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
nothing was further from their thoughts and suppose a lesse number of the Fathers did in that age contradict it though the contradictours happily either did not commit their opinion to Writing or if they did their Writings might be suppressed by the major part as hath been the lot of most Ages or by the injury of time are lost which the Papists cannot say was impossible for the Writings of the Fathers seeing they tell us that de facto some of the Books of Holy Scripture are lost The next age comes and understands the truth of what I have now supposed The question is Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a sufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and infallibility Melchiôr Canus saith No Now then the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions which the Age immediately next remembred The question is whether that foundation which was insufficient to the precedent Age is now through their ignorance of such contradiction become sufficient to the following Age if they affirme it it would become the Jesuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is it seems not onely the Mother of Devotion but of assurance and certainty of knowledge if they deny it they confesse the weaknesse of their assertion In short he that will lay the foundation of his Faith upon such a quicksand must either prove the negative that there was no such contradiction as we have supposed which is impossible or confesse his Faith relies upon the Sand which is dreadfull And againe admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition I have given severall instances wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers and that there were severall Doctrines which if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine but what they had by Tradition the Fathers receaved by Tradition wherein they were de facto mistaken and why might they not be mistaken in this Wee all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the second and third Centuries though it be said all came from the mistake of Papias an honest but credulous Doctor And dare these men venture their Souls upon it that Papias was the onely credulous Author and that this was the onely mistaken Tradition or that it was impossible for those Fathers who were so many of them imposed upon by one credulous person in one point to be imposed upon by another in other points All these and many other uncertainties must not onely be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility § 6. The second particular is this That if the Antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition for they might believe it upon other grounds It is evident they believed many nay to speak the truth all Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures and why might it not be so with this Why might not the Fathers believe this if they did believe it upon the same misapprehensions and mistakes which the Papists at this day runne into concerning the sence of those Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels And consequently the Fathers opinions of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles but only that this was their opinion wherein no lesse then in other points they were subject to errors as I have proved § 7. The third Proposition is this It doth not appeare that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels For triall hereof I shall refer my self to those Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary position Bel brings three Arguments to shew that the Antient Fathers held that generall Councels could not erre and not one of them speak to the point His first Argument is this They affirme that the sentence of a generall Councell in the cause of Faith is the last judgment of the Church from which thâ—re lies no appeale and which cannot be made void or retracted Hence it evidently followes that such Counsels cannot erre because else it were a very unjust thing to compell Christians that they should nâ—t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious I Answer 1. S t Austin did hold that the sentence of a generall Councell might be retracted though not by private Christians yet by a â—ollowing generall Councell former generall Councels saith he are corrected by the later of which more by and by and that is enough to shew he did not believe it infallible 2. The Consequence is weak and denied by the Protestants and therefore might be denied by the Fathers If the consequence be infirme now it could not be strong then and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara who tels us that Calvin and Robertus Baronius and all the Protestants and some others who deny the Infallibility of generall Councels do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Councell hath a detâ—rmining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme Nor is it unjust but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefes that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority beyond which there might be no appeale And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civill affaires though he be confessed to be Fallible so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible provided it be granted which the Protestants with the Fathers do assert and have proved that such Judicatories do not bind the conscience but onely regulate the outward Acts and prevent visible Confusions § 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmines second Argument which is this The Fathers and Councels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of generall Councels are Hereticks and deserve excommunications and therefore they thought such Councels could not erre Answer 1. I deny the Consequence againe for the now mentioned reason The civill cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrates Infallibility as the Ecclesiasticall cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Councell doth prove the Councels Infallibility 2. The Fathers did not account men Hereticks meerly because they rested not in the sentence of a Councell as such for then they should have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels but because the Doctrine which they opposed and the Councels asserted was true and so it was the verity of the Doctrine not the Conciliarity if you will pardon the word of the sentence by which they judged of Hereticks
delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak what hinders but that they may understand them in contrary senses and so derive from them contrary conclusions and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S. Peter's mouth Are there not sharp contests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points and that too among those who were present upon the place and heard their debates And will these men still undertake to prove that Snow is black or which is equivalent to it that it was impossible to do tâ—at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tels us a man is justified by faith â—thout the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sence Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrot who can say that hath any care what he saith that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book could not as easily have mistaken them when they heard them from his mouth Especially if it be considered that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembring their various expressions might not derive contrary Traditions from them why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as excluding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification and the others have understood Iames as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied then it follows unavioidably that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition which was the thing to be proved Another instance we have in the Sadduces whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel was teaching that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul no resurrection of the body yet we ought to serve God his Scholar Sadok so mis-understood him that he broached a new doctrine and turned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical and asserted that there was no resurrection of the body nor immortality of the soul c. And will these men pawn their souls on it that it was impossible for the Apostles hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee the Evangelist observes that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren that that Disciple should not dye vers 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shews for common hearers to mis-understand the words and mistake the sense of a Preacher when they are but newly come from him and all things are fresh in their memory what a desperate assertion is this that a man can certainly remember the words and infallibly understand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers it may be twenty years ago And if it be granted as it cannot be denied that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks and so of the fourth and further untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome To clear this further consider what I have already intimated § 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remembred and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Trâ—dition of the first age was this That God alone was to be worshipped not men not Angels not Images Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then the Fathers unanimously did in this particular Now comes the next age and they receive indeed this Tradition but then here ariseth a question In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped S. Austin takes it up and saith they meant that God alone was to be worshipped with Latria and the Saints with Dulia And although it is evident enough that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship he appropriates it to God yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his perverse successors gave rise to another controversy viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature And thus as in the throwing of a stone upon the water one circle begets another so doth one controversy ingender another and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition Take one Instance more S. Gregory the great Pope delivers this doctrine to posterity as his doctrine and the doctrine of his Ancestors that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop is proud profane abominable wicked blasphemous and the forerunner of Antichrist This is confessed Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bishop in order to this they start a question where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop For this is a Maxime let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is alwaies orthodox Oh say these Sophi Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor Iohn never dreamed of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholick Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever ought to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to shew how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in
sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith according to their Principles and that the popes pretended Infallibility hath no solid foundation there But when they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to the Fathers and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers And therefore that must be considered in the next place CHAP. III. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Fathers Prop. 3. Sect. 1. THe third Proposition then is this The Faith of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers This the rather deserves consideration because they make their great boast of it and urge it as a principall Pillar of their Faith It is asserted in their Cannon Law That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion yet they generally agree in this That the Authority of the Fathers especially where they consent is a solid Foundation for their faith to rest upon Hence those expressions of their great Doctors Take away the Authority of Fathers and Councels and all things in the Church are doubtfull and uncertaine Eccius From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities have the certainty of their assertions and Councels have their decrees Sixtus Senensis Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Romanists laies down this Conclusion That the common sence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certaine Argument to confirme Theologicall assertions For saith he the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of Gods Spirit And a little after Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophicall Conclusion yet in the exposition of Holy Scripture you are bound to believe your Ancestors though they give you no reason for it and to defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them of the Law of faith and of Religion And a little after All those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faith All the Fathers together do never erre nor can they agree in one error saith Bell. The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined when all or almost all do agree in one opinion saith Salmeron That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is Infallibly true saith Gregory de Valentiá from all which we plainly see that according to their opinion the judgment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith That is it which I am now to disprove and to shew That the Writings of the Fathers neither are nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith § 2. Onely let me premise two things 1. I would not be misunderstood as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiquity ability and integrity but onely to denie that pretended infallibility which none did more dislike then themselves as we shall see hereafter Let them have all the honour which is due to the most worthy men not acted by divine inspiration but let them not have that Honour which belongs to God onely and his inspired ones We grant their Testimony is highly credible especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended but seldome proved viz. an universall consent but their Authority is not infallible 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgment of the Fathers of the first 600 years or suspecting their partiality on the Popes side I know sufficiently and so may any man whom the God of this World hath