our guide but it was because you did not make a deep diligent search into them which is the reason as your Rhemists say Hereticks never find the Truth But why do you beguile your unwary Reader with this word viz. That the Scriptures are not a SOLE Guide thereby to let him think that you allow them in some sense to be a guide when indeed your following Arguments do manifestly declare that you would not have them to be any guide at all Your first Reason why the Scriptures are not a Guide is because they do not answer the end viz. the reconciling differences for those who pretend most to consult the Scriptures do most of all disagree in matters of faith and interpreting the Scriptures To this I answer First May not a Heathen or a Jew alledge the same Argument against Christianity it self and say that the Christian Religion is no safe way to happiness because of the differences that are among the Professors of it 2 May it not be said that the Apostles themselves were no certain Guides because they had divisions and contentions among them and that they had appears by the testimony of St. Paul himself Rom 16.17 Mark them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine c. And the same Apostle tells the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3.3 and 1 Cor. 11.19 That there was among them envyings strife and contention some holding of Paul and some of Apollo some of Cephas Nay he further tells them there must be Heresies among you that they that are approved might be made manifest 3 May it not as well be said of the Church of the Jews which you say were infallible that they were no Guide or at least no certain Guide because there were differences and contentions among them as there was between the Pharisees Sadduces and Essavaus it is said that the Sadduces denied the Resurrection Angels and Spirit as you say the Scriptures are no Guide to true faith because men differ and and disagree in matters of Faith But 4 May you not as well say that Christ is not the Saviour of the World and that he came not into the World to the end that the World might be saved because it doth not appear that all shall be saved as say the Scriptures are no Guide to end Controversies because all Controversies are not ended 5 May you not as well infer that the grace of God doth not teach men to deny ungodliness because some turn the grace of God into wantonness as say the Scriptures are no sure Guide to faith and salvation because many wrest them to their own destruction 6 May you not as well say that the Primitive Church were no infallible Guide to true faith because they had disagreements and contentions among them as the strife between the Eastern and Western Churches about the keeping of Easter and they excommunicating one another And the Question of Re-baptizing bred the like differences between the Bishops of Rome and the Western Bishops of one Party and Cyprian Dionysius and Firmilianus with most of the Eastern Bishops of the other Party Euseb Hist lib. 5. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 3. Cyp. Ep. 74 75. Soc. lib. 6. c. 17. Soc. lib. 6. c. 21. I say may not one more truly infer these were no Guides because they had dissentions and divisions among them as you may say the Scriptures are not a Guide because of the differences that are amongst Protestants 7 And lastly May I not infer as well from the like Premises because there is and hath been differences among the now-pretended Catholicks as I have already shewn that therefore their Church is no infallible Guide as you may say the men that consult Scriptures do not agree among themselves therefore the Scriptures are not the Guide Your second Reason followeth in the 17 pag. which is but the same in effect with the first therefore the former Answer may suffice onely you tell us a story of an Arian or as the Question of Questions hath it an Arian Cobler how that if you were to dispute with him about the Deity of Christ from Job 10.30 I and my Father are one by this Text you say you should think you had proved the Question But then you say your Arian would compare this Text with john 17.21 where Christ prayeth to his Father that his Disciples might be all one thing as thou Father are in me and I in thee But if you should urge the Arian further and tell him the Council of Nice gave the same Interpretation which you do you say the Arian would answer as the Protestants generally do that they have a worthy esteem of Councils as far as they agree with the Word of God but where they disagree in that he must contradict them all To which I Answer setting aside the contraversie between the Arians and Athanasians as not coming within the verge of our present question that if the Arian Cobler had been as Orthodox in all his other Opinions as he is in his opinion about the Holy Scriptures and Councels viz. to think reverently of Councels and agree with them as far as they agree with the World of Truth I say if this had been all this Arian Coblers Errour I should have judged him a better Christian then a Roman Shoo-maker or the Catholick Collier who could say no more for himself being tempted by the Devil at the point of death what his faith was Answered I believe and dye in the faith of Christs Church Being again demanded what the Faith of Christs Church was Answered The faith that I believe in See Apology Translated by Staplet p. 53. But you say That you can urge against an Arian the Authority of the Councel of Nice and their Interpretation of the Scripture by which they Infallibly decide the