibility 1. If there were such a Tradition among the Fathers as is pretended it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith 2. If the antients did believe the infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition 3. It doth not appear that the Antiens did believe the Infallibility of Councels 4. It doth appeare that the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels § 5. The first proposition is this That if some of the Fathers did tell us they had such a Tradition among them as is pretended concerning the Infallibility of Councels it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith because the Fathers were subject to errours and mistakes as we have now proved and as the Papists confesse at least they might erre in matters of fact for in such things they acknowledge the Pope himselfe to be fallible And this was purely a question of fact whether such a Tradition were delivered to them And that the fathers were ofttimes deceived in the point of Traditions and in matters of fact is acknowledged by severall of the most learned Papists and Baronius gives us diverse examples of their mistakes in sundry parts of his Annals and that too amongst the first Fathers who had farre greater opportunities to know the truth then their followers and greater integrity to deliver nothing contrary to their knowledge and much more there might mistakes be committed by those that came after them If it be said That although some particular Fathers might mistake in the matters of Tradition yet the Fathers consenting therein are infallible This is already answered in the former Chapter to which I shall here adde that it is impossible for us at this distance to understand the consent of the Fathers e.g. of the first or second Age there being such a small and inconsiderable remnant left of them like two or three planks after a common shipwrack Gregory de Valentia confesseth even of the Doctours of the age we live in that it seldome happens that we can sufficiently understand the opinion of all the Doctors that live in one Age How much more hard nay impossible must it needs be to understand the minde of that Age which is gone 1500 years agoe And Melchior Canus confesseth That the Authority of most of the Holy Fathers if a few did contradict them will not afford a Divine a solid Argument So that if such a tradition had been delivered by some yea the major part of the Fathers if some others though fewer had contradicted it Faith hath lost its foundation and this might be done and such things in all probability were oft done though no footsteps of it are come to the memory of Posterity As Austin speaks of Cyprian when he was pressed with his Authority he answers Happily he did recant though we know it not For neither were all things doneâ—among the Bishops at that time committed to writing nor do we know all things that were committed to Writing And if this was considerable in Austins dayes who lived within two hundred years of those times how much more weighty must it be to us that come twelve hundred years after him Now then to put a case because this consideration shakes the very pillars of Popery and overthrowes almost all their pretensions from Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers Suppose the Major part of the Antient Fathers had said in terminis that the Bishop of Rome was supreme head and infallible governour of the Church though
given c. And a little after he would have yielded to a general Councel if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced and declared and confirmed by a general Councel And he gives the reason of his yielding Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the truth much more to a general Councel In all which it is plain that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Councel but the clearness of the truth and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in St. Austin's judgment 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence that St. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture by which it is distinguished from and advanced above all the opinions decrees or writings of all Bishops in or out of Councels that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it The words are express and brought in with a Quis nesciat Who knowes not that the holy Scripture is so preferred before all the letters of after-Bishops that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Councels if they swerve from the truth and Provincial Councels must yeild to General Councels and former general Councels are oft corrected by the latter where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial and thence to General Councels but all of them are in this respect postposed to the Scripture that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees and where they swerve from the truth reject it And nothing more evinceth the strength of this argument then the silliness of our Adversaries evasions He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony not of Faith saith Bellarmine and Stapleton whereas the question there disputed was whether persons Baptized by Hereticks should be rebaptized which the Fathers formerly made and the Papists now make a question of Faith But by emendantur saith Stapleton he means perfectiùs explicantur If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is so taken you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus that if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faith which diverse Papists professe they may much more may they devise new significations of words But I would know of these Doctors what they would think or at least what discreet and sober men would think of that Author that should say Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apostolis emendantur and yet if Stapletons Lexicon may be used it were an harmlesse expression But if these men will give St. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words he hath sufficiently open'd his mind by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions and by speaking of such an Emendation as follows after or is conjoyned with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Councel This may serve for the third Proposition § 12. And here I might give my self a supersedeas having shewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers but ex abundantis I shall adde the fourth Proposition which is this That it doth appear the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels The former proposition shewed that they could not prove their Assertion and this I hope will disprove it But because what hath been already said may serve for that end also I shall be the briefer in this and shall only mention three arguments to prove it 1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so did the Fathers Ergo. The Major is evident from hence because one infallible Authority is sufficient and the addition of another though it may tend ad melius esse yet it cannot be necessary ad esse for then the former were not sufficient And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Councels do professe eo nomine that Scripture-proof is not necessary and that the Churches authority without Scripture evidence is sufficient When Whitaker urged the necessity of Scripture-proof to shew the Church for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church Stapleton roundly answers That such proof is not necessary to a Christian man and a Believer For the Minor That the Fathers did judge Scripture proof necessary hath been already shew'd and will hereafter be made good and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it 2 They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men since the Apostles say do not believe the Infallibility of Councels but so do the Fathers The major is evident from the confession and practice of our Adversaries who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels do injoyn the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination A Christian ought to receive the Churches doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine The Minor hath been proved from the expresse words of the Fathers 3. They that derogate Faith from all men without exception beside the Apostles do not hold the Infallibility of Councels But so do the Fathers Ergo. The Major needs no proof for the Councels are made up of men and such too as are confessed to be each of them fallible Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasme or immediate revelation The Minor also hath been fully proved to which I shall adde one out of Austin◠If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture we are to believe it without all doubting but for other witnesses or their testimonies a man may believe or not believe as he apprehends what they say hath weight or not It is true S. Clara sayes that St. Austin doth only prefer Scripture before particular authors which how false it is sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Austins which I have even now discussed wherein you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgment St. Austin positively took away all difference between Councels and private Doctors in this particular and equally denied all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both of them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers in reference to the Infallibility of Councels This is the first Branch The Infallibility of Councels is not made known to us by Tradition the next Proposition must shew That it is not revealed in Scripture § 13. This therefore is the Second branch That the Infallibility of Councels hath no foundation in Scripture◠1. I might justly insist upon what hath been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency by the Scripture to ground my faith without the Churches authority And surely they that professe they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ were it not for the
them To conclude this consideration It is sufficient for my purpose which is acknowledged by the greatest and most considerable part of the Romish Church at this day That generall Councels in themselves are not Infallible and consequently are no solid Foundation for a Papists Faith which is all this Proposition pretended to make good though you see I have given them an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. A third consideration is this If the Infallibility of general Councels rightly called constituted and ordered were granted yet this would give no Advantage to the Romish cause nor security to their Faith and that for such reasons as diverse of the most Learned Papists themselves do stamp with their approbation And here I might insist upon sundry particulars but I shall confine my selfe to a few and for the rest refer you only to one of their own Authours White in the oft mentioned Treatise who thus breaks out his doubts concerning this Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councels If you assert an unknown and invisible influence of Gods Spirit it is so uncertaine and doubtfull that it is fruitlesse to contend about it Seeing it is matter of strife rather then evidence to what Councels and when this assistance is given whilest some quarrell with the calling others the absence of nations or Patriarchs and others dispute about thâ— praesidency and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions others about the number weight or degree of suffrages others about Confirmation and others require the Churches consent ere it can be known whether this Assistance belong to the Councell or no Where you may observe no lesse then ten severall causes of doubting and yet all these uncertainties they will rather run upon then acknowledge the Authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which are called a more sure word 2 Pet. 1.19 then that which had another kind and far higher degree of certainty then the decrees of Councels can ever arrive at but I must not rest in generals I shall particularly acquaint you with some of the Intrigues of the Romish Church and their own requisites to the legitimation of Councels I shall pick out three 1. They confesse the Councell which is Infallible must be oecumenicall 2. And its decrees must be ratified by the consent and approbation of the whole Church 3. They must proceed sincerely and faithfully and piously in it Now in all these things there are notorious defects in the Church and Councels of Rome § 23. 1. Most Papists grant that that Councell to which Infallibility is promised must be generall or oecumenicall and they that pretend to assert the Infallibility of Provinciall Councels when confirmed by the Pope do indeed utterly reject the Infallibility of all Councels and ascribe it wholly to the Pope and to Councels onely by participation from him and in dependence upon him If then any Councels be Infallible they must be generall to which purpose they alledge the saying of St Austin That those onely are Concilia plenaria full and general Councels which are collected out of all the Christian World Hence the seaventh Synod disowned the Constantinopolitan Councell and their decrees against Images because they were not a generall Councell and had not all the Patriarchs there And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church and cites severall Authors of great note to that purpose Now to assume The Councels pretended by the Romanists were no generall councels To say nothing of former Councels which in their greatest plenitude were onely conventions of the Churches in the Romane Empire The later Councels on whom the weight of the Popish cause principally depends were not oecumenicall Councels There is one acknowledged defect in them all to wit the absence of the Greek Church Cardinal Cusanus complaines At present Alas the Catholick Church and the Parochial Church of Rome have but one Councell seeing the whole Church is now reduced to one Patriarchate And as the Objection is really unanswerable so that which is offered in stead of an Answer is very considerable which S. Clara. represents out of Cusanus and Barlaam That it matters not that onely the Romane Patriarch and those united to him are there and that the Schismaticall Patriarcks are absent for generall Councels are not to be collected out of Hereticks and Schismaticks but out of the Orthodox and such as are united to the Church From whence I gather two things 1. That if the Church of Rome cannot assoile her self from the imputation of Heresy which by the leanenesse of their replies to the inditements of Protestant Authors sufficiently appeares they are not able to do their Councels are constituted ex Indebitâ materiâ of undue materials and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility if there were any such thing in rerum natur â. 2. That we are not to believe the Orthodoxy and much lesse the Infallibility of Councels upon the credit of their naked assertion and absolute Authority as the Papists affirme seeing the most Hereticall and Schismaticall Councels have ever asserted themselves to be Orthodox but it is the right and priviledge of Subjects to examine and judge of the legitimatenesse of Councels and consequently of the validity of their decrees § 24. The second particular is this That Councels are not infallible nor their decrees unquestionable unlesse they have the tacit consent and approbation of the whole Church This position is laid down by S. Clara in the forementioned Treatise There is required a tacit or interpretative ratification of the whole Church to compleat the definition of a Councell Nor is this his private opinion but he there confirmes it from the words of Panormitanes Turnball Pope Leo Petrus â Soto Castillo Mirandula Gersonius and others And afterwards he quotes these words out of Petrus D' Aliaco That generall Councells may erre unlesse when they are accepted by the Vniversall Church and then they are Infallible And in another place himselfe expressely tels us We are not presently to pronounce a thing de fide by reason of some expressions of Councels or their Canons but we must diligently inquire the constant judgment of the Church else we shall finde many Canons of Faith which doe not agree with the truth according to the opinion of many And Coltius hath these words As wee have seen before the common dâ—ssent of the Church hath rendred the decrees of Popes and Councels invalid I mention this the more fully because it is a pretty devise It must be confessed the Religion of Rome cannot easily be mistaken for a piece of Piety but he that shall denie it to be an Art of Policy will quickly be confuted and here is an instance will put him to silence There is a double discovery of the Romish subtilty in this businesse 1. You see how handsomely they make a vertue of necessity now they manage it as a Principle taken up
infallibly true Adrianus the sixth by the name of the Popes and prelates We have all turned after our own wayes there is none that doth good no not one The famous Chancellor of Paris Gerson complaines that Learned and godly Bishops were chosen no where but carnall men and ignorant of Spirituall things And so proud saith he that they do not know themselves to be men Duarenus speaks home to this purpose Most of the Bishops of our time are greater strangers to Religion and Holy things then any of the secular Nobles and they mind nothing but how to defend their possessions by right or wrong Ferus cries out Who doth not see the insatiable avarice and impostures of the Popes and religious men with these all things are vendible And Stella informs us There were few possessors of Benefices who had them otherwise then either by begging or paying for them And yet these were the good men of the Church of Rome these are they who acted in Councels sincerely from love to God and his truth not seeking their own things but the things of Christ and therefore without doubt infallible And for the state of Councels take one testimony for all of one that was an eminent part and member of them Cardinal Iulian who in his Epistle to Eugenius the fourth in the councel of Basil in plain terms tels him that all Councels since that of Chalcedon which was above a thousand years ago were instituted not for the discovery of truth but for the defence and increase of the power of the Romane Church and the liberty of Churchmen Should I descend to particulars and open the several impostures and palpable frauds which the Popes and their Partisans have successively used in the packing of councels and making voices and forging decrees and ingaging the Bishops by hopes and fears and interests to give up their votes and consciences to the advancement of the Romish power and magnificence I should engage my self to transcribe whole volumes and cut out work for the whole terme of my life The transactions of the councel of Trent are fresh in memory And he that shall peruse the words of their own Historians the Protestations of Princes the Censures of Universities relating to it c. will easily be satisfied whether Clara's non constat de opposito be true or no. And therefore notwithstanding this frivolous excuse it remaines a truth that according to the principles of Papists themselves and because of those evident defects in them acknowledged by their own Authors whatever Councels regularly called and ordered may pretend to their councels must lay down their claime to Infallibility and so their faith hath no solid foundation as not in the Pope's authority so not in Scripture nor in the testimony of the Fathers nor yet in the infallibility of general councels And therefore I may safely conclude they have no solid foundation for their Faith 26. There is only one thing which may seem to retard the passing of the sentence that is this That although each of these taken asunder may not be sufficient yet all put together make a cord which is not easily broken Quoe non prosunt fingula juncta juvant and therefore forasmuch as the Church stands upon four Pillars Authority of Scriptures Tradition of Fathers Infallibility of Councels and the Pope their Faith is like Mount Sion that cannot be removed And if it be deemed an absurd and unreasonable thing as we poor fallible creatures have thought to prove the Scriptures from the authority of the Church Councels or Pope and circularly to prove the authority of the Church Councels or Pope from the Scripture The Jesuits have found out the Quadrature of the Circle and they tell you that it is no more absurd that Scripture should lean upon the Churches authority and the Church on the authority of Scripture then that St. John the Baptist should give testimony to Christ and Christ to him again or that the Old Testament should be confirmed by the New and the New Testament by the Old This is one of their last pleas we find them now retired to their Fort-royal beat them out of this and upon the matter all is lost and truly that will be no hard matter to do if the Reader please to consider 1. The great disparity of the alledged Instances Iohn and Christ might give testimony one to another but neither of them did simply depend upon each other's testimonies supposing that Christ had given no express testimony concerning Iohn yet I say the mission of Iohn was not only true in it self but sufficiently evident to the Jews as plainly appears from hence That the Pharisees when asked by Christ whether the Baptisme of Iohn was from Heaven or of men were afraid to deny its Heavenly original as being against the common sentiment of the Jewes and Christ chargeth the Pharisees with rejecting the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized of Iohn Luk. 7. 30. And much more true is it of Christ that he did not depend upon the testimony of John but had other and better testimony Ioh. 5.36 But I have greater testimony then that of Iohn And it is enough for my purpose if either Christ or John had an authority independent upon the others evidence though the other had not And the like may be said of the Old and New Testament well may they give testimony one to another for neither of them doth totally depend upon the other The Old Testament did sufficiently evidence its authority before ever the New Testament was written and the New Testament too did carry other convincing evidences of its divine original and authority besides the testimony of the Old Testament such as the voice from Heaven This is my well beloved Son 2 Pet. 1.17 and the glorious miracles he did Ioh. 5.36 The works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me the holiness of his life power of his doctrine patience of his death But now to apply this to our present purpose it is here far otherwise for the Scripture say they doth not evidence it self any other way to us but by the Churches testimony as we have heard from their own words and Councels Fathers and the Pope we say and have proved cannot evidence their Authority and Infallibility any other way but by the Scripture which according to their principles is impossible or by their own Testimony which is ridiculous 2. Let it be considered that the Romanists do not make these four Scripture Fathers Councels and Popes coordinate and collateral foundations of their Faith as if each of them did contribute a distinct and independent support unto the Romish Faith but indeed they make one of them totally to depend upon another and at last reduce them all to one and to speak properly to none For the Fathers and Councels and the splendid name of the Church however they are pretended to put a
