the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9. CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of St Austins judgment § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in generall § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours 3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as 1. That they be generall § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Councels Fathers Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of Oâ—all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing against the judgment of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers § 9. â— Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. â— Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19. 2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From Gods just judgment § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The oâ—inion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fallâ—bility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles onely prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19. 4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from Gods providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Proâ—â—stants Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fouâ—â—dation of Faith in the Scriâ—â—tures the Papists themselves 〈◊〉 ing judges Sect. 〈◊〉 Their Learned men acknowleâ— 1. That the Scripture is 〈◊〉 may be known to be the 〈◊〉 of God without the Church Testimony and by its owâ— light Sect. 〈◊〉 2. That the Books of Scriptuâ—â— are not corrupted in essentiaâ— and necessary points Sect. 〈◊〉 3. That the sence of Scripture 〈◊〉 things necessary may be uâ—â—derstood Sect. 〈◊〉 Except Protestants 〈◊〉 upon an humane Translaâ—tion answered Se. 5 6 7 â— Protestants freed from the preâ—â—tended circle of proving Scripâ—â—ture by the spirit and the spiâ—rit by the Scripture Sect. 9â— 10 11 12â— A consideration of that pretenâ— ostered at by some Romanists That the Churches Authority 〈◊〉 a sufficient foundation foâ— faith without infallibility Sect. 13â— The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to
de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the Anathema's of Councels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alledged either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered pag. 45. Everards arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies examined answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissentâ—rs p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonicall books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sence of Scripture p. 57. 5. About fundamentall points p. 59. 4. Protestants have not the Originals but onely Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes p. 68. 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great apâ—plauded aâ—guments in his Daâ—â—alogues refuted The first taken from the greaâ— uncertainâ—y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88. The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued onely from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Councels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence the Reader will easily discerne The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decisâ—on p. 9. l. 7. r. Gretâ—â—â—â—â— p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. least p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because for best p. â—0 l. 8. r. least p. â—5 l. 26. r. Grill. â—â—â— acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. â—â—d there for â—y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4 r fricat â—b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosiâ—â— p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the citâ—tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apotaâ—â—ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iuâ—â— read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuallâ— p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Tâ—stimonie and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her then they sall into diverse opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimonie and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie and this present Churh too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a generall Councell and others the Pope and a Councell together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universall or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proofe For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome then the Bishop of York the onely plea is that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabrick of Popery There is no man so grosly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion that
he is Peters successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably followes that the Popes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered â—x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in it self and hath no strength nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peters chair but had ascribed the same priviledges which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this then wee have gained thus much That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or credible for it self that it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Councels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can shew that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Councels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Popes Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self without the Interpretation Testimonie and Authority of thâ— Church is not a sufficient foundation oâ— Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plaine so often asserted bâ— them so universally owned so vehemently urged in aâ— their Treatises that if there were not an horrible perâ—versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men whâ— indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to saâ— and unsay give and recall affirme and denie the samâ— things as occasion requires and the strength of an Arâ—gument forceth them I might supercede from anâ— further paine or trouble therein I shall therefore onely observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either oâ— which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian cannoâ— know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witnesse and Authority 2. That the sencâ— of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without thâ— Churches interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present tâ— mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuite in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop oâ— Burdeaux puts this Question To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables the Cardinall Hosius replies That these words may be taken in a pious sence For in truth saith he unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tels us That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Churches assertion and declaration Andradius in expresse termes denies That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which bindes us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the highâ—st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fidâ—s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a lyar that is no impiety but to mak the Church a lyar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome then the grossest transgressions of Gods Laweâ— because there is more impiety in them and so more sevâ—rity should be exercised against them And Pighiâ— useth no lesse freedome telling us That the Scripturâ— have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authours but meerly from the Churches Testimonâ— Thus you see that according to the systeme of Popisâ— Theology the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to bâ— the Word of God nor oblige my faith unlesse it brinâ— along with it the Churches Letters of credence Anâ— whereas in St Pauls dayes neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials froâ— Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austine in his dayes in hiâ— Controversies with the Donatists batters down theiâ— Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie And as Tertullian argued of old God shall not be God without mans consent It is here as in dealings between manâ— and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but onely my friends Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that
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
Spirit of God his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Divell By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blinde may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with othâ—rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles wherein by the Argument I have now in consideration it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors or wittingly to deceive their posterity That which they make impossible to be done the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done it being impossible that the Fathers should make such a decree if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tradition as Bellarmine chargeth them or wilfully and maliciously opposed it as the Pope accuseth them And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome it irresistibly followes that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designes use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages in times of ignorance and carelesnesse when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer wherein I have been the more prolix because it strikes at the root of the Argument not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the wayes and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falshoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will adde but one thing more § 24. Answ. 8. and last If the Tradition pretended give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines but such as they have received from the Apostles But the Romish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles This I might take for granted having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content my self with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largeâ—y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Originall sin The present Doctrine of the Romish Church or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it is for her immaculate conception as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities c. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent sufficiently appeares from their Decree about Originall sin though cunningly and doubtfully delivered as the Devils Oracles used to be in which Decree they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin The sence of which decree according to that favourable glosse which M r White puts upon it was this That the Councell did judge both opinions probable Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true which is an implicit contradiction 2. Seeing in this hot contest not yet ended between the different factions of the Romanists in this point both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tradition Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them Ergo it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers as I have shewed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessâ—d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture according to its genuine meaning But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition therefore he addes presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles But it is evident that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spight of your eyes you shall believe not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fathers to Children even from the Apostles dayes but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scripture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom Canus gives us Origâ—n Damascen Athanasius and Melito a famous and antient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgment and venâ—rable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principall residence and employment to learne out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books and returnes with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolicall Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell within the compasse of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for ought appeares in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seemes by the story
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
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
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
upon the Infallibility of the Pope or a Councell Is not this a rare piece of intelligence for Heathens and Atheists and scoffers at the Scripture Are not these men worthy pillars of the Christian cause 2. Tradition is not at all concerned in the present dispute nor Infallibility neither For suppose the utmost of what can be or is said by the Romanists in this matter viz. that by Tradition we are Infallibly assured that the Scriptures are the VVord of God and that the severall Books reputed Canonicall by them are indeed Canonicall suppose I say we should take all this for granted what is this to our businesse Tradition I hope doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copists committed no errors in Transcribing nor the Translators in Translating Tradition did not infallibly assure Sixtus 5th that his Translation was right for it assured his Successor Clement 8 that it was corrupt in above a thousand places And when those Popes put forth their Translations it sufficiently appeares and they confesse it they were not guided by inspiration but proceeded in all things more humano by collation of Copies advice of learned men as I mentioned before out of the Popes own words And consequently if all Copies be so corrupt that we can have no certainty from them no more could the Pope and his consultors have from those Copies they used and therefore are lyable to the same uncertainties 2. However M r Rushworth pleaseth himselfe in this Argument as if it were unanswerable and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it there is one plaine evidence able to assure any rationall man that there is no weight and force in it because although these things have been formerly and frequently objected against the Scripture for M r Rushworth was not the first Antiscripturist yet diverse of the most learned and discreet and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church who doubtlesse were too wise to let slip any reall advantage and knew very well how much their cause needed it do utterly reject and deny it and together with us do assert the uncorruptednesse of the Books of Scripture now extant among us as I before proved out of their own words 3. Here is not any one convincing reason to perswade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantiall things All that M r Rushworth offers in liew of those solid Arguments to disprove the Authority and purity of our Bible is a collection of probabilities which witty men can easily multiply upon all occasions to shew that errours have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations which no man denies But alas how farre short do they fall in proofe if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person