july 20. 1665. Imprimatur ROBERT SAY VICECAN The Nullity of the Romish Faith OR A BLOW At the Root of the Romish Church BEING An Examination of that Fundamental Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME concerning the Church's INFALLIBILITY and of all those several Methods which their most famous and approved Writers have used for the defence thereof TOGETHER WITH An APPENDIX tending to the Demonstration of the Solidity of the PROTESTANT FAITH wherein the Reader will find all the material Objections and Cavils of their most considerable Writers viz. Richworth alias Rushworth in his Dialogues White in his Treatise De fide and his Apology for Tradition Cressy in his Exomologesis S. Clara in his Systema fidei and Captain Everard in his late account of his pretended Conversion to the Church of Rome discussed and Answered By MATTHEW POOLE late Minister of the Gospel in London OXFORD Printed by Hen Hall Printer to the UNIVERSITY for Ric Davis 1666. To the Right Honourable ARTHUR Earl of DONEGAL Lord Viscount Chichester of Carickfergus Baron of Belfast one of his MAJESTY'S most Honourable Privy Councillors for his Kingdom of Ireland My LORD HOw much it concerns every man to be rightly informed in the Controversies between Rome and Us is sufficiently evident from the great importance they have in reference to our everlasting state The Papists think the Protestant Doctrine is dangerous to Salvation and the Protestants know the Popish Doctrine to be so For although they use confidently to give it out to their Partisans that their Religion is a safe way in the judgement of Protestants themselves and though in former times of ignorance God might wink at some members of the Church of Rome that held the Foundation although they built a great deal of Hay and Stubble upon it Yet since the late Edition of several new Articles of their creed and since the contempt of that clear and glorious light of Gospel discoveries shining in the discourses and Writings of Protestant Authors I cannot and I fear God will not excuse them from that heinous crime of rebelling against the light or with holding it in unrighteousness and as Christ said to the Jews they have now no cloak for their Sins What the portion is of the followers of Antichrist we may more safely understand from the Testimony of God then from the conjectures of men of them we read that they shall be damned 2 Thes. 2.12 That their names are not written in the Book of Life Rev. 13.8 That they shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God and shall be tormented with Fire and Brimstone and the smoke of their Torment shall ascend evermore and they shall have no rest day nor night which worship the beast and his image Rev. 14.9 10 11. The only doubt is whether the Papists be followers of Antichrist or which comes to one whether the Pope be Antichrist which seemed so probable to the famous Lord Bacon that being asked by King JAMES whether he thought him so to be it was no less truly then wittily answered by him That if an hue and cry should come after Antichrist which should describe him by those Characters by which he is deciphered in the Bible he should certainly apprehend the Pope for him and I desire all Papists who would not venture their Eternal Salvation upon uncertainties to do our cause and their own Souls that justice as to peruse the Author 's of both sides viz. Whitaker and Downham on the one and Bellarmine and Lessius on the other and then I doubt not but they will conclude the notorious weakness of their cavils or pretended Answers to our Allegations to be at least an high presumption of the truth of our Assertion if not sufficient to put an end to all further doubtings My Lord It is no small evidence of a good cause and felicity of our Protestant people that they are permitted to see with their own Eyes and are both allowed and warned by their teachers not to take matters of Salvation upon trust but to inquire and search the Scriptures and other Authors whether those things be true or no whilst unhappy Papists like the Andabatae of old must wink and fight and are obliged with an implicit Faith to follow their guides in spite of Christ's caution used upon the like occasion If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 Protestant Ministers bespeak their hearers in S t Paul's language I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10. 15. While Popish Priests if they would speak out must say I speak as to Fools believe all that I say A plain sign their Gold is adulterate because they dare not suffer it to come to the Touchstone My Lord In the handling of these Controversies I thought it most prudent and ingenuous to follow the Council which Benhadad gave to his Soldiers to fight neither with small nor great but with the King of Israel and therefore I did not mind the branches but have endeavoured to strike at the Root For such is the Doctrine here discussed viz. The Doctrine of the Church's Authority and Infallibility and so it is acknowledged by all the Romanists and we are advised by them if we mean to do any good to attaque them in this point I like the Counsel and therefore have resolved arcem petere to attempt their strongest hold All the Controversies of the Church of Rome have what Caligula wished all the people of Rome had one work and that is this of the Churches Infallible Authority while this is safe we do but pair their Nails and cut their Hair which will quickly grow again but if this fails all falls wound them here and it goes to the heart Whether I have done this here or no I shall not be so absurd or arrogant as to give judgement in my own cause this only I shall be bold to say that I have faithfully represented the strength of the Popish cause in this great point out of their most famous and approved Authors and such of whom it might be truly said Si moenia Romae Defendi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent and therefore if all the plausible pretences of their most considerable Writers be here removed and destroyed which I willingly refer to the judgement of the serious intelligent and impartial Reader I may without injustice conclude that their Doctrine is indefensible and their cause desperate My Lord The reason why I devolve the patronage of this work upon your Lordship is not only the consideration of your real worth and those honourable qualities resplendent in you that true generosity sincere friendship obliging sweetness impartial valuation of persons according to their merit not their party or opinion in little things and other conspicuous virtues which they that have the happiness of your acquaintance are witnesses of nor is it only the known excellency and exemplary piety of your most Illustrious Lady which nothing but ignorance or malice can deny nor the particular obligations which I shall always desire to own to both of you but the contemplation of that great interest which by the high capacity of your Place and the nobleness of your Estate and the unexampled affability of your deportment you have in the Kingdom of Ireland which how free it is from other Venom's your Lordship knows better than I yet sure I am it is sadly infected with the Poison of Popish Doctrines and therefore I thought the Antidote most needful there and that your Lordship's Authority and Influence accompanied with your zealous endeavours which God expects and I promise to myself from you in so good a cause might induce many persons of the Romish persuasion to read and consider this short Treatise if God peradventure may give them Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Devil That God would incline your heart to contribute your most effectual help to so good a work and succeed you in it and recompense you for it and that God would bless Yourself and worthy Lady with all the blessings you want and mercifully preserve and Sanctify to you all you have and crown all with those inexpressible felicities of another World is now and shall by God's assistance be the humble and fervent prayer of My Lord Your Lordship's Orator at the Throne of Grace MATTHEW POOLE Sept. 1. 1665. To the Reader BEfore I come to the work itself I know my Reader will require satisfaction in two things which I hold myself obliged to give in the first to the Protestant in the latter to the Romanist 1. It will be objected to me as the jewish Tradition tells us was objected to Moses by his Antagonists who charged him with bringing Magical operations among them that he brought Straw into Egypt a country abounding with Corn so it will be said that I trouble the World with needless repetitions that I write an Iliad after Homer and do that work which hath long since been d●n much better by our Protestant Heroes and that Nil dictum est quod non est dictum prius and particularly that this point of Infallibility hath been discussed by that formidable Adversary of Rome the most acute M r Chillingworth Lord Falkland Dr Hammond and lately by our Learned M r Stillingfleet To these my Apology is 1. That the clamorous importunity of Popish Writers doth force us to these repetitions it being the practice of most of their present Controvertists boldly to urge those things in English as unanswerable which they know have been so solidly disproved in Latin that they neither cannot have pretended to Answer 2. I have made it my endeavour as much as I could to avoid repetitions which are as displeasing to me as they can be to the Reader which if I have in many places stumbled upon it hath rather been the necessity of the thing or an unhappy chance then the choice and design 3. The Reader I hope will find If I had known of any Author who had in so short a compass and plain Method contracted and dissolved the strength of the Popish cause in this great point I had willingly superseded nor did I intrude myself into this work but was invited to it by divers worthy and learned friends and afterwards encouraged in it by the approbation of such persons whose judgements I think almost all the learned part of England doth reverence 4. Here is a new plea viz concerning the sufficiency of the Testimony of the present Church and the Infallibility of Oral Tradition not at all considered by Mr. Chillingworth nor fully discussed by any other that I know of except the ingenious Lord Falkland who handles it quite another way and hath left room for some Glean after his Harvest Nor is it debated by Mr. Stilling fleet whose Adversaries led him to things of another nature And besides it is known to divers that this Treatise was prepared for the Press before Mr. Stillingfleet's excellent Discourse came out though retarded by some unhappy occurrences which it is needless here to recount The second particular is this The Papists will pretend that the Doctrines I charge upon them and the Testimonies which I allege against them are only the particular opinions of private Doctors and not of their whole Church My defence is this 1 The Authors which are here introduced are not pedantic writers but such as are of prime note and highest esteem in the Church of Rome and the most zealous and considerable Champions of their cause and such for the generality of them whose writings came forth with the character of their Church's approbation upon them concerning whom it will be very difficult to persuade any intelligent man either that such persons did not understand the sense of the Church of Rome as well as the Objector or that they did knowingly contradict the doctrine of their Church or would be permitted so to do without any censure upon them 2 The testimonies of those Authors are undoubtedly sufficient for that end for which I allege them which is to show the falseness of those doctrines and the weakness of those arguments which are disbelieved and disproved by their own learnedest and stoutest Champions by which it may appear to all impartial persons that it is not the ignorance nor prejudice of Protestants as some of their Writers have the Effrontery to assert which makes them reject the Popish Tenets but merely the want of Truth and evidence therein confessed as you will see all along in the following Treatise by their own Brethren and that it is a desperate madness in any Papist to hazard his everlasting concernments upon such principles as so many of their acutest Scholars do publicly disavow And that this is really the case of the unhappy Romanist I refer thee to the subsequent Discourse POOLE's Nullity of the Romish faith The INDEX The Introduction Pag. 1. CHAP. 1. The Pope's infallible Authority is no sufficient foundation of Faith and is a mere nullity pag. 2. CHAP. 2. Scripture is no sufficient foundation of Faith to a Papist according to their principles proved out of their prime Authors Sect. 1 2 3 4. The Scriptures alleged by them for the Pope's infallible authority examined in general Sect. 5. 6. In particular Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter Sect. 7. 8 9 john 21. Feed my sheep Se. 10 Luk. 22. I have prayed etc. § 11. Deut. 17. 11 12 § 12. CHAP. 3. Of the Infallible authority of the Fathers Asserted by the Papists Sect. 1. Disproved 1. By the same arguments by which the Papists derogate from the authority of Scripture § 2 3. 2. Because Infallibility is the Church's Prerogative § 4. 3. The Fathers disclaim it § 5. Exc. But Fathers where they agree are Infallible Answered § 6. p. 46. 4 The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9 CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Counsels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the ancients did believe the Infallibility of Counsels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Counsels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of Saint Augustine's judgement § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Counsels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in general § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastors 3. People are allowed to examine their teacher's Doctrines job. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Counsels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Council together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Counsels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Counsels as 1. That they be general § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Counsels Fathers Scripture conjoined make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of O●all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Oral Tradition more certain than writing against the judgement of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jews of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proof is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgement of the Fathers § 9 ● Oral Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. ● Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly showed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christian's might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certain way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of men's misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembered and the sense perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and careless Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19 2. Christian's might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From God's just judgement § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practice of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The opinion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claim to these marks than Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Divers of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christ's Miracles prove Rome's Fallibility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles only prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19 4. Miracles do not always prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Heretics Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsely Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A brief recapitulation of the several pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from God's providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Protestant's Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fou●●dation of Faith in the Scri●●tures the Papists themselves ing judges Sect. Their Learned men acknowle● 1. That the Scripture is may be known to be the of God without the Church Testimony and by its ow● light Sect. 2. That the Books of Scriptu●● are not corrupted in essential and necessary points Sect. 3. That the sense of Scripture things necessary may be u●●derstood Sect. Except Protestant's upon an humane Transla●tion answered Se. 5 6 7 ● Protestant's freed from the pre●●tended circle of proving Scrip●●ture by the spirit and the spirit by the Scripture Sect. 9● 10 11 12● A consideration of that preten● ostered at by some Romanists That the Church's Authority a sufficient foundation fo● faith without infallibility Sect. 13● The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards' pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can bear p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the anathemas of Counsels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alleged either prove nothing or more than Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Council together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Pope's confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards' arguments against the judgement of reason considered pag. 45. Everards' arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judge of Controversies examined & answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissenters p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Several particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be dark considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonical books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sense of Scripture p. 57 5. About fundamental points p. 59 4. Protestants have not the Originals but only Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles days p. 68 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great ap●plauded arguments in his Da●●alogues refuted The first taken from the grea● uncertain●y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Laws and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88 The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued only from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from divers exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The design of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Counsels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Press occasioned by the Author's constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sense the Reader will easily discern The grosser mistakes which he is entreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decision p. 9 l. 7. r. Gret●●●●● p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. lest p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39 l. 15. r. because for best p. ●0 l. 8. r. lest p. ●5 l. 26. r. Grill. ●●● acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. ●●d there for ●y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. add with p. 112 l 4 r fricat ●b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosity p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the cit●tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apota●●ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. deal and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iu●● read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectually p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Testimony and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her than they shall into divers opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimony is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimony and Authority they say is sufficient without any further inquiry and this present Church too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a general Council and others the Pope and a Council together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Church's Authority This some lay in the Testimony of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universal or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these several foundations as they make use of them and to show That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authority and infallibility of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Counsels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Pope's Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Pope's infallibile authority is in itself of no validity and is a mere nullity further than it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proof For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome than the Bishop of York the only plea is that the Bishop of Rome is Saint Peter's successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabric of Popery There is no man so grossly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Pope's assertion that he is Peter's successor But for the proof of this I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture as Thou art Peter feed my sheep etc. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Counsels that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it in the Bishops of Rome from whence it undeniably follows that the Pope's or naked affirmation of his own Authority though delivered ●x Cathedrá and with all immaginable formalities is of no weight in itself and hath no strength nor virtue in it further than it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Counsels Which will further appear from this consideration That upon supposition that the Scripture had been silent as to Peter's supremacy and the Fathers and Counsels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome in St Peter's chair but had ascribed the same privileges which they are pretended to attribute to the Pope to the Bishop of Antioch I say upon this supposition the Pope's pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous and wholly ridiculous From this than we have gained thus much That the Pope's Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other  foundations and not or credible for itself that it is not in itself a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Pope's Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures Fathers Counsels tradition or the motives of Credibility And if I can show that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars or if I can show that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists depend upon this Authority of the Pope and without it are no solid foundation of faith that Scriptures Fathers Counsels and tradition are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe without the Pope's Authority and Interpretation which I think will be made evident in the following discourses than I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith Therefore I pass on to the second head CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in itself without the Interpretation Testimony and Authority of th● Church is not a sufficient foundation o● Faith for private Christians according to the Doctrine the Romanists This is so plain so often asserted b● them so universally owned so vehemently urged in a● their Treatises that if there were not an horrible per●versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men wh● indeed by the badness of their cause are forced to sa● and unsay give and recall affirm and deny the sam● things as occasion requires and the strength of an Ar●gument forceth them I might supersede from an● further pain or trouble therein I shall therefore only observe two Principles of the Popish Creed either o● which and much more both put together do plainly and undeniably evince that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in itself is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith 1. That a Christian canno● know and is not bound to believe any or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God without the Churches Witness and Authority 2. That the sense of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith that a Christian cannot discover it without th● Church's interpretation § 2. For the first of these it may suffice at present t● mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers Baily the Jesuit in his Catechism of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop o● Bordeaux puts this Question Doctor Jesuita Ad quem pe●●inet de libris Canonicis Determinare Catholicus Papista Ad ●ccl●siam sine cu●us authoritate non plus fidci a●hiberem Ma●thaeo quam Tito Livio par 1 ●● 12. To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonical Books and Answers thus To the Church without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius When Brentius alleged the saying of a Papist that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Church's Authority they would weigh no more than Aesop's Fables the Cardinal Hosius replies (b) Po●uit illud pio sensu dici Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. That these words may be taken in a pious sense For in truth saith he unl esse the Authority of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonical it would have very little weight with us So Charron plainly tells us (c) Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem nullum pondus nullam vim erga nos & nostram fidem nisi quod ecclesia dicit & declarat Charron vers 3. That the Scripture hath no Authority no weight or force towards us and our Faith but for the Church's assertion and declaration Andradius in express terms denies (a) Neque in Scriptures quicquam inesse divinitatis quae nos ad credendum quoe illis continentur religione aliquâ construing at at Eccles●e quae codices illos sacros esse docet nemo sine gravissimâ impietatis notâ ●ossit rep●g●are Defence Trident. lib 2. That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture which binds us to believe the things therein contained but the Church which teacheth us that those Boo ks are Sacred none can resist without the high●st impiety One may well cry out Heu Pietas heu priscae fid●s To disbelieve the Scripture that is no impiety but to resist the Church that is the Highest impiety To make God a liar that is no impiety but to make the Church a liar that is impiety in the highest You see now the reason why Violations of the Church's Authority are more severely punished at Rome than the grossest transgressions of Gods Lawe● because there is more impiety in them and so more sev●rity should be exercised against them And Pighi● useth no less freedom telling us (b) Scripturae nisi ab Ecclesiâ accepto veritatis testimonio nuliam ex scripsis aut suis authoribus apud nos authoritatem habere Lib. 1. Hierarchio cap. 2. That the Scripture have no Authority with us either from themselves or from their Authors but merely from the Church's Testimony Thus you see that according to the system of Popish Theology the Scripture doth not discover itself to b● the Word of God nor oblige my faith unless it brin● along with it the Church's Letters of credence An● whereas in St Paul's days neither Church nor Apostle was believed further than they brought credentials fro● Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Austin in his days in hi● Controversies with the Donatists batters down thei● Church by this Argument that they could not show it in nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received unless it be confirmed by the Church's Authority And as Tertullian argued of old (a) Net Deus ern nisi homini placuerit God shall not be God without man's consent It is here as in dealings between man● and man if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust I should not believe your professions of honesty for I know you not were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you In this case the man's professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him but only my friend's Testimony Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor I should not believe that to be true which I read in my Book that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I bear to your deep judgement and great abilities Here it is plain the reading in his book is not the foundation of his faith or persuasion but only the reverence he bears to his teacher And just this say they is the case of the scripture to which purpose they allege and own those words of Austin though they pervert the sense (a) Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas I should not believe the Gospel unless the Church's Authority did move me Which if true in their sense than the Church's Authority is the sole foundation of my faith and without it the scripture is a mere cipher or at least not sufficient to command or ground my faith which was the thing to be demonstrated The truth is the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King jehoram 2 Kings 3.14 and bespeak it in the same language were it not that I regard the presence the testimony and the authority of the Church I would not look towards thee not believe nor reverence thee Sect. 3. If it be said that although the Church's Testimony was necessary before yet since the Church hath long ago consigned the Canon of the scripture my faith is now grounded not only upon the Church's testimony but upon the scriptures Authority To this I answer 1 That now as well as formerly the faith of a Christian acted by Romish principles doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Church's testimony which I shall make plain by an instance I do not believe supposing I were a Papist the Pope's supremacy because I read these words Thou art Peter for if I read those words in Tacitus I should not draw an Argument from them unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of (b) Bel. de Purgat lib. 1. cap. 7. Plato Cicero and Virgil But because the books wherein I read those words Thou art Peter is a book of Canonical scripture and a part of the word of God there lies the whole stress of the argument And this I cannot know say our Catholic masters and am not bound to believe but for the Church's Testimony Which testimony as it is the only cause which makes the scripture in general Authentical Quoad nos saith Stapleton so it must be that alone which makes this place Thou art Peter Argumentative quoad nos that is all the force that Argument hath to persuade or convince me is from the Church and not from the scripture and the scripture makes it Canonical to me and its being Canonical gives the whole weight to the Argument and quod est causa causae est causa causati Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words but sense of Scripture where the strength of the argument lies And that sense say they we cannot understand nor attain but by the Church's interpretation which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists viz. That the sense of scripture which is indeed the very Soul of scripture and the only ground of faith and Arguments is in many matters of faith so obscure and ambiguous that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentic and infallible Interpreter and Judge to acquaint us therewith that is the Church or per aequevalentiam jesuiticam the Pope And it is absurd to expect and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts and dceision of controversies of faith from the scripture which is but a dead letter unless the Church animates it This is so notoriously owned by them all that it is needless to quote Authors for it That which I infer from hence is this that according to this Hypothesis the scripture in itself I say in itself for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove is no solid foundation for my faith and indeed that it is a mere cipher which if your Church be put to it may have some signification and value butelse none at all And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in itself but the Church's interpretation which gives weight to this argument And this plainly appears from that saying of their great Master Stapleton which deserves to be often men tioned in rei memoriam and the rather because Grotserus (a) Defence Bel. Tom. 1 pag 386. owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion Gretsers' defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in se & ex parte rei but only quoad nos in respect of us and so saith Gretser it is very true for that I believe that Christ is God and that God is one and three I do it being induced by the Authority of the Church testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered are divine and dictated by God a I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mystery of the Romish Cabal and discovering the dreadful tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ for as he was beholden to Christ for his Authority so now Christ is beholden to his vicar for his Divinity and saith he it was truly said by Tannerus nor needed Pappus to wonder at it that without the interpretation and testification (b) Rectè hoc ab illo asseritur Addit enim Stapletonus divinitatem Christi & Dei pendere à testimonio & judiciariaâ potestate Pontificis quoad nos non in se & ex porte rei Et paulò post Neque Praedicanti adeù mirum videri debet quod à Tannero nostro in Examine Relationis Hunnianoe scriptum est sine hae interpretatione & testificatione Ecclesiae impossibile fore credere supernaturaliter ex solâ Scripturâ Deum esse unum esse cres hypostases divinas in unâ essentiâ non est inquam quod adeò miretur & irascatur insulsus Pappus quia vihil ā veritate alienum complectitur Defence Bel. Tom. 1. in Append. 1. ad lib. 1. Card. Bel. p. 386. of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone that God is one and that there are three persons Who is it that dare charge these Jesuits with Equivocation I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se & quoad nos viz. They acknowledge the Scripture in itself to be true and Canonical and it is a Truth in itself that Christ is God but so far as concerns me I am not bound to believe either the one or other but for the Church's Testimony which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted That the Scripture in itself is no foundation of my Faith And this is the more weighty because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one man's Pen but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors each of whose works where that passage was is set forth with the approbation of several Romish Doctors of principal note § 5. But peradventure Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant Although neither the Pope's Authority nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith and the Pope's Authority being asserted in and demonstrated by the Scriptures is a sure sooting for my faith To which though it might suffice to object the circle which is here most palpable and evident yet I shall at present forbear that answer and refer it to another place and shall here consider whether the Scriptures assert the Pope's infallible Authority as it is pretended And first in general whereas several Texts of Scripture are pleaded by the Romanists in favour of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility as Feed my sheep Thou art Peter I have prayed for thee and the like I demand whether these words or Texts of Scripture in and for themselves without the interpretation and testification of the Romish Church do bind me to believe the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility or no● If they deny the validity of these Texts without the Church's Testimony and Authority as needs they must according to their Principles than it follows that there is nothing in Scripture considered in itself that binds me to believe the Pope's Supremacy and consequently I do not sin when I do not believe and own their Arguments drawn from these Texts and that the Scripture in itself is no sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith If they affirm it then let all the Papists in the World give me a reason why these Texts The Word was God Joh. 1. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2. This is the true God 1 Joh. 5. Should not in themselves and without the Church's Authority as solidly prove the Divinity of Christ as the other mentioned Texts are affirmed to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope § 6. If they persist still to say that the alleged Texts are in themselves a solid foundation for my faith although such an aspersion is contrary to their universal profession and overturnes the whole fabric of Popery yet because I know those Proteus' will turn themselves into all shapes and endeavour to slip all knots and because I observe all their writings are stuffed with several Texts of Scripture as if they would make their deluded Proselytes believe they made them the foundation of their faith I shall therefore make some brief remarks upon the chief of their Scripture allegations in pursuance of the Proposition under consideration and show that the faith of a Papist hath no foundation at all in the sacred Scripture in the great and fundamental point of the Pope's Infallibility Only that you may understand the diffidence which some of their own great Rabbis have in their Scripture Arguments I shall mind you of a remarkable saying of Eminent Doctor Pighius who persuading his Catholics in their Disputations rather to argue from Tradition than Scriptures he breaks out into these memorable expressions (a) Cujus doctrinae si memores faissemus haereticos non esse informandos seu convinecendos ex Scriptures meliore sane loco essent res nostrae sed dum oftentandi ingenii & eruditionis gratiá cum Luthero in certaemen descenditur Scripturarum excitatum est hoc quod Proh dolour videmus incendium cap. 4. Hierachiae Of which Doctrine if we had been mindful that Heretics are not to be convinced out of Scriptures our affairs had been in a better posture but whilst for ostentation of wit and learning men disputed with Luther from Scripture this Fire which alas we now see was kindled as if he had said You may as soon fetch water out of a stone as prove the Romish cause from the the Scripture Oh the power of truth Oh the desperateness of the Popish cause His Council indeed was good but they could not follow it for having once been sumbling about some Scriptures though they saw well enough how impertinent they were to their purpose yet having once begun they were obliged to proceed and make good their attempts for of all things in the World they hate retreating and recanting left they should put an Argument into our hands against the infallibility of the Church from her actual mistakes and errors in the exposition of Scriptures § 7. The principal places of Scripture upon which the Pope's Supreme Authority and infallibility is founded are as follow The first is Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Ergo The Pope is Supreme Head and Infallibe I shall forbear actum agere and therefore shall omit several Answers already given and only point at some few of those many allegations by which the ridiculousness of this collection may appear and the desperateness of that cause that can find no better supports 1. This promise concerns only the invisible Church of elect persons which appears thus because he speaks of that Church against which the gates of Hell do not prevail but the gates of Hell do prevail against all reprobates and therefore the meanest sincere Elect Christian in the World hath a juster claim to infallibility from this place than many Popes of Rome had whom their own Authors confess to have been reprobates 2. This promise secures the Church as well from damnable sins as damnable errors I prove it The Church is here secured against the prevalency of the Gates of Hell But the Gates of Hell may prevail as surely and do prevail as frequently by damnable sins as by errors Ergo If therefore notwithstanding this Text Popes have fallen into damnable Sins they may consequently fall into damnable Heresies 3. The Infallibility here promised extends only to damnable Heresies and such as lead to and leave a man under the gates of Hell and therefore if it were intended of the Pope and Church of Rome Christ promiseth no more infallibility to him than he hereby promiseth and generally giveth to all persevering Christians 4. This promise is spoken of and made to the whole Church and therefore belongs to all the parts and members of it alike So that if it prove the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop and Church it proves also the same of the Bishops and Churches of Corinth Ephesus Philippi etc. which may further appear thus That if we should grant the Papists their absurd supposition that this work was not Peter's confession but his person yet since the Bishops of Corinth and Ephesus and indeed all the Bishops in the World according to this supposition were built upon Peter's person as well as the Bishop of Rome and the infallibility supposed is here promised equally to all that are built upon the Rock it must either prove all of them infallible or leave the Pope fallible 5. Whatsoever Authority or Infallibility is here promised to Peter is in other places promised and given to the rest of the Apostles and therefore what is collected from this place for S t Peter Successors may be with equal truth and evidence pleaded from other places for the Successors of the rest of the Apostles The same Keys which are here promised to Peter are actually given to all the Apostles Math. 18.18 and joh. 20.22 23. And if infallibility be here promised to Peter as much is promised to all the Apostles John 16.13 He will guide you into all Truth And if St Peter be here called a Rock so are the other Apostles called Pillars Gal. 2.9 and Foundations Eph. 2. Apoc. 21.14 And that 16 th' of Matthew speaks not one syllable more of transmitting S t Peter's Authority to his Successors than those other places do to their Successors And therefore it avoidable follows either that all their Successors are infallible or that S t Peter Successor is fallible at best for any thing that appears from this Text whether the Pope's infallibility hath other foundations we shall examine in their order 8. It may be said That although this place may not seem to be cogent to one that considers it in itself yet if you take it according to the exposition of the Fathers it proves what it is alleged for But 1. The Fathers generally did understand this Rock to be not Peter's Person but his confession or Christ as confessed by him and this you shall find proved to have been the mind of S t Cyrill Hilary Hierom Ambrose Basil Augustine yea and the whole Council of Chalcedon in that incomparably learned and Irreffragable Discourse of Moulins called The Novelty of Popery Lib. 2. cap. 4. 2. That the Fathers are not infallible guides of Faith and Religion I shall prove in the next Proposition 3. But howsoever They that assert the infallibility of the Fathers when they relate the Church's Judgement yet allow their Fallibility in expounding Scripture Caietan and Maldonate both acknowledge it and practise accordingly that a man may in many cases prefer a new exposition though it be repugnant to the expositions of most of the Ancient Fathers And S r Kenelm Digby speaking of the infallibility of the Fathers expressly saith he understands it only of the Traditions or Doctrines delivered by them as the Faith received from their Ancestors not of their Comments or Sermons upon Scripture which are to have no more weight than the reasons they give for them Letters between Lord Digby and S r Kenelm Digby pag. 10. § But if all these and other difficulties were cleared yet do two things remain behind in which this Text and all others are wholly silent and for them they are forced to fly to Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers of which in the next place The first That all this Supreme Authority and infallibility which they suppose to have been in Peter was transmitted to his Successor and consequently Linus S t Peter Successor was Superior to the Apostle and Evangelist S t john which he had need have no squeamish Conscience that can digest and yet all this amounts to nothing unless another thing be proved viz That the Bishop of Rome is S t Peter Successor and here the scripture fails them and the Coronis or Apex of the Argument without which it is both impertinent and impotent as to the probation of the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop is fetched solely from Tradition and the Testimony of the Fathers And so their Argument stands like the Angel in the Apocalypse with one foot on the Earth another on the Sea one Leg of it in Scripture the other in History an● because conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem the conclusion cannot be the side or rather to speak the truth The whole Syllogism is extra scriptural The prerogative of St Peter are transmitted to S t Peter Successors Bu● the Bishop of Rome is S Peter's Successor where it appears from what hath been said that neither proposition is to be proved from Scripture but wholly from Tradition and that is all at present I am concerned to make good And yet if all this were over they have not done● Behold the misery of a desperate cause for whereas it is known and granted by the Papists that S t Peter had two Seas he was Bishop of Antioch for seven Years saith Baronius and Bishop of Rome it must be further evins ce That the Bishop of Antioch was excluded from and the Bishop of Rome invested with S t Peter Prerogatives And would you know the proof of this position which is the very Foundation Stone of the Pope's Supremacy You shall have the Argument in Bellarmine's words (a) De Pontificiis Lib. 4. had its rise à facto Petri from S t Peter's fact Peter leave● Antioch and comes to Rome and there he dies and so hi● Holiness got the day Here I desire the Reader to observe that all the Faith of the Romanists concerning the Pope's Infallibility depends upon and is resolved into a matter of Fact and an uncertain Historical relation Nay to speak truly there are several matters of Fact every one of which must be solidly demonstrated before their Faith can have a firm Foundation 1. That Peter was at Rome 2. That Peter was Bishop of Rome properly so called 3. That S t Peter died at Rome 4. That it was Christ's or Peter's intention that Peter's Successor should enjoy all his Privileges 5. That Christ or Peter appointed his Roman not his Antiochian Successor to be this person to whom such privileges were to be transmitted If there be a flaw in any one of these their whole cause in this point is lost And all these are matters of fact And such is the nature and uncertainty of matters of fact that the Papists confess those persons whom they suppose infallible in matters of faith are fallible in matters of fact Excepitng that modern dotage of some of the Jesuits who have lately asserted the Pope's infallibility in matters of fact But that is such a piece of drollery and impudence that their own brethren who have not forsworn all modesty are ashamed of it now to assume as some of these assertions are apparently false so there are none of them but are disputable points and denied by divers learned men not without a plausible appearance of authorities and arguments And if the Jesuits opinion be true concerning the doctrine of probability that a man may satisfy his conscience and venture his salvation upon the opinions of two or three learned Doctors Then a Protestant may satisfy his conscience and venture his salvation upon it that all these propositions are false being denied by far more than that number of learned Doctors At least this must be granted that it renders the forementioned positions dubious and uncertain And so the Papists build their divine faith upon a dubious historical faith yet again what if Peter dies there must the universal headship needs go to the Bishop of the place where he dies and not to another where he lived Charles the fifth was King of Spain and Emperor of Germany if he die in Spain must all the Kings of Spain be therefore Emperors of Germany Haply they will say no because the Empire is elective not hereditary and if that were granted which the Papists will never be able to prove that there was such a thing as this universal headship and that this was to continue will they pawn their souls on it for so indeed they do that this universal headship was hereditary not elective How will they prove it Christ dies at jerusalem by this rule the Bishop of jerusalem must be universal head Suppose the Pope should leave Rome and go to Avignon a● once he did and settle and die there by this rule the Bishop of Avignon must succeed in the universal headship● But I need say no more of so absurd a fancy Sect. 10. A second place of scripture is joh. 21. Pete● feed my sheep And this feeding must denote ruling as wel● as teaching and this rule forsooth must needs be the supreme power and that power must be attended with● infallibility and these sheep must be all the sheep in the world nay shepherd's too exceept the Pan or princep● pastorum at Rome Tantae molis erat Romanum conder● papam And this rope of sand must be called an argument by which one may see the intolerable confidence they have in themselves and their shameless contempt of the Readers whom they think obliged to receive all their dictates without enquiry I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome knew what they did when they invented the doctrine of an implicit faith and a blind obedience to all the Church's decrees for if men should once dare to open their eyes and examine their assertions all their craft would be in danger to be set at nought and the Temple of Dominus Deus noster papa as the Canon Law calls him would be despised and his magnificence would be destroyed whom so great a part of the world worshippeth But if indeed they will by Transubstantiation turn this handful of straw into a pillar of their Church as I cannot blame one near drowning for catching at every twig than I shall offer these things to their consideration 1 That Bellarmine as his manner is bestows seven arguments to prove that which none ever denied that those words were spoken to Peter alone and neglects that which he should have disproved viz. the reason thereof given by Aug. Cyril Ambrose and others and after them the Protestants which was not the collation of a new dignity superior to that of the other Apostles but his restoration to his former dignity of the Apostleship from which by his great transgression he might seem to have fallen as judas really did fall by his Transgression Act. 1. 2. If this Text afford them any support they must have it either from the Act or the word Feed or from the object or phrase my sheep For the first By what Arts can the Supremacy of the Pope he drawn from that word or precept This feeding in the judgement of the Romanists themselves implies nothing but teaching and ruling and both those are ascribed to all the Apostles without any discrimination Mat. 28.19 20. Mat. 18. john 20. And Bellarmine himself confesseth that not only the power of Rule but the supreme power was conferred upon all the Apostles (a) Lib. de Pontifice Romano lib. 1. cap. 12. §. ut autem Nay they are ascribed to inferior Ministers Heb. 13. Obey them that have the rule over you and 1 Tim. 5.17 The elders that rule well and to such the very same Precept is given 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Elders I exhort Feed the flock of God which is among you Doth Feeding in one place argue superiority and in another place imply subjection or rather in both places it seems it signifies what the Pope pleaseth But you must know the Romish Doctors having called ●he Scripture a Lesbian Rule and a Nose of Wax they were bound in honour aut invenire aut facere either to find it so or to make it such if it be said their charge limited to the Flock of God among them whereas Peter extends to all the sheep the Answer is easy if that ●e granted for then the difference doth not lie in the act of Feeding but in the object of which I now come to speak that is the second thing the phrase my sheep Granting therefore what Bellar. desires that he speaks of all the sheep yet herein S t Peter had no prerogative above the other Apostles who are equally commanded to teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19 to preach the Gospel to every Creature Mar. 16.15 And Peter's Diocese surely cannot be larger unless happily Utopia be taken in or that which is in the same part of the world I mean Purgatory But you will say surely they have somewhat else to plead for themselves from this Text Why yes These good masters of the feast have reserved the best Wine to the last Here comes in a rare notion not fit to be prostituted to vulgar apprehensions you shall hear it upon condition you will not put them to the proof of it which they are not bound to do for nem● tenetur a● impossibilia No man is obliged to do more than is in his power Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary Pastor the rest as extraordinary Ambassadors and with a certain subjection to Peter (a) Ut autem intelligeremus banc summam potestatem collatam A●ostolis omnibus ut legatis non ut pasteribus ordinariis & cum quâda● subjectione ad Petrum Bel de Romano Pontifice lib. 1. cap. 12. If you ask doth this Text say so or any other Text or is there one syllable from whence this may be deduced you must remember the condition which I told you And what if this be granted how comes the ordinary power to be greater and higher than the extraordinary In the Old Testament generally the extraordinary officers the Prophets whom God raised were superior to the Priests And in the New Testament the Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary officers were superior to Pastors and Teachers which are the ordinary How come the Tables to be turned and the ordinary agent to be advanced above the extraordinary Ambassadors And what if all this be granted it edifies nothing unless two things be superadded of both which the Scripture is wholly silent and their proof fails them 1. They must prove that this power of feeding is transmitted to Peter's Successors in a more peculiar manner then to the Successors of the other Apostles and that whatever power Peter had is deposited in their hand 2. That the Pope is this Successor to whom these things are concredited And these they do not pretend to prove from Scripture So that still the conclusion remains entire That the Scripture is not to the Papists a solid and sure ground of Faith § 11. A third place always in their mouths is Luke 22.31 Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith fail not A man would not believe if he did not see it with his own eyes that such Learned men as divers of the Papists are should put any confidence in such broken reeds and shattered Arguments as this is Truly saith a learned man Hoc non est disputare sed somniare This is rather a dream than an Argument What thoughts the Papists have of our English Sectaries is sufficiently known but I must needs do them this right to profess I do not know that Sect among us the Quakers excepted so absurd and impertinent in the all gations of Scripture for their most irrational opinions as in sundry particulars and this especially the Papists are But because they shall not complain of us as we do justly of them that we rather condemn them then confute them I shall show the ridiculousness of this allegation to their purpose 1. If this Prayer secure the Pope from unbelief and error in judgement it secures him also from unbelief and Apostasy in heart and life But this Prayer doth not secure the Pope from Apostasy in heart and life The Papists generally confess that several of their Popes were Apostatici non Apostolici Apostates not Apostolic persons All the doubt lies about the Major which I prove thus If this Prayer was put up for Peter in the name and on the behalf of his Successors as well as himself as the Papists pretend it was though we deny it than the same thing for which Christ prays for Peter Christ Prays for it for his Successors also and therefore if Christ prayed that Peter might be kept from Apostasy in heart and life as well as in opinion and judgement than the Major is true But Christ prayed that Peter might be so kept which I thus prove Christ's Prayer was the Antidote against the Devils malicious design Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed etc. And consequently the plaster must be as large as the sore But the Devil's design was not only to draw Peter to error in judgement but also yea principally to draw him to Apostasy in heart and life Ergo. 2. If notwithstanding this Prayer it was possible that Peter himself might fall so far after Christ's Prayer as to teach a false Doctrine then this Prayer doth not prove the Pope's infallibility But notwithstanding this Prayer it was possible that Peter might fall so far as to teach a false Doctrine The Minor which alone needs proof I prove thus He that believed a false Doctrine might preach a false doctrine but Peter after this prayer did believe a false doctrine which plainly appears from Acts 1.6 Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel by which it is evident and the Popish expositions confess it that the Apostles and Peter with them still retained the old leaven of the belief of a Temporal Monarchy of Christ upon earth a Doctrine which the Papists themselves condemn in the Millenaries Nor was this the only mistake of Peter or the Apostles after that Prayer And indeed it was not Christ's Prayer but the gift of the Holy Ghost after his death which did secure the Apostles from error and us from deceit in following their Doctrines 3. If Christ's Prayer for the not failing of Peter's faith render the Pope infallible than S t Paul's Prayer for the Thessalonians I pray God your whole Spirit Soul and Body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord jesus Christ 1 Thes. 5.23 and for the Philippians That they might abound in knowledge and approve things that are excellent that they might be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ Philip. 1.9 prove the infallibility yea the impeccability of the Thessalonians and the Philippians The reason is this because S t Paul's Prayer being infallibly dictated by God's Spirit and made according to his Word and in Christ's name must as surely be answered as Christ's Prayer was for God who cannot lie hath promised to answer such Prayers 4. If the Prayer of Christ for the perseverance of Faith makes him infallible for whom Christ prays than all elect and persevering believers are infallible The consequence appears thus Because Christ did pray and doth intercede for the perseverance of the Faith of every such person Christ expressly tells us Joh. 17. I pray not for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me through their word And there is not one persevering Christian in the World but owes his perseverance to the Prayer care and intercession of Christ Hence they are said to be preserved in Christ Jesus jude 1.1 And therefore either this Argument concludes not for the Pope's infallibility or else it gives him ten thousand partners in that privilege And surely if the prayer for this mercy makes the Pope infallible much more doth the actual donation of this mercy make believers infallible 5. This Prayer was intended for the other Apostles as well as Peter though Christ speak to Peter in the name of the rest as his manner was as evidently appears from hence Christ prays for those whom the Devil desires to winnow That is plain from the words Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed But the Devils aim was not only against Peter but the rest of the Apostles as Christ expressly tells us not thee but you in the plural number And therefore it follows that as the disease and danger was general and common to all the Apostles so was that relief and succour which Christ here afforded and consequently all the Apostles are interested in this promise and therefore either it makes not the successors of Peter infallible or else it makes all the successors of all the Apostles infallible let them choose which they will 6. And yet if all those difficulties be overcome the Conclusion may be granted without any advantage to their cause For what if Christ prayed for Peter alone What if this prayer intended and procured infallibility for him Quid hoc ad Iphieli boves What is this to the Pope What Scripture what Father what man that is not wholly mancipated to the Pope's ambitious humour will say or can prove that the Pope is interested in all the prayers of Christ for Peter Or why may not all the successors of the other Apostles upon as good grounds claim an interest in that prayer of Christ for the infallibility of all the Apostles joh. 17 For sure I am those prayers of Christ that God would keep them through his own name v. 11. keep them from evil v. 15. sanctify them through his truth and keep them unto glory v. 21 22 23 24. do as fully imply infallibility as this that Peter's faith might not fail Or if I do grant what they cannot prove that Peter's successors have this as their peculiar yet why should not this prayer preserve the chair of Antioch as well at that of Rome from fallibility And how can this prayer that his faith may not fail be put up by Christ for one of them that he tells us he doth not pray for joh. 17.9 I pray not for th● World i.e. of reprobates and such many Popes are confessed to have been or how can this prayer for perseverance in the faith be offered up by Christ for such as never had any true faith as is acknowledged of many Popes or how dare they say Christ prayed thus for the faith of all succeeding Popes when they confess the faith of several Popes hath failed It is true they have a miserable shift they tell us a Pope may err as a private person though not as a Pope he may err personally though not judicially not in Cathedrâ it is no doubt among us saith Costerus (a) Dico nullum apud nos dubium esse Romanum Pontificem ut hominem privatum errare ac in haeresin labi posse in Apologiâ cap. 2. That the Pope as a private person may err and fall into Heresy If this be granted the Pope is not concerned in this prayer and promise of infallibility For if this prayer for Peter reacheth to his Successors than the same privilege for which Christ here prays for Peter for the same he prayeth for his Successors But the same privilege which according to their supposition is here prayed for on Peter's behalf is not prayed for on the behalf of his successors themselves being Judges For Christ's prayer they confess secured Peter from falling into error even as a private person which you see they do not Pretend for the Pope But here is the benefit of the pope's reserving the key of interpretations in his own breast for now he can order it as he pleaseth and proportion the meanings of any Text as need requires and so this Text if you please to believe them it procures 1. That Peter cannot err neither personally nor judicially 2. That the Pope may err personally but not judicially 3. That the whole Church of Rome cannot err personally But it is all the reason in the world that the first inventors and Authors of Infallibility should have the disposing of it in their own hands § 12. A fourth place vehemently urged on the behalf of the Pope's Infallibility is Deut. 17.11 12. where the jowes are commanded under pain of death to stand to the judgement of the Highpriest and to do according to the sentence which the Priest should show them Therefore say they the Highpriest was infallible else the people had been bound to rest in a false decision & consequently the Pope who succeeds in the High-Priests place is infallible To which I answer 1. If a man should put them to prove the consequence how woefully would they be gravelled If these Romanists would lay aside their Dictatourship and condescend to the proof of their assertions how would they prove one of these things 1. That the high Priest of the Jews hath a visible Successor upon earth among Christians 2. That the Pope alone is this Successor 3. That this supposed successor must be invested with all the Privileges which the Highpriest had But I shall pass by all these and the horrible impertinency of the instance & feebleness of the consequence and shall assault them on the strongest side by denying the Antecedent viz. that any infallibility is here ascribed or promised to the Highpriest for proof hereof I offer these Arguments 1. No more infallibility is here ascribed to the Highpriest then to the Judge and to the inferior Priests But the Judge and inferior Priests were not infallible Ergo This place doth not prove the High-Priests Infallibility The Major is evident from the reading of the Words the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joined in the same commission with the Priest and the people are commanded to acquiesce indifferently in the determinations both of the one and of the other and therefore either both are infallible or neither Again it is not the Highpriest alone who is here meant but others also so the words run in the plural number the Priests the Levites v. 9 And they shall show thee they shall inform thee For the Minor it is acknowledged by the Papists Ergo. 2 If this text proves the high Priests infallibility it proves it in the matters here spoken of But this place doth not prove the high priests infallibility in the matters here spoken of for those are matters of fact between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke questions which were decided by Testimonies and in such they confess the Pope may err so than their Argument runs thus The high Priest was infallible in matters of fact Therefore the Pope is not infallible in matters of fact but he is infallible in matters of Faith but our comfort is as it is a dangerous Argument so themselves furnish us with an Antidote for they deny both propositions 1. they deny the consequent from matters of fact to matters of faith 2 They deny the antecedent for they do not ascribe to the Pope and consequently not to the high Priest infallibility in matters of fact You see what shifts they are put to to support their cause with such rotten posts to argue from the Aut hority of the priests to end particular controversies between man and man between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke which is all that place speaks of to the infallibility of the Pope in all the matters of God and deciding all the controversies of religion I think they have sufficiently improved the stock the high Priest left them 3 Those words however they may seem to a careless reader at first view do not assert the infallibility of the Priest or Priests nor the obligation of the people to an absolute submission and blind obedience to all their dictates and expositions & that for two undeniable reasons 1 Because other places of Scripture with whom this must be reconciled command both Prince and people to keep close to the word of God and to that end to read in the book of the law diligently and to do according to all that is written therein Deut. 5.32 33. You shall observe to do as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord commanded you So Deut. 6.6 etc. It is God's speech to joshua ch 1.8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein And in case of doubt it is the Prophet's injunction to the people to have recourse to the law and to the Testimony Isa. 8 20 Now put case an high priest should fall into Idolatry I may well suppose it for it was done and should expound the law so as to favour his opinion & practice I demand whether in this case the people of the Jews were bound to believe & obey him or not to worship an Idol or not Affirm it none will but one of a Jesuitical h. e.a feared conscience nor can any Christian hear such an assertion without horror If they deny it their argument from this place is lost 2 That sense of Scripture which justifies the Jews in in putting Christ to death is a false fence and corrupt exposition But the Popish sense of this place and their argument from it doth justify the Jews in putting Christ to death Ergo it is a corrupt exposition for the Major he that denies it deserves not the name of a Christian And whatever his successors will do at a pinch I am sure St. Peter did not justify them but severely condemns them and highly aggravates their sin in it Act. 2 & 3 & 4 & 5. The Minor about which alone the doubt lies I shall easily prove which I am more willing to do that all Christians may observe the just judgement of God and the fearful Apostasy of these men that rather than recant their errors will in effect renounce Christianity and justify the murderers of Christ I prove it thus If the Jews in that Act did nothing but what by virtue of this place they were obliged to do than they did not sin But the Jews did nothing in the murdering of Christ but what by virtue of this place If the Popish sense be true they were obliged to do Ergo The Major they do and must grant for it cannot be a sin to obey God's command The Minor I prove if this law did require absolute obedience to their Priests and was in force at that time than the Jews did nothing but what they were obliged to do But this law did require such obedience say the Papists and it was in force at that time say I Ergo The consequence no man will deny but he that doth not understand it The Minor I prove it in its two branches 1. This law bound the Jews to absolute obedience to their Priests This is known to be their opinion But because I have no great confidence in the ingenuity of these men I will prove it out of 2 or 3 of their most eminent authors Becanus hath these words the whole people in matters of religion were commanded to follow that which the Highpriest enjoined them (a) Totus populus in negotio religioais jubebatur id sequi quod Pontife● judicabat sequi oportere In manuali de judice controversiarum lib. 1. cap 5. nu 62. What more plain Thus Melchior Canus one of great Authority with them Moses doth not command that they should believe the Priests if they judged according to law but rather that they should take that for law which the Priest taught them (b) Non praecipit Moses ut sacerdotibus credant si judicarent secundum legem sed potius ut que sacerdotes docueriat ea pro lege habeantur in Oper Cani lib. 6. p. 510. Bellarm disputes against the assertion of Brentius That the people were to stand to the judgement of the High-Priest's only upon condition they judged according to law and argues that they were absolutely bound to follow it (c) De verbi Dei interp lib. 3 c. 4. And that you may see it is a resolved case Gretser defends Bel in it and tell 's us plainly the people were bound to stand to the High-Priests judgement whatsoever their sentence was (a) Quamcúmque sententiam tulerunt Defence Bel. lib. 3. cap. 4.1239 I think an Adversary will not require more for the proof of the first branch of the Minor The second branch of the Minor is that this law was then in force which I prove thus If Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished this Law it was in force But Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished it The Ceremonial Law which was to expire yet in the judgement of all intelligent Divines Ancient and Modern Popish and Protestant did not expire till the death of Christ and consequently while Christ lived this Law was in force which being considered quite invalidates the last and most plausible evasion of the Papists to this instance as Becanus delivers it Synagoga fere expiravit The Synagogue was almost expired He should have said the precept Deut. 17. was altogether expired and instead of it here is the Synagogue was almost expired And what then it was not yet expired nor dead A man that is almost dead is yet alive and while the Law lives it hath its force over us as the Apostle argues Rome 7.1 Else it is a pretty device of Becanus and will do fine feats for by the same Argument I will prove that the Jews were not then bound to observe their Passeover quia Synagoga fere expiravit And if that Law which enjoined the observation of the  was in full force to the Jews notwithstanding the nearness of its expiration than the same must be acknowledged of this Law which required absolute obedience to the High-Priests sentence and