fair glosse upon a foul cause yet indeed the authority of them all is as vigorously disputed against by the most and learned'st Romanists as by any Protestants in the world You remember what their great master Bellarmine told you That Infallibility and Supreme Authority is not partly in the Pope partly in the Councel but wholly in the Pope what need we trouble our selves further Those four are now reduc'd to two Scripture and the Pope and those two must mutually prove one another There is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Scriptures but the testimony of the Pope say the Papists and there is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Pope but the testimony of the Scriptures For the Fathers and Councels receiving all their authority and infallibility from the Pope cannot give him the infallibility and authority they received from him Now how senslesse a resolution of Faith this is though most of the Papists have no better and no other you may perceive by some few instances It is as if a Sudent should say thus I should not believe such a book to be an excellent book but for my Tutor's testimony who tels me so And again I should not believe my Tutor's testimony to be of any validity but for the testimony of that book concerning him Who would not laugh at such an assertion Or as if a man should say I should not believe the honesty of Richard were it not for the testimony of Thomas And I should not believe the honesty of Thomas were it not for the testimony of Richard Where is there a man that will accept of such security in a trivial worldly bargain And yet the Papists are content to venture their souls upon it From all that hath been said I conclude that the pretended authorities we have discoursed of do neither severally nor yet jointly afford a solid foundation for a Papist's Faith nor prove that Infallibility which they pretend to and consequently there is no solid foundation for a Papists faith And here I might discharge my self from further trouble having discovered the nullity of all the pretences which have been hitherto owned by the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of Orall Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church § 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors where the authors are any whit considerable and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility There is then another shift which some subtle Romanists have lately invented who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of the field by strength of Scripture and argument in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Councel come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition and the authority of the present Church This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues Mr. White and Holden and Sr. Kenelm Digby and S. Clara. Their defence and discourse is this for I shall give you their opinion in their own words A man may prudently believe the present Church for her self and ought so to do A man needs not nor is not obliged to enquire further there he may safely fix saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary That society of Christians which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers and they from theirs and so from the Apostles they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered for if they could teach falsehoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity neither of which is credible But the Church of Rome and they only pretend to teach nothing else c. Ergo they must needs hold the truth The acute Mr. White explains the opinion more exactly and fully and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words 1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles and practised it and highly valued it as most necessary for them and their posterity and to be preferred before all other things 2. Those first Christians even at their death both could and would and therefore doubtlesse did most vehemently commend this doctrine to their Children and the Fathers did alwaies deliver the same doctrine which they received from their Parents and under that notion because they had received it 3. If any delivered another doctrine he could be proved a lyar by the rest of the world or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine under that notion scil of a doctrine delivered from their Parents that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide and should agree to murder themselves which is impossible 4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors who took care of Faith and manners and it is evident that the Pastors and people had the same faith 5. And there arose heresies by which the truth might be more cleared and they that maintained the antient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators which Innovators did not publickly reject the Apostles doctrine but pleaded it was not rightly understood and the other part kept the name of the Catholick Church 6. It is necessary that that congregation which alwaies kept the antient discipline should alone profess that she received her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Canon of their Faith under another notion 7. As certainly therefore as one may know that the congregation of believers which at this day is called Catholick is animated with a number of learned and wise men so certainly will it be known that she is not conscious of any newness of doctrine and therefore there is no new doctrine 8. Following ages cannot be ignorant what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons Catechisms Prayers and Sacraments and such are all things necessary to the Catholick Faith 9. This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was confirmed by long custome diverse laws rewards and punishments both of this and the following life monuments of writers by which all would be kept in it 10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schisme and notorious tumult in the Church as dayly experience proveth To the same purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the resolution of Faith This is a new Plea and deserves special consideration § 2. For Answer 1. I give Mr. White and his worthy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or rather justice done by them to the Protestant cause For whereas this is the perplexing question wherewith they think to puzzle us How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority and from the supposed impossibility thereof
they infer the necessity of the Churches authority these kind-hearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the bryars for now it seems and it is a truth and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority viz. by tradition And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stript of the capacity of a Judg and retained only the qualification of a witnesse and consequently the Churches authority is not at all necessary And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition it may be said to her according to these mens principles as the Apostle said to the Gentiles Rom. 11. If thou boast thou bearest not Tradition but Tradition thee for so say these Doctors Mr. White spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith and saith that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church or in Councels or in Scriptures in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition And he spends several chapters to shew that neither the Pope nor Councels can give any solidity or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church and so there is still a necessity of her Authority I answer plainly no It followes onely that there is necessity of her Ministery but not of her Authority A Proclamation of the King and Councel could not come to my hands If I live at Yorke but by a Messenger and by the Scribe or Printer But if any from this necessity of his Ministery infer his Authority I may well deny the consequence but because it is unhansome to extenuate a courtesie I hold my self obliged further to acknowledge the great kindnesse of our Adversaries who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foundation of Faith have also overturned their own which that you may the better understand I shall briefly represent to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren and how God hath confounded the language of Babels Builders so that they have little to do but to stand still and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one anothers sides The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right he answers because the whole Church which receives it cannot erre So the late Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholick Church be rejected as erronious and fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority Nay S Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantick strain That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient yet elsewhere confesseth the Churches infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain His words are these The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us is infallible from a Divine Revelation because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible And presently after If the Church were not infallibile it could not produce in me an infallible Faith And this was the constant Doctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of infallibility hard beset and that Pillar shaken they support their cause with a quite coÌ„trary position That it is not the Churches infallibility that renders Tradition infallible as their former Masters held but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible and therefore they say the Church her self is no further infallible then she followes Tradition Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible because the speciall assistance of Gods spirit makes them infallible but because by irrefragable testimony they confirm the succession of their Doctrines and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused Thus Holden having told us that the Popes infallibility is controverted on both sides by just godly and most learned Catholicks as well antient as modern and neither â—svde condemned by Authentick censure which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Soules and rest their faith upon what themselves confesse to be a doubtfull foundation viz. the Popes infallibility All Divines saith he confesse it is not certain with a Divine and a Catholick Faith he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Priviledge granted to the Romans sea or St Peters successeur but from the universall and Catholick tradition of the Church and Councels fare no better then Popes They are saith he not Founders but only Guardians and Witnesses of revealed truths so M r White allowes neither Pope nor Councels any infallibility but what they have from tradition as wee have seen and tels us in expresse termes that Tradition is overthrown if any other principle be added to it for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Tradition § 3. Well what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith Here are two contradictory assertions one of them must unavoidably be false A man may with probability at least assert the falshood of either of them having the suffrage of diverse of their own most learned Catholick Authors for him in either opinion but whether they be true or false their cause is lost 1. If they be true and 1. If that be true that Tradition be the foundation of the Churches Infallibility then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility From Scripture That they utterly disclaime From Tradition Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to it self as well as Tradition And whence hath that Tradition its Infallibility and so in infinitum Is it from the reason of the thing So M r White implies who attempts to prove it by a rationall and Logicall Discourse but himself hath prevented that while he saith To leane upon Logicall inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand And S. Clara gives a check to this It is more reasonable and wise even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Authority of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever And that is largely disproved in the following discourse Is it then from the Churches Infallibility This they deny
and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition 2. Seeing they grant the Church may erre if she receed from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not erre unlesse I be sure she keep to Tradition And therefore I must examine that and judge of it and so private men are made judges of controversies which they so much dread 3. Hereby the Authority of the Pope and generall Councels of Bishops is rendred unnecessary I prove it thus If these be necessary onely as witnesses to Tradition then their Authority is not necessary For it is not Authority but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witnesse competent A lay hearer of S t Paul may be as competent a witnesse of the Doctrine he heard S t Paul Preach as a Bishop supposing a parity in their knowledg fidelity and converse with the Apostle and another Bishop may be as competent a witnesse as the Bishop of Rome and consequently as Infallible and any congregation of discreet and pious Christians who heard S t Peter Preach are as infallible witnesses as the Church of Rome and if there were a generall assembly of lay men of equall knowledge and experience they are as infallible witnesses what the Faith of the next precedent age was and what the Faith of the present Church is as a Councell of Bishops Nay to speak truth they are more credible witnesses because lesse byassed by interest affection or prejudice These rocks the first branch throwes them upon 2. If they flie from his and make the Churches infallibility the foundation of Traditions as the most Papists do then they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture Fathers or Councels which we have seen they cannot do So that if either of their positions be true their cause is lost But 2. If either of them be false they are gone too For if tradition be not Infallible in it selfe without the Churches Authority as the one side saith then the Papists have no certaine rule for the Church to steere iâ—s course by for the Scriptures they do not own as such and if the Church be not infallible but by vertue of this Tradition as the other side saith then they confesse the insufficiency of all their proofes from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Councels and their Authority is no more then that of any faithfull or credible Historian and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historicall faith I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogisme from the words and assertions of M r White Tradition is overthrown if another principle of Faith be added to it But the most and Learnedest Doctours of the Romish Church do adde another principle to it viz. the Churches Authority and infallibility as I shewed from their own words Ergo either Tradition and all this new devise or the Authority of the Romish Church is overthrown 4. Answ. 2. This new conceit directly thwarts the designe of God in the Writing of the Scripture and indeed the common sence and experience of all mankind for hereby a verball Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing It hath been the Wisdome of God in formeâ— ages to take care that those things might be Written which he would have kept in remembrance Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a Book So little did God trust this now supposed infallible way of orall Tradition that he would not venture the Decalogue upon it though the words were but few and the importance of them so considerable both in truth and in the apprehensions of the Jewes that if M r Whites Argument have any strength in it it was impossible posterity should ever mistake it but write it with his own finger once and againe after the breaking of the first Tables And although whilest the Church was confined to a few families and divine revelations were frequently renewed a verball Tradition was sufficient yet when the Church came to be multiplyed and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Nations and Revelations cease then Writing proves of absolute necessity How farre the first and wisest Christians were from M r Whites opinion appeares from hence that not daring to leane upon the broken reed of Orall Tradition they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing Eusibius reports that S t Peters hearers were not content with this way of Tradition from Peters mouth but for want of M r VVhites presence there to convince them of their folly They earnestly begged it of Marke that he would leave them that Doctrine in VVriting which they had received by word of mouth And Hierome tels us That S t John the Evangelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia who it seems were raw novices that did not understand their Catechisme nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of orall Tradition And S t Luke gives it us under his hand not fearing either M r VVhites anger or his Argument that he wrote his Gospell ad majorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4 When Iob desires the perpetuall continuance of his words he wisheth O that my words were now VVritten Oh that they were Printed in a Book Job 19.23 And David in the same case would not rely upon Tradition but takes this course for assurance This shall be written for the generation to come Psal. 102.18 But because M r VVhite undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or Iob or David were and therefore good reason they should all vaile to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgment he shall do well to remember that God himselfe was of the same judgment Go write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever Isa. 30.8 And to this agrees the common experience of mankind Vox audita perit litera scripta manet verball Traditions quickly vanish onely writings are durable Hence those famous Lawes of Lycurgus institutes of the Druides Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and onely some few fragments reserved because not committed to writing but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind wereby the aierinesse of this phantasme will be discovered and the great difference between Tradition and writing in point of certainty demonstrated Adam and Noah the two successive heads of mankind did doubtlesse deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances which M r VVhite supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospell as a Doctrine of everlasting consequence and they so received it and for a season transmitted it to their Children But alas how soon was all obliterated and in this sense all mankind some very few excepted did agree to murther themselves and they actually did that which M r VVhite saith