controversie And here you think you have a more certaine guide and ground of your Faith then others because they adhere to private spirits and private judgements up on the Scriptures whereas you adhere to general Councel To which I Answer First Doe you think that General Councels did speak and teach in more plainness of Speech and that they uttered words less subject to be wrested by wrong interpretations then the words of the Prophets and Apostles were who spake as they were inspired by the spirit of God Secondly How do you know that you have the true sense and meaning of the Councels determinations since their Decrees are as lyable if not more lyable to mis-interpretations then the Holy Scriptures The reason of this question is because you did not hear them your self and if you had heard them you might have mis-understood them but if you say you have read the Councels and so came to be informed I do further demand how you do believe by a Divine Faith that you do not mis-understand the Councels in what you read and so collect a false sense Thirdly If you shall say you have a Priest to teach you
the sense of the Councels by which you understand what Doctrines are Catholick and what Expositions of Scripture are true and what are false then I demand Fourthly How do you believe with a Divine Faith that what this private Priest teacheth is according to the Infallible Doctrine of the Church since he is a Man and may err and so teach his own private Opinion for the Infallible Doctrine of the Church Fifthly Whether you may not be more subject to mis-understand the Scriptures either by the errour of the Priest in Preaching or the frailty of your understanding in hearing then others are in the reading of the Holy Scriptures And if so why should you say the Scriptures are no guide because they may be mis-interpreted For shame forbear to blame the use of a thing because of the abuse of it What if some are to blame in that they have wrested the Scriptures to serve their own interests Are not you more to blame to wound these men through the sides of the Scripture What if as one well observes That some are blind and miss their way and others are drunk and stagger out of it Must we all conspire to wish the Sun out of the Firmament that we might follow a Will with a Wisp And yet this is your kind of reasoning that because some are perverse and froward and others are full of darkness prejudice and corrupt affections by which they cannot perfectly and infallibly judge of every truth that is contained in the Scripture therefore they must throw away the blessed word of God from being their rule and guide You proceed in p. 18. and tell us That the third Reason which you thought was forcible was that those who are thus far for sole Scripture do not say that one or any particular number of the Books of Scripture but all Scriptures written by inspiration of God do being joyned together make up this Rule and Judge Hence you say you concluded that if any of these Books were lost this Rule was not perfect Now that many of these Books were lost you say you proved from those that remain Num. 21.14 The Book of the Wars of the Lord and this you say is lost It is said of Solomon 1 King 4.3 2. that he spoke 3000 Proverbs and his Songs were 1000 and 5 You conceive you say that upon a just reckoning some of these will be wanting We finde named 2 Chron. 9.29 The Book of Nathan the Prophet the Prophesie of Ahijah and the Visions of Iddo these you say are lost as also those named 1 Chron. 29.29 The Book of Samuel the Book of Nathan the Book of Goda and it is clear from Mat. 27.9 That part of Jeremy is lost So also from Mat. 2.23 Where it was foretold that Christ should be called a Nazaren and 1 Cor. 5.9 Tells us that the Epistle which our Canon calls St. Pauls First Epistle was not truly his first for there he sayeth I wrote to you in an Epistle not to keep company with Fornicatours St. Paul also wrote an Epistle from Laodicea and yet you say you do not finde this Epistle In Answer hereunto I cannot but take notice that you say you THOUGHT this Answer was forcible but where was your Mother that she did not inable you to say you were SURE it was forcible But let us see wherein this force lyeth you say Protestants do not believe a certain number of Books to be their guide but all the Scriptures written by Inspiration from God make up this Rule and Guide and many of these Books are lost therefore this Rule is not perfect I Answer First That the Law of the Lord is perfect and every word of God is pure and therefore there can be no imperfections in the word of God but Secondly How doth it appear that any of those Books which you say were lost had a Divine Image and Superscription upon them or that they that did write them weâ—e inspired by the Holy Ghost in the writing of those particular Books For it is very possible that they wrote many things upon particular occasions as Hezekiah wrote to Ephraim and that sometimes their writings were of no more inspiration from Heaven then Davids Letters were that he sent to Joab by Uriah or then Peters practise for which Paul withstood him to the face But Thirdly What Infallible reason have you to prove that these sayings recited out of these Scriptures may not refer to the Books of Samuel and the Kings which we have extant rather then to any Books that are lost Fourthly How do you know that those writings however the Pen-men were inspired were intended by God for the perpetual use of his Church in all Ages Fifthly How do you Infallibly know