consequently the Jew's were then bound by it and therefore Horresco referens did not sin in it And because the conclusion is devilish and detestable to all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity therefore the principles from which it flows are rotten and that Popish cause which cannot stand without such prodigious blasphemies ought to be abhorred by all that pretend to Christianity And therefore the Popish gloss upon the place is false and their Argument from it is wicked and the true sense is this they were bound to hearken to the Priests if they delivered sentence according to the Law and not if they did grossly contradict it And the rejection of this exposition and the assertion of the people's implicit faith hath forced several of them who pass for sober men amongst our Adversaries into such expressions as these That this action of the Priests in condemning of Christ was indeed contrary to Christ but their sentence was most true and most profitable yea that it was a Divine Oracle So Canus (a) Nam sacerdotum veterum acta quidem Christo adversa fuerunt at seatentia bominum alioqui pessimorum non solum verissima sed reipub etiam utilissima fuit Quin Divinum oraculum fuisse Johannes testatur in operibus lib. 5. ca ult. pag. 283. That at that time the Priests had the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth So Petrus a Soto (b) Non defuit tune temporis sacerdotio Levitico Spiritus Propheticus Spiritus Sanctus spiritus veritatis in Evolegomenis That the Arts of that Council were wicked but the sentence whereby they condemned Christ was just and true So Harding (c) Against jewels Apology ca 6 divis 3. par 6. Really Protestant's must be tender in pressing their Arguments too far for the Papists like wild Horses when they are chased will venture over hedge and ditch We have already made them turn Jews I am afraid next remove we shall dispute them into Paganism if they be not there already § 13. And thus I have dispatched the Romanists pretensions from Scripture for the Pope's Supreme and infallible Authority If infallibility have any foundation in Scripture it is in these places And how far they are from giving any countenance or support to their opinion I leave to that reader to judge who hath either sense or conscience or any care of his Salvation But I must not do them wrong I confess there is one Argument behind and that is taken from S t Peter prerogatives And Bellarmine reckons up no less than twenty eight Prerogatives which all undoubtedly belong to the Pope yes that I confess strikes all dead and therefore I must crave the Readers pardon and Bellarmine's mercy if I once do as the Papists do ordinarily pass over in silence what I cannot Answer for who can resist these Evidences Peter's name is changed Ergo the Pope's nature is changed from fallible to infallible Peter is oft mentioned in the first place therefore aught to have the first seat and is the chief Bishop Peter walks with Christ upon the Water and therefore the Pope must reign with him upon earth and Divisum imperium cum jove Papa tenet Peter pays Tribute and therefore the Pope should have a power of levying Tribute to reinburse him Christ teacheth in Peter's Ship and therefore to quit scores the Pope should rule in Christ's Church Christ bids Peter let down his Net therefore the Pope must catch the Fish of Supremacy Christ washeth Peter's feet therefore all men must kiss the Pope's Toe These and divers other such prerogatives Bel hath collected together and vehemently argues from them for the Pope's Supremacy (a) De Pontifice lib. 1. ca 17. ad ca 25. but for these I must desire some time to give in my Answer I hope I have said enough to prove the second Proposition viz. That the Scripture in itself is not a sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith according to their Principles and that the pope's 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 than 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 principal 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 Counsels and all things in the Church are doubtful and uncertain Eccius (a) Tollatur Patrum & Conciliorum authoritas & omnia in Ecclesiâ erunt ambigua dubia pendentia incerta In Euchiridio de Conciliis From the Writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Universities have the certainty of their assertions and Counsels have their decrees (b) Et Scriptis Sanctorum Patrum velut ex oraculis Theologorum Academiae assertionum suarum constanliam accipiunt summique Pontifices decreta sumirat in praefat lib 5. Biblioth Sixtus Senensis Melilior Canus an Author of great Note among the Romanists lays down this Conclusion That the common sense of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certain Argument to confirm Theological assertions For saith he the sense of all those Holy men is the sense of God's Spirit And a little after Although you may require of a Philosopher the reason of a Philosophical 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 err in a matter of Faith (a) In expositione sacrarum literarum communis omnium sanctorum veterum intelligentia certissimum argumentum Theologo praestat ad Theologicas assertiones corroborand as Quip cum sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus Sancti sensus ipse sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in Sacrarum autem literarum intelligentiâ majoribus nostris debes nullâ etiam ratione habitâ credere & quas sententias de lege de fide deque religione ab illis accepisti defendere Loc. Theolog. lib. 7. c. 3. Conclus 5. Sancti simul omnes in fidei Dogmate errare non possunt Ibid. Conc. 6. All the Fathers together do never err nor can they agree in one error saith Bell. (b) Patres nunquam omnes simul errand etiam si aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Bel. lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2. et l. 1. de Purgat c. 10. The sayings and Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers are not to be examined when all or almost all do agree in one opinion saith Salmeron (c) Non sunt probanda examinanda veterum Patrum dicta & testimonia quando omnes vel fere omnes in unam sententiam conveniunt lib. 1. Epis. Pauli part 3. disp. 6. in fine That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is Infallibly true saith Gregory de Valentiá (d) Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est in Analist fidei lib. 8. c 8. from all which we plainly see that according to their opinion the judgement of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faith That is it which I am now to disprove and to show That the Writings of the Fathers neither are nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith § 2. Only 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 only to deny that pretended infallibility which none did more dislike than 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 only and his inspired ones We grant their Testimony is highly credible especially where there is indeed that which is oft pretended but seldom proved viz. an universal consent but their Authority is not infallible 2. That I do not fall into this dispute as declining the judgement of the Fathers of the first 600 years or suspecting their partiality on the Pope's 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 controversy between us and the Romanists but if judgement were to be given by any impartial 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 laid in the dust only because that work is so thoroughly done by others and would swell this into a voluminous bigness I shall forbear that and proceed to handle what I proposed and P shall prove the proposition by four Arguments 1. All those assertions and Arguments which the Papists urge against the Authority of sacred Scripture for the decision of controversies do no less 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 hear both parties it cannot compel trangressours to obedience it doth not particularly condemn Heretics It doth not say Erras Jacobe Gretsere Gretser you are in an error It speaks doubtfully and men dispute about the sense of Scripture and so controversies will be endless Hence I thus argue Either those Arguments are strong and cogent against the Scriptures Authority or they are not If they be not than 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 dumb that they cannot deliver sentence and can the Writings of St Austin hear and speak Doth not the Scripture say Gretser you are in an error And do the writings of Jerome or Ambrose say Luther you are in an error Cannot S t Paul condemn Heretics and compel transgressors to obedience and can S t Cyprian do it What offence hath St Paul done that Peter's Successors should thus degrade him sure Manet altâ ment repostum they bore 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 received 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 Again another of their Arguments Why the Scripture cannot of itself 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 Church's judgement I cannot tell which of their Writings are genuine 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 practice in their days So again Scripture is obscure and ambiguous and full of seeming contradictions and there are many disputes about the true sense 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 appears 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 dark passages of the Fathers in which no less then in S t Paul's 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 judgements of the Fathers and their meaning in several 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 several and contrariant assertions with plausible allegations from the Fathers Nor are there only seeming contradictions in the Fathers as there are in Scripture but most real 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 himself in another But for this and other things concerning the Father's Authority I must refer the Reader to those Learned Authors that have exemplified this in several Instances (a) Whitakar Gerhard Daille Once more The Scripture they say is corrupted and falsified in several 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 woefully they are corrupted in multitudes of places and needs must the Fathers fare worse than 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 privilege of the Church say all the Papists The only question is What this Church is Some make it the Pope others a Council others the whole body of the faithful 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 himself notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility may err 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 than others to come to our hand and whether to all them together or only to a part of them For one of these they must avoidable 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 than another excepting always the Bishop of Room of whose Infallibility it must be confessed there was never any quaestion namely in those days none had the impudence to assert it if that be granted yet those few whose writings are extant of whom alone our controversy is might all be fallible though the Major part of the Fathers be acknowledged infallible If it be said those Fathers do not only speak their own sense but the sense 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 Sir Kenelm Digby White Holden and the Papists of the new Model 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 sense 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 Jew's and Gentiles and the heretics of that Age 2 However that being purely matter of fact to understand and report the History of the Church's 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 be fallible in such matters and as it is confessed the Pope may err through fear or hope or humane passions as Liberius Marcellinus and others did at best for a season so doubtless might the Fathers either through weakness misunderstand or through favour or prejudice misreport the sense 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 we would desire them to set the●r inventions on work to devise a reason why the Writers were infallible ●and not the Preachers seeing the Apostles who had and all others that pretend to Infallibility as the Pope and Council challenge it equally in their Sermons and Writings in their verbal and written decrees and much less 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 desperateness of their cause that they are found to attribute this Infallibility not only to all conjunctly but to the most of that small remnant of surviving Writers as you saw from their expressions which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert I shall take the boldness to ask by what right shall five Fathers vid. Dionysius Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and Hermes supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age I say by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name or privilege of the whole Catholic Church of that Age for it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made in what Scripture or Father or Lexicon do five Fathers make up the whole Church True it is the Pope hath a peculiar privilege in this point and is by the Jesuits invested with the name of the Church The Church Virtual And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title for having swallowed up all the rights and privileges of the Church he ought to have the Name into the bargain But setting aside that prodigious I would know why I might not as well say that five of the Romish Doctors viz. Salmeron Canus Costerus Stapleton and Bellarmine are the Church of Rome or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England nay all the Protestant World as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age Yet again forasmuch as they ascribe infallibility not only to all but also to the major part of the Fathers of these five then two may err by their own confession And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions Well then to keep to this particular instance It is granted that Dionysius may err and so may Ignatius than the Infallibility is preserved in Clemens and Polycarpus and Hermes But they also or any two of them may err in other things and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius and Ignatius and Hermes Thus it seems Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball from one to another and they have it by turns Such monsters must be in the Conclusion if Infallibility be in the premises That is enough for the second Argument § 5. The third Argument is this The Fathers profess they are not infallible either they say true or false if true than they are not infallible if false than they erred in that assertion and therefore are not Infallible So the Papists are gone by their own Argument and rule too For here we have the consent of the Fathers It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose I shall only suggest some few which are evident and undeniable in this particular Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets by the Gospel and by the Apostles and he adds If any man think this Principle needs another Principle he doth not indeed keep that Principle But the Papists say the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it viz. the Church's Authority Ergo the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostasy And he adds that the standard by which things are to be examined is not the testimony of men therefore not the Testimony of Fathers Counsels Popes who I think are all men save only that several of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts but the Word of the Lord And lest you should understand it of Tradition he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord We do not saith he believe the assertions of men they must not only say but prove Lib. Stromatum 7. versus sinem and that too from the Scriptures What can be more express So Basil (a) In Moralium regulâ 72. in initio tells us The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers they must receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject those things which are contrary to it Where we plainly see S t Basils' direct contrariety to the principles and practice of the Romish Church 1. St Basil allows his hairs to examine their teacher's Doctrine so do not the Papists The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastors that if their Pastors shoulderre the people were bound to err with them saith Tannerus (b) In Collatione Ratesbonensi §. 9 A Christian is bound to receive the Church's Doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine Pastors are simply to be heard in all things nor are we to consider what is said but who said it i. e. if he were a lawful Pastor as Stapleton (d) In causa fidei non est considerandum quid dicatur sed quis dicat Relect. con 1. qu. 4. art 2. p. 91. Ecclesiam audire populum fidelem Christus jubet Doctrinam Ecclesiae populam expendere non jubet Stapleton Tripliciat adversus Whitak pro Eccles. Author pag. 89 cap. 9 Et alibi voci Ecclesi in Doctrinâ fidei simpliciter & absolute acquiescendum est in Robert con 4. qu. 3. art 3. bellows it out for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man (c) Debet Christanus sine examine recipere Doctrinaem ecclesiae Bellar. de verbi Dei Interpretatione lib. 3. c. 10. And yet these are the men who will not depart a nails breadth from the Fathers This is the Church the principal note whereof is consent with the Fathers of which you may judge by this and what we shall add from others 2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined not Fathers not Counsels not Traditions but the Papists are of another mind S t Clara. (a) Prodiit quidam Dialogus solenniter Parisiis approbatus In quo expresse asserit Ecclesiam ideo recipere Scripturas quia & in quen'um sunt conformes fidei quam ab Apostolis per traditiones accepit non è converso Et bactenus sine dubio rectissimè Systemat fidei cap. 11. in initio tells us of a Popish Treatise written by a friend of his solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sorbon so you see it is no particular fancy but a received opinion where saith he that Author expressly asserts that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures because and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily i.e. She doth not receive Tradition because and so far as it agrees with Scripture And thus far doubtless he was in the right saith S t Clare And consequently Basil was in the wrong That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten (b) Quod solus Christus debet audiri Pater de celo testatur Non ergo debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui aste omnes est Christus prior fecerit neque enim hominus consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Epistola 63. ad Ciecilium That Christ alone is to be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought but what he that was before all Christ first did for we are not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God If the Papists would say as much this controversy would be at an end And it is observable that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and animadversions wherever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions passeth over this place with profound silence as well seeing it was so hot it would have burned his Fingers St chrysostom (a) 13. Homilia in 2. ex ad Corinth versus finem is as fully Protestant in this particular as if he had been of Council in our cause in two points he is positive for us 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude but let us examine things and not contented to deliver the assertion he adds a reason Is it not absurd that when you are to receive m●ny you do not trust other men but examine it yourselves and when you are to judge of things then to be drawn away by other men's opinions And this saith he is the worse fault in you because you have the Scriptures That brings in the second heresy of Chrysostom's The rule by which he commands them to try all things is the Scripture and the mischief too is he calls it a perfect rule you have saith he an exact standard and rule of all things and he concludes thus I beseech you do not regard what this or that man thinks but inquire all things of the Scriptures I know no way to avoid this evident testimony but one if I might advise them the next Jesuit that Writes shall swear these words were foisted into Chrysostom's works by the Protestants and that they are not to be found in an old Manuscript Copy of chrysostom in the Vatican What Protestant can deliver our Doctrine more fully than Origen It is necessary saith he that we should allege the Testimony of Scriptures without which our expositions do not command faith (b) Necesse est nobis Scripture as sanctas in testimonium vocare sensis quip et enarrationes nostroe sine his testibus non habent fidem Homil. 1. re Jerem. Or then cyril Do not believe me saying these things unless I prove them out of the Scriptures (c) Catechesi 4. Or then Ambrose thus speaking to the Emperor Gratian I would not you should believe our Argument or disputation let us ask the Scriptures ask the Prophets the Apostles (d) Nolo Argumento nosiro credas Sancte Imperator aut nostrae disputationi Scripture as interrogemus Apostolos interrogemus Prophet as interrogemus Christum lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum S t Austin had none of the Fathers in greater veneration than Cyprian and Ambrose yet hear how he speaks of them of Cyprian thus (e) Ejus Authoritate non teneor ejus litter as non ut Canonicas habeo eas ex Canonicis considero quod Scripturae non congruit cum pace ejus respuo in lib. 2 contra Cressonium cap. 32. I am not obliged by his Authority I do not look on his Epistles as Canonical but I examine them by the Scriptures and what is repugnant thereunto with his good leave I reject it Would the Papists give us but this liberty we should desire no more and of Ambrose he saith the like Peradventure it will be said in this point as it is in the general That although it is confessed by the Fathers that particular Doctors are liable to error yet in such things wherein the Fathers do unanimously agree they have an infallible Authority and are a sufficient foundation of Faith To this I answer 1 If this were granted it doth not in the least secure the Romists concernments because there is not one of all those points controverted between them and us wherein such unanimous consent can be produced but in every one of them there are pregnant allegations out of some of the Father's repugnant to their opinions and assertions This their learned men cannot but know and if they have any ingenuity in them they cannot deny 2 I answer with Witaker against urging this very Plea What a silly thing is it to deny that that which happened to each of them cannot possibly happen to all of them (a) Quam hoc ineptum est quod singulis contigit id nogare posse in omnes cadere Contra lib. 6. De Firmamentis patrum pag. 414. And with Gerhard the Testimonies of the Fathers collectively taken cannot be of another kind and nature than they are distributively (b) Patrum singulorum testimonia collective sumpta non possiunt esse alterius generis quam singula sunt distributiuè Confess Cathol lib. 1. par 2. cap. 13. Nor can any man deny the truth of the proposition if he apprehends the meaning of it for how can the same persons being only considered under a double notion be both fallible and infallible at the same time And if Austin Ambrose Cyprian supposing these were all the Fathers be each of them fallible how can a mere collective consideration of them render them infallible 3. I Answer with Learned Dr Holdsworth That the Fathers deny this Infallibility not only to one or two of them dispersedly but to all the Ancients collectively considered (c) Non solum de uno aut altero sparsim sed de omnibus veteribus gregatim in scriptis suis Patres ubique pronuntiant & corum dogmata esse ad Scripturas expendenda ut probentur & eorum testimonia ex Scripturis aestimanda ut ex istarum consensulaut dissensu magis minusve valeant ad fidei controversi as dirimend as Lect. 46. and this I shall prove only by one Argument They that make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonical Writer deny the Infallibility of the Fathers either collectively or distributively considered But the Fathers make Infallibility the peculiar property of the Canonical Writers and abjudicate it from all other Writers S t Jerome is express Except the Apostles whatsoever else is afterward said let it be cut off for it hath no Authority (a) Exceptis Apostolis quodcunque ali●d postea disitur abscindatur non postec authoritatem in Psal. 86. c Scito me aliter habere Apostolas aliter reliquos tractatores illos sem●er vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Epist. 62. ad Theoph. Alex. And again I make a difference between the Apostles and other Writers those always said Truth but these in somethings as men did err (b) Id literarum à nobis non cum credendi necessitate sed cum judi● andi libertate ● gendum est contra Faustum 1. 11. c. 5. St Austin makes this difference between the Holy Scriptures and all other Writings That those are to be read with a necessity of believing but these with a liberty of judging (c) Quod Divinarum scriptur arum perspic●â firmatur Authoritate sine ullâ dubitat●one credendum ess aliis veto testibus vel testimoniis tibi credere vel non credere liceat quantum ca momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis Epis. 112. add Paulineim What living man can express the Protestant Doctrine in more evident terms then the same Father elsewhere doth That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other witnesses and testimonies whether more or fewer agreed or divided all is one to S t Austin you may receive them or reject them as you shall judge they have more or less weight (d) Solis Scripturarum libris didici bune timorem honoremque deferre ut nullum corum seribendo errasse fi●missimè eredam Alios autera ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate ductrináque proepollcant non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt sed quia per Canonicas persuadere potnerimt Tom. 2. Epis. 19 And again when he was pressed by jerom with the Authority of six or seven of the Greek Fathers he thus Answers (c) Quod Divinarum scriptur arum perspic●â firmatur Authoritate sine ullâ dubitat●one credendum ess aliis veto testibus vel testimoniis tibi credere vel non credere liceat quantum ca momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis Epis. 112. add Paulineim I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture to believe there is no error in them But as for others how Learned or Godly soever they be I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they proved it so to be by the Scriptures To conclude so evident is St. Austin's judgement in that point that it forced this ingenuous confession from a learned and acute Papist Occam by name who speaking of a passage of St. Augustine's about this point hath these words (a) Notandum quòd Augustinus in authoritate illa loquens de scriptoribus aliis à scriptoribus Bibliae inter hos scriptores & illos non distinguit & ideo sive fuerint summi Pontifices sive alii sive scripserint aliquid in Concilio sive extra consimile the eyes judicium est habendum Part. 3. Dialog tract 1. lib. 3. cap. 24. It is to be noted that Austin in that authority speaking of other writers beside the penmen of the Scripture mak●s no difference among these Non-Canonical Writers and therefore whether they be Popes or others whether they writ in Council or out of Council the same judgement is to be passed upon them You see St. Austin's mind is plain and doth our Adversaries themselves being judges directly overturn that great fundamental point of the Infallibility of Counsels and Popes which if you will believe them is not only true but necessary to salvation and yet these are the men that walk in the good old paths These are they that maintain no doctrine but what hath been conveyed to them by the Fathers I know no Salvo but that which they use in the great article of Transubstantiation viz. to tell us we must not believe ourselves when we read such passages in the Fathers and that together with the eyes of our mind our Reasons and Consciences we must give up the eyes of our body to the Pope's disposal And this doctrine of Augustine's if you will believe the Romanists when delivered by the Protestants is a new and upstart doctrine never heard of in the world till Luther's days and by this you may judge of the justice of that charge when the like is said of our other doctrines I might fill up a Treatise with pertinent citations out of the Fathers to this purpose but this is enough for any but those who are resolved to sacrifice their consciences to the Pope's ambition and for them it is too much § 7. The fourth and last argument is this The Papists themselves whatever sometimes they pretend yet indeed do not make the Fathers the ground & foundation of their Faith but acknowledge them fallible 1. This appears from what hath already been discoursed concerning their avowed Doctrine That Infallibility is the proper and peculiar privilege of the Church and consequently belongs not to the Fathers in their single capacities 2. It appears from the acknowledged novelty of several Romish doctrines which their most learned men confess cannot be proved from the Fathers Such are 1. The doctrine of forbidding the reading of the Scripture to Laymen as they are called We confess in their days viz. of ●erome and Augustine Laymen were conversant in the reading of the Scripture saith Azorius (a) Fatemur tune temporis sub aetate Hieronymi & Chrysostomis laicos in Scripturarum lectione versatos fuisse Instit. Moral lib. 8. cap. 26. And whereas many Popish Authors expound those words joh. 5 39 indicatively as if they did only acquaint us with the practice of the Jews and not contain a command of Christ to his hearers to read the Scriptures Tolet and Maldonaete (b) in locum both witness that chrysostom Theophylact and Augustine and all weighty authors except Cyrill do understand it imperatively for a command of Christ 2 They acknowledge the novelty of Transubstantiation The words of Scotus are these (c) Prout recitatur à Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. unum addit Scotus quod minimè probandum est Ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantia●ionem Before the Lateran Council the doctrine of Transubstantiation was no point of faith and the first Laeteran Council was above 1100 years after Christ's birth And Alphonsus de Castro delivers this memorable assertion Many things are known to later Authors which the Ancient writers were wholly ignorant of for these seldom make any mention of Transubstantiation (a) Multa sunt posterioribus nota quae vetusti illi scriptores prorsus ignoraverunt Nam de Transubstantiatione vara esi in antiquis scriptoribus mentio lib. 8. contra haereses in verbo Indulgentia 3 The doctrine of Indulgencies and Purgatory I join them both together as being near of kin of which Bishop Fisher hath this remarkable passage (b) Nemo jam dubitat orthodoxus an Purgatorium sit de quo tamen apud priscos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio Contemplantes igitur aliquamdiu Purgatorium incognitum fuisse cum itaque Purgatorium tam serò cognitum ac receptum fuerit Ecclesiae quis jam de Indulgentiis mirari potest gaòd in principio nullus fuerit earum usus Roffensis in confutatione Lutheri p. 496. No orthodox Christian now doubts whether there be a Purgatory though the Ancients seldom or never mentioned it And a little after Considering that Purgatory was for a good while unknown and again seeing then Purgatory was known and received in the Church so lately who can wonder that Indulgencies were not used in the primitive Church So Gabriel By el (c) Ante tempora Beati Gregorii modicus vel nullus fuit usus Indulgentiarum Nunc autem crebrescit earum usus quia Ecclesia sine dubio habet spiritum Christi ideoque non errat in lect. 57 super canonem Missae Before the times of St. Gregory & that was 600 years after Christ there was little or no use of Indulgencies but now they are used frequently because the Church without doubt hath the spirit of Christ and therefore cannot err That sine dubio did his work for I was about to dispute against his assertion but that phrase quite took away my courage You see it is a courtesy that the Papists will condescend to prove their doctrine from Scripture and Fathers whereas if they would stand upon their terms they might argue thus The conclusion without doubt is true that the Church cannot err therefore a fig for the premises So Durandus (a) De Indulgentiis pauca dici possunt per certitudinem quòd nec Scriptura expressè de eis loquitur Sancti etiam ut Ambros. Hilar. Aug. Hieron minimè loquuntur de Indulgentiis in lib. 4. de sentent didst 20. qu. 3. cum 4. Concerning Indulgencies little can be said with any certainty because the Scripture speaks not expressly of them and the holy Fathers Aug: Ambrose Hilary Jerome do not at all mention them And Cajetan expressly (b) Nulla Scriptura sacra nulla priscorum Doctorum Graecorum vel Latinorum authoritas Indulgentiarum ortum ad nostram deduxit no titiam Opuse 15. cap. 1. No sacred Scripture no authority of ancient Fathers either Greek or Latin hath brought the rise of Indulgencies to our knowledge And yet if you please to believe it this and all the doctrines of the Romish Church are no other than such as have been handed to them from the Apostles by all the ancient Fathers in an uninterrupted succession I believe I could instance in twenty several Articles of the Romish Church for which they have no colour of authority from any of the Fathers But this may suffice for a Specimen of that respect which the Papists have for the Fathers when they do not comply with their humours The Fathers were so ignorant for a thousand years together that they did not understand or so negligent that they did not instruct their people in that great mystery of Transubstantiation than which none was more necessary to be taught because none more difficult to believe The Fathers were so hardhearted and cruel that they would suffer souls to fry in Purgatory for hundreds of years together whom they might have certainly released by the help of Indulgencies The Fathers were so indiscreet that they allowed their hearers to read the Scriptures and have them in a vulgar tongue But now it is not fit to be granted saith Sixtus Sinensis (a) lib. 6. Biblioth annet 152. The Church of Rome hath got a monopoly of all knowledge fidelity tender-heartedness which you will wonder at discretion and all good qualities and Infallibility into the bargain This is the excellency of the Romish faith that it is calculated for any Meridian Are any of their doctrines seemingly favoured by the Fathers why than you shall have large Harangues concerning the authority of the Fathers and their adherence to them Are there any of their points wherein the Fathers are either silent of opponent why they are furnished with another strain that the Fathers were but private Doctors and had their failings The chief of the Fathers had their falls saith Bellarmine (b) Praecipui Patrum lapsi sunt de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. In the books of the Ancients which the Church reads as authentic sometimes are found wicked and heretical passages saith Sixtus Sinensis * In sibris sanctorum Doctorum quos authenticè legit Ecclesia nonnunquam inveniuntur quaedam prava & haeretica Praesat in lib. 5. Biblioth And so long as the Church of Rome reserves to herself always a liberty of determining what passages are wicked and heretical I trow she is out of Gun-shot I do not value origen's judgement saith Pererius (c) In Rom. 3. disp. 6. And that you may see the Papists do insanire cum ratione I pray you take notice that what they want in conscience and honest dealing they make up in wit and therefore have devised several ingenuous shifts whereby they can elude the most pregnant testimonies of the Fathers levied against them Sometimes they answer that the Fathers speak in opposition to the present Adversary they were disputing with not as laying down their own positive opinion thus Perron (d) lib 1. de Euchar. p. 52. and Sixtus Senensis (e) Praefat in lib. 5. Biblioth Sometimes they say the Fathers speak declamatorio more by perbolically and by excess thus Sixtus Senensis answers our allegations from the Fathers for reading the Scripture (a) lib. 6. Bibl. annot 52. Thus Petavius answers a clear passage of Chrysostom's against Auricular Confession (b) Animadvers in Epiphanii haereses 59 pag. 244. At other times they tell us the Fathers did not always speak what they thought but what they saw necessary to confute their Adversaries thus Perron answers the citations from the Fathers against creature-worship If you allege the Epistles of the Fathers they tell you the Fathers did not use fully to open their minds in those writings So Perron answers a Testimony of Augustine's against Transubstantiation Sometimes they plead that the Fathers speak the opinion of others not their own as Bellarmine answers a place out of Hierom. (c) lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 11. If you bring any passage out of their Poems they say the Fathers did use Poetical liberty as Bellarmine answers to Prudentius (d) De Purgatorio lib. 2. cap. 18. So just was the judgement of the University of Douai upon Bertrams Book of the body and blood of Christ Seeing we bear many errors in the ancient Fathers and extenuate and excuse them and oft times by some devised 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 (e) Cum in veteribus aliis plurimos feramus errores & extenuemus excusemus excogitato commento persaepe negamus & commoduna iis sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut conflictionibus cum adversariis non videmus eur non eandem aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mereatur Bertramus Vide Ind. expurg in tit B. And thus they deal with the Fathers when they displease their humour and oppose their doctrines But if the Fathers deliver any thing that seems to countenance their conceits than every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical and every word an argument then the Fathers have done playing and quibbling than 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 (a) Lib. 1. in Genes. dis 106. For this opinion Sixtus Senensis reckons up Origen Lactant Athenas Methodius Hilarius Damascinus Cassianus and the second Council of Nice to whom Maldonat adds as Clemens Alexan Theodoret Tertullian Ambrose Augustine etc. such a Constellation one shall seldom 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 Roman 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 Council of Trent concerning Original sin in which decree they expressly tell us they would not have her included (b) Declarat sancta Synodus non esse suae intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto ubi de peccato originali agitist beatam & immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei genetricem conc Trident. in sess 5. 