the Pope Or will they say the Infallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alpes among the Italian Doctors who urge Tradition for the Popes Supremacy above Councels But what security will they give us That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot passe over the Alpes and get from one side to the other Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains But Fallibility can travell to all parts and at all times In short it being certaine that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest Nor can this be any way prevented but by pretending the promise of Infallibility but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition and that is hereby disproved and for the fiction of a promise I have discovered that before But the third and last pretence is most frequent That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divided yet they are agreed in all that is de fide in all points of Faith that is in such things as have been decided by Pope or Councell I answer in few words and thus I reinforce my Discourse If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision it might deceive them afterwards because the Decision of a Councell doth not alter the nature and property of Tradition It is true according to the opinion of some Papists such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied because he may judge the Churches Authority so infallible and obliging to him that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike saile to it But the decision of a Councell cannot make that a Tradition which was no Tradition nor can it hinder but that Tradition did deceive me before and consequently might deceive me afterwards For instance If the Pope determine the controversie between the Jansenists and Jesuites about Predestination Grace Frewill c. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgments because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the Infallible Judge of Controversies to whom they must all submit But supposing that the Popes decides according to the verity of Tradition and that must alwaies be supposed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had untill that time been deceived by Tradition So it seemes Tradition in that point was Fallible for above 1600 yeâ—rs together after Christ and now upon the Popes determination An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible but neither will this do their work for the nature of Tradition being the same either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages or else it must now be acknowledged Fallible § 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to shew the impossibility of any mutation or corruption where Tradition is pretended viz. that it is apparent there have been severall mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alledged to prove that there was no motion when his Adversary walked before him though happily the other brought some Arguments that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer which in that point is not hard to doe Or if any man should urge a subtile Argument to prove the impossibility of Sins comming into the World because neither could the understanding be first deceived nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding it were sufficient to alledge the universall experience of mankind to the contrary So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called which no man that hath the use of his Eyes and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it yet because I will use all possible means to convince them if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Divell I shall proceed farther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case and point at some of those many fountaines of corruption from whence the streames of errour might flow into the Church notwithstanding the pretence of and adherence to the Doctrine of Tradition And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches If saith he a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach could teach falshoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity but neither of these are credible I shall apply my Answer to him first in generall and then to the severall branches of his Argument § 12. In generall the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide as if it were impossible that the Tares of Errour should be sowne in the Church while men slept and never dreamed of it The basis of this Argument lies in an assertion of the impossibility of that which the nature of it shewes to be most rationall and probable and the experience of all ages shewes to be most usuall i. e. that corruption of Doctrines and manners for in this both are alike should creep in by degrees As Iasons ship was wasted so Truth was lost one piece after another Nemo repente fit turpissimus Who knowes not that errours crept into the Jewish Church gradually and why might it not be so in the Christian Church We know very well Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa One error will breed an hundred yet all its Children are not borne in one day S t Paul tels us the mystery of iniquity began to worke in his daiâ—s but was not brought to perfection till many ages after The Apostle hath sufficiently coâ—suted this sencelesse fancy whilest he tels us that Heresy eats like a cankâ—r or a gangreen i. e. by degrees and is not worst at first but encreaseth to more ungodlinesse 2 Tim. 2. 16 17. As that cloud which at first appearance was no bigger then a mans hand did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens so those opinions which at first were onely the sentiments of the lesser part might by degrees improve and become the greater or at least by the favour of Princes or power learning of their advocates become the stronger untill at last like Moses's Rod they devoured the other Rods monopolizing to themselves the liberty of writing professing their Doctrines and suppressing all contrary Discourses Treatises their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholick Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages which was frequently pretended by severall Hereticks and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons which in some Ages were few and those easily
when the Image of Diana dropt down from Heaven she brought this Tradition along with her The like might be shewed in â—undry other particulars In the caelibacy of Priests which is onely de jure humano not divine by the confession of Thomas Durandus Lombardus and Scotus four principall pillars of the Papall Church and Turrianus was noted by Cassander as the onely man of all both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it But if it were an Apostolicall Tradition it was de jure Divino and the Councell of Nice would never have dispensed with a divine Injunction So in the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Purgatory and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing because it hath been so fully cleared by diverse Learned Protestant Writers particularly by Iewell Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge Moulins Novelty of Popery Dallaeus in severall pieces Rainolds de Libris Apoâ—ryphis Whitaker Chamier and innumerable others But manum de Tabulâ This I hope may suffice for the refutation of this novell invention concerning the Infallibility of Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church where I have been more large because it is a late plea and lesse hath been said of it by Protestant Authors And so it remaines unshaken That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in orall Tradition and the present Churches Authority which was the businesse of this Proposition CHAP. 8. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility Sect. 1. BUt we are not yet come to the end of our journey And although the Arguments urged by Protestants against their resolution of Faith have probably convinced the consciences of diverse of them yet have they not stop'd their mouths We have shewed in the former Chapters how they have been driven from post to post and as in a besieged City when the Walls and Works of it are battered down they raise new fortifications so having seen their former pretences batter'd about their eares some of them have devised one shift more for finding themselves yet in that ridiculous Circle of believing the Scripture for the Churches sake and the Church for Scriptures sake notwithstanding all the attempts of their Brethren to get out Some of them have taken up their rest in the markes of a Church and the motives of credibility This though rejected by former and learneder Papists yet of late hath been taken up by Turnebull in his Tâ—tragonismus a discourse about the Object of Faith and after him by the late Answerer of Bishop Lauds Book called Lawa's Labyrinth whose words are these We prove the Churches Infallibility not by Scripture but by the motives of Credibility and signes of the Church which are these Sanctity of life miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophâ—cies succession of lawfully sent Pastours Vnity Antiquity and the very name of Catholick Then saith he having thus proved the Churches Infallible Authority and by that received the Scripture we confirme the same by Scripture which Scripture proofs are not Prime and Absolute but onely secondary and ex suppositione ad hominem or ex principiis concessis against Sectaries This is their plea concerning which I shall need to say the lesse because the Book wherein it is revived and urged called Labyrinthus Cantuariensis is so solidly and Learnedly Answered by my worthy friend M r Stillingfleet Yet having finished this Discourse long before that excellent work came forth and having twisted it into the method of the present Treatise and designe I thought not fit wholly to supersede it whereby the body of the work would be renderd lame and incompleat but rather to be shorter in it and as far as I can to cut off such passages as happily may be coincident with what is said by Mr Stillingfleet in that particular for I do not desire actum agere § 2. Answ. 1. Let it be observed how shamelessely these men abuse their Readers when they pretend the Infallibility of the Church is solidly demonstrated from Scripture and this they generally do Here you have reum confitâ—ntem they confesse the imbecillity of those Arguments For say they they are but secondary proofs and Argumenta ad hominem Now such Arguments are not cogent and concluding in themselves but onely do conclude against some particular Adversary from his own principles So they acknowledge that although their Arguments may perswade one that is docible yet they cannot convince a gainsayer And the strength of their Argument depends upon the Courtesy of the Protestants § 3. 2. In vaine are these Marks of a Church pleaded for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome when other Churches have a juster claime to them and so little colour have the Romanists for their monopoly of them that upon enquiry it will be found they have no considerable interest in them This I shall shew in the principall and most important of them 1. The first in dignity though not in order is the glory of Miracles The most eminent in this kind are confessed to be those which were done by Christ and his Apostles Those Miracles were done in Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches not of the Church of Rome which appeares thus These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures but the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is repugnant thereunto Ergo These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches The Major our adversaries dare not deny The Minor hath been undeniably evidenced so much to the conviction of our Adversaries that they dare not owne the Scripture for their Judge and instead of submitting themselves to its sentence bend their wits to except against the judge and decline its Tribunall following that Counsell which was given to Pericles when he was studying how to give up his accounts to the Athenians that he should rather study how to give up no account at all And some of them whose words are recited in this Treatise acknowledge the folly of their brethren who would manage their cause by Scripture Arguments But whether the Protestant Doctrine hath been solidly evinced from Scripture or not thus much undoubtedly followes that if any miracles be pretended against that Doctrine which Christ sealed by his miracles they are not to be regarded and the miracles done by Christ c. are infinitely to be preferred before them And consequently the glory of Miracles is more ours then theirs § 4. The like I may say secondly for the efficacy of Doctrine which they so confidently appropriate to themselves But if the efficacy of their sword were not greater then that of their Doctrine the world would quickly see the vanity of that Argument And how little confidence themselves put in it may be seen by the professed necessity of an Inquisition Next newes I expect
granted that there is an Infallible judge yet it doth not their work for particular Christians are not Infallibly assured of the Infallibility of their Church unlesse they will say that every Papist is Infallible And therefore no particular Papist hath better ground for his Faith upon this score then the Protestants have for they neither have nor pretend to better Arguments upon which they believe their Church to be this Supreme and Infallible judge then what Protestants alledge to prove the Scripture to be judge viz. Texts of Scripture Tradition Fathers Councels Miracles rationall Arguments c. And if a Protestant may be deceived in these when he inferres from them the Infallibility of the Scripture why may not a Papist be deceived when he inferres from them the Infallibility of his Church since he hath no better Arguments nor more Infallible guidance And therefore as to particular Christians of whom the whole Church consists and about whom alone the care of Christ and Gods Providence is exercised God hath not taken more effectuall care for their infallible guidance according to the Romish Principles then according to ours For as they say Protestants have no security for their Faith though the Scripture be Infallible because they cannot Infallibly underitand it or believe this to be the Scripture so say I the Papists have no security of the Infallibility of their Church though the Churches Infallibility be acknowledged true in it self since they cannot infallibly know either that there is such an infallibility or theirs to be the Church to whom it is promised § 28. 4. It is neither necessary nor suitable to the methods of Gods Providence and the declarations of his will that there should be a finall end and infallible judge of all controversies in this life That which these men teil us was fit to be done God hath told us he did not judge fit and who is most credible do you judge 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be Heresies that they which are approved may be made manifest God hath acquainted us that it is his pleasure that Tares should grow with the Wheat unto the end of the World In respect of wicked men it was fit in regard of Gods Justice that there should be stones of stumbling and Rocks of offence for the punishment of those that were disobedient And in regard of elect and sincere Christians who live holily and humbly believe and pray fervently and seek the true way diligently such a judge is not necessary God having provided for them other wayes by giving them the promise of his Spirit and guidance into Truth which is as good security as the Pope himselfe hath or pretends for his supposed Infallibility by that anointing which teacheth them all things 1 Ioh. 2. 27. in confidence of whose conduct they may say with David Thou shalt guide me with thy counsell and afterwards receive me to Glory Psal. 73. 24. They are kept by Gods power 1 Pet. 1. 5. and the care and strength of Christ Ioh. 10. And what need a Christian desire more Truly saith Amesius God hath provided for the safety of the Godly not for the curiosity or perversnesse of other men And therefore this plea must go after all the rest and they are still lest in a Forlorne and desperate because in a faithlesse condition And thus having forced my way through all the obstructions which they laid before us I know not what hinders but I may pronounce the sentence notwithstanding all their big looks and glorious pretences of Infallibility notwithstanding all the noise of Scripture Fathers Popes Councels Tradition Miracles when things come to be scanned it appeares they have no foundation for their Faith and consequently have no Faith Lord be mercifull to them CHAP. VII Of the Solidity of the Protestants foundation of Faith § 1. HAppily they will fay of us as Ierome did of Lactantius that he could facilius aliena destruere quam stabiline sua that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith then make our own good I shall therefore though it be besides my present designe which is onely to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility in few words enquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith then the Papists have And this I shall shew onely by one Argument The Popish foundation of faith is such as many of their own great Doctours are unsatisfied in There being no foundation laid by any of them but it is both denied and disproved by others no lesse eminent of their own communion as I have proved at large and such as is unanimously opposed by all Protestants and solidly disproved But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches of what denomination soever are agreed in yea such as diverse of our most learned Adversaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient You will say if you can prove this the controversy will be at an end and if I do not let the Reader Judge There are but three things that need proof 1. That the Books of Scripture which Protestants build their Faith upon are and may be proved to be the word of God 2. That in the substantials of Faith these Books are uncorrupted 3 That the sence of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary points § 2. For the first That the Protestants Bible is and may be proved to be the word of God It is true when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question as they call it to them How know you Scripture to be the word of God what matters it how I know it seeing they acknowledg it and by granting the thing make their question superfluous But I Answer I know it even by the Confession of our Adversaries So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation and the testimony of an adversary against himself is undeniabe It may be of good use here a little to compare the several discourses of learned Papists to different persons and how prettily they contradict themselves and confute their own arguments When the Papists dispute against us they tell us It is impossible to know the Scripture to be the word of God but by the Churches Testimony But if you take them in their lucid intervals and their disputes against Atheists or Heathens then you shall have them in another tune then Bellarmine can say Nothing is more evidâ—nt and more certain then the Sacred Scriptures so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them Here he can furnish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture distinct from and independent upon the Churches authority the verity of Prophecies harmony of writers works of Providence glory of Miracles consent of Nations c. Either then these arguments do solidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures or they do not if they do not then
