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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 which are spurious For that there are great multitude of spurious Writings masked under the names of the Fathers is acknowledged by Sixtus Senensis Bel. and others and the Fathers themselves oft complained of that practise in their daies So again Scripture is obscure and ambiguous and full of seeming contradictions and there are many disputes about the true sence and therefore it cannot be the rule of my faith say Bellarm. Becanus Costorus and the rest The same may be more justly said against the Authority of the Fathers Their obscurity and ambiguity appeares from the very same Arguments which they bring to make good their charge against the Scriptures even from the multitude of Comments which Learned men have made upon the darke passages of the Fathers in which no lesse then in S t Pauls Epistles are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things hard to be understood which men of corrupt minds wrest to their own destruction and from the great disputes which are at this day fervent in the World concerning the judgments of the Fathers and their meaning in severall passages ' about which there are as fierce contests as about any passages of the Scripture it having been truly observed by indifferent persons that both Papists and Protestants have fortified their severall and contrariant assertions with plausible allegations from the Fathers Nor are there onely seeming contradictions in the Fathers as there are in Scripture but most reall and direct ones and if it be not enough that one of them contradicts another many pregnant instances are given of the same Father in one place contradicting himselfe in another But for this and other things concerning the Fathers Authority I must refer the Reader to those Learned Authors that have exemplified this in severall Instances Once more The Scripture they say is corrupted and falsified in severall places and so unfit to be a rule And have the Fathers Works seen no corruption Yes we have it under the hands of Possevinus Sixtus Senensis Bellarm. and others who confess their hard hap in this particular and how wofully they are corrupted in multitudes of places and needs must the Fathers fare worse then the Scriptures herein because they were never preserved with that care and conscience which was exercised about the Holy Scriptures Therefore either they must quit their Arguments against the Scriptures Authority or else renounce the Authority of the Fathers which is obnoxious to the same inconveniencies §. 4 2. That the Fathers whose writings are extant for of them this proposition treats are not infallible may be undeniably evinced from the Hypothesis of our Adversaries and the supposed subject of that Infallibility which is pretended Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church say all the Papists The onely question is What this Church is Some make it the Pope others a Councell others the whole body of the faithfull but they generally agree that it must be some one or all of those But the Fathers I am here discoursing of are not one or all of these and therefore they cannot pretend to the supposed infallibility nor can the Papists by their own principles ascribe it to them to which may be added That if the Pope himselfe notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility may erre as a private Doctor either in speaking or writing which all the Papists grant how can either any or most of them who have no other capacity but that of a private Doctor be exempt from a possibility of erring And consequently the Fathers are not infallible nor a solid foundation for a Papists faith Sect. 5. Again if they will needs obtrude upon us this upstart Infallibility of particular fathers I demand whether this infallibility belongs to all the fathers that lived in one Age or only to the Writers of that Age or only to those of the Writers whose works have had better hap then others to come to our hand and whether to all them together or onely to a part of them For one of these they must unavoydably assert If they say the first that this Infallibility was in all the fathers that lived in one Age or the Major part of them as in reason they must for what Scripture or Reason had one to pretend Infallibility more then another excepting alwayes the Bishop of Room of whose Infallibility it must bee confessed there was never any quaestion namely in those dayes none had the impudence to assert it if that be granted yet those few whose writings are extant of whom alone our controversie is might all be fallible though the Major part of the Fathers be acknowledged infallible If it be said those Fathers do not onely speak their own sence but the sence of the Church of their Age and in that respect they are infallible which is the common plea and most plausible Argument they use in this point The Fathers are infallible not in their expositions but in their traditions and the Doctrines they deliver as received from their Ancestors Thus Sr Kenelm Digby White Holden and the Papists of the new Modell This I shall have occasion to handle more largely afterward At present it may suffice to answer two things 1 That it is most certain they are so far from delivering the sence of the Church of that Age in the controversies between us and the Romanists that they seldom touch upon the most of them and when they do it it is obiter and by accident not ex professo and solemnly they being then taken up with other matters as disputing against Jewes and Gentiles and the hereticks of that Age 2 However that being purely matter of fact to understand and report the History of the Churches Doctrine in their Age if they were infallible in matters of Faith yet in point of fact they were not infallible For the Pope himself is allowed to bee fallible in such matters and as it is confessed the Pope may erre through fear or hope or humane passions as Liberius Marcellinus and others did at best for a season so doubtlesse might the Fathers either through weaknesse misunderstand or through favour or prejudice misreport the sence of others of which it were easy to give many Instances If the second thing be asserted that this Infallibility belongs only to the Writers of each Age wee would desire them to set theâ—r inventions on work to devise a reason why the Writers were infallible â—and not the Preachers seeing the Apostles who had and all others that pretend to Infallibility as the Pope and Councell challenge it equally in their Sermons and Writings in their verbal and written decrees and much lesse can they with any colour assert that this Infallibility belongs only to those Writers which are come to our hands as if it were not sufficient for the rest that they lost their Writings but they must also lose their Infallibility And yet such is the impudence of these men and the desperatenesse of their cause that