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 Az●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 judgement of the ancient Fathers therein which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves than which they cannot desire a fairer trial Hear Canus All the ancients that make any mention of this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as Ambrose Aug: Chrys: etc. and none of them contradicted that assertion and then he adds 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 (a) Sancti antiqui omnes qui in eius rei mentionem inciderunt uno ore asseverârunt Beatam Virginem in peccato originali conceptam & nullus sancturum contravenit Infirmum tamen ex omnium authorilute argumentum ducitur quin potius contraria sententia probabiliter & defenditur loc. theol lib. 7. c. 1. 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 the fide or no matter of faith (b) ibid. 3. A remedy as bad as the disease 1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine is not the fide till the Pope or Council have determined it from whence would follow amongst many other gross absurdities 1. That it was not the fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias no Council having determined it 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not the fide before the Council of Nice 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Council revealing it in their Decrees But I need say no more of this because it is rejected by divers of their own most Learned Authors It is the common opinion of Doctors that a Council 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 confirm saith White (a) Communis Doctorum sentextia sert conilium non facere aliquid de fide sed decernere esse seu prius fuisse de fide ut Sancti etiam Patres abunde confirmant De fide & Theologia Tract 2. Sect. 22. 2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine For the Council of Basil had positively defined and determined it as pious and agreeable to Faith reason and Scripture to be embraced by all Catholics and that it should be lawful to no man to teach the contrary (b) Ses. 36. This put S Clara so hard to it that he is forced to this horrible shift that they only defined it tanquam piam & consonam fidei Now the terms tanquam & consonam are terms of diminution (c) In systemate fidei cap. 35. p. 377. But to return Salmeron treating of this point tells 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 tells 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 judgement as Augustine answered the Donatists it was a sign that a cause wanted truth which leaned upon Authority That the younger Doctors see further than the ancients that is to say the Romish Doctors are wiser than the Ancient Fathers (a) Argumentum ab authoritate infirmum est Respondemus ex verbo Dei Exod. 23.1 In judicio plurimorum non acquisces sententiae ut a vero devies cum Augustinus respondent Donatistis signum esse cause à veritatis nervo destitutae quae soli multorum Authoritati qui errari possunt innititur Doctores quo juniores co perspicatiores sunt Disp. 51. in Rom. 5. I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors the next time the purging humour takes them they richly deserve a room in the judex expurgatorius And yet these are the only adorers of the Ancient 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 (b) Nos pat●um Doctrinam non aeliqu● ex parte admittimus aelian repudiamus sed integram amplectimur Contra Whitak fol. 140. We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian (c) Tenemus integra volumina In decem rationibus rat 5. 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 (d) Incorrupti sunt judices controversiarum neque enim credibile est eos presertim in rebus quae fidem attingunt à Deo sic destitutos fuisse ut ●psi errarint doctrináque suâ alios in errorem induxerint In Euchir p. 64. Will you see more of this mystery of iniquity I shall only name the rest Divers Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the general 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 (a) Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii 1. sententiam qui sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesiâ Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessariam in Joh. 6. vers. 53. That the Lords Supper should be received by the people in both kinds For the Council 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 ancient Church (b) Sessione 13. That the Saints departed should not be admitted to the vision of God before the day of judgement So much Perron confesseth and Sixtus Senensis (c) Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. That the Saints should reign with Christ a thousand years that Pamelius grants (d) In notis super Cypriani hortationem ad martyrium In all these and several others it is known that the Church of Rome asserts the contrary how truly and justly I dispute not nor is it material to my purpose which is only to show how upon all occasions where need requires they do as little regard the Authority of the Fathers as any whom they most traduce for so doing But would you know the mystery of this why The Fathers are not reckoned as Fathers when they deliver any thing which they did not receive from the Church saith Duraeus (e) Neque enim patres censentur cum suum aliquid quod ab Ecclesiam non acceperunt seribunt vel docent con Whit. ubi supra In earnest that saying deserved a Cardinals Cap. And Baily the Jesuit seconds him in it where putting this question Whether the Authority of the Doctors Fathers ought to be admitted he answers Yes as f●r as the Church approves of them (f) Debetne admitti Doctorum Patrum Authoritas Debet quatenus ab Ecclesia approbatur in Catecbis The Fathers have Authority with us as far as we please I will add a third that you may see it is a ruled case and that is Gresserus A Father saith he is one that feeds the Church with wholesome Doctrine but if instead of corn he give chaff or tares he is not now a Father but a stepfather not a teacher but a seducer * Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur qui Ecclesiam salutari Doctrinâ alit & pascit jam vero si pro salutifero Doctrinae pabulo offerat & adducatur lolium & zizania perversorum dogmatum eatenus non Pater est sed vitricus non Doctor sed seductor In lib. 2. de jure ac more prohibendi libras noxios cap. 10. When the Fathers say any thing which seems to countenance their positions than they are Fathers uncorrupt judges infallible interpreters and Purgatory is too mild a punishment for him that shall go one hairs breadth from them But if the Fathers will once begin to take upon them if they will exceed those bounds the Pope hath set them and contradict his interest or opinion than it is time to take them a peg lower than they call them Fathers but make children of them They had better have held their Tongues for now all comes out and the Papists are the Cham's as they call the Protestants who uncover their Father's nakednesses Then Eusebius who when he is Orthodox in the Roman account passeth for a most famous Writer a most learned man and a Catholic with Lindanus (a) Panopl l. cap. 17. §. inprimis Sixtus Senensis (b) Apud Baron in Anal. tom 3. an 340. and others is all on a sudden transubstantiated into an Arrian Heretic with Costerus (c) Haereticus Arrianus in Apologiá contra Grevinchovium c. 8. n. 9 and Baronius (d) Loco jam citato Then poor Tertullian who when he speaks righteous things passeth for a most noble Author the chief of all the Latin Fathers with Lindanus (e) Nobilis admodum author latinorum omnium facile princeps Panopl cap. 23. is not so much as a man of the Church nay he is an heretical Author an heresiarch a Montanist say Azorius (a) Tom. 1. Moral lib. 8. ca 16. and Bellarm (b) Lib. 1. de Sanctis ca 5. Then Origen who when he is a good boy passeth for a witness beyond exception with Duraeus (c) Testis omni sane exceptione major contra Whitak sol 109. another master of the Churches after the Apostles as Jerome calls him saith Lindanus (d) Alterum Ecclesiarum post Apostolos Magistrum asebat Hieronymus Panop lib. 3. cap. 26. is a mere schismatic saith Canus (e) Loc. come lib. 7. cap. 3. num 11. the Father of the Arrians and Eunomians saith Maldonate (f) In johan. 1.3 Then Constantine himself that you may see the Church of Rome is not guilty of respect of persons is not much to be regarded he was a greater Emperor than Doctor saith Bellarm. (g) De verbo Dei 1. 4. c. 11. Then Lactantius is better skilled in Tully then in the Scripture and Victorinus was a Martyr but wanted learning saith Bellarmine (h) Lactantius magis librorum Ciceronis quam Scripturarum Sanctarum peritus Victorinus martyr quidem fuit sed ei cruditio defuit Lib. 1. de sanctis 6.5 in fine Nay I think both he and the rest of the Fathers wanted wit as well as learning for if they would but have blotted out all Anti-Romish passages which might have been done with one Blot provided it reached from the beginning to the end of their works they had all passed for Orthodox and admirable men and we had not heard one word of their infirmities or miscarriages What need I trouble myself and the Reader with saying that which all the World knows concerning the Papists receding from the common sense of the Fathers in expositions of Scripture and preferring new interpretations before them not fearing their own Tridentine thunderbolt That no man should dare to interpret Scripture against the common consent of the Fathers (a) Sessione 4. For which I shall only refer the reader to those places where he may be more fully satisfied that this was the opinion and practice of the Learned and approved Romanists as Cajetan (b) In Prafatione in Pentateuchum Pererius (c) Lib. 3. in Gen. qu. 5. n. 45. Maldonate (d) la muitis locis Joh. 8.56 Mat. 16.18 & 19 and several others (e) Stella in Luc. 10. 21. Baronius in Annal. Tom. 1. An. 34. Patres in interpretatione Scripturarum non semper Catholicam Ecclesiam sequuntur § 9 In short to strike the business dead you shall have the positive judgement of the principal pillars of the Romish Church Sacred Doctrine saith Aquinas useth Authority of Scripture as a necessary Argument but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church only as a probable Argument for our faith leans upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets not to other Doctors (f) Sacrae Doctrina Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate Argumentando authoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae arguendo ex propriis sed probabilitet Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae non ●utem revelationi si quae fuit aliis Doctoribus factae Part. 1. qu. 1. art 8. The Authorities of the Fathers without the Scripture doth not oblige my faith saith Biel (g) Authoritates patrum sine Scripturis non obligant ad fidem Lect. 41 in Canon Missae It is the property of the Holy Scriptures that there is no error in it which needs correction saith Baronius (h) Divinae tantum Scripturae nihil habere erroris quod corrigatur Tom. 4. Annal. An. 369. The Writings of the Fathers saith Bellarmine in totidem terminis are not a rule and have not authority to oblige me (i) Patrum Scripta non sunt regula nec habent authoritatem obligandi de Council lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Dico secundo And not contented to assert he elsewhere offers proofs of the invalidity of the Fathers without and their perfect subjection to the Authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome The Fathers execute the office of Doctors but Counsels and Popes execute the office of a judge committed to them by God (a) Augustinus & ceteri Patres in comm●ntartis sungebantur officio doctorum at Concilia & Pontifices funguntur officio judicis à Deo sibi commisso lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 10. And again The Pope hath no Fathers in the Church but all are his sons No wonder then that the sons are subject to the Father not the Fathers to the Sons (b) Ponlifex non habet ullos in Ecclesiâ Patres sed omnes filios Quid vero mirum est si non pater filiis sed filii patri suo subjiciantur Lib. 2. de Romano Pontifice cap. 27. Thus Gregory de Valentiâ cuts the knot he cannot untie If the consent of Doctors cannot be made out the Pope may use his Authority (c) Si de Doctorum consensu non aperte constar●t sua tunc constat Authoritas Pentifici in Analysi lib. 8. cap. 8. pag. 119. Really these Jesuits are most ingenious fellows they are resolved never to be at a nonplus when they saw the Scripture was not for their turns they vote that should not be judge of controversies and fled to the Fathers When they saw multitudes of notable passages cited out of the ●athers destructive to their Hierarchy than it must be consent of the Fathers Now because they know they cannot make out the consent of the Fathers for any one Article of their Faith Here is a Salvo for that the Pope's Authority is evident It is but saying that is a first Principle and all controversies are at an end By this time I think I may expect the Reader that hath but a dram of ingenuity in him must needs acknowledge that the Authority of the Fathers is neither ex veritate rei in truth nor ex opinione Pontificiorum in the judgement of the Papists a solid foundation for a Papists Faith which was the Proposition to be proved I shall dismiss this with two Observations 1. How sweetly the Romish Doctors agree in that which they acknowledge to be a principal foundation of Faith viz. the Authority of the Fathers 2. I shall leave this Syllogism taken out of their own Authors to the consideration of the prudent Reader If you take away the authority of Fathers and Counsels all things in the Church are uncertain saith Eccius as you saw before But B●llarmine and others have here taken away the Authority of the Fathers And in the next Chapter you shall see they take away the Authority of Counsels Ergo There is nothing certain in the Romish Church Thus I have showed that the Faith of the Papists hath no sure ground or foundation in the Authority of the Pope Scriptures or Fathers Now I come to the fourth particular the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Counsels which is the sacra anchora the principal refuge of a languishing cause CHAP. IU. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Counsels Sect. 1. LEt us therefore examine in the next place whether the Counsels will stand them in better stead Whether the splendid name and Authority of the Church be a solid and sufficient foundation of Faith In order to which I shall lay down this proposition That the Authority of the Church and Counsels is no sufficient foundation for a Papists faith This I shall more fully discuss because here it is that very many of the Popish Doctors do build their hopes and lay the foundation of their faith And here indeed they have greatest appearance of probability A general Council rightly congregated cannot err in the faith saith Alphonsus de Castro (a) Concilium generale rectè congregatum non potest errare in side lib. 4. adversus he● rese in verbo Concilium Counsels represent the Catholic Church which cannot err and therefore they cannot err says Eccius and Tapperus (b) Concilia repraesentant Ecclesiam Catholic in quae errare non potest Ergo etiam ipsa errare non possunt Ecchias in Enchir. c. 2. Tappor in Art 1. Lovan p. 5. The decrees of general Counsels have as much weight as the Holy Gospels saith Costerus (c) Decreta Conciliorum generalium idem habent pondus & momentum quod sancta Dei Evangelia in Enchiridio p. 46. Counsels approved and confirmed by the Pope cannot err say Canus (d) Lib. 5. loc. come c. 4. and Bellar Counsels (e) P●el de Conciliis lib. 2 c 2. being the highest Ecclesiastical judicatories cannot err saith ●annerus (f) In part 3. Anat. De● 10 Sect. 222. The decrees of Counsels are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost saith Stapleton (g) In Relest Controu. q. 3. art 4. p. 610. Surely now I may cry out Here is the ground and pillar of truth and at lest spes altera Romae § 2. 1. Then I would know whence comes this Infallibility of Counsels It must be from God's promise for they do not pretend it is any natural inhaerent property of any man or men single or conjunct And this promise must be made known to us by divine Revelation i.e. either by Scripture or Tradition for other revelation they do not pretend to Thus far they and we are agreed Now I assume That the Infallibility of Counsels is not revealed to us neither in the one nor in the other § 3. 1. Not in the Traditions of the Fathers for among all the Traditions mentioned by them you shall not find this concerning the Infallibility of Counsels Nor have our Adversaries that I know of alleged one considerable ancient Father asserting that such a Tradition was conveyed to them from the Apostles though there had been such a Tradition they who were so careful to enumerate all the Traditions of far less consequence which pretended to an Apostolical Original neither should nor would have omitted to acquaint the Church with so important a Tradition as this is now supposed to be And this might suffice for Answer till our Adversaries give us an instance of some such Tradition § 4. But because Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers is their chief Pillar of the Infallibility of Counsels the wiser sort of them being sensible of the impertinency of their Scripture allegations I shall consider this a little more largely then at first I intended and shall endeavour to make good four things which if proved will give a deadly stroke at the root of infallibility 1. If there were such a Tradition among the Fathers as is pretended it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith 2. If the ancients did believe the infallibility of Counsels yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition 3. It doth not appear that the Antiens did believe the Infallibility of Counsels 4. It doth appear that the Ancients did believe the fallibility of Counsels § 5. The first proposition is this That if some of the Fathers did tell us they had such a Tradition among them as is pretended concerning the Infallibility of Counsels it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith because the Fathers were subject to errors and mistakes as we have now proved and as the Papists confess at least they might err in matters of fact for in such things they acknowledge the Pope himself to be fallible And this was purely a question of fact whether such a Tradition were delivered to them And that the fathers were ofttimes deceived in the point of Traditions and in matters of fact is acknowledged by several of the most learned Papists and Baronius gives us divers examples of their mistakes in sundry parts of his Annals and that too amongst the first Fathers who had far greater opportunities to know the truth then their followers and greater integrity to deliver nothing contrary to their knowledge and much more there might mistakes be committed by those that came after them If it be said That although some particular Fathers might mistake in the matters of Tradition yet the Father's consenting therein are infallible This is already answered in the former Chapter to which I shall here add that it is impossible for us at this distance to understand the consent of the Fathers e.g. of the first or second Age there being such a small and inconsiderable remnant left of them like two or three planks after a common shipwreck Gregory de Valentia confesseth even of the Doctors of the age we live in that it seldom happens that we can sufficiently understand the opinion of all the Doctors that live in one Age (a) Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium ejus tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscatur Lib. 8. Analys cap. 8. pag. 119. How much more hard nay impossible must it needs be to understand the mind of that Age which is gone 1500 years ago And Melchior Canus confesseth That the Authority of most of the Holy Fathers if a few did contradict them will not afford a Divine a solid Argument (b) Plurium Sanctorum Authoritas reliquis licet pancio●ibus reclamantibus firma argumenta Theologo sufficere & praestare non valet Loc. theol lib. 7. cap. 3. So that if such a tradition had been delivered by some yea the major part of the Fathers if some others though fewer had contradicted it Faith hath lost its foundation and this might be done and such things in all probability were oft done though no footsteps of it are come to the memory of Posterity As Austin speaks of Cyprian when he was pressed with his Authority he answers Happily he did recant though we know it not For neither were all things done●among the Bishops at that time committed to writing nor do we know all things that were committed to Writing (c) Fortasse factum sed nescimus Neque enim omnia●quae illo tempore inter Episcopos gesta sunt memoriae litevisque mandari po●uerunt aut omnia quae mandata sunt novimus Lib. 2. con Donat. cap 4. And if this was considerable in Augustine's days who lived within two hundred years of those times how much more weighty must it be to us that come twelve hundred years after him Now then to put a case because this consideration shakes the very pillars of Popery and overthrows almost all their pretensions from Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers Suppose the Major part of the Ancient Fathers had said in terminis that the Bishop of Rome was supreme head and infallible governor of the Church though nothing was further from their thoughts and suppose a less 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 Pope's Supremacy and infallibility Melchiôr Canus saith No Now than the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions which the Age immediately next remembered 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 affirm it it would become the Jesuits in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyric in praise of Ignorance which is it seems not only the Mother of Devotion but of assurance and certainty of knowledge if they deny it they confess the weakness 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 confess his Faith relies upon the Sand which is dreadful And again admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition I have given several instances wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers and that there were several Doctrines which if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine but what they had by Tradition the Fathers received by Tradition wherein they were de facto mistaken and why might they not be mistaken in this We all know how general 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 only credulous Author and that this was the only 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 only be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility § 6. The second particular is this That if the Ancients did believe the Infallibility of Counsels 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 run into concerning the sense of those Scriptures which are alleged for the Infallibility of Counsels And consequently the Father's opinions of the Infallibility of Counsels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles but only that this was their opinion wherein no less then in other points they were subject to errors as I have proved § 7. The third Proposition is this It doth not appear that the ancient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Counsels For trial hereof I shall refer myself to those Arguments and Authorities which are alleged for the proof of the contrary position Bel brings three Arguments to show that the Ancient Fathers held that general Counsels could not err and not one of them speak to the point His first Argument is this They affirm that the sentence of a general Council in the cause of Faith is the last judgement of the Church from which th●re lies no appeal and which cannot be made void or retracted Hence it evidently follows that such Counsels cannot err because else it were a very unjust thing to compel Christians that they should n●t appeal from that judgement which may be erroneous (a) Affirma●t primum Concilii generalis sententiam esse in causâ fidei ultimum Eccl●sice judicium à quo appellari non possit quodque nullo modo irritari vel retractari queat Hine autem apertissimè constat ejusmodi Conc●lia non errare etc. lib. 2. the Council auctor c. 3. I Answer 1. S t Austin did hold that the sentence of a general Council might be retracted though not by private Christians yet by a ●ollowing general Council former general Counsels saith he are corrected by the later of which more by and by and that is enough to show 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 infirm now it could not be strong then and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara who tells us that Calvin and Robertus Baronius and all the Protestants and some others who deny the Infallibility of general Counsels do nevertheless acknowledge it to be the supreme judge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Council hath a determining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schism (a) Fatetur Baronius Concilium generale esse supremum in terris Controversiarum judicem determinativam & decisivam fo●●statem agnoscunt Adversarii cui omnes exterius obiemperare tenentur ne schisma fiat S. Clara. in system fidei cap. 20. num 14. et 15. Nor is it unjust but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefs that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority beyond which there might be no appeal And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeal beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civil affairs though he be confessed to be Fallible so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeal beyond the Supreme Ecclesiastical 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 only regulate the outward Acts and prevent visible Confusions § 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmine's second Argument which is this The Fathers and Counsels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of general Counsels are Heretics and deserve excommunications and therefore they thought such Counsels could not err (b) Docent Patres & Concilia esse hereticos & excommunicandos omnes qui non acquiescunt conciliis plenariis Ex quo manifestè sequitur ces putasse Concilia non posse errare Bellar ubi suprà Answer 1. I deny the Consequence again for the now mentioned reason The civil cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrate's Infallibility as the Ecclesiastical cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Council doth prove the Counsels Infallibility 2. The Fathers did not account men Heretics merely because they rested not in the sentence of a Council as such for then they should have been Heretics for rejecting the Arrian Counsels but because the Doctrine which they opposed and the Counsels 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 Heretics That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Counsels which is common to those that deny their Infallibility but the cal●ing of those Heretics who do not acquiesse in the sentence of Counsels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Counsels for the Protestants themselves have branded and censured and sometimes put to death as Heretics such men as in fundamental points of Religion have receded from their public Confessors of Faith and the decrees of their Synods without ever pretending to Infallibility But that I may improve the Cardinal's Argument for him to the highest Put case the Fathers had said that men were bound to believe all the assertions of their general Council yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible I prove it plainly thus The Papists maintain that people are bound to believe their Pastors and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or haesitation according to that which Stapleton so largely and frequently defends That Pastors are simply to be heard in all things and yet they do not hold these Pastors to be Infallible So they tell us by virtue of that Text Mat. 23. 2. The Jews were bound to believe all the Doctrines publicly taught by the Scribes and Pharisees and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharisees of whom that Text speaks were infallible And the Fathers might justly say all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Counsels which then were past not that they thought Counsels were Infallible but because they judged all their decrees true and consonant to the Scripture otherwise how little they valued the decrees of Counsels when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be sufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Counsels 3. There is in this argument the same or error which was through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Father's pretended in this cause viz. they argue from the authority of Counsels to their infallibility and how invalid the consequence is appears from this undeniable argument Masters Magistrates Parents Bishops and Provincial Counsels have Authority but not Infallibility If all that the Fathers say to that purpose were put upon the rack it would prove nothing but this that they thought what the Protestants grant that general Counsels were the supreme judicatories of the Church from which was no appeal and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquesce but that doth not infer Infallibility as we have seen § 9 Bellarmine's third argument is this The Fathers teach that the Decrees of general Counsels are Divine and from the Spirit of God from whence follows that they were not subject to error (a) Patres docent esse divina & à Spiritu sancto edita decreta generatium Conciliorum Ergo ubi suprà And this he confirms by the testimony of Constantine who now he is orthodox is grown considerable though when he was alleged against him he was a greater Prince than Doctor as we heard even now Greg. Nazianz. Cyrill and Leo who call the decrees of the Council of Nice divine and say they were ordered by the Spirit of God and so say I too And it is true of all the decrees of all Counsels nay of all the Sermons of Ministers which are collected from Scripture and conformable to it such as the Nicene Decrees were that they are divine Oracles But then their Divinity and that which is the consequent of Divinity Infallibility ariseth not from the Authority decreeing them which being but humane could not make the decrees divine but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture as Bellarmine confesseth (a) Coacilium Nicenum cum definivit Filium Patri esse conclusionem deduxit ex Scriptures de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 12. and therefore divine But if Bellar thinks from this particular case to draw a general conclusion I must make bold to stop him in his career till he hath told me whither he think this argument solid The Fathers held the decrees of the Council of Nice to be divine and say it were infallibly true Therefore they thought the decrees of all Counsels divine and infallible and consequently the Anti-Nicene and Arrian Counsels If he can digest this I will say he hath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad § 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Cardinal and come to the Friar S. Clara who being an ingenuous person and coming last hath doubtless selected the best weapons and his great argument I find to be this That the Fathers did generally own the Infallibility of the Catholic Church and consequently the Infallibility of general Counsels which are the same with the Church and their definitions are the determinations of the Church this he largely prosecutes cap. 20 21 22. For Answer let me premise what I have proved that if this were the opinion of the Fathers yet seeing that they confess themselves to be men subject to like passions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin Neither do you think that because we are Bishops we are not liable to irregular motions but rather let us conceive that we live dangerously amongst the snares of temptations because we are men (a) Nec arbitreris ideò nobis non posse subrepere injuslam commotionem quia Episcopi sumus sed potius cogitemus inter laqueos tentationum nos periculesissimè vivere quia homines sumus Epistola 75. And seeing the Papists confess they have erred in many things therefore this if it were true will afford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith but I shall forgive them that infirmity The argument however he glories much in it hath nothing sound from head to foot how can they expect this argument should prevail with us when it is rejected by themselves who deny the consequence from the Infallibility of the Church unto that of Counsels So doth Cam●racensis as S. Clara notes in these words A general Council may err in the faith because if it should err yet it would remain that others without the Council did not err and by consequence that the faith of the Church did not fail (b) Concilium generale potest contra fidem errare quia ipso sic errante adhuc staret aliquos extra Concilium non errare & per consequens fidem Ecclesiae non deficere art 3. in quaestione vesperiarum aslert 8. The like saith Panormitanus A Council may err as it hath erred nor doth this hinder it that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not err because although a general Council represent the whole Church yet in truth it is not the whole Church All the faithful do constitute that Church whose head and husband Christ is and that is the Church which cannot err (c) Concilium non potest errare quia Christus oravit pro Ecclesia sua ist non deficeret Quia dico quòd licèt Concilium generale representet totam Ecclesiam universalem cujus caput & sponsus est ipse Christus & ista est illa Ecclesia quoe errare non potest Super part 1. Decret sol 142. The very same thing and almost in the same words saith Antonius (d) in his summà part 3. tit 22. c. 2. de Conciliis generalibus §. 