Bellarmine is a Baffler to use fallacious arguments and a Lyar too having said nothing is more evident nothing more certain if they do then the Scriptures may be evidenced to be the word of God without the Churches Testimony which they so boldly deny at other times The like might I shew out of Gregory de Valentia who musters up diverse convincing arguments whereby even Heathens may be satisfied that the Scripture is the word of God without the aid of the Churches authority And the like is done by several of their learned and approved Authors from which it plainly appears That the foundation of Christianity and Protestancy is one and the same and that we have the same arguments and evidences for the ground of our Faith as Protestants viz. for the Divine authority of the Scriptures independently upon the Churches testimony which we have as Christians and that the Papists cannot say nor do any thing towards the subversion of the Faith of the Reformed Churches herein but at the same time and by the same art and arguments they must oppugne the Christian cause and acknowledg it untenable against a subtle Pagan or Atheist And I desire the Reader to consider that this is not an answer or argument ad hominem which I now insist upon but fetched from the nature of the thing the verity of the Christian Religion And for what they pretend That without the Churches Testimony we cannot know that S. Mathews Gospel was written by him and so the rest they shall take an Answer of a very eminent and approved Author of their own Melchior Canus It is not much material to the Catholick Faith that any book was written by this â—r that Author so long as the Spirit of God is bâ—lieved to be the Author of it which Gregory learnedly delivers and explaines For it matters not with what pen the King writes his Letter if it be true that he writ it § 3. The second thing is That the Books of Scripture are not corrupt in the essential and necessary points of Faith This a man may easily discern by looking into the nature and quality of those various lections which are pleaded as evidences of corruption where he shall quickly find them generally to be in matters of lesse moment and such upon which Salvation doth not depend But because the examination of this would be a tedious work I shall save my self and Reader the labour and shall prove it in general as at first I proposed from the confession of the Papists themselves who condemn the rashnesse of those of their own Brethren which out of a preposterous respect to the vulgar Translation assert the malitious coâ—ruption of the Hebrew Text and positively maintain the incorruption of the Bible in matters of importance Of this opinion are among the Papists Bellarmine Arias Mâ—ntanus Driedo Bannes Tena Acosta Lorinus and diverse others If you please we will hear the fore-man of the Jury speak for the rest I confesse saith he that the Scriptures are not altogether pure they have some errors in them but they are not of such moment that the Scripture is defective in things that belong to faith and mannâ—rs For for the most part those differences and various lections consist in some wâ—rds which make little or no difference in the Text To whom I shall adde the acknowledgment of a late Author S. Clara whose words are these Considâ—ring a moral thing morally it is altogether impossible that the Books of the New Testament were or are consiâ—erably adulterated And so he goes on proving what he had asserted This may suffice for the second thing § 4. For the third particular which alone now remains in doubt concerning the sense of Scripture My assertion is this A Protestant hath or may have a sufficient assurance of understanding the sense of Scripture in things necessary to salvation This I shall briefly prove by this argument God's promise is sufficient assurance the Papists do not pretend an higher assurance for their Churches Infallibility but a protestant is or may be assured of this by God's promise as appears from Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God Protestants have the assurance of Reason and whatever the Papists talk they have no other It is true they talk of several things Fathers Councels Tradition Motives of Credibility c. but in these and all other arguments both Papists and Protestants agree in this that when they go to settle and satisfie their consciences though they hear many things yet reason weighs them all and rejects what it judgeth false and holds fast what it esteemeth true and good if that will not do they have the assurance of the Spirit which God hath promised to those that ask it Luk. 11.13 and this is as much as the Church her self pretends In a word to strike the businesse dead you shall see the perspicuity and evidence of the Scriptures in things necessary to salvation acknowledged by our Adversaries from whom the force of Truth extorted these confessions That part of Scripture is plain and evident which conteins the first and chief principles of things to be believed and the principal rules of living so Sixtus Senensis We deny not that the chief articles of faith which are necessary to salvation to all Christians are plainly enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles so Costerus And Salmeron having said that all Doctrines and Traditions are to be examined by Scripture he saith The Scripture is so framed and ordered by God that it might be accommodated to all places times persons difficulties dangers diseases to drive away evil to procure good to overthrow errors to stablish truths to instil vertue to expel vice And Hieronymus ab Oleastro saith We are to praise God for it that those things which are necessary to salvation he hath made easy From all these things put together I think I may say it undeniably follows which I proposed to evince That the foundation of a Protestants Faith is solid and sufficient our adversaries themselves being Judges § 5. Onely I must remove one block out of the way Peradventure they will say that if all these things be true concerning the word of God in its own language yet there is one notorious defect in the groundwork of the Protestants Faith viz. That they build it upon the credit of a Translation made by persons confessedly fallible This because they make such a noise with it amongst ignorant and injudicious persons however to men of understanding it is but an impertinent discourse it will be convenient to say something to it and but a little To this then I Answer 1. The Papists cannot in reason charge us with that fault of which themselves are equally guilty nor can they accuse our Faith of that infirmity to which their own is no lesse obnoxious for the generality of unlearned
prove the Spirits testimony but by the Scripture This is counted one of the hardest knots and therefore it will be worth the while in few words to unty it though it may seem a little heterogeneous to my present design § 10. 1 They have no reason to object this circle to us that they cannot free themselves from I speak not now of the other famous circle of the Church and Scripture which their most learned Authors of late have ingenuously confessed but here is another Circle The Papists have Circulum in Circulo For they professe a man cannot know the Church but by the Spirit nor the Spirit but by the Church That a man cannot know the Spirit nor the mind of the Spirit nor distinguish it from false and counterfeit ones but by the Church is their great principle He cannot know it say they by the Scripture unlesse he read it with the Churches spectacles Revelation they do not pretend to therefore this is known onely by the Church to whom the discerning of Spirits belongs and by others onely from the Churches authority and infallible testimony But that is a clear case the onely doubt lies about the other branch viz. That a man according to their principles cannot know the Church but by the Spirit and that you shall have under the hands of their great Masters Stapleton's words are these This secret testimony is altogether necessary that a man may believe the Churches judgment and testimony about the approbation of the Scriptures neither will Faith follow without this inward testimony of the Spirit of God although the Church attest commend publish approve the Scripture a thousand times over So Canus tels us that Humane authority and other moâ—ives are not sufficient inducements to believe but there is moreover a necessity of an inward efficient cause i.e. the special help of God moving us to believe What can be more plain let them answer themselves and that will serve our turn Either they must leave themselves in the Circle or help us out Iam sumus ergo pares And it is unreasonable that they should urge that as a peculiar inconvenience of our Resolution of Faith to which their own is no lesse obnoxious § 11. 2. It is false that we have no other way to prove the Scripture to be the word of God but the Spirits internal Testimony They cannot be ignorant that we have diverse arguments of another nature and independent upon that Testimony of the Spirit by which the authority of Scripture is solidly proved And Papists as well as Protestants have substantially defended the cause of the Scriptures against Pagans and Atheists Either those arguments are solid rational and convincing or they are not if they say they are not then Be it known to all men by these presents that the Assertors of Popery are the Betrayers of Christianity If they be then is the Scripture proved other wayes then by the Spirits testimony How can our Adversaries vindicate themselves either from shameful Ignorance if they do not know or abominable malice if they wittingly bely us that we have no argument to prove the Scripture but the Testimony of the Spirit What are those glorious miracles by which the Scripture was sealed and propagated now become no argument Is the Transcendency of the Matter and Majesty of the Style and admirable Power of the Word of none effect to prove the Scriptures Divinity Are not the patience of Martyrs the concurring testimony of Jewes and Heathens to the truth of Scripture-relations the verity of predictions and the like as solid arguments now as they were in the Primitive times when the Fathers confounded the learnedest Pagans by these and such like arguments If they be as they must affirm unlesse they will turn perfect Pagans as they are in the half way to it already then their Assertion is false That we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scripture but by the Spirits Testimony and the Circle which they impute to us is indeed in their own Brain and their Argument is the fruit of their Vertigo § 12. 3. Here is no Circle because although the Spirit and Scripture do mutually prove one another yet they do it in diverso genere in diverse wayes and several capacities but a Circle is when a man proceeds ab eodem ad idem codem modo cognitum when a mans knowledg proceeds from the fame thing to the same thing in the same way But in this case though the thing be the same yet the way of knowledg varies and that breaks the Circle The Scripture proves the Spirit per modum objecti argumenti objectively and by way of argument by suggesting such truths to me from which I may collect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Spirit and prove its Divinity But the Spirit proves or rather approves the Scripture per modum causae effectivae instrumenti as a Divine instrument infused into the soul whereby I am enabled to apprehend such verities as are contained in the Scripture The Papists indeed cannot get out of their Circle of Church and Scripture because each of them is the argument by which they prove the other the argument nay the onely argument say they for which I believe the Scripture is the authority of the Church testifying it and the argument for which they believe the Church is the authority of the Scripture And here the Circle is so grosse and evident that it is acknowledged by diverse of their own late learned Authors Holden confesseth in expresse terms that they who resolve their Faith in this manner and so do almost all the learned Papists in the world do unavoidably fall into a Circle So the late Answerer of Bishop Lawd confesseth it is a vitious Circle to prove Scripture from the Churches Tradition and the Churches Tradition from Scripture as they generally do some few Excentrical spirits excepted nor can he get out of it but by returning to that Vomit which his former Masters had discharged themselves from viz. to prove Infallibility by miracles and the motives of credibility But in our case it is quite otherwise for the Spirit works ut instrumentum by way of Instrument the Scripture ut argumentum by way of Argument It were an absurd aspersion to call this a Circle if any man should say I believe the Sun to be bigger then the Earth because my reason tels me it is so and I believe my reason saith true because Mathematical arguments convince me it must needs be so That which frees this discourse from the Circle is that the Mathematicks prove it ut argumentum Reason proves it ut iustrumentum and the same may be said in the present case I shall farther illustrate this by a similitude or two It is here as when a man through the infirmity of his eye apprehends a thing to be lesse then it is There are three wayes whereby this man may be convinced of his error 1. By
Discourse that there are so great and many and pregnant evidences that no man can deny without forfeiture of his reason discretion and modesty and all the principles of humanity 3 If this argument be cogent and besides the certitudo objecti the infallibility of the thing there be required a certitudo subjecti the infallibility of the Person to be satisfied which here is contended for then not onely the Pope and Councel but every particular Christian must have this gift of Infallibility an ampliation of the priviledge which his great Ghostly Father will never allow for mark it that is the thing which the Catholick Gentleman urged and where with my Captain was gravelled He asked me saith he whether I was sure and certain and whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion or else said he as to me Christianity was but probably true else it is possible you may be mistaken and at this rate do they use to talke to such as they desire to Proselyte By all which it appears that the infallibility must be particular in every individual person that would be satisfied himself or would convince another of the Truth of Christianity I am not ignorant of a shuffling artifice which this Catholick used in confounding two things together necessary to be distinguished as no wonder to meet with confusion of language in the builders of Babel whilst he too cunning for twenty of these Novices states the businesse thus He asked me saith my Author whether I was so certain that it was not possible for me or for those who taught me Christianity to be mistaken in this p. 5. Here lies the mystery of Iniquity and here was the blind cast before the eyes of this unequal combatant which he had neither wit enough to understand himself nor humility enough to learn from others But I shall endeavour to bring this Fox out of his hole by this Argument Either a subjective certainty or infallibility of belief of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not if it be not necessary then in vain do Papists urge this argument and boast so much of it as unanswerable whereas now they give it up and confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and Infallibility necessary onely for the Pope or Councel and so the poor Captain hath lost his Infallibility and had best think of his old military word As you were for here the cord is cut asunder by which he was drawn over to Rome for now the Protestant stands upon even ground at least with the Papist For suppose for once contradictions were reconciled and the Popish opinion of the Churches infallible authority were true in it self certitudine objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the Infallible authority of the Scripture true in it self and certitudine objecti as the most desperate Papists do grant Stapleton and Bellarmine and all The Scripture say they is Divine and true and certain in it self but not quo ad nos therefore hitherto there is no difference now to proceed If it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that he hath such probable evidence of this doctrine of the Churches Infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a foundation for a Protestant that he hath such nay infinitely more probable evidence of the doctrine of the Scriptures Infallibility since the evidence of the latter is granted by the Papists themselves and the evidence of the former not onely denyed and disputed down by the Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors as I have shewed at large This question I challenge the whole club of Jesuites which happily contributed to this Epistle solidly to answer But now on the other side if they will retire to the other part of the Dilemma and say That a subjective Infallibility is necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England not onely hath a Pope in his belly but hath got his Crown also upon his head and communicates with him in that great Prerogative of Infallibility and truly I must do them justice without doubt every Papist in England is as infallible as the Pope himself 4. But if nothing will satisfie but Infallibility let us a little enquire into it what it is and where it lies what infallible and irresistible demonstrations the Romanists have for this grand principle for which a man must put out the eye of his reason and forsake the conduct of the Scripture and depose the holy Spirit from his Royalty Certainly it is madnesse in the highest to put us off with conjectures and suppositions and imagined probabilities in so important an affaire upon which all the rest depends and to which all must strike saile so then the question will be this whether this pretence of Infallibility be not a gratis dictum a crude and bold assertion or rather whether it be evidenced with such strength and clearnesse as to compell the assent of all reasonable persons And here I shall do the Captain and the Popish cause this right as to consider it in its most advantageous notion If there be any Infallibility most certain it is that it is in the Pope and general Councel together which is the most plausible and received opinion of the Church of Rome And here it is that our English Apostate Mr. Cressy in the last Edition of his Book centers and here also the Captain casts anchor The Prelates of the Church saith he though as men they are fallible yet when assembled in a general Councel with their supreme Pastor they are still made infallible by the assistance of the same holy Ghost who was as well promised to them as to the Apostles Now for this notion I might refer the Captaine and the Reader to what I have said and proved in the foregoing â—reatise which when he or any of his Fathers shall solidly answer it will be time enough then to consider it But because this is the sole foundation upon which the Papists build all the rest and Mr. Cressy adjures all Protestants that omitting or deferring all particular disputes with Catholicks they would examine this point Sect. 2. Chap. 19. and because I am resolved by God's help to search and try where the strength of this Sampson lies if there be any in it I shall a little farther consider it and if I find his arguments proportionable to his confidence and that he is as solid in proving it as he is daring in asserting it surely he will do the Christian world an inexpressible favour and infinitely oblige all Protestants and he will find us far from the madnesse of fighting against God and our own soules But since all is not Gold that glisters and our Savour hath commanded us to try the Spirits and to prove all things and not to believe men saying Lo here is Christ or Lo there is Christ they must not take it amisse if after such evident
guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Councels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the churches authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures oâ—â—ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universalâ— Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many severall judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction 1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conâ—cience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe tâ— be the alone Law-giver Iam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. â— 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an externall and politicall Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internall and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more then the rest to be for ever suspended and wrapâ— in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne unâ—versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in expresse termes That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sence of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I meane in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe So againe the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the