That which seemes to threaten most is the corruption of Hereticks and we are told of the Jewes at Tiberias who pointed the Bible when enemies to Christ and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text as also of the Greek Hereticks I am very willing the cause should be decided by this one point For as it is well argued by the Assertors of the Integrity of the Hebrew Text to whom I refer the Reader such as Buxtorf and Glassius and many others if those Jewes have corrupted the Hebrew Bible malitiously to weaken the Christian cause certainly they have done it in those places which are of greatest importance to evince Christianity But this it is notoriously known they have not done since most of the convincing proofs of Christs being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands And for the Greek and other Hereticks it is very true that some of them did attempt the corruption of some few Texts of Scripture but the very attempt made such a noise in the Christian World and the whole Church took such an alarme at it that it was presently discover'd and abhorr'd and they severely censured for it and even Papists confesse the Doctours of the Church were so vigilant that there could not be any wilfull and materiall depravation of the Greek Testament and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copists The Christians of former Ages had such an high opinion of the Scriptures necessity and transcendent excellency that they kept it with all possible care such exact acquaintance and familiar knowledge of the Scripture that they could not but discover the least considerable error such conscientious strictnesse that they abhorred the least depravation and such jealousy and watchfulnesse to observe and secure that inestimable treasure that it cannot with any probabiâ—ity be imagined that substantiall corruptions should come into the Texts and much lesse can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration 4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bibles corruption so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption Some I have now mentioned to which may be added the generall inconsiderablenesse of those various lections which Popish Writers triumph so much in the samenesse for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of diverse Ages and distant places and severall languages the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of severall other Authors as to materiall points notwithstanding all the different readings which yet were not read with that diligence and observation nor received with that veneration noâ— kept with that Religion nor watched with that jealousy nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatnings nor mens own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity and consequently were farre more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture To all which may be added that which alone is sufficient even the providence and goodnesse of God which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for mans conduct to eternall blisse so it gives us just ground for a comfortable and confident expectation that it would preserve them to our use and not suffer these Holy VVritings to see corruption This is so materiall a consideration even in the judgment of our Adversaries that it is their principall Argument and urged by them with greatest vehemency and pâ—ausibility for the Churches Authority and Infallibility because as they pretend it doth not consist with the providence and goodnesse of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle and differ onely in the application of it whilest they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell which as you have seen their own Authors are not satisfied in and we urge it for the infallibility and incorruptibility of the Scriptures which all Protestants and diverse Papists assert Thus I hope I have fully satisfied that first Argument The other Argument which M r Rushworth suggests is taken from the nature of the Books of Scripture If a law were to be given in Writing it must be thus First the common things must be commanded then by degrees they must descend to particulars still observing that
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
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-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
nothing was further from their thoughts and suppose a lesse number of the Fathers did in that age contradict it though the contradictours happily either did not commit their opinion to Writing or if they did their Writings might be suppressed by the major part as hath been the lot of most Ages or by the injury of time are lost which the Papists cannot say was impossible for the Writings of the Fathers seeing they tell us that de facto some of the Books of Holy Scripture are lost The next age comes and understands the truth of what I have now supposed The question is Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a sufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and infallibility Melchiôr Canus saith No Now then the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions which the Age immediately next remembred The question is whether that foundation which was insufficient to the precedent Age is now through their ignorance of such contradiction become sufficient to the following Age if they affirme it it would become the Jesuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is it seems not onely the Mother of Devotion but of assurance and certainty of knowledge if they deny it they confesse the weaknesse of their assertion In short he that will lay the foundation of his Faith upon such a quicksand must either prove the negative that there was no such contradiction as we have supposed which is impossible or confesse his Faith relies upon the Sand which is dreadfull And againe admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition I have given severall instances wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers and that there were severall Doctrines which if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine but what they had by Tradition the Fathers receaved by Tradition wherein they were de facto mistaken and why might they not be mistaken in this Wee all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the second and third Centuries though it be said all came from the mistake of Papias an honest but credulous Doctor And dare these men venture their Souls upon it that Papias was the onely credulous Author and that this was the onely mistaken Tradition or that it was impossible for those Fathers who were so many of them imposed upon by one credulous person in one point to be imposed upon by another in other points All these and many other uncertainties must not onely be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility § 6. The second particular is this That if the Antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition for they might believe it upon other grounds It is evident they believed many nay to speak the truth all Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures and why might it not be so with this Why might not the Fathers believe this if they did believe it upon the same misapprehensions and mistakes which the Papists at this day runne into concerning the sence of those Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels And consequently the Fathers opinions of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles but only that this was their opinion wherein no lesse then in other points they were subject to errors as I have proved § 7. The third Proposition is this It doth not appeare that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels For triall hereof I shall refer my self to those Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary position Bel brings three Arguments to shew that the Antient Fathers held that generall Councels could not erre and not one of them speak to the point His first Argument is this They affirme that the sentence of a generall Councell in the cause of Faith is the last judgment of the Church from which thâ—re lies no appeale and which cannot be made void or retracted Hence it evidently followes that such Counsels cannot erre because else it were a very unjust thing to compell Christians that they should nâ—t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious I Answer 1. S t Austin did hold that the sentence of a generall Councell might be retracted though not by private Christians yet by a â—ollowing generall Councell former generall Councels saith he are corrected by the later of which more by and by and that is enough to shew he did not believe it infallible 2. The Consequence is weak and denied by the Protestants and therefore might be denied by the Fathers If the consequence be infirme now it could not be strong then and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara who tels us that Calvin and Robertus Baronius and all the Protestants and some others who deny the Infallibility of generall Councels do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Councell hath a detâ—rmining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme Nor is it unjust but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefes that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority beyond which there might be no appeale And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civill affaires though he be confessed to be Fallible so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible provided it be granted which the Protestants with the Fathers do assert and have proved that such Judicatories do not bind the conscience but onely regulate the outward Acts and prevent visible Confusions § 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmines second Argument which is this The Fathers and Councels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of generall Councels are Hereticks and deserve excommunications and therefore they thought such Councels could not erre Answer 1. I deny the Consequence againe for the now mentioned reason The civill cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrates Infallibility as the Ecclesiasticall cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Councell doth prove the Councels Infallibility 2. The Fathers did not account men Hereticks meerly because they rested not in the sentence of a Councell as such for then they should have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels but because the Doctrine which they opposed and the Councels asserted was true and so it was the verity of the Doctrine not the Conciliarity if you will pardon the word of the sentence by which they judged of Hereticks
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
conscience with what Spectales do these men read this Writing in the heart that tell us this was the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences Invocation of Saints Popes Supremacy the Churches Infallibility But you must know though this Writing was from God yet the interpretation belongs to the Pope whose will stands for his reason and his word for a Law But if we consult the Prophet If with the Popes good leave God may be his own Interpreter He tels you this was the Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know the Lord. The knowledge of God Ier. 31.33 and the fear of God Ier. 32.39 40. And this Law written in the heart was so far from being appointed by God for a rule to walke by much less was it to justle out the word as the Papists now abuse it that the use of this was only to help them to make the word their rule Ezek. 26 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes Hence that in Is. 59.21 My Spirit that is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not deparâ— out of thy mouth So this objection being discharged the consequence remaines in full force and Traditions being disapproved under the old Testament cannot be approved under the new But I shall more fully prove that in the next branch which is this § 8. 2. This way of proving the truth of Doctrines by verbal tradition is disallowed by Christ and the Apostles He knowes nothing of the Pharisees and indeed but little of the New Testament that knowes not that this was the great Doctrine of the Pharisees And from their school the Papists had this Doctrine of the certainty of Tradition So little reason had Du. Moulin to write a book about the novelty of Popery when diverse of their Doctrines have such a venerable Antiquity that they are as old as the Pharisees No wonder the Church of Rome hath diverse Doctrines that Christ never delivered to them for they had a great part of the leaven of the Pharisees left them for a legacy And from them they had their bold expressions by which they advance Tradition above the Scripture The Author of the book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this saying think not that the written law is the Foundation of our Faith but the law of orall Tradition And again in the book Iuchas p. 158. Without this orall law of Tradition the whole law would be in darknesse and again all those things which our Rabbins taught us we are equally to believe as the Law of Moses But this is so known that it is frivolous to multiply testimonies of this kind The footsteps of this principle you may discern in diverse places of the New Testament They made the Tradition of the fathers the rule of their Faith Mat. 15.2 VVhy do thy Disciples transgresse the Tradition of the Elders S t Paul mentions it as one of his Pharisaicall errours that he was exceedingly zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1.14 And S t Peter speaks of it as a part or effect of their redemption by Christ that they were delivered from a vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers 1. Peter 1. this sufficiently shews what their opinion was Now let us hear what reflection Christ and the Apostles made upon it And there you shall find that which would end the controversy with ingenious adversaries viz. That whereas the Romanists tell us that the deserting of Tradition is the true cause and spring of all errours on the contrary our Saviour makes this the Fountain of their errours their forsaking the Scripture not their receding from the Tradition of their Ancestors Mat. 22.29 Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures we are beholden to the Papists that they do not say there is a corruption in the Text and Scripture is put in for Tradition For surely if Christ had been of the mind of those Gentlemen he never had a fitter opportunity to utter it then now for the Sadduces were noted as enimies to Traditions And the Doctrine of the resurrection was but darkely delivered in Scripture at lest in the Pentatuch and more plainly by Tradition So now or never was the time for Christ to say to the Sadduces as doubtlesse M r White would if he had been present and Christ should if M r Whites Argument be good you erre because you take no heed to the Traditions of your Ancestors But here is not a syllable about that but all is cast upon their not knowing the Scriptures Thus in the resolution of that great controversy concerning the Messias Christ doth not confute the Jewes nor stablish the Truth from Tradition though there was eminent occasion for it at that time there being such a Tradition then rise amongst them that the time of the coming of the Messias was at hand Daniels week being nigh exspired and with it a general expectation of him but from â—cripture Christ proves himself to be the true Messias by several Arguments by the Testimony of Iohn who was a Prophet yea and more then a Prophet by his Fathers voice from heaven by his miracles and above all by the Scripture how came Christ to omit that which if those men do not deceive us was more considerable then all the rest viz. Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church A strange oversight you will say but it seemes it was a discovery denied to Christ and all the Apostles and reserved to these last times Answerable to this was the practise of the godly Bereans who did examine S t Pauls Doctrine not by Tradition as the Papists do but by the Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Paul himself evidenceth the soundnesse of his Doctrine not by its conformity with Tradition which our Adversaries lay such stresse upon that S. Clara with severall others affirme that they receive the Scripture onely so farre as they agree with Tradition but by its consonancy to the Scriptures saying That he witnessed none other thing then what was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26.22 and Act. 24.14 15. So then the question now is which is the more rationall way to resolve a Christians doubts and ground his Faith whether that which hath had the approbation of all the Holy-men of God in both Testaments or the ingenious devise of these witty Doctors that come with their quintum Evangelium into the World that is whether Scripture or Tradition I know one thing will be said That the Apostles did urge Traditions as well as Scriptures to this purpose we oft heare of that 2 Thes. 2.15 Hold the Tradition which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle To which I Answer briefly 1. That if the Papists can demonstrate any of their Traditions to be indeed Apostolicall as these were we shall receive them if conformable to Scripture but if they be dissonant from Scripture we have commission from S t Paul to renounce them