not blinded that doth but read what our Learned Divines have said in this particular or with his own eyes look into the Fathers that there is is not one considerable point in controversie between us and the Romanists but if judgment were to be given by any impartiall person from the Fathers excepting those who are evidently demonstrated to be spurious Authors their mouths would presently be stopped and their cause and confidence lay'd in the dust onely because that work is so thoroughly done by others and would swell this into a voluminous bignesse I shall forbeare that and proceed to handle what I proposed and P shall prove the proposition by foure Arguments 1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Papists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture for the decision of controversies do no lesse overthrow all the Authority of the Writings of the Fathers When they attempt to disprove the Authority of the Scriptures considered in themselves these are then Arguments universally owned and urged God would not have his Church depend upon Paper-Books saith Costerus Scripture say they cannot decide controversies because it cannot summon and heare both parties it cannot compell trangressours to obedience it doth not particularly condemne Hereticks It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere Gretser you are in an errour It speaks doubtfully and men dispute about the sence of Scripture and so controversies will be endlesse Hence I thus argue Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority or they are not If they be not then the Scripture must be owned as Judge of Controversies notwithstanding all those Arguments If they be valid against the Authority of Scriptures why are they not as strong against the Authority of the Fathers Or what difference is there in this particular between the writings of the Scripture and of the Fathers Are the writings of S t Paul deaf that they cannot hear parties and dumbe that they cannot deliver sentence and can the Writings of St Austine heare and speake Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an errour And do the writings of Ierome or Ambrose say Luther you are in an error Cannot S t Paul condemne Hereticks and compell transgressors to obedience and can S t Cyprian do it What offence hath St Paul done that Peters Successors should thus degrade him sure Manet altâ mente repostum they bare him a grudge for reproving S t Peter Gal. 2. And so now they are even with him In short forasmuch as the Arguments and premises are wholly the same concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers either the authority of both of them must be receaved as Judges of Controversies or else both must be rejected For in pari causâ idem jus say the Lawyers in the same cause there is the same right Againe another of their Arguments Why the Scripture cannot of it selfe be a ground of Faith is this because without the Church we cannot know which books of Scripture are genuine and which are spurious This is the great Argument of Stapleton and all other Romish Doctors In like manner I argue the writings of the Fathers cannot in themselves be a solid ground of my faith because without the Churches judgment I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine
bloud of Christ Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers and extenuate and excuse them and oft times by some divised fiction we deny and put a convenient sense upon them when they are opposed against us in disputations with our adversaries we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity and diligent recognition And thus they deale with the Fathers when they displease their humor and oppose their doctrines But if the Fathers deliver any thing that seems to countenance their conceits then every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical and every word an argument then the Fathers have done playing and quibling then they have opened their minds fully and given us their most serious and last thoughts § 8. And lest you should think it was only the opinions of several Fathers which they despised I shall acquaint you with their practice in case of consent of the Fathers or the major part of them That the Angels were corporeal was the opinion of most of the Fathers saith Pererius For this opinion Sixtus Senensis reckons up Origen Lactant Athenas Methodius Hilarius Damascinus Cassianus and the secound Councel of Nice to whom Maldonat addes as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexan Theodoret Tertullian Ambrose Augustine c. such a Constellation one shall seldome find in any controverted opinion Yet hear what Senensis saith I think the contrary opinion is the trust If a Protestant had said as much what tumults and tragedies would it have raised in the Romane Court how would all the world have rung with it So again that I may further lay open this Romish imposture I shall represent to the reader's consideration that controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin what is the common and current doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day is sufficiently known from the decree of the Councel of Trent concerning Original sin in which decree they expresly tell us they would not have her included and from the severe constitutions of Sixtus the fourth and Paul the fifth and Gregory the fifteenth Popes against those that should presume to teach this Doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin and from the practice of divers Popish Universities who have not only received the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin but bind their members by solemn oath to own it and from the writings of multitudes of the most eminent Popish writers who positively assert it as Delrio Henriquez Azâ—rius Suarez Vasquez Salmeron Acosta Abulensis Canus Navarrus and a world of others Now let us see whether in this point they made the consent of Fathers their rule or which is equivalent what was the judgment of the antient Fathers therein which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves then which they cannot desire a fairer tryal Hear Canus All the antients that make any mention of this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as Ambrose Aug Chrys c. and none of them contradicted that assertion and then he addes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Romish opinion That the argument from authority is weak and the contrary doctrine is probably and piously defended in the Church of Rome And he confesseth he knew no other way to confute this argument of Erasmus against the authority of the Fathers then by saying the opinion was not de fide or no matter of faith A remedy as bad as the disease 1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine is not de fide till the Pope or Councell have determined it from whence would follow amongst many other grosse absurdities 1. That it was not de fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias no Councell having determined it 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not de fide before the Councell of Nice 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Councell revealing it in their Decrees But I need say no more of this because it is rejected by diverse of their own most Learned Authors