6. where he adds an instance That the saying of Jerome was preferred before the decree of a Council Thus you see the consequence is denied by three famous Authors of their own Nay what say you if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence I am greatly mistaken if it doth not follow from hence that he makes Gouncels infallible no further than they are afterwards received and owned by the Church and allows them to be fallible where that reception doth not follow as we shall see hereafter and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholic Church not in the Council and consequently the Church may be infallible and yet the Council remain fallible as those Papists that assert Counsels to have their Infallibility from the Pope which Bellarmine and the Jesuits generally do confess Counsels without the Pope's confirmation and in themselves to be but fallible for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion that the Church's reception is in the judgement of S. Clara and all the Authors he citys to that purpose What say you further if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion let the intelligent Reader judge His Conclusion is Therefore Counsels are infallible in the judgement of the Fathers and of all the Fathers he tells us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Counsels now I assume St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held that Counsels are fallible This I prove from his own words In this sense Occam rightly delivers the mind of Austin whether they be Popes or others whether they wrote any thing in Council or out of Council the same judgement is to be passed upon them that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true & certain because they wrote so but only because they could prove it by Scripture or reason or miracles or the approbation of the universal Church Thus far Occam Now follows S. Clara's Which doctrine of his I judge most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholics (a) Denique in boc sensu bene dicit Occhamus de ment Augustini quam ibi resert 3. Dialog tract 1. lib. 3. c. 24. Sive fuerint summi Pontifices sive alii sive scripferint aliquid in Concilio generali sive extra consimile de iis judicium est habendum ut in his quae scientiae vel juris sunt non ideo aliquid putetur certitudinaliter modo praedicto scil infallibili esse verum quia ipsi ita scripserunt nisi id vel per Scripturam divinam vel rationes irrefragabiles aut operationem miraculorum aut per approbationem universalis Ecclesiae persuadere voluerint Sic Occam Quam eius senten●iam tutissimam aestimo & ab omnibus ferè Catholicis amplexam System fidei c. 26. num 2. The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgement that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Counsels 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 dreamed 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 Heretics that do not adhere to the definitions of Counsels Ergo they thought them Infallible (a) Ibid. It is Bellarmine's argument and I have already answered it And so this block being removed the Conclusion remains firm That St. Austin thought not Counsels infallible For farther confirmation whereof I shall from hence collect two Arguments plainly proving that St. Austin was not of the judgement of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Counsels 1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Counsels 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 Counsels 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 unless they will make him one of those who seldom 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 Schismatics that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope say some of the Council say others of the Pope and Council together say almost all upon the credit of their own assertion without any further reason This is evident from Stapleton (a) Contra whitak in variis locis Gregory de Valentia (b) lib. 8. Anal. fid Tannerus (c) In colloquio Ratisboaensi ses 9 and Bellarmine in several places 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 judge that requires Authority a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed farther than reason induceth us but a judge propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it The Fathers expound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Counsels as judges or Princes (d) Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explicationem more Doctoris requiritur eruditio ad explication●m more judicis requiritur authoritas Doctor enim non proponit suam sententiam ut necessarid sequendam sed solùm quatenus ratio suadet at judex proponit ut sequendam necessariò Augustinus & ●aeteri Patres in commeatariis sungebantur officio Doctorum at Concilia & Pontifices funguntur officio judicis De verbi Dei interpretatione lib. 3. cap. 10 versus sinem And now let S. Clara himself judge 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 Counsels 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 allegeth from him for this purpose the passage he pleads is this Until that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed by a general Council (a) Donec plenarie totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmarctur lib. 1. con Donatistas' c. 7. Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Counsels (b) Non licèt igitur dubitare post definitiones Conciliares 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 Council so confirms 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 confirm a truth as to remove all doubt from the hearers and yet is not therefore infallible There are then two ways 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 affirmatiuè thus a general Council 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 schism of Donatus make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Counsels differ among themselves until by a General Council that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed and all doubts removed I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments (a) jam enim ne videar humanis argumentis id agere quoniam quoestionis bujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donaté patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salvan pace disceptare ac fluctuare ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donee plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur ex Evangelio profero certa documenta lib. 1. con Donatum c. 7. Where you plainly see that he calls the authority of Counsels 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 holy man sufficiently showed that he would have changed his opinion if any had demonstrated to him that Baptism might be so given etc. (b) Satis ostendit se facillimè correcturum fuisse sententiam suam si quis demonstraret baptismum Christi sic dari posse Et paulò post And a little after he would have yielded to a general Council if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced and declared and confirmed by a general Council (c) Si jam illo tempore questionis hujus veritas diquata & declarata per plenarium Conclium solidaretur & postea And he gives the reason of his yielding Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the truth (d) quia profectò & uni verum diceati et demonstranti posset facillimè consentire tam sancta anima lib. 2 con Don. c. 3. much more to a general Council In all which it is plain that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Council but the clearness of the truth and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in St. Austin's judgement 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence that St. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture by which it is distinguished from and advanced above all the opinions decrees or writings of all Bishops in or out of Counsels that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it The words are express and brought in with a Quis nesciat Who knows not that the holy Scripture is so preferred before all the letters of after-Bishops that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Counsels if they swerve from the truth and Provincial Counsels must yield to General Counsels and former general Counsels are oft corrected by the latter (a) Quis nesciat sanctam Scripturam omnibus posteriorum Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari aut disceptari non possit utrum verum vel certum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas per Concilia licère reprebendi si quid in iis sortē à veritate deviatum est & Concilia per Provincias plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati cedere & ipsa plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari lib. 2. contra Donatistas' c. 3. where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial and thence to General Counsels but all of them are in this respect postposed to the Scripture that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees and where they swerve from the truth reject it And nothing more evinceth the strength of this argument then the silliness of our Adversaries evasions He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony not of Faith saith Bellarmine and Stapleton whereas the question there disputed was whether persons Baptised by Heretics should be rebaptised which the Fathers formerly made and the Papists now make a question of Faith But by emendantur saith Stapleton he means perfectiùs explicantur If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is so taken you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus that if our Romish Masters may coin new Articles of Faith which divers Papists profess they may much more may they devise new significations of words But I would know of these Doctors what they would think or at lest what discreet and sober men would think of that Author that should say Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apostolis emendantur and yet if Stapletons' Lexicon may be used it were an harmless expression But if these men will give St. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words he hath sufficiently opened his mind by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions and by speaking of such an Emendation as follows after or is conjoined with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Council This may serve for the third Proposition § 12. And here I might give myself a supersedeas having showed the imbecility of their principal Proofs from the Fathers but ex abundantis I shall add the fourth Proposition which is this That it doth appear the Ancients did believe the fallibility of Counsels The former proposition showed that they could not prove their Assertion and this I hope will disprove it But because what hath been already said may serve for that end also I shall be the briefer in this and shall only mention three arguments to prove it 1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion do not hold the Infallibility of Counsels But so did the Fathers Ergo. The Major is evident from hence because one infallible Authority is sufficient and the addition of another though it may tend ad melius esse yet it cannot be necessary ad esse for then the former were not sufficient And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Counsels do profess eo nomine that Scripture-proof is not necessary and that the Church's authority without Scripture evidence is sufficient When Whitaker urged the necessity of Scripture-proof to show the Church for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church Stapleton roundly answers That such proof is not necessary to a Christian man and a Believer (a) Homini Christiano & Catholico huiusmodi probatio necessaria non est De Authoritate Scripturae lib. 3. cap. 1. in fine For the Minor That the Fathers did judge Scripture proof necessary hath been already showed and will hereafter be made good and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it 2 They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men since the Apostles say do not believe the Infallibility of Counsels but so do the Fathers The major is evident from the confession and practice of our Adversaries who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Counsels do enjoin the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination A Christian ought to receive the Church's doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine (b) Debet Christianus sine examine recipere doctrinam Ecclesiae Bel. ubi suprà The Minor hath been proved from the express words of the Fathers 3. They that derogate Faith from all men without exception beside the Apostles do not hold the Infallibility of Counsels But so do the Fathers Ergo. The Major needs no proof for the Counsels are made up of men and such too as are confessed to be each of them fallible Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasm or immediate revelation The Minor also hath been fully proved to which I shall add one out of Austin● If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture we are to believe it without all doubting but for other witnesses or their testimonies a man may believe or not believe as he apprehends what they say hath weight or not (a) Si Divinavum Scripturarum perspitua firmetur authoritate sine ulla dubitatione credendum est Aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat quantum ea momenti ad saciendam fidem habere vel non havere perpenderis Epis. 112. It is true S. Clara says that St. Austin doth only prefer Scripture before particular authors (b) Dico Augustinum hîc solùm praeferre Scripturas particularibus authoribus System sid. ubi suprà which how false it is sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Augustine's which I have even now discussed wherein you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgement St. Austin positively took away all difference between Counsels and private Doctors in this particular and equally denied all to both of them Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers in reference to the Infallibility of Counsels This is the first Branch The Infallibility of Counsels is not made known to us by Tradition the next Proposition must show That it is not revealed in Scripture § 13. This therefore is the Second branch That the Infallibility of Counsels hath no foundation in Scripture● 1. I might justly insist upon what hath been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency by the Scripture to ground my faith without the Church's authority And surely they that profess they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ were it not for the testimony and interpretation of the Church i.e. the Pope or a Council which is their assertion must needs give us the same liberty to assert that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture saith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Counsels but for the testimony of the Pope and Counsels that is we have no reason to believe their Infallibility but this that they tell us they are infallible we have their word for it so it seems the Disciple is better than his Master and the Pope's word will go further than the word of God for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause saith Bellarmine (a) Etiamsi Scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum & Aposlotorum esse divinos tamen non credam esse nisi prius id credidero Scripturam evae boc dicit esse divinam Name in Alcorano Mahumetis legimus ipsum Alcoranum de coelo a Deomissum as the Church's Testimony is When the Papists would press the Scripture to the service of this notion it may say to them as jepthah did to the Elders of Israel jud. 11.7 Did not je hate me and expel me out of my father's house and why are you come unto me now when ye are in distress And upon condition they will reply with the Gileadites Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou mayest be our head I will overlook that otherwise unpardonable fault by which they have rendered the Scripture unserviceable to their purpose and once more they shall have a fair trial whether the Infallibility of Counsels can be demonstrated from Scripture Sect. 14. The first and principal support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3. 15 where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth This is their Ajacis ctypeus which you shall find used upon all occasions and infinitely repeated by every impertinent scribbler of the Romish party For Answer to pass over that notion of our acute Chillingworth that it is not the Church but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth and so there is only an Ellipsis of the word which is very frequent for or of the word for as the learned Gataker observes and there are divers instances of either of them So the sense is that thou mightest behave thyself in the House of God the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar And he gives this notable reason for it because it was heterogeneous to call that Church a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house And this I am sure would puzzle our masters to answer But to wave that I answer 1 The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome but the Church in which Timothy was placed And whether it be spoken of the Church in general or in particular what is this to Rome Here we find a notable piece of the Roman mystery of iniquity If there be any reproofs or censures applied to any other Churches there every Church must bear its own burden But if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations promises privileges that presently belongs to Rome and they have a commission to seize it for their own use but how unjustly we shall here discover for if you understand these words of the Catholic Church or of the Church in general than the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church which may consist with the error and Apostasy of several which then were eminent Churches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia which notwithstanding this promise fell away and consequently Rome though then her faith was famous throughout the World might fall with them or after them And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed And if my memory fail me not exceedingly that was not Rome but Ephesus which notwithstanding this Character did fall away And moreover it was not the Church ruling but the Church ruled in and over which Timothy was set which is here called the pillar and ground of truth And so the Argument runs thus The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth Therefore the Pope of Rome is infallible The Consequence is thus proved the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleaseth and though he may err in the premises as Stapleton confesseth (a) In relectione principiorum fidei controv 4. qu. 2. yet he is always infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton asserts Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments 2 The term of Pillar notes the solidity but not the infallibility of the Church it notes the difficulty of its removal but not the impossibility Every stout Champion of God's Truth is a pillar of the truth and such are frequently called by that name in the fathers but yet they are not infallible Athanasius was a pillar of the truth but not infallible The great Osires a pillar of the truth and Nicene faith yet fell foully as appears by the story Musonius Bishop of Neocaesarea is by Basilius Caesariensis invested this very title of (b) In Epis. 63. Ergo by the Roman Logic Basil thought him infallible or if he did not then Basil did not think those words employed infallibility Gregory Nyssen tells us not only Peter and james and john are pillars not only john Baptist is a light but also all that build up the Church are pillars and lights (c) in vita Mosis Therefore it seems all Ministers are infallible Male Children are called the pillars of their families among the Greek Poets and Getae a faithful servant in Terence is called Columen Familiae the pillar of the family For ought I know if those men would go to Rome and upon the credit of this word sue out a Writ of privilege they might be as infallible as the Pope himself 3. This Phrase The Church is the Pillar of Truth may note the Church's duty not her practice and what she ought to be not what she always is They shall not say this is gratis dictum I will make it good by parallel Instances wherein they shall see the absurdity of their argument Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil Rom. 13.3 If this argument be good The Church is a Pillar E. she cannot e●re than this also is good That Rulers cannot be a terror to good works None but one that comes from Bedlam would assert the latter and none but one that comes from Rome would conclude the former Thus our Saviour saith of his Ministers Ye are the salt of the world ye are the light of the world Matth. 5. Ergo by this argument this Salt could not lose its savour and no Minister can be in the dark but every one must be infallible Thus Prov. 16 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement Ergo Kings are infallible If the Pope had such a Text in the New Testament The Pope's mouth transgresseth not in judgement you may easily imagine what triumphs the Assertors of Infallibility would have made who can build a towering confidence upon such pitiful foundations and yet this doth not inform us of the practice of Kings but acquaints them with their duty as Interpreters agree 4. This Phrase The pillar and ground of Truth notes the necessity of the Church's ministry quoad nos but not the infallibility of her Authority those are two distinct things and the one no way consequent upon the other The utmost which can be squeezed from that phrase is this that the Church doth support the truth and Gospel of Christ in the world and so doth every sincere zealous defender of the truth and especially the Ministers and prime champions of the truth not only when met together in a general Council but also in their single capacities which I think will be undeniably proved by this argument The Church was the pillar and ground of truth for the first three hundred years after Christ and the Apostles never did it more deserve that name nor did it ever more discharge that office but all that time there was no ecumenical Council and that is the only Council to whom Infallibility is ascribed by the Papists therefore either that phrase doth not evince infallibility or the several pastors of those ages were infallible 5. The consequence of the argument is false and frivolous The Church is the pillar of truth Ergo she is infallible for the same Church may be a pillar of truth and a seat of Error For what is it to be a Pillar of the Truth if we draw aside the curtain of the Metaphor but to be a Defender of the Faith And who knows not that the same persons may defend the truth and maintain errors with them unless he be one that never read the Bible nor Ecclesiastical History Who knows not that the same persons which defended the truth of Christianity against Jews and Pagans did also maintain the Doctrine of jesabel and the Heresy of the Nicolaitans Rev. 2. and that those very men that owned the foundation did build the hay and stubble of false doctrines thereupon 1 Cor. 3. and that divers of the stoutest defenders of the truth of the Gospel among the Fathers had their errors as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Else if they will stand to the consequence it will follow by virtue of it Such a Minister preacheth the truth Ergo he is infallible and cannot preach false doctrine Such a Judge is the Pillar of Justice in the land Ergo it is impossible he should make an unjust Decree Proclamations are hanged upon such a pillar Ergo a Libel cannot be fastened there 6. Their argument proceeds from a declaration of the Churches present state for that is all that place asserts viz. that the Church then was a Church and Pillar of truth to an assurance of its perpetual continuance in that state which is quite another thing Which kind of argumentation if it might pass for currant it would work brave exploits for than it would follow The city of Zion was an habitation of righteousness a pillar of truth and justice Ergo the Prophet Isay was misinformed when he said The faithful City is become a Harlot it was full of judgement righteousness lodged in it but now murderers Isa: 1.21 Nay then the Church of England is orthodox in the Roman sense Probatur It was the Pillar of truth viz. when it was the Pope's Ass Ergo it is so still and the Papists slander us when they say we are fallen away The Church was a Virgin in the Apostles days saith Egesippus Ergo she is not now corrupted nor indeed can be for I must tell you the Pope can do more than all the Apostles either pretended or did for they could not even while they lived wholly keep the Church from actual corruption but the Pope keeps her from all possibility of corruption Thus the Pope is omnipotent and it is no marvel he is infallible § 15. The Second place of principal moment alleged for the Infallibility of the Church and Counsels is Mat. 18.17 where all are commanded to hear the Church and they that hear her not are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans Ergo the Church of Rome is Infallible for this is the comfort whatever is in the premises Rome's infallibility is in the conclusion and the Church of Rome that can dispense with God's laws (a) Secundùm plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare ait Innocent 3. in Decret de conces Praebend tit 8. c. proposuit & addit Glossator Nam contra Apostolum dispensat item contra vetus testamentum may well dispense with Syllogistical rules by which there ought not to be more in the conclusion then in the premises but that Law was made for Subjects but not for our Sovereign Lord the Pope To this may be added another place they vehemently urge Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ergo the Church is infallible Ans. 1. Whatever these texts prove what right hath the Church of Rome to her monopoly of the privileges here conveyed Or why may not the Greek or English Churches and their Ministers claim the benefit of them The words have an indifferent aspect to all of them 2. The consequence is false Christians must hear the Church and Ministers Ergo they are infallible which I thus prove Children must obey their Parents and if they do not they must die for it Deut. 21. are parents therefore infallible Subjects must obey their Magistrates or die for it jos. 1.18 Whosoever will not hearken unto thy words he shall be put to death it seems then Magistrates are infallible For this is the argument by which the Romanists pretend to prove the Infallibility of the Highpriest of the Jews because they that would not hear him were to be put to death Deut. 17. Nay this very text Luc. 10. destroys that sense which the Romanists would fasten upon it for seeing it is not the Apostles but seventy disciples and they too not as met in a Council but as preaching the Gospel severally or at most by pairs whom they are under such dreadful penalties commanded to hear if it be conclusive for infallibility it proves the infallibility of every Minister or at least of every pair of them 3. It is agreed between them and us that Christ speaks of the Censures of the Church Mat. 18. and therefore surely if it prove the Church's Infallibility in any thing it must be in the matter there spoken of viz. in Church-censures But they grant the Church is Fallible in her censures as depending upon Testimony and matters of fact And therefore it is ridiculous to infer from thence her Infallibility in other things which are not spoken of in this place 4. The Church and Ministers are to be heard not simply and in all things but only in the Lord and what they speak according to his word This is denied by the Papists who positively assert that they are to be heard in all things and without examination as we have seen from their own words It is therefore necessary to say something to overthrow this lawless liberty and boundless authority ascribed by them to the Church for this is their or one of their radical mistakes 1. That which Christ denies to the Apostles is not to be ascribed to the Church but Christ denies this absolute Authority to the Apostles Matt. 23.10 Be ye not called masters for one is your Master even Christ where it is not the name but thing which is prohibited even magisterium fidei or the usurpation of an absolute authority in teachers and the exaction of an universal belief and blind obedience in hearers which was the error of the Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour for so they said You are to believe all the sayings of our Rabbins in their Homilies no less than the Law of Moses And again All their words are the very words of God are their expressions in the Thalmud It cannot be denied that Christ derogates that authority from the Apostles which he ascribes to himself but if the Popish opinion were true the Apostles had as great authority as Christ himself for the height of Christ's authority is expressed in these words nor can more be said of God himself him shall ye hear in all things Act. 3.22 This indeed the Popish Doctors most blasphemously arrogate to themselves as you have seen but so did not the Apostles they had not so learned Christ they always observed their Distance Be followers of us as we are of Christ I have received of the Lord that which I delivered S t Paul denies that he had dominion over their Faith 2 Cor. 1.24 Not that we have dominion over your Faith I 'll warrant you Paul denied it to himself because it was Peter's Prerogative for it is certain St Peter's Successors challenge it for Dominion and Subjection are Relatives And if the people owe an absolute subjection of their Faith to their teachers the Teachers have an absolute dominion over the Faith of the people In short This sottish Doctrine of an implicit Faith must needs be Apocryphal so long as the Epistle to the Galatians is Canonical and especially Gal. 1.8 Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Gospel let him be accursed And he is not contented with a single assertion but adds as we said before so say I now again let him be accursed Which if the Reader compare with that abominable passage of Bellarmine's If the Pope should err in commanding Vices and forbidding Virtues the Church were bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil (a) Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia & prohibendo virtutes teneret●r Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona & virtutes malas De Romano Pontifice lib. 4. cap. 5. in fine He will be able to judge whether the Faith of the present Romish Church be the same with that of the Apostles days or not and whether they who are so liberal in dispensing their anathemas to all that differ from their sentiments do not justly fall under the Anathema here denounced 2. If Pastors are to be heard in all things than people cannot sin in obeying their Pastors else they should sin in doing their duty but people may sin in obeying their Pastors Methinks this should need no proof but I find this to be the temper of our Adversaries they who give the hardest measure to us expect the highest measure from us and they of whom we may say as Galen did of Moses multa dicunt nihil probant they say much and prove nothing will yield us nothing but what we must win by dint of Argument Therefore I shall prove it briefly The Jews sinned in following Aaron's Doctrine These be thy Gods O Israel So the Prophet jeremy frequently condemns them for obeying the decrees of their Priests in his time And our Saviour hath put this out of doubt speaking of the Jewish Teachers Matt. 15. If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch And S t Peter assures us if his Successors will please to give him credit that the Jews were guilty of a great sin in Christ's death though they did it in obedience to the decrees of their Rulers Acts 3.14.17 3. If people are allowed to examine the Doctrines of their Teachers by the word ere they receive them than they are not to be heard in all things But people are allowed so to examine All the doubt lies about the Minor and yet who can doubt of that who ever read these following places Take heed that no man deceive you for many shall come in my name Math. 24.4 5. Prove all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes. 5.21 Prove the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 It is true Bellarmine saith These precepts belong only to Learned men (a) Praedicta mandata non ad omnes sed ad solos Doctores pertinent de verbi Dei interpretatione lib. 3. cap. 10. And Gretserus gives this reason for it because the unlearned people are not able to examine (a) Cum peritia probandi omnes spiritus superat vulgi ca●tum praeceptum hoc ●lebeiis minimè dictum est Gretserus in Defence very good It seems then none but the Learned can have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil Heb. 5.14 And it is the privilege of shepherd's only which Christ made the Character of all his sheep That they knew his voice and could distinguish it from the voice of Strangers Joh. 10.4 5. It seems Christ spoke to the learned only when he said Search the Scriptures joh. 5.39 It seems the learned Thessalonians only were bound to hold fast that which is good for that goes with their proving and proving was in order to holding fast It seems the Bereans whom Paul commends for examining his doctrine by the Scriptures Act. 17. were Masters of Arts and Berea was an University and implies that they had Academical education and the Apostle meant it only of the University when he writ to the city of Corinth I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 Nay the mischief is if this be granted their work is not done for if the learned may examine that is sufficient for our purpose for such are many Laymen as they are called and divers of the Clergy who have no share in the Church's government and therefore are as much bound to subjection as any of the people and consequently the Rulers are not simply to be obeyed nor their doctrine blindly received upon their own credit But saith Bellarmine Ind d doubtful doctrines are to be examined but the doctrine of lawful Ministers is not doubtful but openly good (b) Agitur de Doctrinâ dubiâ nam illa sola indiget probatione Doctrina autem legitimorum praepositorum non est dubia sed apertè bona ubi supra I see the Cardinal intended to show his wisdom reserving the discovery of his honesty to another time Bellarmine was resolved to take a post which he might be sure to keep he knew the Heretics would be nibbling about the premises and therefore he leaves the guarding of them to others and resolves to hold the conclusion which he knew was not good manners to deny But if such doctrine as our teachers deliver be eo nomine evidently good and true than these commands of trying are both dangerous seeing they suppose and allow of doubts and frustraneous since I may safely receive them without trial § 16. A third place alleged for the Infallibility of the Church and Counsels is Joh. 16.13 When the Spirit of truth his come he will guide you into all truth Hence Bellarmine thus argues Christ speaks not of the Apostles only but of their successors because he saith the comforter shall abide with you for