that all the Canons or your Church even of those which you say are necessary to Salvation are preserved and that some very material things are not lost Sixthly If you say there is none lost then whether you do not make God in his wise providence more carefull to preserve intire and unmaimed the Canons of your Councels then he hath been to preserve the Writings of his Holy Prophets and Apostles And if you suppose any of the Decrees of your Councels hath been lost or maimed then how do you know Infallibly whether some that are lost are not as material as those you have Thus the edge of your sword is turned against your self But Seventhly If any of the Books of the Old Testament were lost that were by God intended for the perpetual use of that Church to whom his Oracles were committed how then can you say that the Church of the Old Testament was infallible since she failed in that trust that was committed to her viz. the keeping of the Scripture And if this was not a failing in her in that she lost part of the Scriptures then she had not failed if she had lost all and then it followeth that the Scriptures are so far from being a sole Guide that they are no guide at all for if they are a guide and a directer in any sense or if they are of any divine use then it must be an errour either of ignorance or wilfullnesse to suffer them to be lost or maimed Eighthly Whereas you say that the Epistle of St. Paul which your Canon calls the first to the Corinthians was not TRULY his first I Answer then your Canon doth falsely call it the first and then how shall we believe when your Canons are true You had best tell your Mother she lyes as soon as you can speak and then shew a reason for it by telling her That St. Paul saith he writ to the Corinthians an Epistle before Ergo there is an Epistle before that which your Canon calls the first But Chrysostome understands it of the words going before wherein he had charged them to deliver the incestious person to Satan and to purge out the old leaven And that you may see how little cause you have
it is ineffectual and so you must die without absolution or else you must grant that others beside a lawful Priest may remit sins But if none can do it but a lawful Priest Then Thirdly How shall you be infallible of those things that are necessary to make a true Priest as first that he was lawfully baptized with due matter and due form of words and that the Bishop which Ordained him a Priest did Ordain him compleatly with due matter form and intention You must know that the Bishop that made him a Priest was a Priest himself But suppose these doubts were assayled which cannot be and that you are certain he that is to absolve you were a true Priest yet still the doubt will remain whether he will do you that good he can and whether he will pronounce the words of absolution with an intent to absolve you For perhaps he may bear you some secret grudge and project your damnation for a revenge He may for ought you know be a secret Jew or Anti-Trinitarian and so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and salvation by this Sacrament that in his heart he laughs at all these things and thinks sin nothing and salvation but a word All these doubts must be clearly resolved before you can upon your Roman Catholick grounds assure your self that this man that absolveth you is a true Priest and that he giveth you true and effectual absolution or else when you have done all this for your salvation you may have the ill luck to be damned which makes salvation a matter of chance and not of choice and if so what are you the nearer for being a member of a pretended infallible Church Much more to this purpose might be urged and yet you cry out that the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds Whoever would be further satisfied in this matter I shall desire him to read that learned Treatise of Mr. Chillingworth Intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation Your next instance is The Contradiction that seems to appear in Scriptures which you say argues them to seem untrue and for this you instance 2 King 8.26 compared with 2 Chron. 22.5 and Mat. 1.17 compared with Luke 3.35 36. which places you say seem to contradict each other I Answer First If they are but seeming contradictions then they do not weaken the reputation of Scriptures Secondly The resolving those seeming contradictions are not necessary to salvation because it is not necessary to salvation to know when Ahazia began to Reign not whether there were 41 or 42 Generations between David and Christ and therefore those Objections weaken not the guidance of the Scriptures in all things necessary to salvation which is the thing in question But lastly why doth your Church put her candle under a Bushel why doth not she set forth an infallible translation of the Bible For it may be those seeming contradictions in those fore-cited places was occasioned by the errour of the Scribe or the errour of the Translatour But hath not greater inconveniences attended the keeping the Canons of your Church If they have not how comes it to pass that there is contradictions in Scripture and none in Councils It seems your Church hath faithfully preserved all things uncorrupted for the benefit of posterity but the word of God You proceed pag. 25. to a seventh Reason Why the Scriptures are not a sole guide because then they would have been so in the Apostles dayes and if they had then the Authority of the Apostles you say must have ceased so soon as they had made an end of