and not contented to deliver the assertion he addes a reason Is it not absurd that when you are to receive mâ—ny you do not trust other men but examine it your selves and when you are to judge of things then to be drawn away by other mens opinions And this saith he is the worse fault in you because you have the Scriptures That brings in the second Herely of Chrysostomes The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture and the mischiefe too is he cals it a perfect rule you have saith he an exact standard and rule of all things and he concludes thus I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks but enquire all things of the Scriptures I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one if I might advise them the next Jesuite that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostomes works by the Protestants and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of Chrysostome in the Vatican What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully then Origen It is necessary saith he that we should alledge the Testimony of Scriptures without which our expositions do not command faith Or then Cyrill Do not believe me saying these things unlesse I prove them out of the Scriptures Or then Ambrose thus speaking to the Emperour Gratian I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation let us aske the Scriptures aske the Prophets the Apostles S t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration then Cyprian and Ambrose yet heare how he speaks of them of Cyprian thus I am not obliged by his Authority I do not look on his Epistles as Canonicall but I examine them by the Scriptures and what is repugnant thereunto with his good leave I reject it Would the Papists give us but this liberty we should desire no more and of Ambrose he saith the like Peradventure it will be said in this point as it is in the generall That although it is confessed by the Fathers that particular Doctors are liable to error yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree they have an infallible Authority and are a sufficient foundation of Faith To this I answer 1 If this were granted it doth not in the least secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us wherein such unanimous consent can be produced but in every one of them there are pregnant allegations out of some of the Fathers repugnant to their opinions and assertions This their learned men cannot but know and if they have any ingenuity in them they cannot deny 2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea What a silly thing is it to deny that that which happen'd to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them And with Gerhard the Testimonies of the Fathers collectively taken cannot bee of another kind and nature then they are distributively Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition if he apprehends the meaning of it for how can the same persons being onely considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time And if Austin Ambrose Cyprian supposing these were all the Fathers be each of them fallible how can a meer collective consideration of them render them infallible 3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth That the Fathers deny this Infallibility not onely to one or two of them dispersedly but to all the Antients collectively considered and this I shall prove onely by one Argument They that make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writer deny the Infallibility of the Fathers eitheir collectively or distributively considered But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonicall Writers and abjudicate it from all other Writers S t Ierome is expresse Except the Apostles whatsoever else is afterward said let it be cut off for it hath no Authority And againe I make a difference between the Apostles and other Writers those alwaies said Truth but these in somethings as men did erre St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scriptures and all other Writings That those are to be read with a necessity of believing but these with a liberty of judging What living man can expresse the Protestant Doctrine in more evident termes then the same Father elsewhere doth That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other witnesses and testimonies whether more or fewer agreed or divided all is one to S t Austin you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge they have more or lesse weight And again when he was pressed by Ierom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers he thus Answers I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture to believe there is no error in them But as for others how Learned or Godly soever they be I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures To conclude so evident is St. Austin's judgment in that point that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist Occam by name who speaking of a passage of St. Austins about this point hath these words It is to be noted that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the pen-men of the Scripture makâ—s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers and therefore whether they be Popes or others whether they writ in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed upon them You see St. Austin's mind is plain and doth our Adversaries themselves being judges directly overturne that great fundamental point of the Infallibility of Councels and Popes which if you will believe them is not only true but necessary to salvation and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths These are they that maintaine no doctrine but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great article of Transubstantiation viz. to tell us we must not believe our selves when we read such passages in the Fathers and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons and Consciences we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal And this doctrine of Austins if you will believe the Romanists when delivered by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine never heard of in the world till Luther's dayes and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge when the like is said of our other doctrines I might fill up a Treatise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this purpose but this is enough for any but those who are resolved to sacrifice