appointed by Christ as a part of that ground upon which we were to build our rule by which we were to try particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith but was necessary notâ— ex instituto Christi but ex natura rei and from the condition of humane affaires there being no other way without a new revelation possible or imaginable to convey the Gospell and Scriptures to those that were to live so many hundred years after the first publication of it Tradition being to us that which Eyes and Eares were to them that were Eye-witnesses of his convincing miracles and Eare-witnesses of his irrefragable discourses that is neither their Eyes and Eares were nor to us Tradition is the Argument and ground of our Faith but a necessary meane or instrument to convey those Arguments and grounds of Scripture which were convincing and satisfactory 2. This Tradition is no Act of Authority but onely of testimony not at all peculiar to the Church or generall Councels but common to all antient VVriters Yea let it be observed as a very materiall consideration in this point so far is the Capacity of a Church from being necessary to the validity of this Tradition and Testimony concerning the great rule of our Faith the Holy Scriptures that the Testimony and Tradition of such as neither are the Church nor any part of it but enemies to it I meane Jewes and Heathens are in some respects more considerable according to that known maxime Testimonium adversarii contra se est validissimum It being one of the best Arguments and at this day so urged both by Protestants and Papists for the truth of the Holy Scriptures and particularly of the Gospell that the truth of those Historicall relations of Christs miracles was acknowledged by the most Learned Jewes and Heathens that lived in antient times And by those considerations we may discerne the vanity of that triviall calumny of the great differences among Protestants about the rule of Faith and judge of Controversies whereas by what hath been said which is no other then the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches and Writers however sometimes they seem to differ in modo explicandi it appeares how all these severall things concurre like so many Stones fitly compacted together to make up the building of our Faith which that I may in few words present it to the Readers review is this The Scripture is the Object the onely rule and standard of Faith by which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged the res creditae and the ratio credâ—ndi Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh this rule to us and our times Reason is the instrument by which I apprehend or the eye by which I discerne or see this rule The spirit of God is the Eye-salve that anoints mine Eye and inables it to see this rule The Church is the interpreter though not infallible and authentick the witnesse the guardian of this rule and the applier of the generall rules of Scripture to particular cases and times and circumstances And things being thus stated which is really the sence of Protestants in this great point as it were easy to shew from the confessors of our Churches and the Treatises of our most and choicest Authors is it not at all difficult to blow away with a breath those pitifull cavils whereby they indeavour to perplex the mind of ignorant or prejudiced persons lest the light of the Gospell should shine into their minds One thing is worth our Observation That diverse of the Popish arguments do wholly arise from and depend upon either some in commodious expressions of some Protestant Writers or some false exposition put upon them by the adversaries As for instance when they argue against the Scripture from the nature of a Judge that a Judge must heare parties must not be mute but passe sentence c. All these and many such cavillations are thus silenced by saying that which is true that it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and figurative expression when we call Scripture a Judge in as much as it is the voice or writing of our Judge and indeed it is a rule So their Arguments against the judgment of reason either have no weight in them at all or else depend upon a scandalous and untrue suggestion as if the Protestants made reason the Judge in a Socinian sence So their Arguments against the Spirits being judge do proceed I doubt from a willfull mistake for in their Learned Writers it cannot be ignorance as if the Protestants submitted Scripture and reason and all to the judgment of the spirit in themselves in an Enthusiastick notion which is so farre from being true that they try and judge of the spirit by the Word according to Apostolicall prescription This being premised I come now to treat with my Captaine and weigh his Arguments that have any colour or appearance of truth in them And first he argues against reasons being the judge of Controversies Concerning which let me be bold to say thus much That the Papists themselves do make reason judge of Controversies as farre as the Protestants do though both the one and other tye up this judge to a rule If it be said the Protestants make the reason of every particular man judge which indeed they do in the sence forementioned and for their own actions so do the Papists make the reason of the Pope or a Councell the judge For when they say the Pope or Counsell is the Judge of Controversies I would know what it is in them if not their reason which is the judge as it is their reason which examineth and heareth and considereth so sure it is the same reason which concludeth and judgeth so that the question between the Papists and Protestants is not whether Reason be the judge but whether the reason of particular persons or the reason of the Pope or Councell The Arguments which he urgeth against the judgment of reason are so irrationall that it is sufficient confutation to mention them 1. Saith he Reason must submit to the Judge E. it is not the Judge Answ. It is true supreme Judge it is not but subordinate and tied to rule Protestants assert no more 2. The Judge must be Infallible but reason is Fallible Ergo Answ The Major is a pitifull petitio principii They that help'd him to make his Book will tell him what it meanes 3. If reason were Judge a man might please God without Faith for reason would teach us sufficiently how to please God Answ The same Argument will overthrow his Church If the Church be the Judge then a man may please God without faith for the Church teacheth us sufficiently how to please God 4. If Reason be Judge we must not believe what we do not understand Answ Non sequitur For this Judge is tied up to a Law and rule which commands us to believe what we do not understand But I am sick of such wofull Arguments though the
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
the quality of the Hebrew and Greek Tongues He computes how many erroâ—s probably might be in the Copies of the Bible we may well allow saith he 336 errors in one Copy which admitted you will find the number of errors in all the Copies made since the Apostles time fifteen or sixteen times as many as there are words in the Bible and so by this account it would be 15 or 16 to one of any particular place that it were not the true Text These are his words Dialog 2. Sect. 5. VVhen I read these and other things of the same tendency I began to reason with my selfe Are these the Discourses of William Rushworth a Romish Priest Are these the Arguments which must make men Christians or which in their sence is all one Roman Catholicks Is this the man that affected the rigour of Mathematicall discourse even in his Controversies as we may perceive by this worke for so M r White is pleased to tell us Is this the Book that so learned so ingenious a man as M r White must commend to the VVorld as that which was very satisfactory to diverse judicious persons Surely it is a mistake these are not Rushworths but Vaninus his Dialogues or it is a newfound remnant of Iulian the Apostate which some unlucky Heretick hath set out under the name of a Romish Priest May I be so bold as to aske our Holy Mother the Church of Rome Num haec est tunica filii Is this thy sonnes voice No sure It is some Priest of Apollo bidding defiance to the Christian cause and striving to render the Holy Scriptures contemptible and ridiculous But you see what desperate men will do in a desperate cause rather then not maintaine the Papall Authority they will subvert the very foundations of Christianity The Jesuites tell us that in order to the comming of Antichrist Rome shall turne Pagan I am perfectly of their mind and I think the turne is halfe wrought allready Ecce signum for none short of a Pagan could talke at this rate The insolency of the Discourse and confidence of the Disputer and the applauss of his party makes it necessary that I should say something farther by way of Answer The first Answer which alone may silence this impudent Objection is this Either this Argument proves nothing against us or it proves more then the Papists at best such of them as are not quite out of their wits and consciences too would have it let us reflect a little upon the premises and then forecast the Conclusion Take all his discourse for granted that by reason of the many mistakes corruptions doubts difficulties there is nothing but incertitude that it is fifteen to one of any particular place that it is not the true Text that it is as ridiculâ—â—s to seek the decision of Controversies out of the Bible as to â—ut with a Beetle or to knâ—ck with a straw These are the Authors words Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Go say these are faint-hearted fellowes if you can Give me those honest soules that tell us plainly what they think of the Scriptures and how little they value them It were an hard case if all the the Churches Adversariâ—s were crafty companions Now say I if these things be true then certainly it was not without cause that the Papist forementioned said that without the Churches Authority the Scriptures were of no more value then AEsops Fables Their Father Costerus had good reason to say it was a Sheath that would admit any Sword and Pamelius did rightly call it a Nose of Wax If this were true we might throw all our Bibles into the Fire for Controversies cannot be decided thence nor errors detected nor truth evinced there 's nothing there but uncertainty and darknesse and consequently our sins cannot be reproved nor duties pressed from the Scripture for the same reason unlesse these men will say who we see will not stick at small matters that the Copists or Translators errors did happily hit onely upon such places as concercerned Controversies that the Church alone might rule there not at all on such as concerne duties and sinnes But if this be true whence come those high Characters and ample Testimonies which the most learned Papists and their Councels have given to the Scripture that they acknowledge the Scriptures or Bible and they spake of that which we have to be the word of God as much to be reverenced as Tradition it selfe How came Bellarmine to say of those Books of the Prophets and Apostles which we have Nibil notius nihil certius c. i. e. nothing is more evident nothing more certain then that they are the Word of God and none but a fool can denie them credit de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2. Whence is it that the Papists accuse the Protestants of slander for saying they exauctorate the Scripture How is it that they all pretend the Church may not contradict those very Scriptures which we have In my opinion the Church of Rome was wofully overseen in disputing with the Protestants out of the Scripture or troubling themselves to answer the Scriptures which Protestants brought for Mr Rushworth hath furnished them with one Answer which will serve for an universall Plaister therefore I would advise them thus to Answer once for all when a Protestant argues against merit from that Text When you have done all that you can say you are unprofitable servants Luk. 17.10 Let them say it was the error of the Copist should have been profitable servants So when it is made a Character of the Apostacy of the latter times forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4.3 It is but saying it was an error of the Copist that put forbidding instead of commanding a familiar mistake at Rome and then I think the Hereticks are paid home And so when Christ bids the people Search the Scriptures say the Copist left out the word not it should have been Search not for so Tradition assures us And so in a thousand other cases I need no more then give the hint A word is enough to the wise as doubtlesse they at Rome are in their generation In short what do these men and such Arguments tend to but debauch the consciences of men and depreciate the Scriptures that if men have not so much grace as to abhorre such heathenish discourses it is enough to make the Scripture as insignificant a VVriting as the most contemptible Pamphlet that ever the VVorld was pester'd with I easily apprehend there is one subterfuge that the Adversaries of the Holy Scriptures will think to make an escape at They will say all this is true there neither is nor would be any thing at all certaine or credible or clear in the Scripture and the Sacred VVritings we now have but for the Infallibility of the Church which from Infallible Tradition receives them and delivers them to us But I Answer 1. Woe to us Christians if all the validity of the Scripture depended
most Illustrious Lady which nothing but ignorance or malice can deny nor the particular obligations which I shall allwayes desire to own to both of you but the contemplation of that great interest which by the high capacity of your Place and the noblenesse of your Estate and the unexampled affability of your deportment you have in the Kingdome of Ireland which how free it is from other Venoms your Lordship knowes better then I yet sure I am it is sadly infected with the Poison of Popish Doctrines and therefore I thought the Antidote most needfull there and that your Lordships Authority and Influence accompanied with your zealous indeavours which God expects and I promise to my self from you in so good a cause might induce many persons of the Romish perswasion to read and consider this short Treatise if God peradventure may give them Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Devill That God would encline your heart to contribute your most effectuall help to so good a work and succeed you in it and recompence you for it and that God would blesse Your self and worthy Lady with all the blessings you want and mercifully preserve and Sanctify to you all you have and crowne all with those inexpressible felicities of another World is now and shall by Gods assistance be the humble and fervent prayer of My Lord Your Lordships Orator at the Throne of Grace MATTHEW POOLE Sept. 1. 1665. To the Reader BEfore I come to the worke it selfe I know my Reader will require satisfaction in two things which I hold my selfe obliged to give in the first to the Protestant in the latter to the Romanist 1. It will be objected to me as the Iewish Tradition tels us was objected to Moses by his Antagonists who charged him with bringing Magicall operations among them that he brought Straw into AEgypt a country abounding with Corne so it will be said that I trouble the World with needlesse repetitions that I write an Iliad after Homer and do that work which hath long since been dâ—n much better by our Protestant Heroes and that Nil dictum est quod non est dictum prius and particularly that this point of Infallibility hath been discussed by that formidable Adversary of Rome the most acute M r Chillingworth Lord Falkland Dr Hammond and lately by our Learned M r Stillingfleet To these my Apology is 1. That the clamorous importunity of Popish Writers doth force us to these repetitions it being the practise of most of their present Controvertists boldly to urge those things in English as unanswerable which they know have been so solidly disproved in Latin that they neither cannot have pretended to Answer 2. I have made it my indeavour as much as I could to avoid repetitions which are as displeasing to me as they can be to the Reader which if I have in many places stumbled upon it hath rather been the necessity of the thing or an unhappy chance then the choice and designe 3. The Reader I hope will find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I had known of any Author who had in so short a compasse and plain Method contracted and dissolved the strength of the Popish cause in this great point I had willingly superseded nor did I intrude my self into this work but was invited to it by diverse worthy and learned friends and afterwards incouraged in it by the approbation of such persons whose judgments I think almost all the learned part of England doth reverence 4. Here is a new plea viz concerning the sufficiency of the Testimony of the present Church and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition not at all considered by Mr. Chillingworth nor fully discussed by any other that I know of except the ingenious Lord Falkland who handles it quite another way and hath left room for some Gleanings after his Harvest Nor is it debated by Mr. Stilling fleet whose Adversaries led him to things of another nature And besides it is known to diverse that this Treatise was prepared for the Press before Mr. Stillingfleet's excellent Discourse came out though retarded by some unhappy occurrences which it is needless here to recount The second particular is this The Papists will pretend that the Doctrines I charge upon them and the Testimonies which I alledge against them are onely the particular opinions of private Doctors and not of their whole Church My defence is this 1 The Authors which are here introduced are not pedantick writers but such as are of prime note and highest esteem in the Church of Rome and the most zealous and considerable Champions of their cause and such for the generality of them whose writings came forth with the character of their Churches approbation upon them concerning whom it will be very difficult to perswade any intelligent man either that such persons did not understand the sense of the Church of Rome as well as the Objector or that they did knowingly contradict the doctrine of their Church or would be permitted so to do without any censure upon them 2 The testimonies of those Authors are undoubtedly sufficient for that end for which I alledg them which is to shew the falseness of those doctrines and the weakness of those arguments which are disbelieved and disproved by their own learnedest and stoutest Champions by which it may appear to all impartial persons that it is not the ignorance nor prejudice of Protestants as some of their VVriters have the Effrontery to assert which makes them reject the Popish Tenets but meerly the want of Truth and evidence therein confessed as you will see all along in the following Treatise by their own Brethren and that it is a desperate madness in any Papist to hazard his everlasting concernments upon such principles as so many of their acutest Scholars do publickly disavow And that this is really the case of the unhappy Romanist I refer thee to the subsequent Discourse POOLE's Nullity of the Romish faith The INDEX The Introduction Pag. 1. CHAP. 1. The Popes infallible Authority is no sufficient foundation of Faith and is a meer nullity pag. 2. CHAP. 2. Scripture is no sufficient foundation of Faith to a Papist according to their principles proved out of their prime Authors Sect. 1 2 3 4. The Scriptures alledged by them for the Popes infallible authority examined in generall Sect. 5. 6. In particular Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter Sect. 7. 8 9 Iohn 21. Feed my sheep Se. 10 Luk. 22. I have prayed c. § 11. Deut. 17. 11 12 § 12. CHAP. 3. Of the Infallible authority of the Fathers Asserted by the Papists Sect. 1. Disproved 1. By the same arguments by which the Papists derogate from the authority of Scripture § 2 3. 2. Because Infallibility is the Churches Prerogative § 4. 3. The Fathers disclaime it § 5. Exc. But Fathers where they agree are Infallible Answered § 6. p. 46. 4 The Papists themselves disown
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
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
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