writing I Answer That it doth not follow that the opinion of the Scriptures being the sole guide should exclude the Apostles from being guides when they were living May not a Man as well say that Peters being the sole head of the Church as you pretend did exclude Christ that gave him his Authority from being head while he was yet living on the Earth and that a man that directs and solely guides you by Epistles how to negotiate your affairs should thereby cease to be a guide if he were present with you or that he should thereby be rendred unable to resolve any doubtfull word in that direction No more doth it follow that the Scriptures being held to be the sole guide should exclude the Pen-men from either being guides or giving an infallible interpretation of their own words while they were yet alive But what is all this to the Romane Church being an infallible guide The Apostles might be guides to the Churches while they lived both by their words and writings But since they are deceased we know no furer guide then their words to which to do well to take heed as to a light that shineth in a dark place And for those other things that you say follow in probability upon the Scriptures being our guide I shall say nothing to them because they are but probable conjectures of your own brain Your last reason which you urge why the Scripture is not a sole Judge is Because you say in effect it is to make it no judge at all but to make every man and woman to be their own judge to take upon them to read and understand them May you not as well say that your Church is not the judge because every man and woman must judge for themselves whether she be so or no before they joyne in Communion with her As say the Scriptures are not so because a man must judge for himself whether he rightly understand it or no Is there not as great a controversie in the World which is the true Church among all the pretenders to it as there is which is the right sense of Scriptures among the various readings and interpretations thereof Now how doth a mans judging for himself after he hath weighed Arguments and compared Text with Text render the Scripture to be no guide any more then your hearing and examining all the Arguments and Reasons which are alledged for the True Church among all pretenders to it and afterward according to your understanding judge which is true renders your self and not your Church the true guide And yet this is your Argument Every man judgeth for himself which is the true sense therefore the Scriptures are in themselves no judge at all In the close of this Argument p. 26. You conclude That if God loved the souls of Men he would have provided some sure means by which they might have been assured of the true faith c. without leaving them to the Scriptures to be interpreted by each one as he thinks best May not I reply as before That if God loved the souls of men he would have left them some sure means to finde the True Church among the many false pretenders to it and not have left it to themselves to choose which Church in their private Judgement they shall think is the true one Having done with
These promises to the Church are made upon condition like that promise Ezekiel 36.27 I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes here to use your own words is the Spirit of Truth promised to preserve them from errour But this is not absolutely promised without condition for the 37 ver saith For all this he will be enquired of them And to this agrees those Texts in the New Testament Act. 5.32 The holy Ghost which God hath promised to them that obey him Luke 11.13 My heavenly Father shall give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him By all which it appears that God did not promise to guide the Church absolutely and irresistably whether they would or no but upon their faithful adhering to what they had been taught he promiseth his Spirits continual supply for their continual instruction But 4. Whereas it is said Esay 35.8 that there shall be away that fools shall not err therein which is a Text so much insisted on by you I demand whether this Text doth imply an impossibility of erring If so then we may as well go to a Fool to be guided as to a Pope because it saith The wavering men though Fools shall not err therein so that this Text as truly concludes infallibility in any body as in the Pope and his Council But 5. To speak somewhat in particular to that Text Esay 59.21 As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor but of the mouth of thy seeds seed from heneforth and forever To this Text I answer That these words are rather a charge that Gods Word should not depart from them and their seed then a promise of any such thing And therefore Mr. Calvin whom you sometimes produce upon the like occasion grants that the words will bear an Imperative construction God requiring them thereby not to quench his Spirit which he puts into them nor forsake his Word which he should teach them so that as the Covenants on his part to give them his Word and Spirit so he requires on their part that they should not resist nor quench it and to this agrees Junius and therefore he translates those word in the beginning of the verse As for me De me autem i. e. but as much as concerns me thereby shewing that as God had concerned himself in putting his Word and Spirit into them so they were concerned to see that it did not depart from them And therefore unless you can prove that the Church of Rome is the Church here prophesied of and also that these Texts