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
guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously then his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Councels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Beliefe neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firme Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the churches authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants expresse themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four severall and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures oâ—â—ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universalâ— Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many severall judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appeare by the help of a threefold distinction 1. VVe must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tyed and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. VVe must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conâ—cience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himselfe tâ— be the alone Law-giver Iam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. â— 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an externall and politicall Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His soveraigne Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to harken unto you more then unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internall and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more then the rest to be for ever suspended and wrapâ— in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a soveraigne unâ—versall judge to which even Scripture it selfe must vaile And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in expresse termes That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sence of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I meane in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in it selfe and by vertue of rationall and extrascripturall Arguments tels me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my beliefe So againe the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soule or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
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
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
same imperfections and corruptions that the Scriptures because writings are said to be subject to and consequently there is no rule neither for Papists nor Protestants but every one may do that which seems right in his own eyes 4. He pretends it is necessary to Salvation to understand which is the true sense of Scriptures when it is to be taken literally when mystically and this saith he cannot be understood from sole Scripture Ans. Here also both Propositions are remarkably false 1. It is not necessary to Salvation to a Christian to understand the true sense of every Scripture if it were what shall become of those Legions of poor deluded Papists into whose devotion ignorance is so considerable an ingredient who neither understand the seâ—se nor are permitted to read the words of the Scripture 2. The â—ense of Scripture in fundamental points is clear and intelligible and that from Scripture which is its own best Interpreteâ— And if we consult the best Expositors either Popish or Protestant we shall find they never so well unfold Scâ—pture riddles if I may so speak as when they plow with the Scriptures Heifer Every puny knows the collation of parallel or seemingly repugnant places and the observation of the scope and cohaerence and the like are the best Keyes to find out the true sense of the Scripture and sufficient to discover it unlesse the readers ignorance or negligence pride or prejudice stand in his way I will take an instance from the Captain himself of those Scriptures which confute the Arrians Joh. 10.30 I and my father are one but saith the Captain the Arrian will say this is meant of Onenesse in affection as Joh. 17.21 And here my Captain is gravelled and halfe made an Arrian and because he could not answer the Arrian he concludes again no body else can But wiser men would have told him That this Arrian glosse is confuted out of the Scriptures both out of the present chapter the Captain and Arrian being more blind then the Jewes who understood Christs meaning better viz. That he made himself God v. 33. and from other places of Scriptures where Christ is expresly called God Joh. 1.1 the true God 1 Joh. 5.20 and thought it no robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2.6 And indeed the Councel of Nice as I shewed in the foregoing discourse did confute the Arrian Heresy out of the Scriptures they saw no need of going further 5 He alledgeth the number of fundamental points which saith he the Scripture determines not Ans. This is most false The Scripture doth sufficiently determine fundamental points I must not here run into another controversy concerning the number of fundamentals This may suffice at present That the Scripture doth not presse all Truths with equal vehemency that there are some points wherein the Scripture doth though not approve of yet dispence with differing opinions in Christians such as those were concerning dayes and meats and ceremonies in Religion and there are other points which it urgeth upon us with highest penalties such as that in Joh. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall dye in your sins To me this is a rule That to which God promiseth or annexeth salvation is surely sufficient for salvation I care not one straw for all the Romane Thunder-claps of Damnation where I have one promise from God for my salvation I am assured by God that to fear God and keep his commandements is the whole duty of man Eccles. 