It is the common opinion of Doctors that a Councell doth not make a thing to be of Faith but denies or declares that such a thing is or formerly was de fide as the Holy Fathers abundantly confirme saith White 2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine For the Councell of Basil had positively defined and determined it as pious and agreeable to Faith reason and Scripture to be embraced by all Catholicks and that it should be lawfull to no man to teach the contrary This put S Clara so hard to it that he is forced to this horrible shift that they onely defined it tanquam piam consonam fidei Now the termes tanquam consonam are termes of diminution But to returne Salmeron treating of this point tels us that his Adversaries reckon 200 others 300 Fathers against his and the Romish Doctrine of the immaculate conception Well what is his Answer Really it is so full of Heresy that I fear they will chide me for translating it he tels you The Argument from Authority is weak I Answer saith he from Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not speak in a cause to incline after many to wrest judgment as Augustine answered the Donatists it was a signe that a cause wanted truth which leaned upon Authority That the younger Doctors see further then the antients that is to say the Romish Doctors are wiser then the Antient Fathers I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors the next time the purging humour takes them they richly deserve a roome in the Iudex expurgatorius And yet these are the onely adorers of the Antient Fathers that tell you We do not receive part of the Doctrine of the Fathers and reject part but we embrace it all saith Duraeus We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian These are they that hold the Fathers to be uncorrupted judges of Controversies whom God would not suffer to fall into error and lead others into it saith Costerus Will you see more of this mistery of iniquity I shall onely name the rest Diverse Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the generall opinion of the Fathers That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought to be given to Infants So Maldonate The Opinion of S t Augustine and Innocent the first a Pope and therefore his opinion infallibly true flourished in the Church for 600 years that the Eucharist was necessary to Infants That the Lords Supper should be receaved by the people in both kinds For the Councell of Constance in that very place where it takes away one kind the Cup do acknowledge that the use of both kinds by the people was instituted by Christ and enjoyed by the people in the antient Church That the Saints departed
Infallibility from the Pope which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do confess Councels without the Popes confirmation and in themselves to be but fallible for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara and all the Authors he cites to that purpose What say you further if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion let the intelligent Reader judg His Conclusion is Therefore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Councels now I assume St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held that Councels are fallible This I prove from his own words In this sense Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin whether they be Popes or others whether they wrot any thing in Councel or out of Councel the same judgment is to be passed upon them that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true certain because they wrot so but onely because they could prove it by Scripture or reason or miracles or the approbation of the universal Church Thus far Occham Now follows S. Clara's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which doctrine of his I judg most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Councels in lesser things though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain and a distinction foisted into the text which St. Austin never dream'd of and he is reduced to such straits that he hath no other way to evade but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another viz. that it is sufficient for him that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Councels Ergo they thought them Infallible It is Bellarmine's argument and I have already answer'd it And so this block being removed the Conclusion remains firme That St. Austin thought not Councels infallible For farther confirmation whereof I shall from hence collect two Arguments plainly proving that St. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Councels 1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Councels then to particular Synods nay then to private Doctors This I prove because St. Austin and the Papists themselves and indeed all men allow each of them so far infallible and their assertions to be infallibly true as they can prove them by Scripture or irrefragable reasons or miracles or the approbation of the whole Church and not one syllable more doth Austin give to general Councels 2. Because the Papists will not and cannot according to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there speaks and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think unlesse they will make him one of those who seldome speak as they think It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church however disowned by some few of them whom they look on as Extravagants and Schismaticks that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope say some of the Councel say others of the Pope and Councel together say almost all upon the credit of their own assertion without any further reason This is evident from Stapleton Gregory de Valentia Tannerus and Bellarmine in several pâ—aces one I shall instance in It is one thing saith he to interpret a law as a Doctor that requires Learning another thing to interpret it as Iudge that requires Authority a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed farther then reason induceth us but a Iudg propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it The Fathers â—xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes And now let S. Clara himself judg if he will deal candidly whether St. Austin and Bellarmine were of a mind or which is all one whether St. Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes barely upon the credit of their authority or assertion as the Papists say he did or only as Doctors because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason as St. Austin in terminis asserts § 11. But because it is of some concernment to understand Austin's mind in this point whose authority is so venerable both to them and us and whom both Parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy I shall further consider what S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose the passage he pleads is this Vntill that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed by a general Councel Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels Put it it into a Syllogism and it is this That which so confirms a truth as to remove all doubts is Infallible But a general Councel so confirmes a truth as to remove all doubts Ergo. The Major is denied for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reason so confirme a truth as to remove all doubt from the hearers and yet is not therefore infallible There are then two wayes whereby doubts may be removed 1. By the infallibility of the authority Thus when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason this should remove all doubt 2. By the evidence of arguments and so their argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativè thus a general Councel removeth doubts Ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority it followeth not for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument And this Answer might very well suffice But that I may give them full satisfaction if possibly the interest of these men would suffer their consciences to open their eyes I shall prove that it was so and that St. Austin speaks of this latter way of removing doubts i.e. by their convincing arguments not by their infallible authority This plainly appears by considering the contexture of the words Lest I should seem saith he only to prove it by humane arguments because the obscurity of this question did in former times before the schisme of Donatus make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves untill by a General Councel that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments Where you plainly see that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority and that he acknowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa certain or infallible as is evident from the Antithesis 2. This appears most undeniably from a parallel place where St. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian That holie man sufficiently shewed that he would have changed his opinion if any had demonstrated to him that Baptisme might be so
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
was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and veneration and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into and consequently writing is a sure and orall Tradition an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels decrees of Courts Acts of Parliament though the importance of them were many times so great and evident that according to this new notion writing was superfluous and verball Tradition Infallible And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly concernments shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it Let Papists do so who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargaine But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this grosse absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines meerly speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise then could be by books VVritten their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronouncing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly have been more securely propagated and more clearly and intelligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy daringly asserts See Exomolog Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery O the tremendous judgment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprobate sence Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeall sence or this bread is converted into the very substance of this body which you now see These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a posture of adoration viz. kneeling with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concernes himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse both the absurdity of their Arguments and assertion and the solidity of this second Answer and the advantage of writing above unwritten Tradition § 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in it selfe else an infallible Authoritie is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Hereticks recede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines as we have seen But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition Here all the doubt lies and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperatenesse of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confesse to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians saith Iustin Martyr This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M r VVhite shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in publike Preaching For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apostles and so transmit them to their Posterity which is the thing now denied It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them but also propheticall of the Papists When Hereticks are reproved out of the Scripture they begin to accuse the Scripture as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors particularly they named Origen Dionysius Alexandrinus and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them as Baronius acknowledgeth Epiphanius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men The Doctrine of
byassed or the contradiction being speedily suppressed which is very possible and hath been usuallâ— it could not probably fall out otherwise but that their opinion should be transmitted to their Successors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day neither in a civil nor in a Spirituall notion And de facto that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees hath been so fully demonstrated that I need onely point the Reader to those Authors who have done this worke especially to Momeys mystery of Iniquity and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean 2. I answer particularly and in opposition to the first branch I lay down this position That the following Age or the Major part of those called Christians might easily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age of which many rationall accounts may be given 1. There was no certaine way whereby for example the particular Christians of the third Age might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the second Age. Remember the question is not how probably they might believe but how infallibly they might know it for nothing will serve the Romanists turne short of Infallibility It is true the Christians of Antioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there and they of Ephesus what was there delivered but no Christian could without miracles infallibly know what were the Doctrines delivered to the Christians in those innumerable places where the Gospell had got sooting Hence then I offer this Argument Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition that the Christians in severall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in such places and would not deceive their posterity in it or it is not sufficient but it is necessary that Traditions should be compared and the Truth discovered in a generall Councell If they say the former then they assert the Infallibility not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome or of a generall Councell or of the Catholick Church but of every particular City And to say Truth Either this plea of Tradition is fallacious and absurd or every particular Church is Infallible For to use their own words if the Christians suppose of Ephesus could be deceived then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered or they did willingly deceive their posterity but neither of these were possible Ergo The Church of Ephesus