are not understood conditionally and if conditionally that the Church of Rome hath observed these conditions you have but beaten the air in the citation of them You proceed to a fourth Argument to prove that there must be an infallible Church from several Texts of the New Testament the first is Mat. 16.19 Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To which I answer First that you have lost the Original of St. Mathews Gospel as you confess and therefore you know not whether this Text be so in the Original and this further appears because you say pag. 20. that you cannot tell whether he that translated it was an honest man or not But 2. The words upon which this Controversie depends viz. the Rock and the Gates of Hell are a Metaphorical expression from whence Logically you cannot infer your conclusion 3. No Scripture is of private interpretation Now to interpret the prevailing of the gates of Hell for the prevailing of Errour is a private interpretation first because Errour and Heresie is never so called in all the Scripture 2. Because Sheol which the Greek translates haiden or haides and we in English Hell is frequently taken for the Grave And of this mind was Chrysostom who paraphrasing upon these words of Christ saith If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church much more shall they not prevail against Christ therefore be not troubled when thou shalt hear that I am betrayed and crucified By which it doth appear that this Author understands by the gates of Hell prevailing that Death and the Grave should neither prevail over Christ nor his Church and therefore he could not understand thereby that it was a promise the Church should not err and that the gates of Hell is understood for the gates of the Grave see Esay 38.10 Hezekiah said when the fear of death came upon him that he should go to the gates of Sheol i. e. Grave So Job 38.17 Psal 9.13 Psal 107.18 4 Again As the gate of Hell cannot be understood for Error so the Rock here spoken of cannot be understood for Peters person because it is more agreeing with the sense of the place being compared with other Scriptures and the Analogie of Faith to understand it of Christ who is the Rock of Ages and the chief Corner-stone Ephes 2.20 and 1 Cor. 10.4 they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ So that Peter having professed Christ to be the Son of the living God our Lord tells him that Upon this Rock or Christ whom he had made profession of he would build his Church and that though he might be put to death to use the words of Chrysostome yet Peter ought not to be troubled because death should not have dominion over him the gates of death should not prevail against him who will swallow up death in victory But lastly What if we pity the poor and grant you that which you are never able to prove viz. that by the Gates of Hell not prevailing should be understood that Errour and Heresie should not prevail against the Church Yet it doth not follow from hence that the Church shall be preserved from all Errour Might you not as well say that none that believe can sin because sin shall not have dominion over them and that it was impossible for Saints to die because Christ hath promised them the victory over death as say that because Christ hath promised Errour shall not prevail over them that therefore it is impossible the Church should err in any thing Your next Scripture is Mat. 18.17 He that will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican I answer 1 It doth not follow from hence that the Church cannot err no more then it followeth from your former Arguments that the Scribes and Pharisees could not err because Christ commanded to hear them But 2 This Text proves more then you allow for it proves that particular Churches cannot err for of such a Church Christ speaks and not of the Church representative in a general Council my reason is because one that is offended with his brother if
the unjust excommunicating Athanasius Again The Council of Constance deposed Pope John 23. where it was proved that he held there was no eternal life nor Immortality of the soul nor Resurrection of the dead Pray Sir let Reason judge whether I may follow such a Catholick Guide You add a third Reason to prove that Reason is not judge in matters of Faith for then say you it would follow that it is possible to please God for Reason would teach us how to please him May not a man from the same Premises infer that your Church is not the Judge because then it would follow that it is possible to please God without Faith because the Church would teach us how to please him But you will say the Church doth teach us to please God by Faith I say it is well if she do But what is this to the purpose she did not teach us to please God by Faith before it was required and made known to us that God would be so pleased In like manner Reason will direct a man to do the same when he is informed God requireth such a duty But must not the Scripture nor my private Spirit nor my Reason judge I pray then tell me how I shall be the better for all you have written for if my Reason must not judge of the fallibility and infallibility of your Arguments then you had as good have told your late Brethren thus My Bâ—â—â—tren I see that there is a great difference and contention among us whether the Roman Church be infallible or not This Controversie cannot be judged by a private Spirit for that may sail nor by Reason because mens Reasons are uncertain and subject to variation neither are the Scriptures an