12.13 That he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him Act. 10.35 That this is life eternal to know thee to be the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17.3 and consequently if I know him and believe in him his person and office and work I may humbly put in my claime for eternal life and have not so much reason to fear their cursing of me knowing that the curse causelesse shall not come as they have to fear the curse of God and an addition to their plagues for adding to God's word Rev. 22.18 In a word the fundamentals or substantials of Religion do apparently lie in two things the Law and the Gospel the Scripture tels me that love is the fulfilling of the law Rom. 13.10 that he that loveth Christ shall be loved of his father Ioh. 14.21 that hereby we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Joh 3.14 It tels me also That faith in Christ is the fulfilling of the Gospel ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 14.1 and these things are written that ye might believe that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing ye might have life in his name Joh. 20.31 Christ hath â—â—sured us it seems he should have asked his Vicars leave for it He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Ioh. 3.36 For my part I am not afraid to venture my salvation upon this promise and for Popish comminations and curses I shall only say with the Psalmist Let them curse but bless thou Psal. 109.28 By these things we see the Scripture sufficiently informes us of fundamentals To which I might adde the common sense of Gods Church and the learned Ministers in all ages it having been acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors both antient and modern both Popish and Protestant as may be seen at large in Dr. Pottèrs want of charity charged upon Romanists and Mr. Chillingworths Defence of it That the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed doth contein in it a compleat body of the fundamentals of salvation for the Credenda and all the Articles of the Creed are sufficiently evidenced from the Scriptures as I could with great facility demonstrate but I study brevity But you must know the Church of Rome hath another notion of Fundamentals a rare notion I tell you for you shall not find the like either in Scripture or any antient Author They make the Churches definition the rule of Fundamentals That is a Fundamental Truth and de fide which the Church determines and decrees though never so inconsiderable and that is no Fundamental nor de fide which the Church hath not determined though it be never so material Thus to fast in Lent on Fridaies if the Church command it is now become a Fundamental and if any man obstinately refuse it God will assuredly condemne such a person saith an English Apostate Cressy sect 2. ch 13. n. 2. though he there confesseth it is but an action little more then circumstantial yet on the other side it is no Fundamental to hold That all men except Christ are conceived in sin because the Church forsooth hath not determined the Question of the Blessed Virgin Thus with the Romanists it is a fundamental doctrine to believe that Paul left his Cloak at Troas namely if the Church injoyn you to believe it for there is the knack it is not Fundamental because St. Paul asserts it 2 Tim. 4
13 but because St. Peters successor or the Church injoyns you to believe it but it is no Fundamental that Christ is God if the Church doth not oblige you to believe it Did I say it was not a Fundamental I do them wrong in not speaking the whole truth for so far are they from owning it for a Fundamental Article that they will not allow it to be an article or object of our Faith without such confirmation and injunction from the Church as I shewed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse But this is so grosse a cheat and such a groundless imposture wholly destitute of all appearance of proof that it is a vanity to spend time in the confuting of it If any Papist think otherwise let him give us solid proofs That the Pope or Councel have such dominion over our Faith That Fundamentals are all at their mercy though meâ— thinks the very mention of such a conceit is abundant confutation nor can any thing be more absurd then to say That it is no Fundamental to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them them thaâ— diligently seek him unlesse the Churches Authority command us to believe it and that it is a Fundamental to believe that which so many of the Antients did not believe viz. the falsehood of the Millenary opinion or of the admission of departed Saints to the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement because these are determined by the Church And there is nothing which more essentially overthrowes the Popish conceit of Fundamentals then the consideration of the Pillar upon which they build it which is the Churches Infallible authority as the Answerer of Bishop Land Discourseth whose great argument is this whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a damnable sin but whosoever refuseth to believe any point sufficiently prâ—pounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently prâ—pounded to him for a truth revealed from God this is proved from hence because general Councels cannot erre Where to say nothing of the Major you see this man proves and the Church of Rome hath no better proofs incertum per incertius their notion of Fundamentals from their opinion of Councels infallibility and the infallibility of Councels having been abundantly evinced to be but a Chimaerical Imagination I must needs conclude That the foundation being fallen the superstructure needs no strength of argument to pull it down if any desire to see this wild conceit baffâ—ed he may find it done in that excellent discourse of Mr. Stingfleets part 1 chap. 2 3 4. For the 6. particular the doctrine of the Trinity it is true that is a real Fundamental but to say that is not clearly proved from the Scripture and for one that pretends he was a Protestant to say thus I confesse it is one of those many arguments which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather then to the convictions of his conscience or the evidence of his cause Behold the harmony between Socinianisme and Popery Rather then not assert the Churches authority these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands to confesse that they cannot be confuted by Scripture But the learned Papists are of another mind in their lucid intervals and some of them as Simglecius have sufficiently overthrown the Socinian Heresy from Scripture evidence however I am sure Protestants have abundantly evinced it Let any man read but those excellent discourses of Placaeus about the Praeexistence of Christ before his birth of the Virgin and his Divinity and he will be of another mind But this shews the Captain was prepared to receive any thing that could so easily believe a proposition which he could not but know from his own experience to be horribly false unlesse he were shamefully ignorant 7 For the remaining points they split upon the same Rocks with the former for there is none of them but is sufficiently evident from Scripture as hath been fully proved by those who have treated of those matters but I must forbear digressions And besides in the sense he intends he will find it an hard matter