ever ch. 14.16 i e. with them and their successors for ever But Christ doth not lead the Bishops severally considered into all truth therefore he leads them into truth when they are gathered together and seeing there is no greater chair in the Church by which God teacheth us than the Pope when a Council is added to him if his chair should err how this promise is true he will teach you all truth I see not (a) Alter locus est joh. 16. Spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem vevitatem Et ne putemus hoc dici solis Apostolis & non etiam successoribus Cap. 14. pierce Dominus testatur spiritum sanctum mansurum cum Apostolis in i.e. tum cis & cum successoribus perpetuò At Episcopos seorsim existentes non docet Spiritus sanctus omnem veritatem ergo saltem Episcopos omnes in unum congregatos docebit omnem veritatem & sanè cum non sit in Ecclesia maiór aliqua Cathedra per quam Deus nos doceat quam summi Pontificis Cathedra adjuncto consensu generalis Coneilii si baec etlam Cathedra salli potest cum universam Ecclesiam docet nescio quomod● vera sit illa promissio Docebit vo omnem veritatem De Council authoritate lib. 2. c. 2. This may be too Bernardus non videt omnia and why should Robertus do it Ans. 1. These words if extended beyond the Apostles do not imply any infallibility or if they do a man may with as great colour deduce the infallibility nay the omnisciency of all Believers from 1 Joh. 2.20 Ye have an unction from the holy one and ye know all things and v. 27. The same anointing teacheth you all things All truth in the text is only meant of all truths necessary to salvation nothing being more familiar in Scripture-use then for general expressions as all men every creature etc. to be understood with tacit limitations nor are all whom God leads into truth infallibly led into it unless they will make all sincere Christians infallible for all such are led by the Spirit into truth but not all in the same manner and degree as the Apostles were So the Popish argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmatiué They are led into truth Ergo they are infallibly led 2. There is nothing in that text Joh. 16. to show the extent of that promise to the Apostles successors which Bellarmine sufficiently discovers by deserting this place and fetching in another to his aid Joh 14. so his argument is cunningly patched up of two places That God would lead them into all truth he proves from Joh. 16. That God will do this for ever he would fain prove from Joh. 14. whereas this place doth not say that God would lead the Apostles into all truth for ever but only that the spirit should abide with them for ever and that as a comforter which is quite another thing if not let me see that Papist that will give it under his hand that every one with whom the Spirit abides as a comforter is infallible And yet if I should wink at this fraudulent dealing of Bellarmine's and admit the phrase for ever into the principal Text this would not infer a necessity of stretching this promise beyond the Apostles partly because in Scripture use that phrase doth frequently denote the term of life as Exod. 21.6 The servant is to be with his master for ever and 1 Kings 12.7 they will be thy servants for ever and principally because in strictest propriety of speech the spirit of God did and doth for ever abide in the persons of the Apostles As God betrothes every one of his people to him for ever Host 2.19 and is their portion for ever Psal. 73.26 and the water that Christ gives to his people which he himself expounds of the Spirit Joh. 7.38 39 is in them for ever Joh. 4.14 3. If this promise of leading into all truth be understood of the Apostles and their Successors in the same manner that is so as to make them both infallible then as the Apostles severally considered were infallible and not only when combined in Counsels so also are their Successors each of them Infallible which all Papists deny It is a strange way of arguing which Bellarmine useth The Apostles severally considered were Infallible by virtue of this promise And their Successors are comprehended in this promise And their Successors are not infallible in their single Capacities as the Apostles were Ergo they are infallible when they are gathered together This is that I told you before and here you see it exemplified though Fallibility be in the premises yet you shall be sure to meet with Infallibility in the Conclusion 4. If this promise of the Spirit did contain Infallibility and did extend beyond the Apostles yet certainly it is a most unreasonable thing not only to communicate but appropriate this promise of the Spirit to such as have not the Spirit such are all ungodly men jude vers. 19 sensual not having the Spirit Yea in that very place which the Papists urge for the perpetual residence of God's Spirit in Popes and Bishops joh. 14. There is a positive exclusion of all ungodly men from any share therein vers. 17. The Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth him not neither knoweth him A Character ascribed by God himself to all wicked men 1 Io. 3.6 Whosoever sinneth be he Christian Minister or Pope hath not seen him neither known him Soin this Argument they run upon a double absurdity 1. That they deny the promised guidance of the Spirit unto those Elect Holy and humble Christians who are the only persons that in Scripture account have the Spirit and are led by the Spirit and walk after the Spirit 2. That they challenge the Infallible guidance of the Spirit to those that have not so much as the general conduct of the Spirit which is common to all true Christians 5. That you may see the desperateness of the Popish cause you may observe that Bellarmine himself elsewhere denies the Conclusion which in this place he strives to obtrude upon us For here he infers the Infallibility of Counsels but elsewhere he lays down this position That a general Council may err and is not Infallible except the Pope confirm them that is to say The Council in itself is Fallible the Pope only is Infallible of which more by and by And thus according to Bellarmine's opinion the Bishops neither severally nor concunctly are infallible but in truth The Pope only is infallible And so Bellarmine hath not only shuffled the Pope into the Text but indeed jusled out all others and destroyed that infallibility of Counsels which he pretended to assert as became the Pope's faithful servant to do And so this is Bellarmine's Argument from these words God hath promised Infallibility to lead all the Apostles and all their Successors into all truth Therefore none of the Apostles Successors are Infallible save S t Peter only § 17. A fourth place for the Infallibility of Counsels is Acts 15.28 For it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things whence they thus argue This Council had the Infallible direction of the Holy-Ghost and consequently all other Counsels have it Answ. 1. If the Conclusion be universally true which if it be not it will do the Church of Rome no service than the Arrian Counsels were infallible But if they say that only the Orthodox Counsels are Infallible that altars the question and the Church of Rome must first prove her Orthodoxy and then her Infallibility and to speak truth she may prove the one as soon as the other 2. The utmost importance of this phrase is that they made this decree by the direction of the Holy Ghost d. d It seemed good to us by the direction of the Holy Ghost And for this there is no need to devise a new Phaenomenon of infallible assistance to be afforded to all Counsels of which there is not one syllable in the whole Chapter seeing there are other ways mentioned in that place in respect whereof they had the Holy Ghosts direction and might say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us and by which the Holy Ghost did give its Testimony to their decree directed against those that urged the necessity of Circumcision upon the Gentiles 1. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost inasmuch as when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles by Peter God bore them witness giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us v. 8 so making no difference between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision 2. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost who in the Scripture had foretold the conversion of the Uncircumcised Gentiles to the Faith and their reception into the Church And for as much as it is exceeding plain that the controversy was debated in that Council principally if not solely by Scripture Arguments and the conclusion deduced from Scripture evidence they might very well say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost if it was conformable to the Scripture there being nothing more familiar than this that what is said in Scripture is ascribed to the Holy Ghost as Act. 1.26 The Holy Ghost spoke by the mouth of David Heb. 3.7 Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith to day if ye will here my voice 3. If that phrase doth imply Infallibility yet the consequence doth not hold from Apostles to Bishops I appeal to any Papist whose candour is not gone with his conscience whether this follow A Council wherein were several persons even in their single capacities Infallible had infallible direction when they were met together Ergo Those Counsels wherein there is not one person but is confessed in his single Capacity to be Fallible are Infallible If any or every Apostle had singly said It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me would this have inferred the Infallibility of every single Bishop They say No Then let them show a reason why the Argument proceeds not as well from single Apostles to single Bishops as from Apostles conjoined in Council to Bishops conjoined 4. There is also another inconsequence The Apostles and Council had the direction of the Holy-Ghost in a conclusion regulated by Scripture and collected from it Ergo All following Counsels have the direction of the Holy-Ghost and cannot err in all their conclusions whatsoever Is not this a goodly Argument This Council did not err Ergo No other Council can err The words are only assertive of a present case viz. of the direction of this Council in that point not at all promissive of any thing for the future and therefore can give us no security at all for the Infallibility of Counsels for the future it would make fine work if every assertion were turned into a promise I might as well argue David was guided by the Spirit of God in the ordering of God's house as you read I Chron. 28.12 19 Therefore all succeeding kings of judah were Infallible Moses was faithful in all God's house Heb 3.5 Ergo None of Moses' Successors could be unfaithful Nothing can be replied but this That David and Moses had a special assistance not communicated to all their Successors And the same may as truly be said of this Council and the Apostles here assembled But saith Bellarmine Infallibility being granted to this Council as being necessary for the conservation of the Church against Herestes the same reason and necessity continuing the same Infallibility must consequently be granted to following general Counsels (a) De Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 2. I Answer 1. If this Council by reason of the Apostles was Infallible yet this Infallibility was purely accidental because persons endued with Infallibility for other ends were there present and not conferred upon them for the decision of the present controversy and the reason why Infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles was not common to all but particular to that age and season viz. because they were to lay a solid foundation for and to give a sure rule to all the Churches in after ages and therefore Infallibility was their peculiar privilege It is but a lame inference Infallibility was necessary in the first founders of Christianity for the Plantation and constitution of the Gospel's Church Ergo It was necessary for the constant and perpetual government of the Church in all after ages Upon the same warrant a man may argue thus Miracles were necessary in the first erecting and laying the Foundation of the Church Ergo they were necessary for the edification of the Church in all successive ages In both cases the consequence is repugnant to common sense and reason and confuted by experience For 2. That such general Counsels and their Infallibility are not so necessary as the Papists would persuade us plainly appears from hence that God who is never defective in necessaries left his Church for three hundred years together wholly without them and yet the Church since the days of the Apostles never had more stability in the Faith and a greater plenitude of every grace and good work then in those times 5. That you may see how little reason there is that Protestants should be convinced by this place take notice that divers of the Learned Papists are unsatified with this Argument among which are Ockam (a) Par. 3. Dialog trac 1. lib. 3. cap. 9 Cameracensis (b) Quaes●de Resumpta tit R. Ferus (c) In locum and M r White in his Treatise De fide & Theologia where he thus Answers the Argument Nor is it material that in that Apostolical Council they use those words It seemed good to the Holy-Ghost and to us For first it was a Council of Prophets in each of which Gods spirit dwelled in a special manner at least in the Apostles And he adds If they acted with reason doubtless they acted by the instinct of God's Spirit although not such as Divines feign to be assistant to Counsels (d) Neque interest quod in Concilio Apostolico institutoe sunt eae voces Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis Inprimis enim erat Concilium Prophetarum in quorum singulis habitabat Spiritus Sanctus speciali modo saltem in Apostolis Et Paulo post si ex ratione agent indubiò ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti etsi noa tali qualem singunt Theologi assistentem Conciliis Tract 2. parag 21 A fifth place they urge is Mat. 28. verse the last I am with you always to the end of the World Answ. 1. Whatsoever this promise contains the Papists have no part in it because it depends upon a condition which they have so grossly violated Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo in so doing I am with you Christ commanded his Disciples to search the Scriptures Papists teach the Contrary Christ commanded all his Disciples that partook of the Bread to drink also of the Cup Papists teach otherwise and the like may be instanced in an hundred particulars 2. Put this Argument into form and it is this They whom Christ promiseth to be with are Infallible But Christ promiseth to be with his Church Ergo This Church is Infallible Here are three propositions and every one of them faulty in one kind or other 1. For the Major it is most false For Christ hath promised to be with every single sincere believer joh. 14.23 If a man love me we will come to him and make our abode with him So joh. 17.20 21 22.23 And the Holy Ghost by which it is that Christ is present is given to every such person Ergo it seems they are Infallible 2. For the Minor it is true but impertinent Christ hath promised to be with his Church and with his Ministers to the world's end but not in the same manner and with the same degree of assistance as he was with the Apostles to give them Infallible direction If otherwise then as every single Apostle was so every single Minister must be Infallible which they themselves deny 3. The Conclusion if granted reacheth not to Rome for there being several Churches pretending to this promise and the Text no more determining itself to one then to the other it may as well be claimed by the Greek or English as by the Romish Church Nay which is more Rome is excluded or rather hath excluded herself from it as we have seen and by her disobedience to Christ's commands hath cut off her Title to his promise § 19 There is one place more they use to plead it is Mat. 18 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them This I confess drives the Nail home I see they are resolved to make sure work For now it matters not what becomes of the Infallibility of the Pope or general Counsels or the Universal Church For wherever there are but two or three Jesuits met together pretending Christ's name there is Infallibility I think those Heretics had better have held their Tongues for then the Church of Rome would have been contented to assert the Infallibility of Pope or Counsels but now they will not abate them an Ace but will make it good in spite of Scripture Fathers and Counsels and all the World that every leash of Popish Priests is Infallible But I need say nothing more in Answer to this ridiculous Argument because the Answers to the last Argument will serve for this also and their own great Doctors confess the impertinency of this allegation and amongst them two great names Stapleton (a) Con. 6. qu. 3. art 4. and Gregory de Valentiâ (b) Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. punct 7. And these are the Scriptures upon which they ground their Monstrous conceit of the Infallibility of Counsels what a sandy Foundation they have for it in Tradition we showed before And how little countenance they have from Scripture and how absurdly they wrest that to their own destruction hath been now discovered And therefore I may conclude this Doctrine hath no footing in Scripture nor Tradition which was the first branch of the Proposition to be proved § 20. And here I might set up my rest For having pulled down the two Pillars upon which the building of Infallibility stands I know no remedy but it must fall to the ground But for the more abundant demonstration of the of the Romish Doctors and vanity of their Religion I shall add a second consideration and show that however when they discourse with Protestants they make a great noise about the Infallibility of counsels yet when they debate the point among themselves none deny it with greater seriousness nor dispute against it with more earnestness then divers of themselves I speak not now of the private opinions of some obscure Doctors among them but of the public doctrines of their Church the opinion of the Popes Cardinals and all the jesuits and stoutest champions of the Romish Church and the generality of Italian Spanish and German Papists and almost all some of the French faction excepted do expressly deny the infallibility of Counsels and which is more they dispute against it particularly Cajetan and Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia some of whose Arguments are these Infallibility is not in the headless body therefore a council in itself is not infallible That from which there is appeal is not infallible but there lies an appeal from a council to the Pope Ergo. The Church is committed to Peter not to a council Ergo. Thus Cajetan (a) De Authoritate Papae & Concilii tract 1. cap. 6. & 8. & 11. et 12. The Pope can either approve or reject the decrees of a Council Ergo the Council is not infallible The Council hath its infallibility from its conjunction with her head the Pope Ergo. Many Counsels have erred in decrees of faith Ergo. Thus Bellarmine (b) De authoritate Concilii cap. 11. By the way remember this is the Gentleman that even now urged joh. 16. to prove that Counsels could not err and now he proves they have erred it were well if the Romanists had either better consciences or better memories God doth nothing in vain but the gift of infallibility would be given to Counsels in vain seeing the Pope hath it Ergo. That which is repugnant to our most assured faith concerning the Pope's primacy is not to be admitted But the supreme and infallible authority of Counsels is repugnant to the Pope's primacy Ergo Thus Gregory de Valentia (a) Anal fidei lib. 8. cap. 7. So you see by their own argument either the Pope's primacy or the Counsels infallibility is lost & as the Jesuits on the one side thus strenuously dispute down the infallibility and supremacy of Counsels so their Adversaries on the other side do as stoutly overthrow the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope wherein besides the positive testimonies of divers of the most learned & ancient Papists they have the suffrage of two late famous Popish Counsels Constance and Basil such a spirit of giddiness and division hath God put amongst these Builders of Babel And yet this is the Jerusalem a city united in itself These are the men that reproach the Protestant Churches with their divisions in some petite controversies whilst they themselves are so irreconcilably divided in that upon which the decision of all other controversies depends viz. in the rule and judge of controversies I think I need not say much more For the more ancient Papists he that shall look into that excellent discourse of Robert Baronius against Turnbull called Apologia pro disputatione de formali objecto fidei will find the infallibility of Counsels expressly denied by Ockam Cameracensis Waldensis Panormitanus Antoninus Cusanus all venerable names in the Romish Church whose words are there recited (b) Tract 5. Cap. 19 And for the modern Papists it may suffice to name three authors of principle account whom the rest of the Herd do follow Melchior Canus lays down their doctrine in two Propositions 1. A general Council which is not called and confirmed by the Pope may err in the faith 2. Provincial Counsels which are confirmed by the Pope cannot err the rest may err (c) 1. Concilium generale quod non congregatum & confirmatum est autboritate Pontificis potest in fide errare 2. Consilia Provincialia quae ā Papa consirmantur errare non posunt reliqua autem possunt loc. come lib. 5. c. 4. And Bellarmine saith the same thing almost in the same words (a) De Conciliis lib. 2. c. 11. and when he was gravelled with the authority of that famous Council of Chalcedon a Council that Pope Gregory the great said he reverenced as one of the four Gospels and a Decree of theirs against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome he answers roundly that that Decree is of no force because it was made in the absence of the Pope's Legates who afterwards did protest against it (b) Decretum illud magni quidem est Concilii sed non legitimè factum proinde nullius est rolioris vel authoritatis quia factum est absentibus legatis Apostolicae sedis & postea reclamantibus De Pontif. lib. 2. c. 17. §. Quart Where by the way we may take notice what opinion that ecumenical Council had of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility who first passed and afterwards ratified that decree notwithstanding all the solicitations and protestations of the Roman Legate in the Pope's name to the contrary In like manner saith Andradius That Council erred in as much as it did rashly and without cause prefer the Church of Constantinople before that of Alexandria and Antioch (c) Erravit in co quòd temere & nullâ ratione Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam Alexandrinae & Antiochenae duxerint praeferendam In defence fidei lib. 1. And Gregory de Valentia being assaulted with a Canon of the Synodus Trullaena defends himself with this answer That Synod is of no authority because its Canons were not confirmed by the Pope (d) Trullana Synodus nullius est authoritatis quia non erant ejus Canones approbati à Pontifice Romano In libro de Coelibatu p. 861. § 21. It is true the Papists perceiving the danger of their cause from this difference between the Pope and Counsels have at last found out this and by that means they pretend they are all agreed the Pope and Council joining together are infallible And in this sense their doctrine is true that general counsels are infallible viz. if they are called and confirmed by the Pope For answer whereunto I commend four things to the Readers observation 1. Observe the nonsense of this opinion The question is whether general counsels lawfully called have an infallible assistance and guidance of the Spirit in the forming of their decrees The Papists affirm we deny now comes in a condition in their affirmation which overthrows the affirmation itself They are infallible say they if the Pope confirms them well then the Council meets considers decrees here is their work done hitherto say our Masters they are fallible they send them to the Pope for confirmation for ubi desinit Concilium incipit Papa if the Pope confirms them they are infallible if he disapprove them they are fallible And so it seems the council receives infallible direction from God for their work after their work is done and it ceaseth to be before it be infallible in spite of the old maxim of the Logicians Ab est tertii a●jecti ad est secundi adjecti valet consecutio Really the counsels have an hard bargain of it that cannot get Infallibility till they have lost their existency 2. Observe the hypocrisy and self conviction of this opinion The infallibility of counsels is the great cast before the eyes of those who cannot penetrate into the depth of things Several Scriptures are pretended which are said evidently to prove this infallibility now we see they themselves deny the thing they pretend to prove and counsels are infallible no further than the Pope pleaseth And with this key you must open all the alleged Scriptures you must hear the Church i. e. unless the Pope shut up your ears Christ is present where two or three are met together in his name viz if they have the Pope's approbation The Spirit will lead you into all rruth viz. if you follow the instructions of his Holiness And if a council may say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us it signifies nothing if it be not added and to our Lord the Pope Thus Counsels are mere cyphers except the Pope add his figure and Counsels are joined with Popes only as Bibulus was with Caesar to fill up a vacancy and make a noise in vulgar ears Nor is the wound of the Popish cause healed by this device but only skinned over for as the assertors of the infallibility of counsels deny infalliblity to the Pope further than he adheres to such counsels so the assertors of Papal infallibility allow to counsels no infallibility but what they have in dependence upon and by influence from the Pope So Bellarmine in terms saith Infallibility doth not come partly from the Pope and partly from the Council but wholly from the Pope (a) Tota firmitas Conciliorum legitimorum est à Pontifice non partim à Pontifice partim à Concilio De Pontif. lib. 4. c. 3. And Stapleton is express The Pope receives no new power nor authority nor infallibility from the addition of a Council (b) Papa adjuncto Concilio nullam potestatem vel authoritatem vel etiam certitudinem in indicando novam acquirit In relect con 6. qu. 3. art 5. What need I say more such contemptuous thoughts hath Bellarmine of the infallibility of counsels that he spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That general Counsels may err if they do not follow the Pope's instruction if they have not the Legates consent nay more if it be in a point wherein the Legates have no certain instructions from the Pope and he gives us amongst many instances of erring Counsels this remarkable one The Council of Basil by common consent and with the Legates concurrence concluded that a Council is above the Pope which certainly is now judged erroneous (a) Concilium Basiliense una cum legato Pontificis communi consensu statuit Concilium esse supra Papam quod rectè nunc judicatur euroneum De Romano Pontifice lib. 2. cap. 11. You see how hard it is for Counsels to carry their dish even By what hath been said it appears what a sorry foundation the Infallibility of Counsels is when from their principles it unavoidably follows That a college of Jesuits is as infallible as a general Council for they confess a provincial Council which in itself hath no more Authority to oblige the whole Church than such a College is Infallible with the Pope's concurrence and without it general Counsels are Fallible 3. Observe the insufficiency of this evasion For if Infallibility were granted to such a combination of Pope and Council this gives them no relief save only during the Session of the Council for when the Council is dissolved their Writings must endure the same fate with the writings of the Apostles of being unable to Judge or decide controversies For all the Papists most vehemently plead for the necessity of a living Judge that can hear both parties and determine all emergent controversies Thus Infallibility is not so much as res unius aetatis Nay ofttimes it is but res unius anni like Ionah's gourd it comes up in a night and withers in a night And the Church for three hundred years after Christ had no Infallibility and since the Council of Trent the Papists have not had an Infallible judge and at this day their Church hath no Infallibility and consequently no solid Foundation for their Faith 4. Observe the preposterousness of this opinion If Counsels come to the Pope for Confirmation he may say to them as john the Baptist said to Christ Mat. 3 14. I have need to be baptised of thee and comest thou to me So may the Pope say I have need to be confirmed by your Authority and without you am but magni nominis umbra and do you come to me But I confess wanus manum feriat If the Pope have any Infallibility he had it from Counsels for Scripture owns it not as we have seen and the particular Fathers could not give what they never had and now it is good manners to requite them and so he comunicates to them that Infallibility he receives from them To conclude this consideration It is sufficient for my purpose which is acknowledged by the greatest and most considerable part of the Romish Church at this day That general Counsels in themselves are not Infallible and consequently are no solid Foundation for a Papists Faith which is all this Proposition pretended to make good though you see I have given them an § 22. A third consideration is this If the Infallibility of general Counsels rightly called constituted and ordered were granted yet this would give no Advantage to the Romish cause nor security to their Faith and that for such reasons as divers of the most Learned Papists themselves do stamp with their approbation And here I might insist upon sundry particulars but I shall confine myself to a few and for the rest refer you only to one of their own Authors White in the oft mentioned Treatise who thus breaks out his doubts concerning this Doctrine of the Infallibility of Counsels If you assert an unknown and invisible influence of God's Spirit it is so uncertain and doubtful that it is fruitless to contend about it Seeing it is matter of strife rather than evidence to what Counsels and when this assistance is given whilst some quarrel with the calling others the absence of nations or Patriarches and others dispute about th● praesidency and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions others about the number weight or degree of suffrages others about Confirmation and others require the Church's consent ere it can be known whether this Assistance belong to the Council or no (a) Sed si ad ignotum & invisibilem afflatum Spiritus Sancti religetur evadit adeo incerta & dubia ut sine fructu aliquo de câ certentur Cum quibus Conciliis & quando haec assistentia debeatur altercationis non evidentiae plenum sit His convocationem illis Patriarcharum aliis nationum absentiam calumniantibus aliis de praesidentiâ disputantibus aliis de Methodo & circumstantiis agitandarum questionum Aliis de suffragiorum numero pondere gradu Aliis tandem de confirmatione decertantibus Imo & consensum feu acceptationem Ecclesiae per quietum usum & praxim efflagitantibus ut fieri possit utrum hec assistentia Spiritus Sancti sit concilio debita neene De fide & Theologiâ tract 2. parag 21. Where you may observe no less than ten several causes of doubting and yet all these uncertainties they will rather run upon then acknowledge the Authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which are called a more sure word 2 Pet. 1.19 then that which had another kind and far higher degree of certainty than the decrees of Counsels can ever arrive at but I must not rest in generals I shall particularly acquaint you with some of the Intrigues of the Romish Church and their own requisites to the legitimation of Counsels I shall pick out three 1. They confess the Council which is Infallible must be ecumenical 2. And its decrees must be ratified by the consent and approbation of the whole Church 3. They must proceed sincerely and faithfully and piously in it Now in all these things there are notorious defects in the Church and Counsels of Rome § 23. 1. Most Papists grant that that Council to which Infallibility is promised must be general or ecumenical and they that pretend to assert the Infallibility of Provincial Counsels when confirmed by the Pope do indeed utterly reject the Infallibility of all Counsels and ascribe it wholly to the Pope and to Counsels only by participation from him and in dependence upon him If then any Counsels be Infallible they must be general to which purpose they allege the saying of St Austin That those only are Concilia plenaria full and general Counsels which are collected out of all the Christian World (a) Illa sola sunt Concilia plenaria quoe fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano lib. 2. de Bapt. cap. 3. Hence the seaventh Synod disowned the Constantinopolitan Council and their decrees against Images because they were not a general Council and had not all the Patriarches there (b) Quia sonus indictionis non exiit in omnem terram & etiam quia non habebat omnes Patriarchas nec eorum Delegatos And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church and citys several Authors of great note to that purpose (c) In systemate fidei cap. 27. receptissimam hanc Doctri● nam num 1. Now to assume The Counsels pretended by the Romanists were no general counsels To say nothing of former Counsels which in their greatest plenitude were only conventions of the Churches in the Roman Empire The later Counsels on whom the weight of the Popish cause principally depends were not ecumenical Counsels There is one acknowledged defect in them all to wit the absence of the Greek Church Cardinal Cusanus complains At present Alas the Catholic Church and the Parochial Church of Rome have but one Council seeing the whole Church is now reduced to one Patriarchate (d) Hodie prob dolour Catholicae Ecclesiae & Parochialis Romanae sedis unum est Concilium cum tota Ecclesia redacta sit ad illum tantum Patriarchatum lib. the Concordiâ 2. c. 15. And as the Objection is really unanswerable so that which is offered in stead of an Answer is very considerable which S. Clara. represents out of Cusanus and Barlaam That it matters not that only the Roman Patriarch and those united to him are there and that the Schismatical Patriarcks are absent for general Counsels are not to be collected out of Heretics and Schismatics but out of the Orthodox and such as are united to the Church (a) Generalia enim Concilia non ex haereticis & schismaticis sed ex Orthodoxis & Ecclesid colligi debent System fidei cap. 27. pag. 301. From whence I gather two things 1. That if the Church of Rome cannot assoil herself from the imputation of Heresy which by the leanness of their replies to the inditements of Protestant Authors sufficiently appears they are not able to do their Counsels are constituted ex Indebitâ materiâ of undue materials and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility if there were any such thing in rerum natur â. 2. That we are not to believe the Orthodoxy and much less the Infallibility of Counsels upon the credit of their naked assertion and absolute Authority as the Papists affirm seeing the most Heretical and Schismatical Counsels have ever asserted themselves to be Orthodox but it is the right and privilege of Subjects to examine and judge of the legitimateness of Counsels and consequently of the validity of their decrees § 24. The second particular is this That Counsels are not infallible nor their decrees unquestionable unless they have the tacit consent and approbation of the whole Church This position is laid down by S. Clara in the forementioned Treatise There is required a tacit or interpretative ratification of the whole Church to complete the definition of a Council (b) Ratihabitio igitur nempe tacita vel interpretativa universalis Ecclesiae requiritur ad complendam Concilii definitionem In system fidei cap. 22. Nor is this his private opinion but he there confirms it from the words of Panormitanes Turnball Pope Leo Petrus â Soto Castillo Mirandula Gersonius and others (a) Idem in cap. 23. per totum And afterwards he quotes these words out of Petrus D' Aliaco That general Counsels may err unless when they are accepted by the Universal Church and then they are Infallible (b) Probabiliter respondent aliqui quòd Concilium generale potest errare & tamen quando & in quantum Concilia universalia acceptantur ab Ecclesia universali insallibilitatem eis tribuit Id. c. 26. And in another place himself expressly tells us We are not presently to pronounce a thing de fide by reason of some expressions of Counsels or their Canons but we must diligently inquire the constant judgement of the Church else we shall find many Canons of Faith which do not agree with the truth according to the opinion of many (c) Non statim pronuntiandum quid vis osse de fide ex quibuslibet Canonum vel etiam Conciliorum loquendi formulis subinde apparentibus sed constans Ecclesiae judicium tam ibi quam alibi diligenter expendendum est alioquin multos fidei Canones numerabimus qui veram doctrinam haud sapiunt in multorum opinionibus Id. cap. 22. And Coltius hath these words As we have seen before the common descent of the Church hath rendered the decrees of Popes and Counsels invalid (d) Quemadmodum supra vidimus publicam reclamantis Ecclesiae vocem Pontificum & Conciliorum decretis robur detraxisse De Hierarchiâ lib. 4. cap. 12. I mention this the more fully because it is a pretty devise It must be confessed the Religion of Rome cannot easily be mistaken for a piece of Piety but he that shall deny it to be an Art of Policy will quickly be confuted and here is an instance will put him to silence There is a double discovery of the Romish subtlety in this business 1. You see how handsomely they make a virtue of necessity now they manage it as a Principle taken up on choice whereas S. Clara himself sufficiently insinuates that they were forced to it se def●ndendo and took it up at a forced put for speaking of the former rules of discerning a general Council he confesseth That their business is very intricate and liable to many troublesome objections against the lawfulness of their Counsels but here is a short way to obviate those difficulties by arguing from the reception of the Church for if the Church receive it for a general Council we need not trouble ourselves about little matters since this reception is sufficient evidence (a) Cum negotium sio valde perplexum multi etiam multa objectare soleant quibus ea illegitima esse contendunt in quibus non parum sacessunt nobis molestiae In his vero omnibus hoc saltem modo multum diminuetur difficultas arguendo à posteriori scilicet ex ipsâ receptione Ecclesiae utique si Ecclesia pro universali receperit non erit opus serulpsius indagare minutiora adeo ut haec receptio nobis manifestet quodnam concilium aestimari debeat tale ubi supra cap. 26. 