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
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
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
poore Captaine hath no better and therefore I will quit that work and come to that which is more materiall viz. To try whether he hath any better against the Scripture And here also I shall do his cause that right as with him to take into consideration what is said by M r Cressy in his Exomologesis which I am the more willing to do because if the Popish cause have any strength in it and if the Doctrine of the Scripture alone being Judge and rule of Controversies be untrue and indefensible as they pretend it is we may expect the demonstration of it from a man of his wit and learning and experience in the Controversy as having thoroughly considered all pretensions and arguments of both parties and taken in the advice of the most famed Doctors of the Romish Church But I must not dissemble that I was wofully disappointed in the perusall of M r Cressy's piece and whereas I expected something solid and substantiall or at least very plausible which I might have some ground in charity to believe might give at least a colour for his change I find little in him worthy of consideration but what hath allready received satisfactory Answers Yet because the cause affords no better Arguments I shall briefly consider what he and the Captaine and his assistants deliver in this matter That the Scripture is not the onely rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies is the Proposition they attempt to prove and their Arguments are those which follow Arg. 1. Scripture cannot be this Judge and Rule because it did not answer its end for they that own this Judge disagree among themselves Everard Epist. p. 33. Scripture doth not reconcile them Thus Cressy by this rule it is impossible that ever Controversies should be ended Sect. 2. chap. 4. n. 1. Answ. Scripture might be as really it was designed instituted and ordained for the ruling of mens Faith and the judging and deciding Controversies though through the depravednesse of men this end might not be obtained If this Argument have any weight in it I may upon the same ground argue thus Preaching of the Gospell was not instituted for the salvation of the World because it doth not answer its end but proves to many a favouâ— of death Or the Law of God was not instituted by God for a rule of life because it doth not obtaine its end and men will not be ruled by it In a word let it be observed If this Argument prove any thing it proves what the very Papists deny that the Scripture is not so much as a part of the rule neither of Faith nor manners for still according to the present Argument it doth not Answer its end for there is no one controversy in Faith which Scripture alone decides so as to silence all differences which is the thing pretended necessary to a Judge of Controversies For the further discovery of the impertinency and vanity of this Argument however it is their Goliah which they boast most of I shall offer them this Dilemma relating to that power of ending all differences among Christians which they suppose was necessary for and by Christ committed to the Judge of Controversies Either I say that power is absolute unconditionall and effectuall and if so there could be no Heresies Schismes or differences in the Christian World which we see is most false or it is a conditionall power sufficient of it self for the ending of differences though frustrable and impedible in its effects by the ignorance or perversenesse of men which is the reall truth And in this sense the Scripture may be judge i. e. there is enough in it said and clearly delivered by which all Controversies might be ended if men would be humble studious and self-denying and in the former sense the Church of Rome is no judge of Controversies Peradventure it will be said that all men are bound to submit and hearken to all the decrees of the Church of Rome and when they do so submit it is an effectuall meane to end all differences In the very same manner and upon farre better grounds I say of the Scripture that all are bound to submit and hearken to all its Councels and decrees and when they do so it will effectually end all Controversies If it be further said that the Church hath a power of coercion to compel dissenters to submit I Answer either that coercion they speak of is spirituall by Church censures excommunication c. or civill by corporall penalties death c. If they understand it of civill coercion that is not at all necessary nor intrinsecall to an Ecclesiasticall judge of Controversies otherwise the Apostles who had not this civill power Nay Christ himselfe who denies that he was judge or ruler should not be such a Judge and the Church for the first 300 years had no judge of Controversies Nay the Papists themselves in pretence at least abjudicate this from the Church and referre it wholly to the Civill Power If they speak of a Spirituall coercion then the Scripture hath such a power of inflicting Spirituall penalties upon its violaters and contemners such as obduration and ejection from the presence of God and such excommunication as the other is but a shadow of it And whether they speak of one or other the Protestant Judge of Controversies is not destitute of either advantage If it be remembred that the Protestants own an Ecclesiasticall Politicall Judge whiâ—h Judge although their modesty will not suffer them to pretend to Infallibility and a power to oblige all people to receive all their decrees though anti-Scripturall without enquiry and though they say with the Apostle they have their power for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 and they can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and though it is their advice to their people which was the counsell of the Apostle to his people 1 Cor. 11.1 Be followers of me even as I also am of Christ Yet they have a power to explaine and maintaine the Doctrines of the Scripture and they acknowledge a power in the Magistrate by civill sanctions and penalties to suppresse and restraine such as shall corrupt the Truth and infect peoples soules with the poyson of Hereticall Doctrines And this may abundantly serve for Answer to their Achilles or principall argument which makes such a noise in the world Arg. 2. Scripture cannot be a perfect rule because some books of Scripture are lost and it is the whole Scripture which is this rule Ans 1. Then Tradition also cannot be a rule for diverse Traditions are lost as Cressy confesseth Sect. 1. ch 8. n. 5. and all the Papists acknowledg Answ. 2. It doth not at all appeare that any one of those Books are lost which concerned controversies of Faith or the rule of Life All which to this day hath been proved is this That some Books Written by Holy men and Prophets are lost But it is a vaine
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
they generally pretend to own as their Law and it is no lesse true of Tradition of the largenesse whereof one may say as was formerly said of Livy Quas mea non totas Bibliotheca capit for according to the estimate which a learned Author of their own makes Charron by name the Scripture is but minima pars veritatis revelatae the least part of revealed Truth He that pleaseth may see good store of them collected by that great terrour of the Papists Moulin in a Treatise of his in French concerning Traditions Nay to put all out of doubt these very men that argue at this rate though they do not acquiesce in the Scripture as a Judge yet they do own it for a Law they confesse the word of God is their rule and law onely they make as I may say this law to consist of two Tables the written and the unwritten Word which you saw the Councel of Trent receive with equal piety and reverence Now certainly they that subscribe to this as the Papists generally do they own the Scripture for a Law though not for a compleat and sufficient Law nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law devest the Scripture of it any more then the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and statutes that is not at all Much more might be said to shew the folly and absurdity of this argument but if I should spend more words about it I should both question my own and too grosly distrust the Readers discretion And now having done with the Mathematicks let us come to the Politicks the best argument the Church of Rome hath Politick Mr. White who seeing their Scripture arguments in the suds and for the Fathers pila miâ— nantia pilis comes in to succour a falling cause with Politick considerations and moral conjectures and fine-spun probabilities No man can deny that it was politickly done when they saw their Church could prove nothing to assert that her bare saying was sufficient that the testimony of the present Church that she holds nothing but what she hath received from Christ and the Apostles is security enough for a Christian's Faith but this notion I have largely examined and I hope Mr. White will abate something of his confidence in it therefore I have nothing to do here but to consider what he alledgeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies and excepting what hath been before discussed I find onely one argument that can pretend to merit any consideration and it is delivered by him pro more with great confidence and contempt of his Adversaries When the Protestants ask the question as well they may Cannot the Bible make it self be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle a question which all the wits of the Romane Church not excluding Mr. White were never able to answer and thence infer that the Scripture is sufficiently intelligible and able to decide controversies Mr. White 's answer and argument against the Scriptures is this That this depends upon a most false supposition viz that the Scripture was written of those controversies which now are whereas it is a most shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world beginning from Genesis to the Apocalypse let them name one Book whose Theme is any now controverted Point between Protestants and Catholicks Apology for Tradition fifteenth Encounter And consequently the Scripture is no fit Judge for our controversies This you must know is the argument of another Mathematical Papist who cries out of Protestants for resting in probabilities yet can satisfy himself or at least pretends to do so with such absurd and improbable ratiocinations O the power of prejudice or interest for I cannot tell which it is that blinds such men as Mr. White Be of good chear Protestants the Papists are upon their last legs you see their arguments run very low The Answer is this in short for truly it needs no long nor laborious reply how much soever Mr. White is conceited of it It is not a most shamelesse but a most shameful proposition to say the Scripture is unable to decide any of those controversies which are since sprung up in the Christian world Is there any Freshman in the University ignorant of this That Rectum est Index sui obliqui that the assertion of a Truth is sufficient for the confutation of all contrary errors wheresoever or whensover broached I may say to Mr. White as they did to Moses Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men Doth Mr. White think his Readers would have neither wit nor conscience I aske whether those passages of Scripture In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Joh. 1.1 who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 This is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 do not solidly and sufficiently confute the late sprung Socinian Heresy and prove Christ's Divinity and prae-existency before his Incarnation If he say no I will promise him hearty thanks though not from Christ nor peradventure from his Vicar yet from all the Socinians in the world and then he would do well to answer what Placaeus and other of the Protestants or rather as a demonstration of the unity of the Romish Church what Smiglâ—cius and others of his Brother Romanists have argued from those places or else let him give us the reason why his Brethren should play the knaves and own and urge those things for solid arguments which they did not think so If he say yea then down fals all this goodly structure and Mr. White must seek for a new prop to their declining Babel and Scripture is not unable to decide controversies of a later Date Yet again I will prove Jesus Christ was not of Mr. White 's mind for he thought Scripture yea even such parts of Scripture as were not written upon those Themes or controversies nor designed against those errors able to decide supervening controversies Thus he confutes the Pharisaical opinion about Divorce from a Text well nigh as old as the Creation of the world even the institution of marriage Math. 19.4 5 6. So he confutes the error of the Sadduces against the resurrection from a Scripture long before delivered and such an one too as seemed to have no respect at all to such an Heresy Mat. 22.29 30 31 32. May it please this worthy Gentleman to give us leave without offence to prefer our Saviours opinion before his I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so sensless a cavil but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Non-sence passe for an Argument I need onely advise the Reader to read over the New Testament and if he have either reason or conscience it is impossible he should be of Mr.