That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels which is common to those that deny their Infallibility but the calâ—ing of those Hereticks who do not acquiesse in the sentence of Councels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Councels for the Protestants themselves have branded and censured and sometimes put to death as Hereticks such men as in fundamentall points of Religion have receded from their publick Confessors of Faith and the decrees of their Synods without ever pretending to Infallibility But that I may improve the Cardinals Argument for him to the highest Put case the Fathers had said that men were bound to believe all the assertions of their generall Councell yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible I prove it plainly thus The Papists maintaine that people are bound to believe their Pastours and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or haesitation according to that which Stapleton so largely and frequently defends That Pastours are simply to be heard in all things and yet they do not hold these Pastours to be Infallible So they tell us by vertue of that Text Mat. 23. 2. The Jewes were bound to believe all the Doctrines publikely taught by the Scribes and Pharisees and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharisees of whom that Text speaks were infallible And the Fathers might justly say all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Councels which then were past not that they thought Councels were Infallible but because they judged all their decrees true and consonant to the Scripture otherwise how little they valued the decrees of Councels when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be sufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Councels 3. There is in this argument the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or error which was through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Fathers pretended in this cause viz. they argue from the authority of Councels to their infallibility and how invalid the consequence is appears from this undeniable argument Masters Magistrates Parents Bishops and Provincial Councels have Authority but not Infallibility If all that the Fathers say to that purpose were put upon the rack it would prove nothing but this that they thought what the Protestants grant that general Councels were the supreme judicatories of the Church from which was no appeal and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquesce but that doth not infer Infallibility as we have seen § 9. Bellarmine's third argument is this The Fathers teach that the Decrees of general Councels are Divine and from the Spirit of God from whâ—nce follows that they were not subject to error And this he confirms by the testimony of Constantine who now he is orthodox is grown considerable though when he was alledged against him he was a greater Prince then Doctor as we heard even now Greg. Nazianz. Cyrill and Leo who call the decrees of the Councel of Nice divine and say they were ordered by the Spirit of God and so say I too And it is true of all the decrees of all Councels nay of all the Sermons of Ministers which are collected from Scripture and conformable to it such as the Nicene Decrees were that they are divine Oracles But then their Divinity and that which is the consequent of Divinity Infallibility ariseth not from the Authority decreeing them which being but humane could not make the decrees divine but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture as Bellarmine confesseth and therefore divine But if Bellar thinks from this particular case to draw a general conclusion I must make bold to stop him in his careere till he hath told me whither he think this argument solid The Fathers held the decrees of the Councel of Nice to be divine and say it were infallibly true Therefore they thought the decrees of all Councels divine and infallible and consequently the Anti-Nicene and Arrian Councels If he can disgest this I will say he hath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad § 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Cardinal and come to the Fryar S. Clara who being an ingenuous person and coming last hath doubtlesse selected the best weapons and his great argument I find to be this That the Fathers did generally own the Infallibility of the Catholick Church and consequently the Infallibility of general Councels which are the same with the Church and their definitions are the determinations of the Church this he largely prosecutes cap. 20 21 22. For Answer let me premise what I have proved that if this were the opinion of the Fathers yet seeing that they confesse themselves to be men subject to like passions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin Neither do you think that because we are Bishops we are not liable to irregular motions but rather let us conceive that we live dangerously amongst the snares of temptations because we are men And seeing the Papists confesse they have erred in many things therefore this if it were true will afford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith but I shall forgive them that infirmity The argument however he glories much in it hath nothing sound from head to foot how can they expect this argument should prevaile with us when it is rejected by themselves who deny the consequence from the Infallibility of the Church unto that of Councels So doth Camâ—racensis as S. Clara notes in these words A general Councel may erre in the faith because if it should erre yet it would remaine that others without the Councel did not erre and by consequence that the faith of the Church did not faile The like saith Panormitanus A Councel may erre as it hath errâ—d nor doth this hinder it that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre because although a general Councel represent the whole Church yet in truth it is not the whole Church All the faithful do constitute that Church whose head and husband Christ is and that is the Church which cannot erre The very same thing and almost in the same words saith Antonius where he adds an instance That the saying of Ierome was preferred before the decree of a Councel Thus you see the consequence is denied by three famous Authors of their own Nay what say you if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence I am greatly mistaken if it doth not follow from hence that he makes Gouncels infallible no further then they are afterwards received and owned by the Church and allowes them to be fallible where that reception doth not follow as we shall see hereafter and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholick Church not in the Councel and consequently the Church may be infallible and yet the Councel remain fallible as those Papists that assert Councels to have their
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
testimony and interpretation of the Church i.e. the Pope or a Councel which is their assertion must needs give us the same liberty to assert that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture saith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels but for the testimony of the Pope and Councels that is we have no reason to believe their Infallibility but this that they tell us they are infallible we have their word for it so it seems the Disciple is better then his Master and the Pope's word will go further then the word of God for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause saith Bellarmine as the Churches Testimony is When the Papists would presse the Scripture to the service of this notion it may say to them as Iepthah did to the Elders of Israel Iud. 11.7 Did not je hate me and expell me out of my fathâ—r's house and why are you come unto me now when ye are in distress And upon condition they will reply with the Gileadites Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou mayest be our head I will overlook that otherwise unpardonable fault by which they have rendred the Scripture unserviceable to their purpose and once more they shall have a fair tryal whether the Infallibility of Councels can be demonstrated from Scripture Sect. 14. The first and principall support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3. 15 where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth This is their Ajacis ctypeus which you shall find used upon all occasions and infinitely repeated by every impertinent scribler of the Romish party For Answer to passe over that notion of our acute Chillingworth that it is not the Church but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth and so there is onely an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very frequent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Gataker observes and there are diverse instances of either of them So the sence is that thou mightest behave thy selfe in the House of God the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar And he gives this notable reason for it because it was heterogeneous to call that Church a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house And this I am sure would puzle our masters to answer But to wave that I answer 1 The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome but the Church in which Timothy was placed And whether it be spoken of the Church in generall or in particular what is this to Rome Here wee find a notable piece of the Romane mystery of iniquity If there be any reproofes or censures applied to any other Churches there every Church must bear its own burden But if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations promises priviledges that presently belongs to Rome and they have a commission to seize it for their own use but how unjustly we shall here discover for if you understand these words of the Catholick Church or of the Church in generall then the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church which may consist with the errour and Apostacy of several which then were eminent Churches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia which notwithstanding this promise fell away and consequently Rome though then her faith was famous throughout the World might fall with them or after them And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed And if my memory faile me not exceedingly that was not Rome but Ephesus which notwithstanding this Caracter did fall away And moreover it was not the Church ruling but the Church ruled in and over which Timothy was set which is here called the pillar and ground of truth And so the Argument runs thus The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth Therefore the Pope of Rome is infallible The Consequence is thus proved the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleaseth and though he may erre in the premises as Stapleton confesseth yet he is alwayes infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton asserts Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments 2 The terme of Pillar notes the solidity but not the infallibility of the Church it notes the difficulty of its removall but not the impossibility Every stout Champion of Gods Truth is a pillar of the truth and such are frequently called by that name in the fathers but yet they are not infallible Athanasius was a pillar of the truth but not infallible The great Osires a pillar of the truth and Nicene faith yet fell fowly as appears by the story Musonius Bishop of Neocaesarea is by Basilius Caesariensis invested this very title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo by the Romane Logick Basil thought him infallible or if he did not then Basil did not think those words implyed infallibility Gregory Nyssen tells us not onely Peter and Iames and Iohn are pillars not only Iohn Baptist is a light but also all that build up the Church are pillars and lights Therefore it seemes all Ministers are infallible Male Children are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillars of their families among the Greek Poets and Getae a faithfull servant in Terence is called Columen Familiae the pillar of the family For ought I know if those men would go to Rome and upon the credit of this word sue out a Writ of priviledge they might be as infallible as the Pope himselfe 3. This Phrase The Church is the Pillar of Truth may note the Churches duty not her practice and what she ought to be not what she alwaies is They shall not say this is gratis dictum I will make it good by parallel Instances wherein they shall see the absurdity of their argument Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evill Rom. 13.3 If this argument be good The Church is a Pillar E. she cannot eâ—re then this also is good That Rulers cannot be a terror to good works None but one that comes from Bedlam would assert the latter and none but one that comes from Rome would conclude the former Thus our Saviour saith of his Ministers Ye are the salt of the world ye are the light of the world Matth. 5. Ergo by this argument this Salt could not loose its savour and no Minister can be in the dark but every one must be infallible Thus Prov. 16 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgment Ergo Kings are infallible If the Pope had such a Text in the New Testament The Pope's mouth transgresseth not in judgment you may easily imagine what triumphs the Assertors of Infallibility
Councel that Pope Gregory the great said he reverenced as one of the four Gospels and a Decree of theirs against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome he answers roundly that that Decree is of no force because it was made in the absence of the Pope's Legates who afterwards did protest against it Where by the way we may take notice what opinion that oecumenical Councel had of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility who first passed and afterwards ratified that decree notwithstanding all the solicitations and protestations of the Romane Legate in the Pope's name to the contrary In like manner saith Andradius That Councell erred in as much as it did rashly and without cause prefer the Church of Constantinople before that of Alexandria and Antioch And Gregory de Valentia being assaulted with a Canon of the Synodus Trullaena defends himself with this answer That Synod is of no authority because its Canons were not confirmed by the Pope § 21. It is true the Papists perceiving the danger of their cause from this difference between the Pope and Councels have at last found out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that means they pretend they are all agreed the Pope and Councell joyning together are infallible And in this sense their doctrine is true that general councels are infallible viz. if they are called and confirmed by the Pope For answer whereunto I commend four things to the Readers observation 1. Observe the non-sense of this opinion The question is whether general councels lawfully called have an infallible assistance and guidance of the Spirit in the forming of their decrees The Papists affirm we deny now comes in a condition in their affirmation which overthrowes the affirmation it self They are infallible say they if the Pope confirms them well then the Councel meets considers decrees here is their work done hitherto say our Masters they are fallible they send them to the Pope for confirmation for ubi desinit Concilium incipit Papa if the Pope confirms them they are infallible if he disapprove them they are fallible And so it seems the councell receives infallible direction from God for their work after their work is done and it ceaseth to be before it be infallible in spight of the old maxime of the Logicians Ab est tertii aâ—jecti ad est secundi adjecti valet consecutio Really the councels have an hard bargain of it that cannot get Infallibility till they have lost their existency 2. Observe the hypocrisy and self conviction of this opinion The infallibility of councels is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast before the eyes of those who cannot penetrate into the depth of things Several Scriptures are pretended which are said evidently to prove this infallibility now we see they themselves deny the thing they pretend to prove and councels are infallible no further then the Pope pleaseth And with this key you must open all the alledged Scriptures you must hear the Church i. e. unlesse the Pope shut up your eares Christ is present where two or three are met together in his name viz if they have the Pope's approbation The Spirit will lead you into all rruth viz. if you follow the instructions of his Holinesse And if a councel may say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us it signifies nothing if it be not added and to our Lord the Pope Thus Councels are meer cyphers except the Pope adde his figure and Councels are joyned with Popes only as Bibulus was with Caesar to fill up a vacancy and make a noise in vulgar eares Nor is the wound of the Popish cause healed by this device but only skinned over for as the assertors of the infallibility of councels deny infalliblity to the Pope further then he adheres to such councels so the assertors of Papal infallibility allow to councels no infallibility but what they have in dependence upon and by influence from the Pope So Bellarmine in terms saith Infallibility doth not come partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel but wholly from the Pope And Stapleton is expresse The Pope receives no new power nor authority nor infallibility from the addition of a Councel What need I say more such contemptuous thoughts hath Bellarmine of the infallibility of councels that he spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That general Councels may erre if they do not follow the Pope's instruction if they have not the Legates consent nay more if it be in a point wherein the Legates have no certain instructions from the Pope and he gives us amongst many instances of erring Councels this remarkable one The Councel of Basil by common consent and with the Legates concurrence concluded that a Councel is above the Pope which certainly is now judged erroneous You see how hard it is for Councels to carry their dish eaven By what hath been said it appeares what a sorry foundation the Infallibility of Councels is when from their principles it unavoidably followes That a colledge of Jesuites is as infallible as a generall Councel for they confesse a provinciall Councell which in it selfe hath no more Authority to oblige the whole Church then such a Colledge is Infallible with the Popes concurrence and without it generall Councels are Fallible 3. Observe the insufficiency of this evasion For if Infallibility were granted to such a combination of Pope and Councell this gives them no reliefe save onely during the Session of the Councell for when the Councell is dissolved their Writings must indure the same fate with the writings of the Apostles of being unable to Judg or decide controversies For all the Papists most vehemently plead for the necessity of a living Judge that can heare both parties and determine all emergent controversies Thus Infallibility is not so much as res unius aetatis Nay ofttimes it is but res unius anni like Ionah's gourd it comes up in a night and withers in a night And the Church for three hundred years after Christ had no Infallibility and since the Councell of Trent the Papists have not had an Infallible judge and at this day their Church hath no Infallibility and consequently no solid Foundation for their Faith 4. Observe the preposterousnesse of this opinion If Councels come to the Pope for Confirmation he may say to them as Iohn the Baptist said to Christ Mat. 3 14. I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me So may the Pope say I have need to be confirmed by your Authority and without you am but magni nominis umbra and do you come to me But I confesse wanus manum feriat If the Pope have any Infallibility he had it from Councels for Scripture ownes it not as we have seen and the particular Fathers could not give what they never had and now it is good manners to requite them and so he comunicates to them that Infallibility he receives from