2. Here is an excellent Antidote against the saucy decrees of several Counsels repugnant to the Pope's Supreme Authority If the sixth Council of Carthage be pleaded that there should be no appeals to Rome from beyond the Seas if that of the Council of Chalcedon be urged wherein they give the same honours and privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to the Bishop of Rome If the later Counsels of Constance and Basil be alleged wherein the Pope's subjection to Counsels is positively determined Now here is an Answer ready to this and to all that former Counsels said and to all that any Council shall ever say to the World's end viz. The Canons of these Counsels were not received by the whole Church but opposed and rejected by the Church and Bishop of Rome a great and eminent part of it Thus I think they have brought off their master the Pope with honour and as he was Infallible so now they have made him invulnerable Scripture cannot hurt him for he hath the key of Interpretation Father's cannot reach him for they are his Children saith Bellarmine As it is no news for the Pope to be well stored with Children And now Counsels cannot touch him for he will hinder their universal reception And if the Romish Doctors be beaten out of this conceit it is but studying some new device which is easily done by men that want no wit and have no conscience for it is resolved to hold the Conclusion though the poor premises may be put to hard shifts Well then to allow them their supposition and all the benefits of it they must remember the rule of the Lawyers Qui sentit commodum debet sentire & onus Benefit and inconvenience must go together And this is the inconvenience and mischief which they are still forced into notwithstanding all their tricks and stratagems even to eat their own words and to pull down with one hand that Infallibility which they build up with another For how can the Council or the Pope either be said to have that infallible guidance which is pretended in the making of their decrees if the Church's non-reception may prove their Fallibility But here is the wonder-working power of the Church of Rome do not think strange when you read that passage in the Council of Lateran delivered in an Oration before the Pope and Council That the Pope-hath a power above all power in heaven or earth (a) In Papa omnem esse potestatem supra omnes potestates tam caeli guam terrae dixit Stephanus Archiepiscopus Patracensis in oratione in Concilio Lateran●nsi corum Leone 10. For he can do that which the Schoolmen unanimously put out of the reach of every power in Heaven or Earth viz. factum infectum reddere recall things that are past and by this Argument prove that that Council which was Infallible while it sat after its dissolution is become Fallible But to return This is to precipitate themselves into those absurdities which they charge upon us This is to make the Church judge of her Judges This is to take away all the security of their Faith if we may believe their own famous Council of Basil whose words are these Nor let any man presume to say that a general Council may err for if once this pernicious error were admitted the whole Catholic Faith would stagger and we should have nothing certain in the Church for by the same reason that one may err the rest may err also (a) Nec quisquam illud dicere praesumat Quod aliquod generale Concilium legitime congregatum invalidum sit aut errare possit quia si bie perniciosus error admitteretur tota Catholica fides vacillaret nec aliquid certi in Ecclesiâ haberemus quia quâ ratione potest errare unum possunnt errare & reliqua in Respons Synodali Besides hereby they run into a new Circle as if all their former Circles were not sufficient If you ask what it is which makes the Faith of the Romish Church and people sure and Infallible It is the Infallibility of the Pope and Council If you ask again what it is which makes the decrees of Pope and Council Infallible It is the Church's reception of them and yet all this if granted will not relieve them for that the decrees of their Popes and Counsels have no such reception of the universal Church appears sufficiently from the public dissent of so many famous and flourishing Churches in the World I mean the Greek and Protestant Churches which do not therefore cease to be members of the Catholic Church because the Papists disowne them no more than the Popish Churches become true members by their pretending to that Title § 25. 3. There is another assertion of the Papists That Counsels are not Infallible unless they be rightly constituted and ordered for this I shall deal with them as the Apostles did with their Kinsmen the Cretians I shall implead them with an Nay not one but many in their opinion Counsels say they may err if they do not proceed Conciliariter i.e. in a regular manner saith S. Clara his words are these The most Learned Corduba in Quaestionario lib. 4. qu. 1. quoting Roffensis in his Prologue against Luther and Horantius in his places lib. 2. cap. 17. saith that God hath promised his assistance to a Council wh●n they do what in them lies If they be Bishops and Learned and prudent men selected out of the whole Church if they proceed without Carnal affections and with a love to the Truth then and not otherwise it is gathered lawfully and in Christ name (a) Doctissimus Corduba in Quaestionario citans Roffensem in Prologo contra Lutherum veritate octavam & Horantium in locis l. 2. c. 17. dicit Christum promisisse assistentiam Spiritus Sancti quando Concilium facit quod in se est si Episcopi & viri Docti & prudentes ex totâ Ecclesiâ si sine assertione humanâ sed affectu veritatis tunc & non aliter est legitimè & in nomine Christi congregatum In system cap. 20. Thus Bellarmine pressed with the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon against the Pope's Supremacy saith A lawful Council may err in those things wherein it acts not lawfully (b) Concilium legitimum potest errare in iis quae non legitimè agit de ●onciliis lib. 2. c. 7. And Petrus à Soto a man of great account amongst them tells us this is the sense of their assertion That Counsels cannot err They understand it saith he of Counsels lawfully congregated and acting without fraud and deceit (c) Cum dicunt Concilia non posse errare intelligunt legitimè congregata et absque fraude et dolo agentia In defension c. 74. And Pope Leo speaking of the causes of the errors of the Council of Ephesus assigns this because they did not proceed with a pure conscience and right judgement (a) Eo quod non purà conscientià et recto judicio secundum consuetudinem high qui collecti sunt de fide et erratibus protulerunt In Epis. 24. So Malderus in his Treatise against the Synod of Dort saith In vain do Synods assemble and men go to them when they do not remove all sinister affection and only seek that which is Christ's and he adds Then indeed they are gathered together in Christ's name than Christ is in the midst of them (b) Frustra Synodi cocunt frustra ad eas itur quando non omni affectu sequiori remote solum id quaeritur quod Christi est Tum demum in nomine Christi congregantur tum demum in medio oerum est Christus in Antisynodico The sum is this Infallible assistance is not a gift dispensed promiscuously to Pope or Bishops howsoever they demean themselves but only upon their good behaviour being the privilege of those alone who act with diligence fidelity sincere love to the Truth and good conscience that is to say to such persons as few Popes and Popish Bishops have been so that if any Popes or Bishops violate the conditions on their parts required they may lose the privilege on Gods part promised If they be unsincere in their intentions and biased with humane affection if ambition or covetousness be in their hearts and sway their actions actum est de Infallibilitate their infallibility is laid in the dust It is true S. Clara saith We are to suppose that a Pope and Council do thus proceed unless the contrary be evident (c) Supponendum quod semper sic procedat nisi construe de opposito System cap. 20. But I Answer 1. Thus the Doctrine of Infallibility and the whole weight of the Romish Church and cause depends upon a mere supposition and which is far worse upon such an one as can never be proved for who can know the sincerity of another man's intentions but himself What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man that is in him 1 Cor. 2. 2. I note that these men craftily shift off the proof to us when it belongs to them for Asserenti incumbit probatio He that saith a Pope or Council proceeding sincerely and piously is infallible is bound to prove two things 1. That such an one is a lawful Pope or Council 2. That such a lawful Pope or Council proceed lawfully as Bellarmine himself requires and piously And as it were an absurd conceit if I require a proof that such a man is lawful Pope to say Supponendum est etc. We must suppose him to be the lawful Pope unless the contrary be evident so is it also when I expect a proof of the sincerity of his intentions instead of a Probandum to tell me supponendum est which is to tell me that I must venture my Salvation upon a prooflesse assertion And it is a new strain of Popish Logic that suppositions must pass for Arguments 3. I observe the desperate issue of Popish principles the foundation of their Faith and Hope is the Infallibility of Pope or Council This Infallibility they can have no assurance of which I thus prove No man can have assurance of the performance of a conditional promise unless he have assurance of the performance of the condition but the promise of Infallibility is a conditional promise depending upon the honesty and sincerity of man's intentions which another man can never be assured of Here we have a remarkable evidence of the perverse Spirit of our Adversaries and the indefensiblenesse of their cause Those very men that are so curious and critical that they will not allow a man to be sure of his own sincerity now will needs have us to rest assured of the sincerity of another man But how are we assured Why with a non constat de opposito An Ingenious device which will serve for many excellent purposes Thus I may be assured that the present great Mogul is turned Christian because the contrary is not evident Thus I may be assured of the virtue wisdom and piety of every person that now lives at Rome because the contrary is not evident to me In a word according to their Doctrines and Answers A Papist hath no greater assurance of the Popes or Counsels Infallibility than I have That there is a World in the Moon That the day of judgement shall be next year Or that I shall die to morrow Or that a thousand souls shall be converted by the next Sermon I preach because in all these I may say non constat de opposito the contrary is not evident Really the Protestants ought not to be envious at the assurance of the Papists for they are contented with very moderate terms for it If they would be satisfied with the same kind of assurance in conveyance of worldly estates as they are in the Salvation of their Souls I believe they would get away all good bargains from their neighbours but you will find them wiser there 4. But alas for them I fear I shall be cruel to them for I cannot allow their non constat de opposito They tell us we must suppose that Popes and Counsels have always acted sincerely and honestly because we do not know the contrary an assertion which whosoever will undertake to make good must combat the Faith of all History I shall say nothing of the censures of Protestants upon them whose interest and opinion may render them suspected of partiality But I hope they will not take it amiss if I represent some few of those innumerable Testimonies which their own most learned and approved Authors have given concerning the hypocrisy impiety fraud ambition avarice of their infallible Gentlemen the Popes and Popish Bishops And were it not that the Pope hath a power of turning vice into virtue at his pleasure according to that saying of Bellarmine's In a good since Christ hath given to Peter a power of making sin to be no sin (a) In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato nos peccatum con Barcla ca 31. Vide quae supra allegavimus it were impossible to mistake the Pope for a Saint let us here some few of the expressions of such as lived and died in their communion For the Popes he that reads their own Historians would think the name of Holiness were given to them by Antiphrasis and that in mere pity they were allowed the name who did not pretend to the thing The Papal chair is called by themselves Cathedra pestilentiae a pestilential chair Genebrard himself though a sworn vassal of the Pope's confesseth as I observed before that for 150 years together the Popes were Apostatici Apostates not Apostolicks as if they succeeded Peter only in the denying of his master and yet these are our infallible masters who doubts but they can work miracles at Rome that can make Apostasy and Infallibility dwell together in the same person and however our Saviour said No man can serve two masters and St Paul What communion can there be between Christ and Belial yet the Papists are infallibly sure of the contrary for if their most approved Authors may be credited divers of the Popes have had infallible guidance of God's spirit and undoubted communion with the Devil at the same time for so faith Platina sometimes the Pope's library keeper All the Popes from Sylvester the second even to Gregory the seventh inclusively which were about 18 Popes were Magicians (b) Omnes Papae à Sylvestio secundo ad Gregorium septimum inclusive fuerunt Magi. Platina But I confess all the Popes were not conjurers for some of them were such silly wretches that they did not understand Grammar according to the report of their own Authors (a) Cum constet plures Papas ad●o illiteratos esse ut Grammatican● penitus ignorent qunî fit ut Sacras literas interpretari possent Alphonsus de Castro ●on Haereses cap. 4. in editione An 1543. And yet these too were infallible Doctors And Ludovicus Vives dealt too hardly with poor Bullardus for saying The better Grammarian the worse Divine for here it seems The worst Grammarians were the best nay the infallible Divines All Histories are full of the ambition frauds forgeries even of those who were accounted some of the best of their Popes to say nothing of more abominable vices Nor did this corruption rest in the head but from thence disperse itself into all the members the Cardinals Bishops Governors of the Romish Church It was acknowledged by the Pope and therefore infallibly true Adrianus the sixth by the name of the Popes and prelate's We have all turned after our own ways there is none that doth good no not one (b) Omnes nos declinavimus unusquisque in vias suas nee fuit jamdiu qui feceret bo●um non fuit usque ad unum I● instructionibus ad legatos Norinbirga Anno 1525. The famous Chancellor of Paris Gerson complains that Learned and godly Bishops were chosen no where but carnal men and ignorant of Spiritual things (c) Nullibi Episcopos bonos & opere ac Doctrinâ probatos eligi sed homines carnales & Spiritualium ignaros praelatos adeo superbos esse ut homines se nesciant In declaratione defectuum Eccl. siast And so proud saith he that they do not know themselves to be men Duarenus speaks home to this purpose Most of the Bishops of our time are greater strangers to Religion and Holy things than any of the secular Nobles and they mind nothing but how to defend their possessions by right or wrong (d) Plerique Episcopi nostro tempore a religione & sacris quam quosvis satrap as et principes profanos longe alieniores nec aliud eis curae esse quam ut ditiones et possessiones suas quo jure quâve iniuri●●●●antur De Sacro Ministerio lib. 1. cap. 4. Ferus cries out Who doth not see the insatiable avarice and impostures of the Popes and religious men with these all things are vendible (a) Quis Sacerdotum ac Religiosorum & Pontisicum inexplebilem avaritiam & imposturas non videt apud hos omnia venalia sunt In Joh. 2. And Stella informs us There were few possessors of Benefices who had them otherwise then either by begging or paying for them (b) Pauci sunt Beneficiarii nisi aut prece aut pretio In Luc. 21. And yet these were the good men of the Church of Rome these are they who acted in Counsels sincerely from love to God and his truth not seeking their own things but the things of Christ and therefore without doubt infallible And for the state of Counsels take one testimony for all of one that was an eminent part and member of them Cardinal julian who in his Epistle to Eugenius the fourth in the council of Basil in plain terms tells him that all Counsels since that of Chalcedon which was above a thousand years ago were instituted not for the discovery of truth but for the defence and increase of the power of the Roman Church and the liberty of Churchmen (c) Omnia Coacilia post Chalcedonense potissimum instituta fuerunt non ut erueretur veritas sed ut roboraretur defenderetur atque augeretur sember Ecclesiae Romanae potestas & Ecclesiasticorum libertas AEneas Silvius lib. 2. the geftiss Council Basil. Should I descend to particulars and open the several impostures and palpable frauds which the Popes and their Partisans have successively used in the packing of counsels and making voices and forging decrees and engaging the Bishops by hopes and fears and interests to give up their votes and consciences to the advancement of the Romish power and magnificence I should engage myself to transcribe whole volumes and cut out work for the whole term of my life The transactions of the council of Trent are fresh in memory And he that shall peruse the words of their own Historians the Protestations of Princes the Censures of Universities relating to it etc. will easily be satisfied whether Clara's non constat de opposito be true or no. And therefore notwithstanding this frivolous excuse it remains a truth that according to the principles of Papists themselves and because of those evident defects in them acknowledged by their own Authors whatever Counsels regularly called and ordered may pretend to their counsels must lay down their claim to Infallibility and so their faith hath no solid foundation as not in the Pope's authority so not in Scripture nor in the testimony of the Fathers nor yet in the infallibility of general counsels And therefore I may safely conclude they have no solid foundation for their Faith 26. There is only one thing which may seem to retard the passing of the sentence that is this That although each of these taken asunder may not be sufficient yet all put together make a cord which is not easily broken Quoe non prosunt fingula juncta juvant and therefore forasmuch as the Church stands upon four Pillars Authority of Scriptures Tradition of Fathers Infallibility of Counsels and the Pope their Faith is like Mount Zion that cannot be removed And if it be deemed an absurd and unreasonable thing as we poor fallible creatures have thought to prove the Scriptures from the authority of the Church Counsels or Pope and circularly to prove the authority of the Church Counsels or Pope from the Scripture The Jesuits have found out the Quadrature of the Circle and they tell you that it is no more absurd that Scripture should lean upon the Church's authority and the Church on the authority of Scripture than that St. John the Baptist should give testimony to Christ and Christ to him again or that the Old Testament should be confirmed by the New and the New Testament by the Old This is one of their last pleas we find them now retired to their Fort-royal beat them out of this and upon the matter all is lost and truly that will be no hard matter to do if the Reader please to consider 1. The great disparity of the alleged Instances john and Christ might give testimony one to another but neither of them did simply depend upon each other's testimonies supposing that Christ had given no express testimony concerning john yet I say the mission of john was not only true in itself but sufficiently evident to the Jews as plainly appears from hence That the Pharisees when asked by Christ whether the Baptism of john was from Heaven or of men were afraid to deny its Heavenly original as being against the common sentiment of the Jews and Christ chargeth the Pharisees with rejecting the counsel of God against themselves being not baptised of john Luk. 7. 30. And much more true is it of Christ that he did not depend upon the testimony of John but had other and better testimony joh. 5.36 But I have greater testimony then that of john And it is enough for my purpose if either Christ or John had an authority independent upon the others evidence though the other had not And the like may be said of the Old and New Testament well may they give testimony one to another for neither of them doth totally depend upon the other The Old Testament did sufficiently evidence its authority before ever the New Testament was written and the New Testament too did carry other convincing evidences of its divine original and authority besides the testimony of the Old Testament such as the voice from Heaven This is my well beloved Son 2 Pet. 1.17 and the glorious miracles he did joh. 5.36 The works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me the holiness of his life power of his doctrine patience of his death But now to apply this to our present purpose it is here far otherwise for the Scripture say they doth not evidence it self any other way to us but by the Church's testimony as we have heard from their own words and Counsels Fathers and the Pope we say and have proved cannot evidence their Authority and Infallibility any other way but by the Scripture which according to their principles is impossible or by their own Testimony which is ridiculous 2. Let it be considered that the Romanists do not make these four Scripture Fathers Counsels and Pope's coordinate and collateral foundations of their Faith as if each of them did contribute a distinct and independent support unto the Romish Faith but indeed they make one of them totally to depend upon another and at last reduce them all to one and to speak properly to none For the Fathers and Counsels and the splendid name of the Church however they are pretended to put a fair gloss upon a foul cause yet indeed the authority of them all is as vigorously disputed against by the most and learned'st Romanists as by any Protestants in the world You remember what their great master Bellarmine told you That Infallibility and Supreme Authority is not partly in the Pope partly in the Council but wholly in the Pope what need we trouble ourselves further Those four are now reduced to two Scripture and the Pope and those two must mutually prove one another There is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Scriptures but the testimony of the Pope say the Papists and there is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Pope but the testimony of the Scriptures For the Fathers and Counsels receiving all their authority and infallibility from the Pope cannot give him the infallibility and authority they received from him Now how senseless a resolution of Faith this is though most of the Papists have no better and no other you may perceive by some few instances It is as if a Sudent should say thus I should not believe such a book to be an excellent book but for my Tutor's testimony who tells me so And again I should not believe my Tutor's testimony to be of any validity but for the testimony of that book concerning him Who would not laugh at such an assertion Or as if a man should say I should not believe the honesty of Richard were it not for the testimony of Thomas And I should not believe the honesty of Thomas were it not for the testimony of Richard Where is there a man that will accept of such security in a trivial worldly bargain And yet the Papists are content to venture their souls upon it From all that hath been said I conclude that the pretended authorities we have discoursed of do neither severally nor yet jointly afford a solid foundation for a Papist's Faith nor prove that Infallibility which they pretend to and consequently there is no solid foundation for a Papists faith And here I might discharge myself from further trouble having discovered the nullity of all the pretences which have been hitherto owned by the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of Oral Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church § 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors where the authors are any whit considerable and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility There is then another shift which some subtle Romanists have lately invented who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of the field by strength of Scripture and argument in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Council come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition and the authority of the present Church This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues Mr. White and Holden and Sr. Kenelm Digby and S. Clara. Their defence and discourse is this for I shall give you their opinion in their own words A man may prudently believe the present Church for herself and aught so to do A man needs not nor is not obliged to inquire further there he may safely fix (a) Prudenter Ecclesiae praesenti propter seipsam credi potest & debet b. e. non est opus nec obligatur home ad inquirendum ulterius ibi tutò sisti potest System fidei c. 10. ubi disertè asserit testimonium praesentis Ecclesiae esie infallibile saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary That society of Christians which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers and they from theirs and so from the Apostles they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered for if they could teach falsehoods than some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joined to deceive their posterity neither of which is credible But the Church of Rome and they only pretend to teach nothing else etc. Ergo they must needs hold the truth The acute Mr. White explains the opinion more exactly and fully and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words 1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles and practised it and highly valued it as most necessary for them and their posterity and to be preferred before all other things 2. Those first Christians even at their death both could and would and therefore doubtless did most vehemently commend this doctrine to their Children and the Fathers did always deliver the same doctrine which they received from their Parents and under that notion because they had received it 3. If any delivered another doctrine he could be proved a liar by the rest of the world or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine under that notion scil of a doctrine delivered from their Parents that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide and should agree to murder themselves which is impossible 4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors who took care of Faith and manners and it is evident that the Pastors and people had the same faith 5. And there arose heresies by which the truth might be more cleared and they that maintained the ancient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators which Innovators did not publicly reject the Apostles doctrine but pleaded it was not rightly understood and the other part kept the name of the Catholic Church 6. It is necessary that that congregation which always kept the ancient discipline should alone profess that she received her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Canon of their Faith under another notion 7. As certainly therefore as one may know that the congregation of believers which at this day is called Catholic is animated with a number of learned and wise men so certainly will it be known that she is not conscious of any newness of doctrine and therefore there is no new doctrine 8. Following ages cannot be ignorant what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons Catechisms Prayers and Sacraments and such are all things necessary to the Catholic Faith 9 This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was confirmed by long custom divers laws rewards and punishments both of this and the following life monuments of writers by which all would be kept in it 10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schism and notorious tumult in the Church as daily experience proveth (a) 1. Gentes intelligebant quòd Aposioli docuerunt & opere complebant eamque doctrinam magni aestimabant & summè necessariam sibi & posteris suis & caeteris omnibus negotiis praeponendam 2. Illi ergo primi Christiani doctrinam istam filiis & successoribus & potuerunt & voluerunt etiam morientes enixissimè commendare ideòque indubiè hoc secerunt Et patres filiis eandem doctrinam semper tradiderunt quam ipsimet acceperant à majoribus & eo titulo credebant quia acceperant 3. Si quisquam aliam doctrinam traderet mendacii à reliquo orbe convinceretur vel si omnes novam conarentur eo titulo tradere conscientiâ teste perfidiae & parricidii tota illa aetas condemna●etur & veluti ad se occidendos conspirarent quod impossibile est 4. pastors perpetuò successerunt qui curam fidei & morum gererent constat autem quòd populi & pastorum una fuit fides una doctrina Idem trac 2. § 5. pag. 114. 5. Et haereseso tae sunt quibus veritas magis elucesceret & distinguerentur ret●n●ores doctrinae antiquae contra novatores Qui quidem novatores non palam aversabantur doctrinam Apostolorum sed esse malè intellectam contendebant Reliquae autem parti mansit nomen Catholicae Ecclesix 6. Necesse est autem eam fidelium congregationem quae semper antiquae disciplinae tenax erat solam profiterise à Christo per successionem perpetuam dogmata sua accepisse nec quicquam aliot tulo recipisfe in fidei Canonem neque unquam recipere posle 7. Quantâ itaque ceititudine quisquam agnoscere potest congregationem illam fidelium quae hodie Catholica dicitur esse virorum prudentium & docto●um multitudine animatam tantâ certitudine ipsi constabit eam non esse consciam sibi de aliqua doctrinae novitate ideeque nullam esse novitatem 8. Nullo modo potest latere succedanea saecula qued praeeuntia crediderint circa ea quae concionibus catechesibus orationibus & sacramentis exponuntur talia autem sint universa ad fidem Catholicam necessaria 9 Confirmata erat haec doctrina per manus tradita longâ consuetudine variis legibus praemiis & poenis tum hujustum sequentis vitae scriptorum monumentis quibus omnes in ea retinerentur Thomas Anglus in sono bu●cinae De fi et tbeol tract 1 parag 4. & 5. 10. Rectores suceedanei non poterant decessoris doctrinam immutare absque schismate & notorio Ecclesiae tumultu ut quotidiana experientia comp●ebat De fide & Theol. trait 2. parag 3. To the same purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the resolution of Faith This is a new Plea and deserves special consideration § 2. For Answer 1. I give Mr. White and his worthy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or rather justice done by them to the Protestant cause For whereas this is the perplexing question wherewith they think to puzzle us How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority and from the supposed impossibility thereof they infer the necessity of the Church's authority these kindhearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the briars for now it seems and it is a truth and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority viz. by tradition And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stripped of the capacity of a Judge and retained only the qualification of a witness and consequently the Church's authority is not at all necessary And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition it may be said to her according to these men's principles as the Apostle said to the Gentiles Rom. 11. If thou boast thou bearest not Tradition but Tradition thee for so say these Doctors Mr. White spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith (a) De fide et Theol. tract 2. Parag. 