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
Successors And therefore it unavoydably followes either that all their Successors are infallible or that S t Peters Successor is fallible at best for any thing that appeares from this Text whether the Popes infallibility hath other foundations we shall examine in their order 8. It may be said That although this place may not seem to be cogent to one that considers it in it selfe yet if you take it according to the exposition of the Fathers it proves what it is alledged for But 1. The Fathers generally did understand this Rock to be not Peters Person but his confession or Christ as confessed by him and this you shall finde proved to have been the minde of S t Cyrill Hilary Hierom Ambrose Basil Augustine yea and the whole Councell of Chalcedon in that incomparably learned and Irreffragable Discourse of Moulins called The Novelty of Popery Lib. 2. cap. 4. 2. That the Fathers are not infallible guides of Faith and Religion I shall prove in the next Proposition 3. But howsoever They that assert the infallibility of the Fathers when they relate the Churches Judgment yet allow their Fallibility in expounding Scripture Caietan and Maldonate both acknowledge it and practise accordingly that a man may in many cases preferre a new exposition though it be repugnant to the expositions of most of the Antient Fathers And S r Kenelme Digby speaking of the infallibility of the Fathers expressely saith he understands it onely of the Traditions or Doctrines delivered by them as the Faith received from their Ancestours not of their Comments or Sermons upon Scripture which are to have no more weight then the reasons they give for them Letters between Lord Digby and S r Kenelme Digby pag. 10. § But if all these and other difficulties were cleared yet do two things remaine behind in which this Text and all others are wholly silent and for them they are forced to fly to Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers of which in the next place The first That all this Supreme Authority and infallibility which they suppose to have been in Peter was transmitted to his Successor and consequently Linus S t Peters Successor was Superiour to the Apostle and Evangelist S t Iohn which he had need have no squeamish Conscience that can digest and yet all this amounts to nothing unlesse another thing be proved viz That the Bishop of Rome is S t Peters Successor and here the scripture failes them and the Coronis or Apex of the Argument without which it is both impertinent and impotent as to the probation of the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is fetched solely from Tradition and the Testimony of the Fathers And so their Argument stands like the Angell in the Apocalypse with one foot on the Earth another on the Sea one Leg of it in Scripture the other in History an◠because conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem the conclusion cannot be de side or rather to speak the truth The whole Syllogisme is extra Scripturall The prerogative of St Peter are transmitted to S t Peters Successors Bu◠the Bishop of Rome is S Peters Successor where it appeares from what hath been said that neither propositio◠is to be proved from Scripture but wholly from Tradition and that is all at present I am concerned to make good And yet if all this were over they have not done◠Behold the misery of a desperate cause for whereas it is known and granted by the Papists that S t Peter had two Seas he was Bishop of Antioch for seven Years saith Baronius and Bishop of Rome it must be further evin◠ced That the Bishop of Antioch was excluded from and the Bishop of Rome invested with S t Peters Prerogatives And would you know the proofe of this position which is the very Foundation Stone of the Popes Supremacy You shall have the Argument in Bellarmines words 〈◊〉 had its rise à facto Petri from S t Peters fact Peter leave◠Antioch and comes to Rome and there he dies and so hi◠Holinesse got the day Here I desire the Reader to observe that all the Faith of the Romanists concerning the Popes Infallibility depends upon and is resolved into a matter of Fact and an uncertain Historicall relation 〈◊〉 Nay to speak truly there are severall matters of Fact every one of which must be solidly demonstrated before their Faith can have a firme Foundation 1. That Peter was at Rome 2. That Peter was Bishop of Rome properly so called 3. That S t Peter died at Rome 4. That it was Christs or Peters intention that Peters Successor should enjoy all his Priviledges 5. That Christ or Peter appointed his Romane not his Antiochian Successor to be this person to whom such priviledges were to be transmitted If there be a flaw in any one of these their whole cause in this point is lost And all these are matters of fact And such is the nature and uncertainty of matters of fact that the Papists confess those persons whom they suppose infallible in matters of faith are fallible in matters of fact Excepitng that modern dotage of some of the Jesuites who have lately asserted the Popes infallibility in matters of fact But that is such a piece of drollery and impudence that their own brethren who have not forsworn all modesty are ashamed of it now to assume as some of these assertions are apparently false so there are none of them but are disputable points and denied by divers learned men not without a plausible appearance of authorities and arguments And if the Jesuites opinion be true concerning the doctrine of probability that a man may satisfie his conscience and venture his salvation upon the opinions of two or three learn'd Doctors Then a Protestant may satisfy his conscience and venture his salvation upon it that all these propositions are false being denied by far more then that number of learned Doctors At least this must be granted that it renders the forementioned positions dubious and uncertain And so the Papists build their divine faith upon a dubious historicall faith yet again what if Peter dies there must the universall headship needs go to the Bishop of the place where he dies and not to another where he lived Charles the fifth was King of Spain and Emperour of Germany if he die in Spain must all the Kings of Spain be therefore Emperours of Germany Haply they will say no because the Empire is elective not hereditary and if that were granted which the Papists will never be able to prove that there was such a thing as this universall headship and that this was to continue will they pawne their soules on it for so indeed they do that this universall headship was hereditary not elective How will they prove it Christ dies at Ierusalem by this rule the Bishop of Ierusalem must be universall head Suppose the Pope should leave Rome and go to Avignon a◠once he did and settle and die there by this rule
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
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
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
Ergo This Church is Infallible Here are three propositions and every one of them faulty in one kind or other 1. For the Major it is most falfe For Christ hath promised to be with every single sincere believer Ioh. 14.23 If a man love me wee will come to him and make our abode with him So Ioh. 17.20 21 22.23 And the Holy Ghost by which it is that Christ is present is given to every such person Ergo it seems they are Infallible 2. For the Minor it is true but impertinent Christ hath promised to be with his Church and with his Ministers to the worlds end but not in the same manner and with the same degree of assistance as he was with the Apostles to give them Infallible direction If otherwise then as every single Apostle was so every single Minister must be Infallible which they themselves deny 3. The Conclusion if granted reacheth not to Rome for there being severall Churches pretending to this promise and the Text no more determining it self to one then to the other it may as well be claimed by the Greek or English as by the Romish Church Nay which is more Rome is excluded or rather hath excluded her selfe from it as we have seen and by her disobedience to Christs commands hath cut off her Title to his promise § 19. There is one place more they use to plead it is Mat. 18 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them This I confesse drives the Naile home I see they are resolved to make sure work For now it matters not what becomes of the Infallibility of the Pope or generall Councels or the Universall Church For whereever there are but two or three Jesuites met together pretending Christs name there is Infallibility I think those Hereticks had better have held their Tongues for then the Church of Rome would have been contented to assert the Infallibility of Pope or Councels but now they will not abate them an Ace but will make it good in spight of Scripture Fathers and Councels and all the World that every leash of Popish Priests is Infallible But I need say nothing more in Answer to this ridiculous Argument because the Answers to the last Argument will serve for this also and their own great Doctors confesse the impertinency of this allegation and amongst them two great names Stapleton and Gregory de Valentiâ And these are the Scriptures upon which they ground their Monstrous conceit of the Infallibility of Councels what a sandy Foundation they have for it in Tradition we shewed before And how little countenance they have from Scripture and how absurdly they wrest that to their own destruction hath been now discovered And therefore I may conclude this Doctrine hath no footing in Scripture nor Tradition which was the first branch of the Proposition to be proved § 20. And here I might set up my rest For having pulled down the two Pillars upon which the building of Infallibility stands I know no remedy but it must fall to the ground But for the more abundant demonstration of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Romish Doctors and vanity of their Religion I shall adde a second consideration and shew that however when they discourse with Protestants they make a great noise about the Infallibility of councels yet when they debate the point among themselves none deny it with greater seriousness nor dispute against it with more earnestnesse then diverse of themselves I speak not now of the private opinions of some obscure Doctors among them but of the publick doctrines of their Church the opinion of the Popes Cardinals and all the â—esuites and stoutest champions of the Romish Church and the generality of Italian Spanish and Germane Papists and almost all some of the French faction excepted do expresly deny the infallibility of Councels and which is more they dispute against it particularly Cajetan and Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia some of whose Arguments are these Infallibility is not in the headlesse body therefore a councell in it self is not infallible That from which there is appeal is not infallible but there lyes an appeal from a councell to the Pope Ergo. The Church is committed to Peter not to a councell Ergo. Thus Cajetan The Pope can either approve or reject the decrees of a Councel Ergo the Councel is not infallible The Councel hath its infallibility from its conjunction with her head the Pope Ergo. Many Councels have erred in decrees of faith Ergo. Thus Bellarmine By the way remember this is the Gentleman that even now urged Ioh. 16. to prove that Councels could not erre and now he proves they have erred it were well if the Romanists had either better consciences or better memories God doth nothing in vain but the gift of infallibility would be given to Councels in vain seeing the Pope hath it Ergo. That which is repugnant to our most assured faith concerning the Pope's primacy is not to be admitted But the supreme and infallible authority of Councels is repugnant to the Pope's primacy Ergo Thus Gregory de Valentia So you see by their own argument either the Pope's primacy or the Councels infallibility is lost as the Jesuites on the one side thus strenuously dispute down the infallibility and supremacy of Councels so their Adversaries on the other side do as stoutly overthrow the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope wherein besides the positive testimonies of diverse of the most learned antient Papists they have the suffrage of two late famous Popish Councels Constance and Basil such a spirit of giddiness and division hath God put amongst these Builders of Babel And yet this is the Jerusalem a city united in it self These are the men that reproach the Protestant Churches with their divisions in some petite controversies whilst they themselves are so irreconcileably divided in that upon which the decision of all other controversies depends viz. in the rule and judge of controversies I think I need not say much more For the more antient Papists he that shall look into that excellent discourse of Robert Baronius against Turnbull called Apologia pro disputatione de formali objecto fidei will find the infallibility of Councels expresly denied by Ockam Cameracensis Waldensis Panormitanus Antoninus Cusanus all venerable names in the Romish Church whose words are there recited And for the modern Papists it may suffice to name three authors of principle account whom the rest of the Herd do follow Melchior Canus laies down their doctrine in two Propositions 1. A general Councel which is not called and confirmed by the Pope may erre in the faith 2. Provincial Councels which are confirmed by the Pope cannot erre the rest may erre And Bellarmine saith the same thing almost in the same words and when he was gravel'd with the authority of that famous Councel of Chalcedon a