on choice whereas S. Clara himself sufficiently insinuates that they were forced to it se defâ—ndendo and took it up at a forced put for speaking of the former rules of discerning a generall Councell he confesseth That their businesse is very intricate and liable to many troublesome objections against the lawfulnesse of their Councels but here is a short way to obviate those difficulties by arguing from the reception of the Church for if the Church receive it for a generall Councell we need not trouble our selves about little matters since this reception is sufficient evidence 2. Here is an excellent Antidote against the saucy decrees of severall Councels repugnant to the Popes Supreme Authority If the sixth Councell of Carthage be pleaded that there should be no appeales to Rome from beyond the Seas if that of the Councell of Chalcedon be urged wherein they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same honours and priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to the Bishop of Rome If the later Councels of Constance and Basil be alledged wherein the Popes subjection to Councels is positively determined Now here is an Answer ready to this and to all that former Councels said and to all that any Councell shall ever say to the Worlds end viz. The Canons of these Councels were not received by the whole Church but opposed and rejected by the Church and Bishop of Rome a great and eminent part of it Thus I think they have brought off their master the Pope with honour and as he was Infallible so now they have made him invulnerable Scripture cannot hurt him for he hath the key of Interpretation Fathers cannot reach him for they are his Children saith Bellarmine As it is no newes for the Pope to be well stored with Children And now Councels cannot touch him for he will hinder their universall reception And if the Romish Doctors be beaten out of this conceit it is but studying some new device which is easily done by men that want no wit and have no conscience for it is resolved to hold the Conclusion though the poore premises may be put to hard shifts Well then to allow them their supposition and all the benefits of it they must remember the rule of the Lawyers Qui sentit commodum debet sentire onus Benefit and inconvenience must goe together And this is the inconvenience and mischiefe which they are still forced into notwithstanding all their tricks and stratagems even to eat their own words and to pull down with one hand that Infallibility which they build up with another For how can the Councell or the Pope either be said to have that infallible guidance which is pretended in the making of their decrees if the Churches non-reception may prove their Fallibility But here is the wonder-working power of the Church of Rome do not think strange when you read that passage in the Councell of Lateran delivered in an Oration before the Pope and Councell That the Pope-hath a power above all power in heaven or earth For he can do that which the Schoolmen unanimously put out of the reach of every power in Heaven or Earth viz. factum infectum reddere recall things that are past and by this Argument prove that that Councell which was Infallible while it sat after its dissolution is become Fallible But to returne This is to precipitate themselves into those absurdities which they charge upon us This is to make the Church judge of her Judges This is to take away all the security of their Faith if we may believe their own famous Councell of Basil whose words are these Nor let any man presume to say that a generall Councell may erre for if once this pernicious errour were admitted the whole Catholick Faith would stagger and we should have nothing certaine in the Church for by the same reason that one may erre the rest may erre also Besides hereby they run into a new Circle as if all their former Circles were not sufficient If you aske what it is which makes the Faith of the Romish Church and people sure and Infallible It is the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell If you aske againe what it is which makes the decrees of Pope and Councell Infallible It is the Churches reception of them and yet all this if granted will not relieve them for that the decrees of their Popes and Councels have no such reception of the universall Church appeares sufficiently from the publick dissent of so many famous and flourishing Churches in the World I meane the Greek and Protestant Churches which do not therefore cease to be members of the Catholick Church because the Papists disowne them no more then the Popish Churches become true members by their pretending to that Title § 25. 3. There is another assertion of the Papists That Councels are not Infallible unlesse they be rightly constituted and ordered for this I shall deale with them as the Apostles did with their Kinsmen the Cretians I shall implead them with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay not one but many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their opinion Councels say they may erre if they do not proceed Conciliariter i.e. in a regular manner saith S. Clara his words are these The most Learned Corduba in Quaestionario lib. 4. qu. 1. quoting Roffensis in his Prologue against Luther and Horantius in his places lib. 2. cap. 17. saith that God hath promised his assistance to a Councell whâ—n they do what in them lies If they be Bishops and Learned and prudent men selected out of the whole Church if they proceed without Carnall affections and with a love to the Truth then and not otherwise it is gathered lawfully and in Christ name Thus Bellarmine pressed with the Authority of the Councell of Chalcedon against the Popes Supremacy saith A lawfull Councell may erre in those things wherein it acts not lawfully And Petrus à Soto a man of great account amongst them tels us this is the sence of their assertion That Councels cannot erre They understand it saith he of Councels lawfully congregated and acting without fraud and deceit And Pope Leo speaking of the causes of the errours of the Councell of Ephesus assignes this because they did not proceed with a pure conscience and right judgment So Malderus in his Treatise against the Synod of Dort saith In vaine do Synods assemble and men go to them when they do not remove all sinister affection and onely seek that which is Christs and he addes Then indeed they are gathered together in Christs name then Christ is in the midst of them The summe is this Infallible assistance is not a gift dispensed promiscuously to Pope or Bishops howsoever they demeane themselves but only upon their good behaviour being the priviledge of those alone who act with diligence fidelity sincere love to the Truth and good conscience that is to say to such persons as few Popes and
though they be either of Apostolicall or Angelicall originall Gal. 1.18.9 2. The Argument I confesse is right of the Romish stamp viz. The Thessalonians were bound to receive what they heard immediately from St Pauls mouth in such things as for the substance of them were contained in the Scripture Therefore we are now bound to receive all those Traditions which the Church of Rome tell us they had from those that had them from those that had them from those that told them their Ancestors were told by their Ancestors that some of their Ancestors had it from Paul 1600 years agoe risum teneatis amici This may serve for the fourth Answer § 9. Ans. 5. If this Doctrine be true Scripture proof is not necessary for any point in Religion for it asserts the sufficiency of Tradition in it self and without the Scripture But Scripture proof is necessary for confirmation of points in Religion This I might prove from Scripture but that hath been done allready in the former Answer therefore I shall here confute this Argument of Tradition by Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers To pick up all they have to this purpose would fill Volumes I shall therefore single out some few Illustrious Testimonies Nothing can more evidently overthrow this goodly structure then those forementioned words of Cyprian We ought not to regard what others have done before us but what Christ who was before all thought fit to be done For we must follow Gods Truth not mens custome What Protestant can say more in few words then Clemens Alexandrinus in few words We assert nothing without Scripture Therefore he thought not Tradition a sure evidence though so near the Fountaine much lesse can it now give us any certainty having conflicted with hazards and been exposed to the infection of 1300 years S t Basil is expresse It is necessary that every word or thing be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures And else where he tells you It is a manifest defection from the Faith and token of Pride either to rejâ—ct any thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written And Constantine speaking of the rule by which all things were to be examined and judged confines it to the Scripture The Books of the Prophets and Apostles saith he do plainly instruct us what to think of Divine things therefore laying aside hostile discord from the words which were divinely inspired let us take our expositions of quoestions e It is a pitiful shift of Bellarmines to say that Constantine was a better Emperor then Doctor whereas in this particular Theodoret assures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying nor did any of the Antients ever condemne him for it And indeed the practise of the Synod shewes their approbation of the Speech and consequently gives us another Argument for they determined the controversy according to the Scriptures saith Ambrose and Athanasius too whose words are these The Bishops congregated at Nice collecting togâ—ther all things they could out of Scripture to defend their opinion they affirmed that the Son was consubstantiall to the Father And Bellarmine himself confesseth it The Councell of Nice when they defined the Son to be consubstantiall to the Father they drew their Conclusion out of the Scriptures Notable is that place of Chrysostomes because it acquaints us with his own judgment and the judgment of the Christians of that age If any thing be asserted saith he without Scripture the minde of the hearer wavers But when Scripture comes that confirmes the speakers words and settles the hearers mind Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Hermogenes that things were made of prae existent matter with I never read it let Hermogenes shew where it is written or else let him fear the woe denounced against those those that adde to the Scripture e And againe I do not receive what thou bringest of thy own without the Scripture And againe Take away from Hereticks the things they have in common with Heathens that they may referre their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand But the Papists are of another mind for if you will believe them if Scripture alone must judge Controversies Heresies will never fall Theodoret professeth he was not so bold as to assert any thing wherein the Scripture was silent Thus Origen It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of Scripture for without this our expositions have no credit Austin is most full and plaine I will mention but one place Whether they have the Church they cannot shew but from the Canonicall Books of Scripture And yet there is no question wherein Tradition seems more pertinent and where the Papists urge it with more vehemency I might adde a thousand pregnant places more but either these or none will suffice to prove that the Antients did judge Scripture proofe necessary for the confirmation of any Doctrine in Religion which the Romanists now judge not necessary The Fathers pretended Tradition for their opinion and the Papists pretend it now Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then or it deceives the Papists now Either will serve our turne to shew the Fallibility of Tradition If it be said there are no lesâ—e expresse Testimonies alledged by the Papists on the behalfe of Tradition and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalfe of the Scripture I Answer 1. If the Fathers do in some places assert the sufficiency of proof from Tradition and in other places the necessity of Scripture proofe these assertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of Religion For so say the Lawyers most justly and truly Testis pugnantia diceus fidem non facit 2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition especially if you compare them with those alledged for Scripture that they do plead Tradition onely as a secondary Argument to confirme that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture but it is as clear as the Sunne that they ever made Tradition strike faile to the Scripture and made no scruple of deserting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments stood on the other side Answ. 6. The Romanists themselves are undeniable instances of the vanity of their own Argument They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us Why Tradition hath deceived them There are diverse contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome about 300 are reckoned out of Bellarmine The dissenters though never so implacably divided amongst themselves do agree in this That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers and so from the Apostles Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived some of them or both the parts of a contradiction may be true I shall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions nor take notice of pettie differences amongst obscure Authors but shall instance in two materiall
see it is argued on both sides by many most godly and learned Catholicks both antient and modern and neither part hath yet been censured or prohibited and therefore it is evident no Catholick is bound to this or that side By which one instance you may see how much reason we have to bespeak them as Christ did the Pharisees Math. 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast out the Beam out of thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye Thus we see when their pretended signs come to be examined they are lighter then vanity as we have seen by this short and transient consideration of the most and weightiest of them § 11. But although other evidences are pleaded yet the rest of them come in onely as handmaids to the principal Character of miracles for here it is that they set up their rest and so must I too for a season So the Answerer of Bishop Land The Church is proved to be infallible the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be infallible and that was by the sanctity of their life and the glory of their miracles The works of Christ did of themselves without Scripture prove Christ to be infallible Ioh. 5.36 and 10 25 38. and 14 11. and the Apostles confirmed their words by signes Mark 14.19 And consequently the miracles done by the Church of Rome do without Scripture prove her infallibility This is their last plea they are now brought to their last legs if this fail them they are lost § 12. Ans. 1. If the miracles of Christ and his Apostles did prove their infallibility in the doctrine they delivered then they prove the fallibility of the Church of Rome and their actual error because they are visibly departed from that doctrine and if they prove any infallibility they prove theirs who adhere to the doctrine of the Scriptures And so we thank them for this argument § 13. Ans. 2. Although where miracles are true and many and evident and uncontrolled they give a great stroke to the proof of that doctrine which is confirmed by them yet it is false to say that Christ or his Apostles did require an absolute submission to and belief of every doctrine upon the bare account of miracles without any reference to Scripture And it is most certain that Christ and his Apostles notwithstanding their miracles did prove their doctrines from and allow their hearers to examine their doctrines by the Scripture This strikes at the foundation of their argument plea and therefore I shall endeavour thoroughly to prove it § 14. 1. This appears from the expresse commands of Christ and the Apostles to that purpose In the same place where Christ bids them believe him for his works sake he commands them to believe him for the Scriptures sake Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures And if the former prove the sufficiency of their argument from miracles why should not the latter prove the sufficiency of the Protestants argument from Scripture especially if you consider that Christ apparently prefers Scripture arguments before that of miracles for in that 5. of John where he ascends gradually from the weakest to the strongest testimonies he placeth them in this order First he urgeth Iohn's testimony vers 32. next the testimony of his miracles vers 36. and last the testimony of Scriptures v. 39. And this more fully appears from Luke 16.29 If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead Upon which words Chrysostome's glosse is full and cogent at least to them who pretend to rely upon the Fathers authority and exactly to maintain their doctrines his words are these That you may see that the doctrine of the Prophets and consequently of the Apostles is more to be believed then the preaching of one raised from the dead consider this that every one that is dead is a servant but what the Scripture speaks those things the Lord speaks Whence I thus argue The authority of the Lord is not onely greater in se but more credible quoad nos then the authority of the Servant This no man living will deny But the authority of Scriptures is the authority of the Lord and the authority of the Pope adde a Councel to him if you please is the authority of a Servant yea if you take that in earnest which is intended onely for a complement a Servant of Servants Ergo the Scripture is more to be credited then the Pope or Church It was a good turn for the Pope that Greg. de Valentia hath assured him that if the Fathers do at any time talke sawcily Sua tum constat authoritas Romano Pontifici i.e. The Pope will keep his authority and infallibility in spight of them else I am afraid this passage of S. Chrysostomes might have done his Holinesse a discourtesy And this farther appears from 2 Pet. 1. where you have the question expresly decided for after the Apostle had confirmed his doctrine from that miraculous appearance of God in the Mount and that voice from Heaven he addes ver 19. We have a more sure word of Prophecy The Bereans did not believe S. Paul's inâ—allibility barely upon the account of his miracles nor are they therefore blamed but did examine his doctrines by the Scriptures and for that they are commended Act. 17.11 § 15. 2. It was not the will of Christ that all miracles should be believed but he would have some miracles rejected therefore he would not have all miracles in themselves and for themselves credited and owned The Assumption I prove by three arguments § 16. 1. Christ's will was compliant with his Fathers will and he came to fulfill Gods word not to destroy it But this was the express will of God that all miracles should not be credited This no man can doubt of that reads Deut. 13. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a sign or a wonder and the sign or wonder come to passe whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods and let us serve them thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet for the Lord your God proveth you Whence it irrefragably follows that if it could without blasphemy be imagined that Jesus Christ had delivered such a doctrine as this Let us go after other Gods his miracles should have been disowned and rejected and therefore miracles of themselves are not to be credited § 17. 2. Christ and his Apostles have foretold us that miracles should be done by the teachers of false doctrines Therefore miracles in themselves are no sufficient evidence of the truth of a doctrine The Consequence none can deny The Antecedent which alone can admit of doubt is so evident from plain Scriptures that I need onely recite them I will mention onely two places 2 Thes. 2 9. The coming of Antichrist is said to be after