was Infallible If they will eat their own words as they will do any thing sooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth and say the Church of Ephesus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity then so might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria and so the rest and what then becomes of Infallibility If they say the latter viz. That there is a necessity of a generall Councell to compare Traditions and declare the Truth then they are desired to remember that as yet there had been no generall Councell and consequently no Infallibility and therefore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding yea many mistakes What else will they say Will they say that a Christian might Infallibly know the Truth by travelling to all places and companies of Christians and hearing it from their own mouths This though it might give satisfaction to such a Christian yet it could not satisfy others who had no such evidence Or will they say the Christians knew it by Testimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions Why such Testimonials are not so much as pretended to have been required or given and if they had been given yet that could satisfy none but those few eyewitnesses of them It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Christians of the third Age might be assured of the genuine Traditions of the second which was the thing to be proved And the solidity and satisfactorinesse of this one Answer if there were no more appeares plainly from hence that the great Architects of this devise make it essentiall to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles so Mr White informes us since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostle\`s we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently nâ—ither is Tradition Apology for Tradition Encounter 6 elsewhere his reply to our instance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this That it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some countries not all Encounter 2. Hence then I thus argue The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a generall Councell of all the Churches severally taught by the severall Apostles but such generall Councell there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolicall Traditions delivered in the second which was the thing to be proved § 14. 2. There are many instances which may be given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age We have one instance among our selves concerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding â—ge in the Quinquarticular points The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us that she maintained their Doctrines Their Adversaries tell us she held the contrary and there are Books written and Arguments urged on both sides he that doubts of this let him look into M r â—rin on the one side and D r Hâ—ylin on the other And why might it not be thus in former ages And seeing there are great mistakes daily committed and fresh disputes managed about the opinions of those Authors who have left us their mind as plainly as words can make it in books which are alwaies present to our perusal how can it be sense for a man to say that one may infallibly know their mind by a transient hearing of them what tedious controversies are there about the judgment of S. Augustine and others of the Fathers in sundry points of great moment wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do or useth to do Suppose now the Fathers preach the same things and words which they have left us in writings as diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons can any man without nonsence say that the diligent Reader may be mistaken and the attentive Hearer is infallible We all know the five Propositions of Iansenius condemned lately at Româ— The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of Iansenius his words which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them both parties are agreed in his words which seldome happens in Orall Traditions and consequently makes the argument stronger yet they differ in the sense which one side saith is Heretical the other aver it is innocent Why might not in like manner several parties though it be supposed they perfectly remembred the words
Spirit of God his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Divell By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blinde may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with othâ—rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles wherein by the Argument I have now in consideration it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors or wittingly to deceive their posterity That which they make impossible to be done the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done it being impossible that the Fathers should make such a decree if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tradition as Bellarmine chargeth them or wilfully and maliciously opposed it as the Pope accuseth them And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome it irresistibly followes that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designes use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages in times of ignorance and carelesnesse when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer wherein I have been the more prolix because it strikes at the root of the Argument not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the wayes and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falshoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will adde but one thing more § 24. Answ. 8. and last If the Tradition pretended give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines but such as they have received from the Apostles But the Romish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles This I might take for granted having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content my self with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largeâ—y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Originall sin The present Doctrine of the Romish Church or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it is for her immaculate conception as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities c. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent sufficiently appeares from their Decree about Originall sin though cunningly and doubtfully delivered as the Devils Oracles used to be in which Decree they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin The sence of which decree according to that favourable glosse which M r White puts upon it was this That the Councell did judge both opinions probable Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true which is an implicit contradiction 2. Seeing in this hot contest not yet ended between the different factions of the Romanists in this point both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tradition Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them Ergo it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers as I have shewed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessâ—d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture according to its genuine meaning But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition therefore he addes presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles But it is evident that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spight of your eyes you shall believe not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fathers to Children even from the Apostles dayes but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scripture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom Canus gives us Origâ—n Damascen Athanasius and Melito a famous and antient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgment and venâ—rable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principall residence and employment to learne out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books and returnes with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolicall Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell within the compasse of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for ought appeares in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seemes by the story