was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and veneration and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into and consequently writing is a sure and orall Tradition an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels decrees of Courts Acts of Parliament though the importance of them were many times so great and evident that according to this new notion writing was superfluous and verball Tradition Infallible And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly concernments shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it Let Papists do so who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargaine But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this grosse absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines meerly speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise then could be by books VVritten their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronouncing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly have been more securely propagated and more clearly and intelligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy daringly asserts See Exomolog Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery O the tremendous judgment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprobate sence Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeall sence or this bread is converted into the very substance of this body which you now see These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a posture of adoration viz. kneeling with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concernes himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse both the absurdity of their Arguments and assertion and the solidity of this second Answer and the advantage of writing above unwritten Tradition § 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in it selfe else an infallible Authoritie is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Hereticks recede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines as we have seen But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition Here all the doubt lies and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperatenesse of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confesse to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians saith Iustin Martyr This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M r VVhite shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in publike Preaching For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apostles and so transmit them to their Posterity which is the thing now denied It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them but also propheticall of the Papists When Hereticks are reproved out of the Scripture they begin to accuse the Scripture as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors particularly they named Origen Dionysius Alexandrinus and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them as Baronius acknowledgeth Epiphanius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men The Doctrine of
rebaptisation which the Papists acknowledge to be erroneous was brought in by Cyprian and the African Bishops under a pretence of Tradition The words of Cyprian are these We do not now broach a new Doctrine but one long fince decreed by our Predecessors It is true Pamelius saith he meanes this of his immediate Predecessors Agrippinus and the rest and that will serve my turne if M r VVhites Argument will hold for then no Age and consequently not this could either be ignorant of or knowingly recede from the Doctrine of their Fathers nor they from their Fathers and so upward to the Apostles And indeed Cyprian carries it higher even to the Apostles whiles he calls it The Faith of the Catholick Church and reckons it amongst the Apostolicall and Evangelicall precepts And Firmilian expressely affirmes it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles b And will these mens confidence yet serve them to assert that no error could come into the Church by Tradition If all those Eminent African Bishops and Churches might either misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their posterity as M r White cannot deny they did eâ—â—â—er the one or other why might not the Spanish or French or Romish do it If it be said there was a promise to the contrary at least for the Church of Rome To say nothing of the manifest weaknesse of that pretence I answer two things 1. That M r White expressely rejects this Infallibility by promise 2. However this Argument being of another nature and depending not upon the promise of God but the nature and evidence of the thing is by this instance irrefragably overthrown Answ. 4. That way of proving which was rejected by the Prophets and godly Jewes by Christ and by the Apostles is not to be approved much lesse preferred before that way which they approved and used but this way of proving the truth of a Doctrine by Tradition from their next Ancestours and the Testimony of the present Church was rejected by the Prophets c. and by Christ and the Apostles Ergo It is not now to be approved For the Minor in which all the doubt lies it consists of two Branches The first relating to the old Testament The second to the New The first is That this way was disowned by the Prophets and godly Jewes under the old Testament It is true some of the Jewes did owne this Popish opinion as you may read Iâ—r 44.17 But the Prophets were of another perswasion Ezek. 20.18 Walke not in the Statutes of your Fathers And from Tradition they used to send their people to the Law and Testimony Isa. 8.20 And the godly Kings of Iudah did not make Tradition as the Papists do but the written Law as the Protestants do the rule of their reformation Thus David 1 Chron. 16. 40. to do according to all that is Written in the Law Thus Hezekiah 2 Chron. 31. he did all as it is Written in the Law of the Lord So Iosiah 2 Chron. 34.30 31. and 35.12 The like did Ezra long after Ezra 6.18 and Nehemiah chap. 8. They dwelt in Booths as it is Written Here Scripture recovers what Tradition had lost for though God had commanded this yet since the daies of Ioshua they had not done so vers 17. By all which we evidently discerne how different their opinion was from this of the Papists and how little confidence they put in Tradition Iosiah would not so much as make Hezekiahs reformation his rule nor Hezekiah take his patterne from Iehoshaphats reformation but still every one had immediate recourse to the written Word For it seems it was a Language that these Holy men understood not That Scripture was a corrupt writing a leaden rule a dumb master § 7. There is indeed one Objection against the consequence from the Jewes to the Christians and from the Old Testament to the New I shall give it you in the words of one of the acutest of our Adversaries i e. Mr White The Law of the Iewes was delivered in Tables of Stone and the volume of the Law to which it is expressely opposed that God will write the Law of Christians in their hearts I Answer 1. The words are not to be understood absolutely as they sound but comparatively not as if they did wholly deny that the Mosaicall Law was written in the Heart for that is affirmed in other places as Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed or as if they did affirme that the Christian Law was written only in mens hearts and not in Paper which the Papists themselves dare not assert but onely it is a comparative expression like that I will have mercy and not sacrifice Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach i. e. principally and primarily for else the one as well as the other was enjoyned by God And so it is here implied that the Christian Law should be written more eminently upon the hearts of Christians then it ordinarily was upon the hearts of the Jewes and that it should be writ in a more legible Character Answ. 2. If we examine in whose hearts this Christian Law is written we shall find it concernes not the Tradition of the Church by which all things are to be regulated For I demand of them was this promise made and performed to all that are called Christians or onely to the elect and sincere Christians or onely to the Pope and Bishops If they say the first then one Christian as well as another is furnished with this rule of all Controversies and consequently as able to judge of Controversies then lay-men and Ministers have this Law equally written in their hearts if they say the second That it is onely the elect and sincere Christians as indeed it is then it must be something else beside Tradition which is no lesse known to the hypocriticall pretender then to the sincere professor of Christianity If they say the third That this Law was written onely in the hearts of the Pope and Bishops met in Councell As what is there so ridiculous which some of our Adversaries will not say rather then confesse their errours and give glory to God They are evidently confuted by the words of the place Jer. 31.34 They shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every one his brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest for I will forgive their iniquity And besides Mr White himselfe saith This Law is written onely in cordibus sid lium in the hearts of the faithfull Now in what Dictionary we shall find fidelis to be translated Atheist Sodomite Magitian c. Epithetes not without cause given to Popes and Popish Bishops by their own Authors I would gladly be informed Answ. 3. If we enquire what this is which is here said to be written in their hearts we shall see Mr VVhites invention was better then his judgment or his
points viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace and mans will and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papists In both of them it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncertaine found for Tradition tels the Jesuites this is truth That the will is determined to good actions not by Gods grace but by its own inclination and agency Tradition tels the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a grosse falsity So for the Church if you enquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility resides for that is the great question Tradition tels the Jesuites it is in the Pope Tradition not long since told the Councels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Councell not in the Pope and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day And I will tell you a thing in your eare both these are Apostolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary It is true that S t Iames saith No Fountaine can yield both Salt-water and Fresh Chap. 3. 8.12 But that is to be understood onely of the Fountaine of the Scripture but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh both bitter and sweet You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible for you see it can work wonders and reconcile contradictions If this seem strange to you you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M r VVhites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera to be dedicated to the Defenders of Transubstantiation but to returne What say our masters to this difficulty why I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies and what their pretences are I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadfull shock 1. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles not of any great consequence to Christians Thus the controversies between the Jesuites and Dominicans about Gods free grace and mans free-will they say are but Scholasticall niceties wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned So for that point of Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter The dissenters onely seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know which be our Articles of Faith whether by the Popes or Councels or both which is not much materiall saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. § 9. to our purpose whatever the truth be supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descendâ—d to us from Christ and his Apostles For Answer I would know whether a private Christian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the decision of Pope or Councell or not If they say he can know it then it followes that private Christians may be Infallible of themselves and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Councels for what need any more then Infallibility If they say he cannot then an Infallible guide judge and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible and consequently if it be doubtfull and disputable who this Judge is it must be also doubtfull whether the Tradition be right and therefore Tradition cannot make me Infallible It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so materiall as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider should say this amongst themselves is not materiall for as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controversies and not to be agreed who it is according to that known maxime of the Lawyers Idem est non apparere non esse As for the other points between the Jesuites and Dominicans how materiall they are we will take their own judgments If we may believe either one or other of them the points are of great moment If you aske the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuiticall Doctrine they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pelagian Heresy yea it is worse then Pelagianisme that they are contemners of Grace such as rob God of his honour taking halfe of it to themselves that it is here disputed Whether God alone be God or whether the will of man be a kind of inferiour yet in part an Independent Deity These are M r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae quaest Theolog. in Epis in parag 7. And for the Jesuites they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine which say the Jesuites brings back the stoicall paradox robs God of the Glory of his goodnesse makes God a lyer and the Author of sinne and yet when we tell them of these divisions the breach is presently healed these savages are grown tame their differences triviall and onely some School niceties wherein Faith is not concerned And now both Stoicks and Pelagians are grown Orthodox and the grace glory soveraignty and holinesse of God are matters but of small concernment and so it seems they are to them else they durst not so shamelesly dally with them But it is usuall with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters which in computation sometimes stand for pounds sometimes for pence as interest and occasion require And it is worth Observation These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants between Calvin and Arminius they are represented by our Adversaries as very materiall and weighty differences but when they come to their share they are of no moment 2. It may be said Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible not particular Doctors For Answer let it be remembred that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors but the points alledged are controverted amongst as learned and devout men as they call Devotion as ever the Church of Rome had here is Order against Order University against University Nation against Nation all of them pretending Tradition for their contrary opinions with greatest confidence and eagernesse Premising this I Answer That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedst Romanists may deceive ten thousand That which deceives the Jesuites in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others the Franciscans in others If it deceive the French Papists in some points it may deceive the Italians in others and so is not Infallible in any Or else what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition Will they say Tradition is only Infallible in France and those of the same perswasion who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Councell above