to prove their necessity to salvation if he think otherwise let him try his strength And this may satisfy the third argument concerning the Scriptures darkness in things said to be necessary to salvation A fourth argument urged against the Scriptures supremacy is that we have not the Originals but onely Copies and Translations and these made by fallible men and therefore it cannot be a certain rule to our Faith This hath been answered in the former Discourse it will suffice therefore briefly to suggest some â—ew things 1 This argument if solid and weighty will prove that no Copies nor Translations can be a Rule to us that onely the Original Decalogue which was written by Gods own finger was a Rule to the Jews and consequently that Transcript of it which by Gods appointment the Prince had and was obliged to read was no rule to him which how false it is will appear from Deut. 17 18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein that he may learn to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them By which the Reader will quickly discern what weight is in this part of the Discours That a Copy cannot be a certain rule for the Princes rule is but a Copy and the Transcription of that not limited to an infallible hand When Moses of old time was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Act. 15.21 it is to be presumed each of them had not the Original of God's writing yet was it never rejected from being a rule upon that account What rare work would this Notion make in a Kingdom if throughly prosecuted Belike the Captaine doth not hold his Statute book a rule to him because it is not the Original And observe the horrible partiality of these men The Decrees of the Pope or Councel suppose of Trent are a Rule and a certain one too to our English Papists though they have nothing of them but a Copy and a Translation but the Scripture cannot be a Rule because it is onely a Copy and Translation The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers when it is delivered onely by a Popish Priest and he confessedly fallible by word of mouth and it ceaseth to be a rule when it is delivered by writing by a fallible hand yet surely the one is but a copy as well as the other though made by diverse instruments 2. The copies and Translations of Scripture are a sure and certain rule because they do sufficiently evidence themselves to be the word
of God and the same for substance with the Originals The incorruption of the Scriptures in substantial things is sufficiently evinced from the confession of its greatest Adversaries the Papists from the consent of Copies taken by persons of several ages and far distant places and contrary principles from the innumerable multitude of copies every where dispersed and the constant jealousy and watchfulnesse of so many wise and zealous Christians ready to observe the least considerable corruption and give warning of it and many other considerations All those arguments which are pleaded both by Papists and Protestants for the Divinity of the Scripture they reach to copies and Translations In these as well as in the Original is the majesty of the Style the sublimity of the doctrines the purity of the matter the excellency of the design To these as well as the Originals God hath given so many signal testimonies by the conversion of thousands by frequent and illustrious miracles by the cooperation of his Spirit with them in the hearts of his people and many other arguments which when a Papist is in a good mood and disputing with a Pagan must passe for undeniable demonstrations of the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of the Scriptures And for the differences in Translations either noted by the Papists or confessed by any of the Protestants which the Captain makes a great Flourish with and other Papists make such triumphs at they are so petite and trivial and so little concerning the substance and foundation of Religion or the Scriptures that to me it affords an unquestionable evidence That our Translations are unblameable in fundamental places because all their great wits and learned Doctors to this day could not discover any such mistakes though they have made it their businesse to find them out But I shall say no more to this argument in this place having in the former part of the Treatise spoken to it A fifth argument is taken from the seeming contradictions which are in Scripture not resolveable by the Scripture Hence saith the Captain Reason conceiveth her self to have this infallible demonstration viz. no one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other is infallible in speaking but the Scripture so speaketh therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking Nay he might and should have said the Scripture is not credible in speaking and therefore say I by the vertue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge himselfe an unreasonable man or an Atheist I tell you it was good hap That in stead of the Catholick Gentleman he did not meet with an Atheist for the arguments which convinced him are indifferently calculated for either Meridian But for all those seeming contradictions the short Answer is this 1. That there are no such places but are capable of convenient reconciliations as hath been already made good by several learned men both Papists and Protestants who have professedly treated of those matters and discovered the vanity of this objection And if it were granted That there are some places which men have not yet hit upon the right way of reconciling them that is no evidence of the impossibility of it since we can give instances in others which in former times were thought as insoluble as any now are which the learning and diligence of after ages hath fully cleared from all semblance of contradiction 2. Those seeming contradictions are either reconciâ—eable out of Scripture or else are but historical difficulties not at all necessary to salvation The Captain should do â—ell to put the parts of his discourse together and see how they agree because he will not I will do it for him The Proposition which Protestants assert and he attempts to disprove is That the Scripture is a perfect Rule in things necessary to salvation This he disproves by instancing in some insoluble difficulties in matters unnecessary to salvation But we must pardon him it is vitium causae the cause affordes no better arguments A sixth argument is this Scripture is no sufficient rule because it is lyable to diverse and contrary expositions An invincible argument by which a man may dispute all Rules out of the world Probatur The Decalogue