infallible Judge of Controversies therefore they cannot judge of this Let me therefore advise you of a way to decide this question First Agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will soon be ended An excellent advice because you say all other ways to judge and decide controversies are fallable You now come in the third place to enquire whether the Scripture be sufficient to teach us the true Faith c. You say You found this highly contended for and several reasons urged for it First The words of our Saviour John 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them you think to have eternal life and they are they which testifie of me To this Text you say you found several answers given which were satisfactory I That it doth not appear whether this in the Original be the Im perative or the Indicative Mood St. Cyril you say with whom Beza agrees takes it in the Indicative Mood What a strange Mood are you in then to give an Answer to a Text which you say you were satisfied withal And in the same breath you say it doth not appear whether it be the Imperative or the Indicative Mood Do you think infallibility had any assinity with this Answer Nay you further say that they are so farr from being a Command to all to road and search the Scriptures that they RATHER SEEM a Reprehension to all that shall frame that Conceit of them But how can this sense of that Text be Catholick when in stead of an infallible Exposition you tell us it RATHER SEEMS to be so then otherwise But what if I should tell you that those words Search the Scriptures rather seem a Command then a Reprehension I should rather seem to be infallible then you You say If it be the Indicative Mood the sense will run thus You do search the Scriptures and so it seems to be a Reprehension But this is a sense contrary to Chryfostome Hom. 39. in Joan. Christ sayes he sends us to the testimony of the Scriptures then it cannot be that he should reprehend them And the Colledge of Rhems translating the Text as we do give this Interpretation of it He viz. Christ reprehendeth the Jews not for reading but that reading dayly the Scriptures and acknowledging that in them they should find life that yet they viewed them so superficially that they could not find therein him to be Christ their King Lord Life and Saviour And in the Marginal Note upon this Text they say that neither Jews nor Hereticks find the truth because they search not the Scriptures deeply but read superficially See Rhemish Annot. upon John 5. Now see how you contradict your selves you say the Scriptures are so far from being a Command to all to read and search that they rather seem to be a reprehension to all that shall frame that conceit of them And your Rhemish Commentators say that they are reprehended because they did not search deep enough for if they had they might have found Jesus to have been their Christ their King Lord Life and Saviour And how can the said Annotators give that as a reason why the â—ews and Hereticks did not find the Truth because they did not search the Scriptures deep enough If either of these two opinions of your be true 1 That men are reprehended for searching the Scriptures 2 That the Scriptures are not an infallible guide to direct us to find the Truth if the whole Colledge have translated and interpreted truly then surely you and many of your Authors speak falsly But if you shall say the Scriptures may direct Jews and Hereticks to the truth because they direct them to the Church which is the Pillar of Truth then it follows 1 That both Jews and Hereticks ought to search the Scriptures deeply to find out the true Church 2 It must rest upon their private judgments of discretion to determine within themselves whether the Romanists or the Protestants be that true Church after they have made this deep and diligent search 3 It follows that the Scripture is an infallible guide being deeply and diligently searched and that the reason why both Jews and Hereticks err is not the fallibleness of the Scriptures but want of diligent and deep search which being used they might have found Christ to have been their King Lord Life and Saviour they might have found the Truth and the Church and consequently all things necessary to Eternal life You come in the 14 pag. to give a second reason why the words search the Scriptures cannot extend to prove the conclusion because you say if they were uuderstood in the Imperative Mood which cannot infallibly be proved because they cannot be profitable to work Faith in them that cannot read which you say are the greatest part of Mankind You say it cannot infallibly be proved that those words search the Scripture are in the Imperative Mood but have you that pretend to Infallibility proved that they are in the Indicative Mood What a madness is this that you should exact infallible Interpretations from those that do profess fallibility and not perform an infallible Interpretation when you pretend to be guided by a Church that is infallible But