the Pope Or will they say the Infallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alpes among the Italian Doctors who urge Tradition for the Popes Supremacy above Councels But what security will they give us That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot passe over the Alpes and get from one side to the other Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains But Fallibility can travell to all parts and at all times In short it being certaine that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest Nor can this be any way prevented but by pretending the promise of Infallibility but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition and that is hereby disproved and for the fiction of a promise I have discovered that before But the third and last pretence is most frequent That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divided yet they are agreed in all that is de fide in all points of Faith that is in such things as have been decided by Pope or Councell I answer in few words and thus I reinforce my Discourse If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision it might deceive them afterwards because the Decision of a Councell doth not alter the nature and property of Tradition It is true according to the opinion of some Papists such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied because he may judge the Churches Authority so infallible and obliging to him that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike saile to it But the decision of a Councell cannot make that a Tradition which was no Tradition nor can it hinder but that Tradition did deceive me before and consequently might deceive me afterwards For instance If the Pope determine the controversie between the Jansenists and Jesuites about Predestination Grace Frewill c. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgments because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the Infallible Judge of Controversies to whom they must all submit But supposing that the Popes decides according to the verity of Tradition and that must alwaies be supposed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had untill that time been deceived by Tradition So it seemes Tradition in that point was Fallible for above 1600 yeâ—rs together after Christ and now upon the Popes determination An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible but neither will this do their work for the nature of Tradition being the same either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages or else it must now be acknowledged Fallible § 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to shew the impossibility of any mutation or corruption where Tradition is pretended viz. that it is apparent there have been severall mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alledged to prove that there was no motion when his Adversary walked before him though happily the other brought some Arguments that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer which in that point is not hard to doe Or if any man should urge a subtile Argument to prove the impossibility of Sins comming into the World because neither could the understanding be first deceived nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding it were sufficient to alledge the universall experience of mankind to the contrary So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called which no man that hath the use of his Eyes and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it yet because I will use all possible means to convince them if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Divell I shall proceed farther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case and point at some of those many fountaines of corruption from whence the streames of errour might flow into the Church notwithstanding the pretence of and adherence to the Doctrine of Tradition And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches If saith he a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach could teach falshoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity but neither of these are credible I shall apply my Answer to him first in generall and then to the severall branches of his Argument § 12. In generall the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide as if it were impossible that the Tares of Errour should be sowne in the Church while men slept and never dreamed of it The basis of this Argument lies in an assertion of the impossibility of that which the nature of it shewes to be most rationall and probable and the experience of all ages shewes to be most usuall i. e. that corruption of Doctrines and manners for in this both are alike should creep in by degrees As Iasons ship was wasted so Truth was lost one piece after another Nemo repente fit turpissimus Who knowes not that errours crept into the Jewish Church gradually and why might it not be so in the Christian Church We know very well Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa One error will breed an hundred yet all its Children are not borne in one day S t Paul tels us the mystery of iniquity began to worke in his daiâ—s but was not brought to perfection till many ages after The Apostle hath sufficiently coâ—suted this sencelesse fancy whilest he tels us that Heresy eats like a cankâ—r or a gangreen i. e. by degrees and is not worst at first but encreaseth to more ungodlinesse 2 Tim. 2. 16 17. As that cloud which at first appearance was no bigger then a mans hand did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens so those opinions which at first were onely the sentiments of the lesser part might by degrees improve and become the greater or at least by the favour of Princes or power learning of their advocates become the stronger untill at last like Moses's Rod they devoured the other Rods monopolizing to themselves the liberty of writing professing their Doctrines and suppressing all contrary Discourses Treatises their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholick Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages which was frequently pretended by severall Hereticks and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons which in some Ages were few and those easily
delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak what hinders but that they may understand them in contrary senses and so derive from them contrary conclusions and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S. Peter's mouth Are there not sharp contests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points and that too among those who were present upon the place and heard their debates And will these men still undertake to prove that Snow is black or which is equivalent to it that it was impossible to do tâ—at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tels us a man is justified by faith â—thout the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sence Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrot who can say that hath any care what he saith that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book could not as easily have mistaken them when they heard them from his mouth Especially if it be considered that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembring their various expressions might not derive contrary Traditions from them why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as excluding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification and the others have understood Iames as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied then it follows unavioidably that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition which was the thing to be proved Another instance we have in the Sadduces whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel was teaching that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul no resurrection of the body yet we ought to serve God his Scholar Sadok so mis-understood him that he broached a new doctrine and turned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical and asserted that there was no resurrection of the body nor immortality of the soul c. And will these men pawn their souls on it that it was impossible for the Apostles hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee the Evangelist observes that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren that that Disciple should not dye vers 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shews for common hearers to mis-understand the words and mistake the sense of a Preacher when they are but newly come from him and all things are fresh in their memory what a desperate assertion is this that a man can certainly remember the words and infallibly understand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers it may be twenty years ago And if it be granted as it cannot be denied that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks and so of the fourth and further untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome To clear this further consider what I have already intimated § 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remembred and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Trâ—dition of the first age was this That God alone was to be worshipped not men not Angels not Images Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then the Fathers unanimously did in this particular Now comes the next age and they receive indeed this Tradition but then here ariseth a question In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped S. Austin takes it up and saith they meant that God alone was to be worshipped with Latria and the Saints with Dulia And although it is evident enough that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship he appropriates it to God yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his perverse successors gave rise to another controversy viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature And thus as in the throwing of a stone upon the water one circle begets another so doth one controversy ingender another and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition Take one Instance more S. Gregory the great Pope delivers this doctrine to posterity as his doctrine and the doctrine of his Ancestors that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop is proud profane abominable wicked blasphemous and the forerunner of Antichrist This is confessed Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bishop in order to this they start a question where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop For this is a Maxime let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is alwaies orthodox Oh say these Sophi Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor Iohn never dreamed of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholick Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever ought to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to shew how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in
time were reputed such certain miracles that it was sufficient to make a man an Heretick to doubt of the truth of them I shall adde onely this that our Adversaries could not possibly do a greater spight to Christianity nor a greater dishonour to those illustrious and unquestionable miracles done by Christ and his Apostles in the face of all the world so as their greatest enemies were forced to acknowledge the verity of them then to compare with them and equal to them their fabulous relations concerning some seeming wonders commonly done in a corner and by such who served their own interest in them and whose evidence was so dark that the truth of them was questioned by their own friends as you have now heard as if their design were to make good that passage of one of their holy Fathers who called the Gospel Fabula Christi the fable of Christ in that known expression How great riches hath this Fable of Christ procured to us But if every syllable of what their Fabulists have recorded of their miracles were true it will stand them in little stead for the reasons before alledged and proved And therefore I conclude that the miracles pretended or done by Papists are no certain and sufficient evidence of their Infallibility and no solid foundation for their Faith § 22. Ans. 6. To which I shall onely adde this word at parting that if miracles must passe for arguments I know no reason but Protestants have as good a Title to them as the Church of Rome For although we do not use to boast of wonders nor indeed have any need to use that Argument having such solid evidence and sufficient ground for our Faith in the Holy Scriptures yet if our adversaries will force us to it I think our plea is as just as theirs and we could very easily fill a Volume not with such fictitious narrations as they stuffe their Legends with but with undoubted Histories of Protestant wonders If the Antients esteemed the first propagation of Christianity by such contemptible meanes against such potent and universall opposition an eminent miracle why may we not reckon this for a miracle that the reformation of Religion should be carried on by a despicable Monk in despight of all the power policy cruelty flattery learning of the last Age we can tell them of miraculous cures of Diseases and dispossessions of Devils by the Prayers of Gods people of certaine praedictions of future contingencies by Protestant Ministers of miraculous preservations and deliverances of Protestant Princes and Ministers from the bloody rage and deep designes of Papists of eminent and unusuall judgments of God upon Popish Persecutors of all these there are remarkable instances already extant in Print and such as the Papists were never able to disprove to this day so that the Protestant cause is not inferiour to the Romish in this particular but onely here are two things evident in Protestants which are not so in their Adversaries viz. 1. The Modesty of the Protestants that they do not boast of what they might justly plead 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self sufficiency of the Protestant cause that hath evidence enough in Scripture and hath Arguments enough and to spare whereas the penury of the Popish cause forceth them to catch at shadowes for want of substance § 23. Thus I have considered the severall pretences of their great Doctors and all the Pillars upon which this vast structure of the Churches Infallibility depends I have stated the severall pretensions in the words of their own most approved Authors I have weighed I think I may say all their considerable Arguments by which they seek to maintaine them in the