is no rule of life or manners for the Pharisees understood it one way Christ another Mat. 5. The Statutes of the Kingdome are no rule for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions The Decrees of Popes and Councels are no rule because lyable to diverse and contrary expositions so far that Gratian the compiler of their Canon Law hath one entire Title De Concordantia Discordantium Canonum i. e. concerning the reconciling of disagreeing Canons And there is this remarkable difference between the condition of the Romish and our affairs our differences are in the exposition and accommodation of the rule but Popish differences are in the Text and rule it self since there are amongst them not onely diverse and contrary expositions of the same Canon which yet is sufficient to take off all their glorying over us and to bring them to our levell but indeed there are contrary Texts the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another and one Councel to another Pope Stephâ—n nulls the decrees of Formosus the three next Popes null the decrees of Stephen and re-establish those of â—ormosus Sergius the third comes after and again nulls Formosus his decrees But I will tell you of a greater matter even no lesse then the Authentical Translation of the Bible Sâ—xthe 5th sets forth one Bible An. 1590 not rashly but deliberately with the advice of his Cardinals the assistance of the most learned men of all the Christian world they are his own words corrects the errors of the Press with his own hand imposeth this upon the whole Church Within 3 years comes Clemens the 8. and he puts forth another Edition not onely diverse but in several passages directly contrary to it for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves or to Dr. Iames his Bellum Papale and the Defence of it where he shall find above a thousand differences between them yet Cleâ—ens suppresseth all other Translations and enjoynes this for the oneâ—y Authentick Translation and so it is held to this day The like I might shew of Councels as it were easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Councels among themselves and yet forsooth the appearance of a contradiction must exauctorate the Scriptures when real contradictions shall not prejudice the Authority of Pope and Councel so true it is That some may better steal a horse then others look over the â—edge The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge then it was so in the Apostles dayes and if so the Authority of the Apostles ceased when they had done writing I Answer 1. The Consequence may very well be denied from the
Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the onely rule when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly Ergo it is not the onely rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Councel combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord. Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Councel Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of Gods Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather then for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equall Avthority the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis affâ—ctu ac reverentia with equall piety and reverence it consequently followes that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sence to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despoticall having dominion over the peoples Faith and being Lords over Gods Heritage but onely Ministeriall not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so farre as it concernes his own actions It is true and that Judgment as I have shewed the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an errour common to the Jewes of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every mans being Judge in words and shew yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captaine for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Councell is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Councell be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captaine or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called Rushworths Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtlesse si Pergama dextrâ Defâ—ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security aâ—quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture yet is onely upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written onely to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written meâ—rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Hereticks had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a
rule of Faith which must be so true and cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soule upon This is the summe of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and cleare and so evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and cleare and evident c. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtfull that it is not onely rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the VVorld men so absurdly scepticall that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equall Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concernes onely one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no speciall occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and Deâ—th and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine They are the Authors words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casuall to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not onely to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned untill the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Thâ—s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least diverse of them were written upon speciall occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproâ—fe c. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use no man that knowes any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them sorth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proofe but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turne for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been allready handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tels us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Hereticks the Jewes at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and
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
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
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