make an infinite of two finites and of two guilty persons make up one innocent But this also is destroyed by themselves For although the divided parties seem to patch up an Agreement yet indeed they are as much at variance as ever For the Jesuites make the Pope alone Infallible and the Councell onely in dependance upon him And their Adversaries ascribe this Infallibility to the Councell alone and to the Pope onely by communication from them And so they are both gone by the Arguments allready mentioned under each of those heads And if we may believe either there is security in neither And besides all these diverse of their late Learned Writers reject the Infallibility both of Pope and Councels as White Holden Cressy S r Kenelme Digby c. who assert that neither one nor other are further Infallible then they keep to the Golden rule of Tradition and in that sence every Christian viz. so farre as he keeps to Tradition is Infallible 6. The next devise is orall Tradition and the Authority of the present Church who are therefore right because they say so So this is a confirmation of their Faith answerable to his confutation who answered all Bellarmines works with saying Mentir is Bellarmine Bellarmine thou liest In like manner do these men confute all the Protestant Writers and maintaine their own Tenets by saying recte dicis Domine Papa or mater Ecclesia That the Pope and present Church are in the right Thus their bare assertion must passe for a solid demonstration their pretence that they hold nothing but what they had frō the Apostles must be admitted as a proof that it is so shadowes must go for substances But this besides the ridiculousnes of begging the questiō craving what they cānot prove is denied by the greatest Pillars of their own Church and such as with whom the Authors of this new and wild fancy will not compare themselves either for number or quality For this is the known and most approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Tradition and Scripture both are two dead letters and partiall rules and there is besides these required a living judge indued with supreme and infallible Authority and without this judge we cannot infallibly understand and are not bound to receive and believe either the one or the other 7. At last they are so hard put to it that they cannot leap out of the Circle nor extricate themselves out of that Labyrinth in which their conceit of Infallibility hath involved them without Miracles In come the marks of the Church and the glory of Miracles And thus farre I shall discharge them from that invincible difficulty of proving the truth of their most famous miracles for if they can prove the Infallibility of their Church I will give it under my hand that they can worke a Miracle for then they can reconcile contradictions and they can do that which the ineffectuall essayes of all their greatest wits have shewed to be above the wit of man or Devill either for doubtlesse those Popes who had familiar acquaintance with the Devill would not faile to take in his advice and assistance for the defence of their Infallibility and therefore must needs be acknowledged for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or workers of Miracles Thus I have dispatched their severall pretences and shewed the nullity of them all and consequently the nullity of their Faith § 24. There is onely one thing to be added They have one Argument more which although if their other cords break they acknowledg this will not hold yet because they use much to insist upon it I shall consider in a few words And that is an Argument taken from the providence of God and his care over the Church It is fit and necessary lay they that there should be some infallible Judge that could finally end all Controversies and therefore there is such an one and they are that Judge I know no man in the world can leap further at three jumps 1. There ought to be 2. There is an Infallible Judge 3. Their Church is it § 25. Answ. 1. Why may not I turne their Argument upon them God hath not provided such a judge Ergo such a judge is not necessary VVhen God thought fit to appoint a judge for the decision of some controversies in the Old Testament he thought fit to expresse the person the place his work his power And if the Popish doctrine be true that this Judge is of such necessity that without him we cannot understand and are not bound to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and that submission to this Judge is necessary to Salvation it is ten thousand times more incredible that God to whom all our present controversies were not unforeseen should not leave us some mention of it in those Scriptures which are written for this end that we might believe Joh. 20.31 and that we might be made wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Then that such a Judge is necessary If God had but said instead of Tell the Church Tell the Bishop of Rome or heare the Bishop of Rome in all things all those infinite and dreadfull distractions divisions persecutions errours and mischiefes which have since risen in the world had been prevented So if reason may be judge who can believe it consistent with the goodnesse of God or Christs care over his Church or Gods designe in giving the Scriptures to omit such a necessary point as this upon which all the rest had depended especially when Doctrines of far lesse concernment are there plainly recorded and often repeated § 26. Answ. 2. If once men suffer their understandings to mount so high as to teach God what is fit and positively to conclude that to be done which they judge fit to be done It opens a gap to Atheisme and to all imaginable Superstition What a fine modell of Divinity should we have if once this doore were open'd It was fit that all the Translators of the Bible should have infallible guidance that they might not mistake in a letter It was fit that the Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility should have been ingraven upon every mans heart or at least plainly revealed in the Bible this being of more use then all the Bible besides since the Pope could have supplied the want of a Bible And as Chillingworth well argues it was as fit that every Minister should have been Infallible that all the Popes should be free from grosse wickednesse as all other infallible persons recorded in Scripture were It was fit that obstinate Hereticks should be consumed with fire from Heaven Therefore by this Argument all these things are done how much better and more becomming is it for a Christian to say with the Apostle who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor Rom. 11.34 Then boldly to measure God by our own fancies and tie him to our fond imaginations § 27. 3. If it be