ballance of the Sanctuary and have found them light I shall close this particular with a briefe reflection upon the whole matter and the diverse and repugnant courses of their Learned Authors in the resolution and foundation of their Faith wherein we shall see these miserable creatures running like the false Prophet in Ieremy from chamber to chamber to hide themselves 1. They made a bold venture at Scripture and fairly offerd to try their cause by it for which they deserve this Motto Magnis tamen excidit ausis But their own brethren pull'd them by the eare and told them that would not do their work Gainsayers can never be convinced out of Scripture therefore you must confound them with Tradition saies their great Salmeron And they soone found that to be true which once a Popish Clergy man said when he had found a Bible He knew not who was the Author of it but sure he was it was some pestilent Heretick for he every where condemnes the Doctrines of our Church 2. They fly to the Fathers and their Infallible Authority There upon a faire triall they are beaten out of the field Upon debate they find the Fathers so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so uncertaine in some things so positive against them in other things that they presently cry Crucifige to those whose ears had rung with Hosanna's before and down goes the Infallibility of the Fathers and to fetch in miracles that they may not want Arguments 3. Then they flie to Councels and by all meanes they must be Infallible well the Protestants follow them thither That point comes to be scann'd Instances are given of the errours of Councels if either Papists or Protestants may be Judges And which had the greatest hand in the deposing of Councels severall notable passages are alleadged out of Councels against the Popes Supremacy and diverse of the present Doctrines of the Romish Church And upon the hearing of the cause the Pope himselfe and the most of the learned and considerable Papists now in the World are resolved to trust Councels no longer with this jewell and not content to deny they dispute down the Infallibility of Councels as I have shewed 4. Then they flie to the Pope for help and Jesuites cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have found the man that is infallible Now saltat senex salva res est well the Protestants joyne issue with them upon that give many shrewd instances of the errours of Popes alledge the expresse words of Adrianus Sextus a Pope confessing the Fallibility of Popes whom Bellarmine himselfe reckons among those who hold that the Pope may be an Heretick and teach Heresy And besides all this two Popish approved Councels are pleaded viz. Constance and Basil who absolutely deny the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility Well what shall they do next 5. Then there must be another device a coalition of Pope and Councell and those meeting together are Infallible Thus Infallibility is but a short-lived businesse and dies at the expiration of the Councell for when they are dissolved their Writings as well as those of Holy Scripture are uncapable of being a judge And thus they have devised an Infallibility made of a commixtion of two Fallibles an ingenious invention it is by which one may
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
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
imagination without the shadow of a proofe that all which was written by such men was a part of Canonicall or Divine Scripture for we read that the Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost which inspired them not at all times but onely when he pleased there being this difference between the spirits inspiration of Christ and all other Holy men that it was in Christ without measure and without difference of time but in the Apostles it was a gift confined to such seasons and proportions as God saw fit for them Is any man so absurd as to think that every letter which a Prophet or Apostle might write about any private affaires was a part of the Sacred Scripture Or if Solomons Herball were extant must it needs be admitted into the Canon of the Sacred Scripture Or how can they prove and if they do not prove it this Argument is impertinent that the Histories which Ioshua or Nathan or Samuel or Gad c. might or did write concerning the Warres of the Lord or the Civill transactions of the Kingdomes of Israel and Iudah must needs be a part of the Canon Or did the temporary transient and extraordinary inspirations of the Holy-Gost deprive them of their common gifts and faculties And was the capacity of a Prophet inconsistent with that of an Historian or because Balaam was once inspired must we needs Canonize all that afterwards he spake if it were extant or because Hannah was once inspired 1 Sam. 2. and Simeon and Elizabeth Luk. 1. did ever any man unlesse in a dream imagine that all their after Discourses were Canonicall Answ. 3. Although fragmenta auri sunt pretiosa the least shreds of Scripture are of inestimable value yet we must distinguish between the essentiall and integrall parts of the rule of Faith every part and parcell of it is a choice blessing for our bene esse and more abundant direction and consolation yet is it not an essentiall part of the rule of Faith for the farre greatest part of those sacred Books is spent in the explication of such general lawes and directions as were of themselves sufficient strictè loquendo or the repetition of the same things which mans dulnesse and backwardnesse to such things made highly expedient and beneficiall The five Books of Moses were sufficient to Salvation before any of the other Books were indited and the following Writings of the Prophets were but Comments upon them which if by Gods providence they had been lost no doubt the first five Books would have been sufficient for Salvation for that state of the Church So when St Matthew had VVritten his Gospell wherein the Doctrine of the person and office and works of Christ who is the marrow of both Testaments and the sole-sufficient object of saving knowledge Ioh. 17.3 is clearly revealed and fully proved I do assert and let any of our Adversaries prove the contrary if they can that that had been sufficient for our Salvation And yet it must be acknowledged a wonderfull favour from God that he hath so plentifully provided for us and so carefully watched by his Providence for the preservation of the severall Books of Scripture that all the wit and learning of Adversaries can only furnish them with two instances of Apostolicall VVritings which they suppose to be lost viz. one Epistle from Laodicea and another to the Corinthians Arg. 3. A rule must be plaine and cleare but the Scriptures are darke and doubtfull and that in things appertaining to Salvation as appeares from 2 Pet. 3.16 things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their destruction Now this could not bring destruction if they were not hard in things appertaining to Salvation And here the Captaine musters up severall necessary Doctrines which he supposeth not to be clearly laid down in Scripture Answ. The Scripture is plaine and cleare in things necessary to Salvation as hath been abundantly evinced by Protestants out of expresse Scriptures and consent of Fathers But that belongs to another point and I do not love to mingle distinct questions together therefore to them I shall referre the Reader onely I shall take notice of such assaults as he hath made upon this Doctrine For the Text 2 Pet. 3.16 I confesse I do not meet with any passage so plausible as this in his whole Book But the solution of the doubt is not difficult If you consider 1. To whom these things are said to be darke even to ignorant unstable ungodly men VVhen Protestants say Scripture is cleare they do not meane it is so to those that are blind or to them that shut their Eyes or have discoloured Eyes and such are they of whom those things are said but unto such as are humble and diligent in the use of means to find out the Truth not onely some passages of St Paul but in generall all Divine and Spirituall Truths are darke to the naturall man and such there is no reason to doubt these were as is positively asserted by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnesse unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned and consequently if the Popish argument from this place have any force in it not onely some parts of Scripture will be dark but not any part of it will be plaine which the most impudent Papist durst never yet assert 2. The wresting of the Scripture in any of its truths or doctrines is so great a sin that it may well be called destructive though the doctrine wrested be not simply necessary to salvation as the disbeliefe and contempt of any Truth or assertion plainly delivered by God is confessed to be damnable though the matter of the assertion be meerly circumstantial and not at all in it self necessary to salvation 3. S. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or difficult passages might be wrested to destruction although the matter of them was not necessary to be known or understood in order to Salvation As for instance That passage of St. Pauls All things are lawful for me scil all indifferent things for he there speaks of the use of meats or observation of dayes This I say is not a fundamental Truth nor is the knowledg of it necessary to Salvation yet when the Libertines do abuse this Scripture to justify themselves in the practice of all wickednesse doubtlesse they wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction Besides the matter of a Text may be of lesser importance and the knowledge thereof not necessary to Salvation and the first and immediate mistake of it may be in it self inconsiderable and yet that may usher in other and those higher mistakes as we see error is fruitful and grows worse and worse and at last end in destruction as that Cloud which at first was no bigger then a mans hand did quickly overcast the whole Heavens The
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
severall matters should be under severall Chapters or divisions and not one piece here another there and things must be plaine and distinct From which it is evident enough that the Scripture was never intended for a Law or Iudge of Controversies because the Book is so large and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our beliefe as Historicall Epistolar Mysticall and so many repetitions and lastly it is left to a meer conjecture what may be the meaning of it Thus Rushworth Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Is this the Mathematicall man Is this the rigour of Mathematicks This is enough to make a man forsweare the study of the Mathematicks if it produce no better demonstrations We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Lawes of these men for you see they give Lawes to God himselfe and it is allready enacted in the conclave of Rome that if God do not speak in Mood and Figure he shall not be heard and that if he put forth any Law-book wherein he doth not rigorously observe the orders and methods of a Systeme it shall not be received Believe me it was a good turne that Mr Cowell Writ his Institutiones Iuris Anglicani wherein he reduced the English Lawes to a Method for else woe had been to the poor Statute-Books and all Records of our Lawes for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Lawes nor Judges of Controversies between men and men for so saith our Theologicall Euclide that scornes to speak under a Demonstration for we know how much more large a book they make then the Bible and how many things are mingled unappertaining to the substance of our estates and lives c. The summe of the Argument is this The Scripture was not intended for the Law because it is so large so miscellaneous so full of repetitions c. Shall I need to say any more for the answer of such an Argument wherein there is nothing evident but the disputers confidence and the Papists credulity and the desperatenesse of their cause Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jewes But this is false and it was a Law to the Jewes Ergo the principle is false from which such a conclusion is deduced The Major I prove from his own words and besides he particularly disputes against the Old Testaments being a Law The Minor I hope I shall easily prove Where to prevent equivocation or mistakes take notice I meddle not with the ambiguous terme of JUDGE wee are now disputing whether it were a Law nor do I meddle with that question whether it be a Law to us But to the Jewes This then I assert that the Old Testament notwithstanding this objection was a Law to the Jewes and a man would think the very mention of the proposition should cut off all necessity of proof It is so absurd and portentous a thing to Christian eares to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned I prove it onely by this Argument That Book by which both people and Priests and Princes of the Jewes were to be guided and ruled and commanded in their decisions was certainly a Law to them But such was the Old Testament 1. For the people it is plaine They are commanded to observe to do all the Words of this Law that are Written in this Book Deut. 28.58 And Moses makes bold to call it a Law-book notwithstanding all the mixtures repetitions c. and a curse is pronounced to every one that continued not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 and for the guidance of the people those Books were to be read by or to the people Deut. 31.9 Ios. 8.35 Neh. 8. and diverse other places 2. For the Princes it is no lesse evident that it was a Law and rule to them Ios. 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is Written therein And 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 all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them Thus it is undeniable it was a Law both to Prince and People and that is sufficient to overthrow the whole argument But I adde 3. It was a law to the Priests too I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tyed to follow the Priests decisions I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced but my present assertion is onely this The books of Scripture were a law to the Priests by which they were to be ordered and regulated in their proceedings The sentence which the Priests were to pronounce it must be the sentence of the Law Deut 17.11 and the Priests are oft censured and condemned for neglecting or transgressing the Law which plainly shews it was the law and rule of their proceedings Ans. 2. But what shall we say if the Papists themselves deny their own Conclusion which here they indeavour tanto molimine to prove You will say we have little reason to believe those that do not believe themselves or to assent to that Conclusion which they deny To make good this you must remember the question is not about the Judge properly so called but about the Rule or Law to which we suppose the Judge to be tyed for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisitenesse this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuites but there must have been another and that a living Judge of controversies This premised I thus proceed Either they of the Church of Rome have a Law by which they regulate all their Decrees and decisions or they have none if they say they have none then they act lawlessly and arbitrarily and we have found Antichrist by his character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lawlesse 2 Thes. 2. but if they say as they all pretend and professe they are guided by a law then I enquire what that law is Here it is true they are divided while some make the judgment of the antient Church and Fathers their law others the Popes Decrees others the Acts of Councels but all of them pretend some law or other and which opinion soever of their Church they take for they have good choice either their argument hath no force against the Scriptures being our Law or it equally militates against their own Laws As for instance if they make the judgment of the Fathers their Law are not they lyable to the same exceptions with the Scripture of largenesse aliene mixtures repetitions c And the like may be said of Popes Decretals and the Acts of Councels which