to enveigh against Protestants for their private doubtfull and uncertain expounding of Scriptures Let me give you the exposition of a whole Colledge of Catholicks upon this very Text under debate Either say they St. Paul means this Epistle in the words before or some other See the Rhemists marginall Note upon the place Surely this is infallible indeed it is either this or some other At this rate of Infallibility any private spirit shall interpret Scriptures all day long viz. either this is the sense or some other Ninthly and Lastly If any Canonical Scripture be lost will not this redound to the prejudice of the Romane Church Since they acknowledge that they only are the Church and that the Church is the keeper of Divine Truths and that they have been the conservatours of the Scriptures to posterity Now if any Books be lost as you say there is how have they infallibly kept what they say was long since committed to their trust Thus you desperatly venture to wound the reputation of the Scriptures though you make the Sword by which you do it to pass through the reins of your darling infallibility In pag. 19. you come to a Fourth Reason Why the Scriptures cannot be a guide to conveigh Divine and Infallible faith to all and that is because they cannot be understood by all nay you say they are very subject to be mis-understood if we will believe the 2 Pet. 3.16 Where speaking of St. Pauls Epistles he saith there were some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own destruction It is in vain you say to urge that the Scriptures are plain and easie in fundamentals and in what concerns salvation for we have here a plain testimony that they are wrested to their own destruction therefore they cannot be a safe rule nor any rule at all to the ignorant c. Though this Argument be answered already yet I answer further in the words of a learned man That if the Scriptures are so hard to be understood and the Pope can infallibly interpret them what a madness and childishness is it for the Catholicks themselves to lie swaggering and contending with one another before all the world with fallible mediums about the sense of Scripture when they have one among them that infallibly can interpret them and that with such Authority as all men are bound to rest in and contend no further And the further mischief of it is that of all the rest this man is always silent as to exposition of Scripture who alone is able to part the fray Now methinks this argues a great want of good nature that the Pope can see his Children so fiercely wrangle about the sense of Scripture and yet will not give out the infallible meaning of every place and so stint the strife among them seeing he can do it if he will But again how doth it follow that because the Scriptures are hard to be understood and are by some wrested to their damnation that therefore they are either no Guides at all or at the best but uncertain ones Pray let me ask you a question or two May you not as well say that Christ was no infallible Guide because many of his words were wrested by the Jews to their destruction as that of his destroying the Temple and building it in three days Job 2.19 And did not they wrest his words to their own destruction when Christ said Mat. 26.64 65. that he was the Son of God and they thereupon said he had spoken blasphemy and therefore needed no other witness against him and likewise they said he blasphemed when he told the man that was sick of the Palsie that his sins were forgiven So that speech of Christ was hard to be understood to learned Nicodemus Job 3. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Doth it follow from hence that Christ was not an infallible Guide Again are the Canons and Decrees of General Councils more secure from being misinterpreted then the Scriptures or do they use more plainness of speech then the Spirit of God used in the Scriptures or is nothing that they determine of necessity to salvation If so then why may not their words be wrested to the destruction of those that are unlearned or unstable as well or rather as ill as the Scriptures And if so I demand whether this be not as good nay a better Argument against themselves viz. some wrest the judgment and definitions of the Church to their destruction Ergo the Church is not an infallible Guide to all nor indeed any Guide to the ignorant which are the greatest part of mankind Is not this the same if not a better argument then to say the unlearned wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction Ergo the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide to all nor any Guide at all to the ignorant I come now to consider your 5 Reason which is That if the Scriptures be a Guide Rule and Judge it must onely be meant of their true Original and Authentick Writings and not of corrupted Copies and therefore if we have not the true Originals our rule is imperfect And again pag. 20. you say If we had the Originals it would be hard to find a man that doth so infallibly understand the Originals as to give us a true translation This you endeavour to prove out of several Protestant Writers pag. 20. 21. viz. That we have not the Originals themselves nor undoubted Translations and therefore the Scriptures are not an infallible Guide To which I answer That though what hath been spoken already might suffice to this Argument yet to make full measure running over let me add that this very Objection lieth with the like force against General Councils For first how do you know with a divine certitude that you have the true Original and Authentick Writings wherein those Decrees were contained Secondly How do you know with a divine certitude whether the Scribe that committed them to Writing was an honest man or not Thirdly How do you know with a divine certitude that these Councils Decrees and Canons are truly and infallibly translated since they were written in a Language that I know not If you say I have them translated by private Doctors then I query if private Doctors are infallible If they are what need is there of a Pope or a General Council If they are fallible why may they not fail when they tell me they have faithfully interpreted and translated the sense of Councils and Fathers But if they being private persons can give the true sense of Councils and Fathers why may not men of the same ability for Learning and Piety give as perfect a Translation and as infallible an Interpretation of the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets So that the Argument cuts as much with one edge as the other If the Scriptures be guide