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
at that door though Tradition hath made a true report of the words which it seldome doth I might multiply instances but these will suffice for a candid Adversary and others nothing will suffice § 16. 4. This will be made more probable if you consider the quality of some former ages which might and did give great advantage to error to creep in under the mask of Tradition and consequently evinceth how easy it was for one age to mistake the doctrines of the preceding age To this end consider with me the condition of the tenth age of which I shall desire you to judg according to the testimony of their own authors The words of Baronius are these In the nine hundredth year of Christ the third Indiction a new age begins which by reason of its asperity and barrennesse of good is wont to be called the Iron age from the deformity of abounding wickednesse the Leaden and from the scarcity of writers the obscure age And Genebrard though according to the manner of the Beast he chargeth it upon the Lutherans that they only call it saeculum infelix an unhappy age yet he elsewhere forgets himself therein the more inexcusable because he was one of them who ought to have good memories and in his Chronology plainly tels us This is called the unhappy age being barren of ingenuous and lâ—arned men and he tells you that the Popes of that age the principal conservators of Tradition and the subjects of Infallibility had altogether fallen from the vertue of their Ancestors and were rather Apostates then Apostles Can any man doubt of the power of Papists to make a Transubstantiation when we see with our eyes that they can turn every piece of wood into an infallible Doctor I think I need say nothing for the confutation of Mr. White 's argument but barely repeat it that the Reader may compare it with the state of this age It is this The whole Church or major part of it in every age were so knowing that they infallibly understood all the doctrines of the foregoing age and so carefull and pious that they would not deceive themselves nor their posterity Answer the argument I need not but only observe 3 things in this age which will prâ—ve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely the possibility but a great probability both of mistaking their ancestors and of deceiving themselves and their posterity 1. Ignorance 2. Carelesness and Profanenesse 3. Scarcity of Writers No man can adjudg Infallibility to such an age unlesse he will offer violence to all his rational powers § 17. 1. Here was grosse ignorance in the generality of the Clergy the Popes themselves not excepted The whole world was overspread with darkness as thick as that in AEgypt saith Baronius It is reported that at that time there were no publick Schools saith Carolus Sigonius And the Synodus Rhemensis cited by Baronius plainly say that at that time it was reported that there were scarce any learned men at Rome He that saith so ignorant an age could not mistake must needs be in a dream and when he awakes I shall give him further answer If any prudent man who will not suffer his eyes likes Sampsons to be put out that he may grind in the Pope's mill reflect upon the state of some ignorant Country-congregations among us if he please to examine them he shall find them so far from understanding infallibly the doctrines delivered by their Ancestors and former Ministers 20 or 30 years before that they do not understand the opinions of their own age no nor so much as those which their Minister though an able painful and plain Preacher such as were very few in that age hath been preaching upon for diverse years together And yet forsooth a company of such men as these by Mr. White 's argument are free from all possibilities of mistakes what were the doctrines delivered by the age before them § 18. 2. There was an universal carelesness and profanesse upon mens spirits Neither Ministers nor people did much busy their heads about such matters but minded only the advancement of their secular interest and the pampering of their bellies say their own Historians the Clergy then were universally negligent in teaching and instructing the people whose ignorance they saw most serviceable to their designes and the people were as carelesse to understand the concernments of religion And if this very carelesnesse and profanesse did utterly lose and extinguish all the sentiments and doctrines of true religion delivered by Adam and Noah in their posterity why might it not be so after Christ's time Mr. White and his Partisans venture their salvation upon the truth of this absurd Proposition That it was impossible the same cause should produce the same effects Nor is it to any purpose that Rushworth alledgeth to prove the disparity viz. That onely one man and one woman were witnesses of those high wondâ—rs whereas the Gospel had innumerable miracleâ— witnessed to multitudes of people in diverse countries that the hearers could hardly bâ—lieve them that they had but a slâ—ight care of recommending God's service to their children and that they wâ—re taken up with the worlds plantation and other secular affairs and there was no set form and institutions of Priests and governours to joyne all nations in communion no chief Bishop c. Dialog 3. § 15. For 1. supposing that which Divines generally believe viz. that Adam truly repented of his sin it is contrary to common sense to believe that he who had such a fresh knowledg and lively sense of the difference between highest felicity and utmost misery should be carelesse in the concernments of religion that he that had been the unhappy instrument of ruining all his posterity should not use all possible diligences to heal the wound himself had made and with greatest instances and importunities indeavour the perpetuation of religion to his posterity 2. It is false to say there were then no Priests no chief Bishop to take care of religion for though there were none that had the names yet there were that had the office and did the work viz. the heads of families and especially the great and common Father and universal Bishop of all mankind And it is both against reason and experience and charity to think this natural Bishop would take less care of the conservation of Religion among his own natural children then the Bishop of Rome would do among his titular relations 3. As for the wonders of the Creation they were so great and glorious and innumerable and at that time so evident and unquestionable that it is the greatest wonder of all how they could disbelieve them or so soon wear out the memory of them especially when Adam lived above 900 years to demonstrate the verity and inculcate the story of them whereas the Apostles were dead and all the eye witnesses of their miracles in a fourth part of that time In a word