so that thou understand them according to the faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally delivered unto thee Apology for Tradition Sixteenth Encounter Ans. 1. The necessity of Faith is no argument of the Scriptures insufficiency The Scripture is sufficient i. e. in genere objecti in respect of the object or doctrine or revelation and yet Faith is necessary in genere instrumenti as an instrument for it is plain enough the faith he speaks of is the grace not the doctrine of Faith By this argument Scripture and Tradition together were no perfect rule for both will not make a man wise unto salvation otherwise then through faith Ans. 2. It is falsly supposed and can never be proved That the Faith here spoken of is the fides quae creditur or the doctrine of Faith not fides quâ creditur or the grace of Faith and that by Faith are here intended Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from St. Paul or the other Apostles and this Supposition is the Basis of their Answer The contrary sufficiently appears from diverse considerations 1. This contradicts the Apostles scope which apparently is to commend the Scriptures as able to make wise to Salvation c. But this were no commendation at all to say they together with such Christian verities are sufficient for salvation for according to this argument it might be said of any one verse in all the Old Testament what is here said of all the Scriptures viz. That that Verse together with Faith i. e. with the Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition is sufficient for Salvation which no Papist will deny and therefore that Answer is absurd 2. Timothy's faith here supposed is of the same kind with the Faith of his Mother and Grandmother 2 Tim. 1.5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee which dwelt first in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice Was the faith of his Grandmother too the Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from the Apostles after she was dead 3. It is not said The Scriptures are able with the faith but through the faith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which plainly shews that this Faith is not another object distinct from the Scriptures but an instrument to apply the Scriptures especially if we consider a parallel place Heb. 4.2 The word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith i e. with the grace of Faith for none can be so senselesse as to think they were damned for want of oral Tradition 4. The Faith here spoken of is together with the Scriptures sufficient for salvation and so is the grace of faith But the Dogmatical belief of Christian Verities deliver'd by Tradition together with the Scriptures is not sufficient for Salvation as the Papists confesse E. the grace of Faith is the thing here spoken of 5. The Faith here spoken of is a thing distinct and totally differing from the Scriptures and not at all coincident with them But the Christian Verities or Traditions delivered by the Apostles were not things so different but coincident with the Scripture as evidently appears from Act. 26.22 where S. Paul in terminis professeth he said preached none other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come But I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome know what Paul preached better then himself a plain evidence of their Infallibility Exc. 2. By this argument the Scriptures of the Old Testament for of them he speaks are sufficient for salvation and so the New Testament is not necessary So the Captain p. 29. and Cressy ubi suprà Ans. 1. It is very true the Scriptures of the Old Testament were in those times sufficient for salvation This appears from the place now cited Act. 26.22 compared with Act. 20.27 where S. Paul saith he delivered the whole counsel of God Hence I argue The whole counsel of God was delivered by S. Paul and is sufficient for salvation but all that S. Paul delivered was in Moses and in the Prophets Act. 26.22 If the Old Testament was deficient in any doctrine it was that which the New Testament seems to supply viz. the doctrine of Christ and yet the Old Testament was sufficient to teach Christ for it did both instruct men about the Person and Office and work of the Messias as our Divines do abundantly prove against the Jews to whom I refer the Reader for the proof of it and also did sufficiently prove that Jesus was the Christ as appears undeniably from Act. 18.28 and consequently there was no defect but a sufficiency for that time and condition of affairs even in the old Testament in things necessary to salvation A Third Exception they take against our argument from this place is That it speaks onely of perfection after faith but here is no question about the first choice of faith much lesse is there any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Thus Mr. White 's Apology for Tradition 16. Encounter Ans. Since then all our controversy is about that whether the Scriptures are so convincing it will be worth our while to examine the point for it is not my desire to catch at little advantages but to attaque the Aversary in his strongest Fort. But before I come to the proof let us inquire into the meaning of the Phrase What it is for the Scripture to be convincing in foro contentioso i. e. in way of disputation I take it for granted he is not so absurd as to expect that the scripture should be so convincing as actually to convince and satisfy and silence the most importunate and unreasonable Caviller In that sense the clearest demonstration in the Mathematicks is not convincing but without doubt Mr. White takes his Apology and so his Treatise de fide and Mr. Rushworths Dialogues to be convincing Discourses because though they do not actually convince the stubborn Hereticks yet they are apta nata to convince them there is so much evidence in them as may and ought to satisfy any understanding unconcerned inquisitive and prudent adversary and in this sense I do assert that the scriptures are convinâ—ing in fâ—ro contentioso which is the great thing Mr. White sticks at I prove it thus 1. The scriptures make a man of God i.e. the Minister as they acknowledg perfect and throughly furnished to every work but this is one of his chief works to convince Gain-sayers Tiâ— 1.9 Ergo scripture furnisheth him with convincing arguments 2. The Scripture is here expressely said to be profitable among other things for Conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first for doctrine i.e. for the confirmation of Truths then for conviction for so the Greek word more properly signifies then for reproof which is mentioned in the next particular for correction or for resutation of errors But surely Scripture were not profitable for conviction if it be insufficient to
attain that end and be unconvincing nay more Scripture is not profitable for doctrine if it onely beget conjectures and opinions and doth not give solid and satisfying evidence of its doctrines and if it do evidently assert or prove a Truth it must by consequence as evidently convince and consute the contrary error For example if any Scripture positively assert that Christ is the true God and equal with the Father as de facto it doth doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Hereticks who make Christ but a Creature and inferior to the Father Neither let him tell me of their cavils against such places for so Anaxagoras did cavill against those that said Snow was white and gave a reason for it saith Tully because the water of which it had its rise was black yet no man I think will deny that there is convincing evidence even in foro contentioso of its whitenesse 3. The Scripture was convincing formerly and therefore it is so still for I do not know that it hath lost any of its vertue Christ proved himself to be the Messias out of the Scriptures in sundry places and I think Mr. White will not deny that all Christ's arguments were convincing So Christ proves his Lordship and Divinity out of the Scriptures and I think convincingly for his Adversaries were not able to answer him a word out of the Psalmes Read Mat. 22.42 c. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jewes out of the Scripture and proved as they did out of the scriptures that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ I would know whether their scripture-proofs were solid and convincing or no if they deny it they make the Apostles deceivers and wresters of the scriptures if they affirm then scripture is convincing Once more we read Act. 18.28 of Apollos that he mightily convinced the Jewes shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. I am ashamed to mention more arguments in so clear a cause and yet we must believe these men against our senses and reason and conscience that the scriptures are not able to convince men in foro contentioso and Mr. VVhite who sometimes writes as if he believed an everlasting state dares hazard it upon such false and frivolous suppositions Excep 4. This word All Scripture must signify either every Scripture as the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred and then all Scripture save one Book is uselesse or all the Scriptures that ever were and then we have them not or all that were then written and then all since written are superfluous or all that we now have Epist. pag. 29.30 Ans. The Text speaks not of every scripture but of all the scriptures that then were As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two things are evident enough 1. That it may be taken collectively and the use of the word will warrant it I see the Captain is grown a Graecian therefore I shall desire him to look onely into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectivè not distributivè Mat. 8.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole herd not every herd and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole city v. 34. 2. That it must be so taken here our Adversaries being judges for else this confessed inconvenience will follow That any one verse of the Scripture is profitable and sufficient to all these purposes nor doth it at all follow that all the rest are superfluous because not precisely necessary The Pentateuch alone was a sufficient law for the Jewes yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous Excep 5. He sayes not the Scriptures are sufficient but onely profitable Cressy Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every good work and what is so is undoubtedly sufficient 2. He saith they are profitable so far as to make one wise to salvation and I think that is sufficient 3. He saith they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation which are acknowledged to be onely two Faith and Life and they are profitable to both of them 1 for doctrine i. the demonstration of the Truth 2. for conviction or reproof i.e. the consutation of errors 3. for correction i.e. the reproof of sins 4. for instruction in righteousnesse or the discovery of Duties And what is thus every way profitable cannot with any colour be charged with insufficiency Excep 6. It is a clear case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and applyed by a Preacher Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various elogiums which are here so emphatically given to all the Scripture do as truly belong to any one verse of Scripture By this those two words Dic Ecclesiae Tell the Church are able to make one wise to salvation and furnished to every good work c. for so they are or may be through God's blessing if explicated and applied by an able preacher So those words Abraham beg at Isa ac are able to all these mentioned purposes viz. if explicated and applyed So you see the Church of Rome is grown superlatively orthodox for they who ere while would not allow all the Scripture to be sufficient are now so abundantly satisfied in the point that they allow any one verse in the Bible not excluding Tobit went and his dog followed him to be sufficient This I hope may suffice for the vindication of this Text wherein I have been the larger because it is most plain and impregnable to our purpose and sufficient of it self to decide the whole controversy I shall not concern my selfe or trouble the Reader with the vindication of other Texts to the same purpose which are many and considerable and with great facility defensible against all the Romish assaults because to him that submits to the authority and self-evidencing light of this Text that labour is superfluous and to him whose Conscience will suffer his wit to quarrel against such forcible and clear expressions and arguments as this Teâ—t affords it is frustraneous And therefore upon the evidence that hath been delivered I shall take the boldnesse to conclude That not the Church but the Scripture is the sufficient Rule and Infallible Guide by which we are to be regulated in all things pertaining to Faith or Godlinesse FINIS Doctor Jesuita Ad quem peâ—â—inet de libris Canonicis Determinare Catholicus Papista Ad â—cclâ—siam sine cuâ—us authoritate non plus fidci aâ—hiberem Maâ—thaeo quam Tito Livio par 1 â—â— 12. (b) Poâ—uit illud pio sensu dici Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. (c) Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem nullum pondus nullam vim erga nos nostram fidem nisi
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