mouth of the Pope or Chief Pastour then I querie whether it may not be possible for him to erre since many Popes have been Hereticks and have taught contrary to the Law of God as that Pope did that told King Henry the 8th he might marry his Brothers Wife Sixthly But suppose the Pope did not erre in giving me the true sense of Councils and their Decrees then I querie How every private person shall have his judgment informed in the Truth without going to Rome Seventhly If you say he may be resolved at home by the Pastours in several places then I querie whether those Pastours may not erre since it is manifest that the several Pastours and Churches of Asia did erre and then how can the members of this Church be sure they are under an Infallible conduct to Eternal Life and that these Pastours teach according to the Doctrine of the Infallible Church VIII Since you say that General Councils Lawfully Called by the Pope their chief astour cannot erre I querie How I shall be infallibly assured when Councils are so called Since sometimes the Pope may come in by Simony and Usurpation as Boniface the 3 did and sometimes be a Heritick as Lyberius was who subscribed the Excommunication of Athanasius in which cases they ceasing to be lawfull Popes I would then know how I can be sure of a lawful Council IX Since there must be alway a lawfull succession of Popes to make a lawfull succession of True Ministers How shall I know infallibly that the Minister that I heat did lawfully so succeed and this I would know because if he be not a lawfull Minister I may not lawfully hear him And since that sometimes Hereticks have been Popes and sometimes the Chair hath been Usurped and once a Woman was Pope and sometimes there hath been two at once How shall I that am to hear a private Pastour know whether his Ordination did succeed from a lawfull Pope and not from some of these X. How shall I know what Council I may infallibly adhere unto since one Council hath opposed another and some cleave to one Council and some to another the Roman Church they test in the Niceen Council the Greek Church they rest in the Council of Arminum both which are contrary to the other how shall any one be assured of the truth of all those things with a divine certitude And yet you make the world believe that all your wayes are so plain that a fool cannot erre in them and that the Scriptures are doubtfull guides when no Religion in the World is perplexed with more doubts then yours XI If your Roman Church be this Infallible Church and all her Doctrines Infallible then I querie if it be not sinfull to doubt of the Truth of what she teacheth XII If it be not a sin to doubt of what your Church teacheth then why do you blame us for questioning your Infallibility XIII But if it be a sin to question the Churches Doctrine then how came the Baraeans to be commended for searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul preached was so or not and whether might not their searching the Scriptures have run them upon all those inconveniencies of mistaking by false Pointings corrupted Copies false Interpretations to the multiplying of Sects and Hereticks if it might why are they commended for searching XIV How can the reason of the Jews erring be because they did not know the Scriptures if the knowledge of them would not have been a sufficient guide to the Truth XV. But if you shall say we cannot know the Scriptures but by the true Church then I querie how shall I know the true Church since there are as many different opinions about which is the true Church as there is about which is the true sense of Scriptures XVI If you say the Scriptures decide the question and guide us to the true Church then whether this be not to speak Daggers to prove the knowledge of the Scriptures by the Church and the knowledge of the Church by the Scriptures XVII But if you say we know the Church by universal Tradition then I querie whether your Church can be so known since a great part of the Christian World hath and doth disown her witness the Greek Church together with most of the Churches in Europe XVIII Whether then you can shew such an universal Tradition for your Pope and Church as we can do for the Scriptures to which we do well to take heed as to a light that shineth in a dark place till the day dawn and the Day-star arise in our hearts XIX Where was the Infallibility of the Roman Church in the time of Athanasius when he complained totus mundus Arianizat that the whole world Ariantized XX. I demand Where will be the Visibility and Infallibility of your Roman Church in the time of the great Antichrist which your Rhemish Annotators say shall come towards the end of the World and abolish the publick Exercise of all Religion wherein consisteth the worship of the true God and shall pull down all kind of Religious worship save that which shall be done to himself alone See Rhem. Annot on 2 Thess 2.4 How will your Church appear conspicuously and universally to be a guide to Fools infallibly in those days FINIS