the Bishop of Avignon must succeed in the universall headshipâ— But I need say no more of so absurd a fancy Sect. 10. A second place of scripture is Ioh. 21. Peteâ— feed my sheep And this feeding must denote ruling as welâ— as teaching and this rule forsooth must needs be the supreme power and that power must bee attended withâ— infallibility and these sheep must be all the sheep in the world nay shephards too exceept the Pan or princepâ— pastorum at Rome Tantae molis erat Romanum conderâ— papam And this rope of sand must be called an argument by which one may see the intollerable confidence they have in themselves and their shamelesse contempt of the Readers whom they think obliged to receive all their dictates without enquiry I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome knew what they did when they invented the doctrine of an implicit faith and a blind obedience to all the Churches decrees for if men should once dare to open their eyes and examine their assertions all their craft would be in danger to be set at nought and the Temple of Dominus Deus noster papa as the Canon Law calls him would be despised and his magnificence would be destroyed whom so great a part of the world worshippeth But if indeed they will by Transubstantiation turn this handfull of straw into a pillar of their Church as I cannot blame one near drowning for catching at every twig then I shall offer these things to their consideration 1 That Bellarmine as his manner is bestowes seaven arguments to prove that which none ever denied that those words were spoken to Peter alone and neglects that which he should have disproved viz. the reason thereof given by Aug. Cyril Ambrose and others and after them the Protestants which was not the collation of a new dignity superior to that of the other Apostles but his restoration to his former dignity of the Apostleship from which by his great transgression he might seem to have fallen as Iudas really did fall by his Transgression Act. 1. 2. If this Text afford them any support they must have it either from the Act or the word Feed or from the object or phrase my sheep For the first By what Arts can the Supremacy of the Pope he drawn from that word or precept This feeding in the judgment of the Romanists themselves implies nothing but teaching and ruling and both those are ascribed to all the Apostles without any discrimination Mat. 28.19 20. Mat. 18. Iohn 20. And Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that not onely the power of Rule but the supreme power was conferred upon all the Apostles Nay they are ascribed to inferiour Ministers Heb. 13. Obey them that have the rule over you and 1 Tim. 5.17 The elders that rule well and to such the very same Precept is given 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders I exhort Feed the flock of God which is among you Doth Feeding in one place argue superiority and in another place imply subjection or rather in both places it seemes it signifies what the Pope pleaseth But you must know the Romish Doctors having called â—he Scripture a Lesbian Rule and a Nose of Wax they were bound in honour aut invenire aut facere either to finde it so or to make it such if it be said their charge 〈◊〉 limited to the Flock of God among them whereas Peters extends to all the sheep the Answer is easie if that â—e granted for then the difference doth not lie in the act of Feeding but in the object of which I now come to speak that is the second thing the phrase my sheep Granting therefore what Bellar. desires that he speaks of all the sheep yet herein S t Peter had no prerogative above the other Apostles who are equally commanded to teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19 to preach the Gospell to every Creature Mar. 16.15 And Peters Diocess surely cannot be larger unlesse happily Utopia be taken in or that which is in the same part of the world I meane Purgatory But you will say surely they have somewhat else to plead for themselves from this Text Why yes These good masters of the feast have reserved the best Wine to the last Here comes in a rare notion not fit to be prostituted to vulgar apprehensions you shall heare it upon condition you will not put them to the proofe of it which they are not bound to do for nemâ— tenetur aâ— impossibilia No man is obliged to do more then is in his power Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary Pastour the rest as extraordinary Ambassadors and with a certaine subjection to Peter If you ask doth this Text say so or any other Text or is there one syllable from whence this may be deduced you must remember the condition which I told you And what if this be granted how comes the ordinary power to be greater and higher then the extraordinary In the Old Testament generally the extraordinary officers the Prophets whom God raised were superior to the Priests And in the New Testament the Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary officers were superior to Pastors and Teachers which are the ordinary How come the Tables to be turned and the ordinary agent to be advanced above the extraordinary Ambassadors And what if all this be granted it edifies nothing unlesse two things be superadded of both which the Scripture is wholly silent and their proof failes them 1. They must prove that this power of feeding is transmitted to Peters Successors in a more peculiar manner then to the Successors of the other Apostles and that whatever power Peter had is deposited in their hand 2. That the Pope is this Successor to whom these things are concredited And these they do not pretend to prove from Scripture So that still the conclusion remaines intire That the Scripture is not to the Papists a solid and sure ground of Faith § 11. A third place alwaies in their mouths is Luke 22.31 Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith faile not A man would not believe if he did not see it with his own eyes that such Learned men as diverse of the Papists are should put any confidence in such broken reeds and shatter'd Arguments as this is Truely saith a learned man Hoc non est disputare sed somniare This is rather a dreame then an Argument What thoughts the Papists have of our English Sectaries is sufficiently known but I must needs do them this right to professe I do not know that Sect among us the Quakers excepted so absurd and impertinent in the all gations of Scripture for their most irrationall opinions as in sundry particulars and this especially the Papists are But because they shall not complaine of us as we do justly of them that we rather condemne them then confute them I shall shew the ridiculousnesse of this allegation to their purpose 1.