doctrine of Predestination the Papists confesse is no fundamental since their own Doctors are divided about it yet if any man from St. Paul's assertions of the efficacy and immutability of Predestination should infer the unnecessarinesse of Sanctification to Salvation as some have done doubtlesse this man would wrest the Scriptures to his own destruction But the Captain is not contented with a general imputation of darknesse to the Scripture but pretends several Instances of things necessary to Salvation which are not plain and clear in the Scriptures his Instances are these 1 The nature and number of the Sacraments 2 The number of the Canonical Books and that the Scriptures are the word of God 3. The incorruption of the Scripture 4. The understanding the true sence of Scripture which is literal which mystical 5. The number of fundamental points 6. The doctrine of the Trinity and 7. other doctrines concerning the baptizing of Infants and womens receiving the Eucharist and the observation of the Lords day and the doctrine which condemnes Rebaptization All these saith he are necessary to Salvation and yet Scripture is not plain and clear in them So that here are two assertions and both of them false in most of the Instances and all are false in one of them It pitties me to trifle away time in the particular answer of such impertinent allegations did not the weaknesse of some in believing all that is boldly asserted make it necessary For the 1. The Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of those two Sacraments which Christ hath instituted as the Captain might easily have informed himself if in stead of going to Knot and Fiat Lux c. he had looked into almost any of our Protestant Systems or common places of Divinity whither I refer the Reader having somewhat else to do then to transcribe common places And for the other 5 Sacraments I cannot say they are delivered in Scripture more clearly then the others but I may say they are lesse darkly because indeed not delivered there at all being onely a fiction of their own of which God may say They never came into my mind For the 2. It is a crude and false assertion which the Captain layes down That it is necessary to salvation to believe all the books of the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to believe nothing to be the word of God which is Apocryphal If the latter part be true woe to the Church of Rome that now is which hath owned those writings for the word of God in the Councel of Trent which by the judgment of so many most learned Fathers and grave Councels and the Church of so many successive ages have ever been held for Apocryphal as no rational man can doubt that shall take the pains to read either of those excellent pieces Raynoldus de libris Apocryphis or Bishop Cousens his Scholastical history of the Canon of the Scripture And if the former part be true then we must damne all those Fathers and Churches who as both Papists and Protestants acknowledge did sometimes doubt of some books now universally received nay farther we must damne all the former ages and Churches and innumerable holy and learned writers and even many of the most famous Papists themselves who did all disown and disbelieve some at least of those Books which if we take the judgment of the Trâ—nt Councel are and were a part of the word of God The truth is and so it is generally owned by Protestant writers That the belief of those Truths conteined in the Scriptures is necessary to Salvation though happily a man through ignorance or error should doubt about some one Book It is necessary that I should believe the history of Christs life and death but it is not necessary to Salvation simply and absolutely to believe that the Gospel of St. Mark for instance was written by Divine inspiration This may appear from hence because Faith is sufficient for Salvation and faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. as well as by reading now as Faith might be and really was wrought by the hearing of the doctrine and history of Christ when preached by such Ministers as were not divinely inspired so might it be wrought by the reading of such things when written by the very same persons and consequently it was not and is not necessary to the working of Faith and therefore to the procuring of Salvation to believe That St. Marks Gospel was written by Divine inspiration And yet I do not assert this as if I thought that it were not a very great sin especially in and after so much light about it to disbelieve any one book of the Scriptures there being so many evident characters of a Divine inspiration upon the particular books besides the general assertion 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by divine inspiration and other convincing places but onely to shew That which is a certain and evident Truth it is not simply and absolutely and ex natura rei necessary for every person to believe every particular Book to be the word of God but a serious and practical beliefe of the Truths conteined in those Books may be sufficient to Salvation even where there is an ignorance if not wilful and affected of the Divine Authority of some book or books of Scripture 3. For the Third thing the incorruption of the Scripture I Answer 1. The Scriptures incorruption in substantial and considerable points besides that it is confessed by the learned Papists as I have shewed before doth sufficiently appear from it self by the collation of one place of Scripture with another as also by the collation of several copies And one great argument of it may be fetched from that which seems to twhart it viz. the various readings which learned men have observed out of diverse copies let any man look into them as he finds them collected in the late Polyglotte Bible and his own eyes shall witnesse that howsoever the differences of Readings are numerous yet they are not of any moment and indeed the differences in lesser matters are a considerable evidence of the Scriptures uncorruptednesse in greater wherein the copies do wonderfully consent 2 If the Scripture not evidencing its own incorruption hinder its being a rule then neither can the Scripture be so much as a part of our Rule which yet is granted by the most insolent of our Adversaries for so the argument will carry it if there be any strength in it nor was the Decalogue a rule of life to the following generations of the Israelites nor can the old and unrepealed Acts of Parliament be a Rule to England nor yet can Tradition be a Rule to the Papists for the Papists not onely confesse its insufficiency to evince its own uncorruptednesse but acknowledge its actual corruption in several points as hath been shewed before nor can the Decrees of Popes and Councels be a rule which being writings must needs be lyable to the
of God and the same for substance with the Originals The incorruption of the Scriptures in substantial things is sufficiently evinced from the confession of its greatest Adversaries the Papists from the consent of Copies taken by persons of several ages and far distant places and contrary principles from the innumerable multitude of copies every where dispersed and the constant jealousy and watchfulnesse of so many wise and zealous Christians ready to observe the least considerable corruption and give warning of it and many other considerations All those arguments which are pleaded both by Papists and Protestants for the Divinity of the Scripture they reach to copies and Translations In these as well as in the Original is the majesty of the Style the sublimity of the doctrines the purity of the matter the excellency of the design To these as well as the Originals God hath given so many signal testimonies by the conversion of thousands by frequent and illustrious miracles by the cooperation of his Spirit with them in the hearts of his people and many other arguments which when a Papist is in a good mood and disputing with a Pagan must passe for undeniable demonstrations of the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of the Scriptures And for the differences in Translations either noted by the Papists or confessed by any of the Protestants which the Captain makes a great Flourish with and other Papists make such triumphs at they are so petite and trivial and so little concerning the substance and foundation of Religion or the Scriptures that to me it affords an unquestionable evidence That our Translations are unblameable in fundamental places because all their great wits and learned Doctors to this day could not discover any such mistakes though they have made it their businesse to find them out But I shall say no more to this argument in this place having in the former part of the Treatise spoken to it A fifth argument is taken from the seeming contradictions which are in Scripture not resolveable by the Scripture Hence saith the Captain Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. no one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other is infallible in speaking but the Scripture so speaketh therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking Nay he might and should have said the Scripture is not credible in speaking and therefore say I by the vertue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge himselfe an unreasonable man or an Atheist I tell you it was good hap That in stead of the Catholick Gentleman he did not meet with an Atheist for the arguments which convinced him are indifferently calculated for either Meridian But for all those seeming contradictions the short Answer is this 1. That there are no such places but are capable of convenient reconciliations as hath been already made good by several learned men both Papists and Protestants who have professedly treated of those matters and discovered the vanity of this objection And if it were granted That there are some places which men have not yet hit upon the right way of reconciling them that is no evidence of the impossibility of it since we can give instances in others which in former times were thought as insoluble as any now are which the learning and diligence of after ages hath fully cleared from all semblance of contradiction 2. Those seeming contradictions are either reconciâ—eable out of Scripture or else are but historical difficulties not at all necessary to salvation The Captain should do â—ell to put the parts of his discourse together and see how they agree because he will not I will do it for him The Proposition which Protestants assert and he attempts to disprove is That the Scripture is a perfect Rule in things necessary to salvation This he disproves by instancing in some insoluble difficulties in matters unnecessary to salvation But we must pardon him it is vitium causae the cause affordes no better arguments A sixth argument is this Scripture is no sufficient rule because it is lyable to diverse and contrary expositions An invincible argument by which a man may dispute all Rules out of the world Probatur The Decalogue is no rule of life or manners for the Pharisees understood it one way Christ another Mat. 5. The Statutes of the Kingdome are no rule for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions The Decrees of Popes and Councels are no rule because lyable to diverse and contrary expositions so far that Gratian the compiler of their Canon Law hath one entire Title De Concordantia Discordantium Canonum i. e. concerning the reconciling of disagreeing Canons And there is this remarkable difference between the condition of the Romish and our affairs our differences are in the exposition and accommodation of the rule but Popish differences are in the Text and rule it self since there are amongst them not onely diverse and contrary expositions of the same Canon which yet is sufficient to take off all their glorying over us and to bring them to our levell but indeed there are contrary Texts the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another and one Councel to another Pope Stephâ—n nulls the decrees of Formosus the three next Popes null the decrees of Stephen and re-establish those of â—ormosus Sergius the third comes after and again nulls Formosus his decrees But I will tell you of a greater matter even no lesse then the Authentical Translation of the Bible Sâ—xthe 5th sets forth one Bible An. 1590 not rashly but deliberately with the advice of his Cardinals the assistance of the most learned men of all the Christian world they are his own words corrects the errors of the Press with his own hand imposeth this upon the whole Church Within 3 years comes Clemens the 8. and he puts forth another Edition not onely diverse but in several passages directly contrary to it for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves or to Dr. Iames his Bellum Papale and the Defence of it where he shall find above a thousand differences between them yet Cleâ—ens suppresseth all other Translations and enjoynes this for the oneâ—y Authentick Translation and so it is held to this day The like I might shew of Councels as it were easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Councels among themselves and yet forsooth the appearance of a contradiction must exauctorate the Scriptures when real contradictions shall not prejudice the Authority of Pope and Councel so true it is That some may better steal a horse then others look over the â—edge The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge then it was so in the Apostles dayes and if so the Authority of the Apostles ceased when they had done writing I Answer 1. The Consequence may very well be denied from the
Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the onely rule when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly Ergo it is not the onely rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Councel combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord. Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Councel Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of Gods Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather then for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equall Avthority the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis affâ—ctu ac reverentia with equall piety and reverence it consequently followes that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sence to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despoticall having dominion over the peoples Faith and being Lords over Gods Heritage but onely Ministeriall not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so farre as it concernes his own actions It is true and that Judgment as I have shewed the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an errour common to the Jewes of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every mans being Judge in words and shew yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captaine for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Councell is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Councell be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captaine or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called Rushworths Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtlesse si Pergama dextrâ Defâ—ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security aâ—quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture yet is onely upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written onely to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written meâ—rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Hereticks had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a
rule of Faith which must be so true and cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soule upon This is the summe of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and cleare and so evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and cleare and evident c. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtfull that it is not onely rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the VVorld men so absurdly scepticall that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equall Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concernes onely one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no speciall occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and Deâ—th and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine They are the Authors words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casuall to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not onely to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned untill the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Thâ—s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least diverse of them were written upon speciall occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproâ—fe c. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use no man that knowes any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them sorth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proofe but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turne for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been allready handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tels us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Hereticks the Jewes at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and
White 's mind Did not the Apostles decide that controversie Act. 15. from antient Scriptures and from such places as seem as irrelative to the matter debated as any which are urged by any considerable Protestant against the Popish errors And why then may not we tread in their steps why may not a Protestant as well confute the opinion of Justification by works in the Popish sense from that Scripture we conclude we are justified by Faith without the works of the Law as S. Paul might and did confute the same doctrine when held by the Jews from that passage of Davids Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven Rom. 4 If these words long before delivered Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Deut. 6.13 were sufficient to decide the controversy between Christ and the Devil to confute the opinion of Devil-worship why may not the same words as urged by Christ be as sufficient to decide the controversy between the Papists and us to confute the opinion of Image-worship But I am not at leisure to transcribe all the New Testament I cannot think of Mr. White as it is said of many Popish Doctors that he never read over the Bible but I would desire him once more to read it and to put on his Spectacles and then tell me if he be still of the same mind If this will not do let him reflect upon the Fathers whether it was not the universal practice of the Fathers to confute later Heresies out of the Scripture this they did either pertinently or solidly and then it may be done still or impertinently and fallaciously and then Mr. White makes them meer Juglers In a word as upon supposition that Aristotle was authentick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it were no hard matter out of him to confute all the new opinions of the Modern Philosophers So the Scriptures being confessedly such it may suffice for the confutation of later Heresies Lastly if all this will not serve turn it is to use his own words a shameless proposition to say the Scripture doth not speak of the matters now in controversy between us and the Papists and whoever asserts it either understands not what he saith or must be presumed never to have read any of our Protestant Controvertists who have fully confuted all the Popish errors and heresies from express Scriptures or which is all one from genuine consequences evidently deduced from them Nor doth it matter at all to say the Scripture treats not of the controversies at large since it is by all acknowledged that every part and parcel of Scripture is Canonical and Authentical and the Papists make this the difference between the Divinity of the Scriptures and Conciliary Decrees That these are Divine in the main Conclusion but not in the premises or mediums but the Scripture they say is Divine in all every verse every word being Divine and consequently if but one verse of Scripture speak against an error it doth as solidly though not so fully confute that error as if a whole Book were written against it For instance that Text This is the true God if the sense of the words be agreed and if they be not it would do nothing though an whole Epistle were written about it and so far there is no difference doth as substantially confute the Socinian Heresy in that point as a larger Discourse upon it would do and therefore Mr. White 's argument is empty and inffectual and must go after its fellows And so all their arguments of any note against the Scriptures being Rule or Judge of controversies are I hope sufficiently answered and the Protestant doctrine or Truth of Christ viz. The Scripture is a sufficient rule or judge of controversies stands-like a Rock at which their Waves are dashed in pieces And now I should come to the other part by positive Scriptures and arguments to prove the Scriptures authority and sufficiency but this is fully done by many learned pens onely because our principal arguments for it are assaulted by the Adversaries I now have to do with I shall therefore consider their pretensions against the evidence of those places alledged by us in defence of the authority and sufficiency of their Scriptures for I am forced by them against my own desire and inclination to confound found these two heads and treat of them together I know there are several Texts rightly urged by the Protestants and vainly cavilled by the Papists but because the handling of this point was not my first nor is my main design at present and one solid argument or convincing Scripture is as good as a thousand and both parties are upon the matter willing their cause should stand or fall by the verdict of one place as it doth or doth not convincingly prove the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures and because above all places the Romanists most eagerly combate this I shall therefore more largely insist upon it and clear up the force and evidence of it notwithstanding all the clouds they cast before it The place is 2 Tim. 3.15 16. From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Iesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to all good works To ingenuous and dis-interested persons the very reading of these words is a sufficient confutation of the Popish opinion but that you may see the Romanists have if no conscience yet some wit they are able to darken the clearest Texts and to perplex what they cannot answer Our arguments from this place are plain and cogent 1. That which can make a man wise unto Salvation is sufficient for Salvation 2. That which is sufficient for the conferring of all those things which are necessary to salvation is sufficient for salvation but so is the Scripture For there are but two things necessary to salvation viz. knowledg of the Truth and practice of righteousness and holiness and for both these the Scripture is said to be sufficient 3. That which is sufficient for a man of God or Minister is much more sufficient for a private Christian but so is the Scripture Ergo. But let us see what our Adversaries pretend against this evident place Excep 1 It is able indeed but that is through faith E. it is not of it self sufficient saith our Captain It speaks not of making Timothy a Christian by the Bible since it supposeth Timothy's being already made a Christian by Paul's institutions vivâ voce but it speaks of the perfecting of his faith not the first choice of it and this faith is a belief of Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition saith Mr. Cressy sect 2. cap. 6. And consonantly to him Mr. White thus glosseth upon the place The Scriptures will contribute to thy salvation