18. and saith that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church or in Counsels or in Scriptures in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition (b) Sive infallibilitatem in corpore Ecclesiae statueris firmit as & passessio doctrinae quam habet est traditio sive in Gonciliis sive in Scriptures earum authoritas in traditionem resolvitur De fide & Theol. tract 2. parag 18. And he spends several chapters to show that neither the Pope nor Counsels can give any solidity or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church and so there is still a necessity of her Authority I answer plainly no It follows only that there is necessity of her Ministry but not of her Authority A Proclamation of the King and Council could not come to my hands If I live at York but by a Messenger and by the Scribe or Printer But if any from this necessity of his Ministry infer his Authority I may well deny the consequence but because it is unhandsome to extenuate a courtesy I hold myself obliged further to acknowledge the great kindness of our Adversaries who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foundation of Faith have also overturned their own which that you may the better understand I shall briefly represent to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren and how God hath confounded the language of Babel's Builders so that they have little to do but to stand still and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one another's sides The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible (a) Labyrinthus Cantuariensis p. 68 If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right he answers because the whole Church which receives it cannot err (b) Quando Universa Ecclesia aliquid servat vel aliquid tanquam fidei Dogma amplectitur quod non est scriptum necesse est dicere ab Apostolis traditum Ratio est quia cum Ecclesia universa errare non possit 1. Tim. 3. & certe quod Ecclesia de fide esse credit sine dubio est de fide De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9 So the late Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholic Church be rejected as erroneous and fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority (a) In laud's Labyrinthich 2. pag. 17. Nay S Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantic strain That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient yet elsewhere confesseth the Church's infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain His words are these The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us is infallible from a Divine Revelation because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible And presently after If the Church were not infallibile it could not produce in me an infallible Faith (b) Dico secundo quod testimonium Ecclesiae per quod nobis illae veritates traditae innotescunt infallabile est nempe ob revelatio●em divinam quia manifestè habemus in Scriptures Ecclesiam esse infallibilem si igitur illa Authoritas Ecclesiae noa esset-infallibilis non produceretur in nobis fides infallibilis System fidei c. 10. Num. 3. non quid speciali spiritus sancti instinctu infallibilitas iis affletur sed quia irrefragabili testimonio successionem Doctrinae roborant & sunt irrecusabiles testes traditonis pro iis decertandum est De fide & Theol tract 2. Parag. 25. And this was the constant Doctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of infallibility hard beset and that Pillar shaken they support their cause with a quite contrary position That it is not the Church's infallibility that renders Tradition infallible as their former Masters held but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible and therefore they say the Church herself is no further infallible than she follows Tradition Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible because the special assistance of God's spirit makes them infallible but because by irrefragable testimony they confirm the succession of their Doctrines and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused Thus Holden having told us that the Pope's infallibility is controverted on both sides by just godly and most learned Catholics as well ancient as modern and neither ●svde condemned by Authentic censure (a) An summorum Pontificum decreta sint ex institutione Christi ab omni errore libera hec inquam in utramque partem ventilata videmus a piissimis quam plurimis & doctissimis Catholicis Authoribus tam antiquioribus quam retentioribus quorum neutram partem audivimus ùnquam fuisse censuris aliquibus authenticis prohibitom alit improbatam Quaepropter evidentissime constat Catholicum nemivem astringi aut huic aut alteri parti adhaerere tanguam fidei Catholicae & Divinae articulo De resolute fidei lib. 2. c. 1. p. 174. which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Souls and rest their faith upon what themselves confess to be a doubtful foundation viz. the Pope's infallibility (b) Nec opus est mea judicio divinam infallibilitatem Romanae sedi annectere quod omnes Theolgi agnoscunt non esse divina & Catholica fide certum id ib. p. 178. All Divines saith he confess it is not certain with a Divine and a Catholic Faith he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Privilege granted to the Romans sea or St Peter successeur but from the universal and Catholic tradition of the Church (c) Ecclesiae infallibilitas non Privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae aut Sti Petri suceessori divinitus impartito sed universae & Catholicae traditioni Ecclesiae praecipuè tribuenda est Idem ib. p. 174 and Counsels fare no better than Popes They are saith he not Founders but only Guardians and Witnesses of revealed truths (d) Episcopi in Consitiis sunt tantummodo Custodes ac Testes veritatum revelatarum non autem conditores Holden lib. 1. c. 9 p. 153. so M r White allows neither Pope nor Counsels any infallibility but what they have from tradition as we have seen and tells us in express terms that Tradition is overthrown if any other principle be added to it for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Tradition (a) Everfitur traditio si aliud fedei principium ei addatur Ind enim est traditionis firmitas quod nihil nisi ex ea ab Ecclesia acceptetur De fide & Theol. lib. 2. parag 18. § 3. Well what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith Here are two contradictory assertions one of them must unavoidably be false A man may with probability at least assert the falsehood of either of them having the suffrage of divers of their own most learned Catholic Authors for him in either opinion but whether they be true or false their cause is lost 1. If they be true and 1. If that be true that Tradition be the foundation of the Church's Infallibility then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility From Scripture That they utterly disclaim From Tradition Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to itself as well as Tradition And whence hath that Tradition its Infallibility and so in infinitum Is it from the reason of the thing So M r White implies who attempts to prove it by a rational and Logical Discourse but himself hath prevented that while he saith To lean upon Logical inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand (b) Logicis viti ratiunculis est fidei & Ecclesiae fundamina in Sabul● collocare ubi supra tract 2. parag 18. And S. Clara gives a check to this It is more reasonable and wise even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Authority of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever (c) Dieo igitur quod rationabilius & sapicntius est etiam respectu Doctissimorum & deutissimorum hominum Authoritati Ecclesiae quam ratiun●ulis nostris licet apparentissimis adhaerere System fide cap. 12. n. 9 And that is largely disproved in the following discourse Is it then from the Church's Infallibility This they deny and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition 2. Seeing they grant the Church may err if she receded from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not err unless 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 general Counsels of Bishops is rendered unnecessary I prove it thus If these be necessary only as witnesses to Tradition than their Authority is not necessary For it is not Authority but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witness competent A lay hearer of S t Paul may be as competent a witness of the Doctrine he heard S t Paul Preach as a Bishop supposing a parity in their knowledge fidelity and converse with the Apostle and another Bishop may be as competent a witness 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 general assembly of lay men of equal 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 Council of Bishops Nay to speak truth they are more credible witnesses because less biased by interest affection or prejudice These rocks the first branch throws them upon 2. If they fly from his and make the Church's infallibility the foundation of Traditions as the most Papists do than they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture Fathers or Counsels 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 itself without the Church's Authority as the one side saith than the Papists have no certain rule for the Church to steer i●s course by for the Scriptures they do not own as such and if the Church be not infallible but by virtue of this Tradition as the other side saith than they confess the insufficiency of all their proofs from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Counsels and their Authority is no more then that of any faithful or credible Historian and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historical faith I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogism 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 Doctors of the Romish Church do add another principle to it viz. the Church's Authority and infallibility as I showed 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 design of God in the Writing of the Scripture and indeed the common sense and experience of all mankind for hereby a verbal Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing It hath been the Wisdom of God in forme● ages to take care that those things might be Written which he would have kept in remembrance Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memorial in a Book So little did God trust this now supposed infallible way of oral 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 Jews 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 again after the breaking of the first Tables And although whilst the Church was confined to a few families and divine revelations were frequently renewed a verbal Tradition was sufficient yet when the Church came to be multiplied and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Nations and Revelations cease then Writing proves of absolute necessity How far the first and wisest Christians were from M r Whites opinion appears from hence that not daring to lean upon the broken reed of Oral Tradition they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing Eusibius reports that S t Peter hearers were not content with this way of Tradition from Peter's mouth but for want of M r Whites presence there to convince them of their folly They earnestly begged it of Mark that he would leave them that Doctrine in Writing which they had received by word of mouth (a) A Marco multis & variis precibus contendebant at monumentum illud doctrinae quod sermone & verbo illis tradidisset etiam Scriptis mandatum apud eos relinqueret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 14. And Hierome tells us That S t John the Evangelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia (b) johannes ab Asiae Episcopis penè omnibus coactus est ad scribendum Praefat. in Evang Mat. who it seems were raw novices that did not understand their Catechism nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of oral Tradition And S t Luke gives it us under his hand not fearing either M r Whites anger or his Argument that he wrote his Gospel ad majorem that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4 When job desires the perpetual continuance of his words he wisheth O that my words were now Written 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 White undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or job or David were and therefore good reason they should all veil to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgement he shall do well to remember that God himself was of the same judgement 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 verbal Traditions quickly vanish only writings are durable Hence those famous Laws of Lycurgus institutes of the Druids Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and only some few fragments reserved because not committed to writing but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind whereby the aierinesse of this phantasm 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 doubtless deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances which M r White supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospel 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 murder themselves and they actually did that which M r White saith was impossible And so from hence forward let all Logicians take notice of it that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia Well some centuries after comes Moses and by God's command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides and the Jews to this day retain 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 oral Tradition an unsafe and uncertain way of conveyance and this principle hath had universal influence upon the actions of wise men in all ages and in all things Hence care hath been always taken for the writing of Canons of Counsels 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 verbal 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 souls are their own but let them not be displeased if we desire to make a wiser bargain But our English Apostate hath a distinction to salve this gross absurdity It is true saith he of Doctrines merely speculative that the memory is not so safe a depository as Written records but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practice And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christ's real unfigurative presence in it which saith he was more securely and clearly delivered by the Church's practice than could be by books Written their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real presence where every man's 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 business Exomol § 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike sail 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 judgement of God punishing Apostasy with an a reprobate sense Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the real presence then if it had been said in terminis This is my body in a proper and corporeal sense 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 appears they can believe what they list May I with the Readers leave in few words discover the shameful weakness and horrid impudence of this assertion Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adorations of Christians discovered their assurance of the real corporal 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 falsehood of that opinion of the real corporal presence Why might not the special yet spiritual presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration as well as the special and Spiritual presence of God in the Ark occasioned the Jews to fall down and worship at his footstool And must the poor Clerk come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile Why there is not a Protestant but when he hears these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it and acknowledge it so to be but still Christ's words must be taken in Christ's sense and that is though figurative yet very frequent in such cases In short since these are the practical visible Arguments alleged as instances of the Infallible certainty of oral Tradition above all that can be said in writing I hope the Reader who concerns himself either in matters of credit or conscience will easily discern and ingeniously confess 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 error could come into the Church under pretence of Tradition from the Apostles That is evident in itself else an infallible Authority is liable to error which is a contradiction and it is granted by our Adversaries who therefore tell us that all Heretics 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 endeavour to make it good a task which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adversaries and the desperateness of their cause did not oblige them to require and us to give the proof of the most evident verities I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts which the Papists confess to be false which was commended to the Church by Papias and Irenaeus too as an Apostolical Tradition and so received by the generality of Orthodox christian's saith justin Martyr This Argument is rendered more considerable by the pitiful evasion wherewith M r White shuffles it off saying That the Chiliasts were deceived by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discourses not in public Preaching (a) De fide e● Theolog. tract 1. §. 7. p. 20. For to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedigree from another root whatever was the occasion and ground of this mistake in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I intent viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as coming 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 Heretics of his time one would think the words were not only Historical of them but also prophetical of the Papists When Heretics 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 (a) Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur haeretici in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt Traditionem lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 169. (b) Eam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio Aug. lib. 1. contra Julianum & lib. 2. de Bapt. c. 3. 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 tells us the Cajani pretended Saint Paul as the Author and founder of their Heretical Doctrines The Pelagians boasted of their Doctrine That it had been always celebrated by the Learning of Holy men (b) Eam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio Aug. lib. 1. contra Julianum & lib. 2. de Bapt. c. 3. The Doctrine of rebaptisation which the Papists acknowledge to be erroneous was brought in by Cyprian and the African Bishops under a pretence of Tradition The words of Cyprian are these We do not now broach a new Doctrine but one long fince decreed by our Predecessors (c) Sententiam nostram non novam promimus sed jampridem ab antecessori●us nostris statutam Epist. 70. It is true Pamelius saith he means this of his immediate Predecessors Agrippinus and the rest and that will serve my turn if M r Whites Argument will hold for than no Age and consequently not this could either be ignorant of or knowingly recede from the Doctrine of their Fathers nor they from their Fathers and so upward to the Apostles And indeed Cyprian carries it higher even to the Apostles whiles he calls it The Faith of the Catholic Church and reckons it amongst the Apostolical and Evangelicall precepts (a) Quare Ecclesiae Catholicae fidem ac veritatem et teaere debemus firmiter et docere et per omnia Evangelica et Apostolica praecepta rationem divinae dispensationis atque unitatis ostendere Epis. 73. ad julaianum Nos veritati consuetudinem junginus ab initio hoc tenentes quod ā Christo & ab Apostolo traditum est Epist. 75. Cypr. p. 164. sedit●il Rigalt And Firmilian expressly affirms it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles b And will these men's confidence yet serve them to assert that no error could come into the Church by Tradition If all those Eminent African Bishops and Churches might either misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their posterity as M r White cannot deny they did e●●●er the one or other why might not the Spanish or French or Romish do it If it be said there was a promise to the contrary at least for the Church of Rome To say nothing of the manifest weakness of that pretence I answer two things 1. That M r White expressly rejects this Infallibility by promise 2. However this Argument being of another nature and depending not upon the promise of God but the nature and evidence of the thing is by this instance irrefragably overthrown Answ. 4. That way of proving which was rejected by the Prophets and godly Jews by Christ and by the Apostles is not to be approved much less preferred before that way which they approved and used but this way of proving the truth of a Doctrine by Tradition from their next Ancestors and the Testimony of the present Church was rejected by the Prophets etc. and by Christ and the Apostles Ergo It is not now to be approved For the Minor in which all the doubt lies it consists of two Branches The first relating to the old Testament The second to the New The first is That this way was disowned by the Prophets and godly Jews under the old Testament It is true some of the Jews did own this Popish opinion as you may read I●r 44.17 But the Prophets were of another persuasion Ezek. 20.18 Walk not in the Statutes of your Fathers And from Tradition they used to send their people to the Law and Testimony Isa. 8.20 And the godly Kings of judah did not make Tradition as the Papists do but the written Law as the Protestants do the rule of their reformation Thus David 1 Chron. 16. 40. to do according to all that is Written in the Law Thus Hezekiah 2 Chron. 31. he did all as it is Written in the Law of the Lord So josiah 2 Chron. 34.30 31. and 35.12 The like did Ezra long after Ezra 6.18 and Nehemiah chap. 8. They dwelled in Booths as it is Written Here Scripture recovers what Tradition had lost for though God had commanded this yet since the days of joshua they had not done so vers. 17. By all which we evidently discern how different their opinion was from this of the Papists and how little confidence they put in Tradition josiah would not so much as make Hezekiahs' reformation his rule nor Hezekiah take his pattern from jehoshaphats' reformation but still every one had immediate recourse to the written Word For it seems it was a Language that these Holy men understood not That Scripture was a corrupt writing a leaden rule a dumb master § 7. There is indeed one Objection against the consequence from the Jews to the Christians and from the Old Testament to the New I shall give it you in the words of one of the acutest of our Adversaries i e. Mr White The Law of the jews was delivered in Tables of Stone and the volume of the Law to which it is expressly opposed that God will write the Law of Christians in their hearts (a) Certissimum est legem judoeorum Tabulis lapideis et Deuteronomii volumine traditam esse cui op●onitur expresse in Prophetis Deum legem Christianorum in cordibus fidelium Scripturum De fide Trast 1 §. 6. I Answer 1. The words are not to be understood absolutely as they sound but comparatively not as if they did wholly deny that the Mosaical Law was written in the Heart for that is affirmed in other places as Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed or as if they did affirm that the Christian Law was written only in men's hearts and not in Paper which the Papists themselves dare not assert but only it is a comparative expression like that I will have mercy and not sacrifice Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach i. e. principally and primarily for else the one as well as the other was enjoined by God And so it is here implied that the Christian Law should be written more eminently upon the hearts of Christians than it ordinarily was upon the hearts of the Jews and that it should be writ in a more legible Character Answ. 2. If we examine in whose hearts this Christian Law is written we shall find it concerns not the Tradition of the Church by which all things are to be regulated For I demand of them was this promise made and performed to all that are called Christians or only to the elect and sincere Christians or only to the Pope and Bishops If they say the first then one Christian as well as another is furnished with this rule of all Controversies and consequently as able to judge of Controversies than lay-men and Ministers have this Law equally written in their hearts if they say the second That it is only the elect and sincere Christians as indeed it is than it must be something else beside Tradition which is no less known to the hypocritical pretender then to the sincere professor of Christianity If they say the third That this Law was written only in the hearts of the Pope and Bishops met in Council As what is there so ridiculous which some of our Adversaries will not say rather than confess their errors and give glory to God They are evidently confuted by the words of the place Jer. 31.34 They shall teach no more every man his neighbour and every one his brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest for I will forgive their iniquity And besides Mr White himself saith This Law is written only in cordibus sid lium in the hearts of the faithful Now in what Dictionary we shall find fidelis to be translated Atheist Sodomite Magician etc. Epithets not without cause given to Popes and Popish Bishops by their own Authors I would gladly be informed Answ. 3. If we inquire what this is which is here said to be written in their hearts we shall see Mr Whites invention was better than his judgement or his conscience with what Spectales do these men read this Writing in the heart that tell us this was the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences Invocation of Saints Pope's Supremacy the Church's Infallibility But you must know though this Writing was from God yet the interpretation belongs to the Pope whose will stands for his reason and his word for a Law But if we consult the Prophet If with the Pope's good leave God may be his own Interpreter He tells you this was the Inscription Know the Lord The knowledge of God jer. 31.33 and the fear of God jer. 32.39 40. And this Law written in the heart was so far from being appointed by God for a rule to walk by much less was it to justle out the word as the Papists now abuse it that the use of this was only to help them to make the word their rule Ezek. 26 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes Hence that in Is. 59.21 My Spirit that is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not departed out of thy mouth So this objection being discharged the consequence remains in full force and Traditions being disapproved under the old Testament cannot be approved under the new But I shall more fully prove that in the next branch which is this § 8. 2. This way of proving the truth of Doctrines by verbal tradition is disallowed by Christ and the Apostles He knows nothing of the Pharisees and indeed but little of the New Testament that knows not that this was the great Doctrine of the Pharisees And from their school the Papists had this Doctrine of the certainty of Tradition So little reason had Du. Moulin to write a book about the novelty of Popery when divers of their Doctrines have such a venerable Antiquity that they are as old as the Pharisees No wonder the Church of Rome hath divers Doctrines that Christ never delivered to them for they had a great part of the leaven of the Pharisees left them for a legacy And from them they had their bold expressions by which they advance Tradition above the Scripture The Author of the book called hath this saying think not that the written law is the Foundation of our Faith but the law of oral Tradition And again in the book juchas p. 158. Without this oral law of Tradition the whole law would be in darkness and again all those things which our Rabbins taught us we are equally to believe as the Law of Moses But this is so known that it is frivolous to multiply testimonies of this kind The footsteps of this principle you may discern in divers places of the New Testament They made the Tradition of the fathers the rule of their Faith Mat. 15.2 Why do thy Disciples transgress the Tradition of the Elders S t Paul mentions it as one of his Pharisaical errors that he was exceedingly zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1.14 And S t Peter speaks of it as a part or effect of their redemption by Christ that they were delivered from a vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers 1. Peter 1. this sufficiently shows what their opinion was Now let us hear what reflection Christ and the Apostles made upon it And there you shall find that which would end the controversy with ingenious adversaries viz. That whereas the Romanists tell us that the deserting of Tradition is the true cause and spring of all errors on the contrary our Saviour makes this the Fountain of their errors their forsaking the Scripture not their receding from the Tradition of their Ancestors Mat. 22.29 Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures we are beholden to the Papists that they do not say there is a corruption in the Text and Scripture is put in for Tradition For surely if Christ had been of the mind of those Gentlemen he never had a fitter opportunity to utter it than now for the Sadduces were noted as enemies to Traditions And the Doctrine of the resurrection was but darkly delivered in Scripture at lest in the Pentatuch and more plainly by Tradition So now or never was the time for Christ to say to the Sadduces as doubtless M r White would if he had been present and Christ should if M r Whites Argument be good you err because you take no heed to the Traditions of your Ancestors But here is not a syllable about that but all is cast upon their not knowing the Scriptures Thus in the resolution of that great controversy concerning the Messias Christ doth not confute the Jews nor establish the Truth from Tradition though there was eminent occasion for it at that time there being such a Tradition then rise amongst them that the time of the coming of the Messias was at hand daniel's week being nigh exspired and with it a general expectation of him but from scripture Christ proves himself to be the true Messias by several Arguments by the Testimony of john who was a Prophet yea and more than a Prophet by his Father's voice from heaven by his miracles and above all by the Scripture how came Christ to omit that which if those men do not deceive us was more considerable than all the rest viz. Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church A strange oversight you will say but it seems it was a discovery denied to Christ and all the Apostles and reserved to these last times Answerable to this was the practice of the godly Bereans who did examine S t Paul's Doctrine not by Tradition as the Papists do but by the Scripture Acts 17.11 And St Paul himself evidenceth the soundness of his Doctrine not by its conformity with Tradition which our Adversaries lay such stress upon that S. Clara with several others affirm that they receive the Scripture only so far as they agree with Tradition (a) Prediit quidam Dialogus à Docto Amico men compositus solenniter Parisiis approbatus à Doctoribus deputatis Sorbonoe qui expresse asserit Ecclesiam ideo recipere Scripture as quia & in quantum sunt conformes fidei quam ab Apostolis ●er Traditiones accepil non è converso Et hactenus sine dubio rectissimè System cap. 11. in initio but by its consonancy to the Scriptures saying That he witnessed none other thing then what was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26.22 and Act. 24.14 15. So then the question now is which is the more rational way to resolve a Christians doubts and ground his Faith whether that which hath had the approbation of all the Holy-men of God in both Testaments or the ingenious devise of these witty Doctors that come with their quintum Evangelium into the World that is whether Scripture or Tradition I know one thing will be said That the Apostles did urge Traditions as well as Scriptures to this purpose we oft hear of that 2 Thes. 2.15 Hold the Tradition which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle To which I Answer briefly 1. That if the Papists can demonstrate any of their Traditions to be indeed Apostolical as these were we shall receive them if conformable to Scripture but if they be dissonant from Scripture we have commission from S t Paul to renounce them though they be either of Apostolical or Angelical original Gal. 1.18.9 2. The Argument I confess is right of the Romish stamp viz. The Thessalonians were bound to receive what they heard immediately from St Paul's mouth in such things as for the substance of them were contained in the Scripture Therefore we are now bound to receive all those Traditions which the Church of Rome tell us they had from those that had them from those that had them from those that told them their Ancestors were told by their Ancestors that some of their Ancestors had it from Paul 1600 years ago risum teneatis amici This may serve for the fourth Answer § 9 Ans. 5. If this Doctrine be true Scripture proof is not necessary for any point in Religion for it asserts the sufficiency of Tradition in itself and without the Scripture But Scripture proof is necessary for confirmation of points in Religion This I might prove from Scripture but that hath been done already in the former Answer therefore I shall here confute this Argument of Tradition by Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers To pick up all they have to this purpose would fill Volumes I shall therefore single out some few Illustrious Testimonies Nothing can more evidently overthrow this goodly structure than those forementioned words of Cyprian We ought not to regard what others have done before us but what Christ who was before all thought fit to be done For we must follow God's Truth not men's custom (a) Ex 63. storm lib. 6. What Protestant can say more in few words than Clemens Alexandrinus in few words We assert nothing without Scripture (b) In moralium summa definite 26. cap. 1. Therefore he thought not Tradition a sure evidence though so near the Fountain much less can it now give us any certainty having conflicted with hazards and been exposed to the infection of 1300 years S t Basil is express It is necessary that every word or thing be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures (c) bomil de fide And else where he tells you It is a manifest defection from the Faith and token of Pride either to reject any thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written (d) Evangelici libri sunt & Apostolici antiquorumque Prophetarum sanctiones quae nos erudiunt quid de sacra lege sapiamus Proinde hostili posita discordia ex verbis divinitus inspiratis sumamus qu●stionum explicationes Histor tripart lib. 2. c. 6. And Constantine speaking of the rule by which all things were to be examined and judged confines it to the Scripture The Books of the Prophets and Apostles saith he do plainly instruct us what to think of Divine things therefore laying aside hostile discord from the words which were divinely inspired let us take our expositions of quoestions e It is a pitiful shift of Bellarmine's to say that Constantine was a better Emperor than Doctor whereas in this particular Theodoret assures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying nor did any of the Ancients ever condemn him for it And indeed the practice of the Synod shows their approbation of the Speech and consequently gives us another Argument for they determined the controversy according to the Scriptures saith Ambrose (a) De fide ad Gratianum lib. 1. cap. 8. and Athanasius too whose words are these The Bishops congregated at Nice collecting together all things they could out of Scripture to defend their opinion they affirmed that the Son was consubstantial to the Father (b) Niceoe congregati Episcopi collectis in unum quae ex sacris literis ad sententiam s●am tuendam faccrent filium consubstantialem esse asseverant In Epistolâ ad Epictetum And Bellarmine himself confesseth it The Council of Nice when they defined the Son to be consubstantial to the Father they drew their Conclusion out of the Scriptures (c) Concilium Nicenum cum definivit filium Patri esse conclusionem deduxit ex Scriptures De Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 12. Notable is that place of Chrysostom's because it acquaints us with his own judgement and the judgement of the Christians of that age If any thing be asserted saith he without Scripture the mind of the hearer wavers But when Scripture comes that confirms the speakers words and settles the hearers mind (d) in Psal. 95. nusquam adhuc legi Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis osficina Si non est scriptum timeat voe illud adjicientibus aut detrabentibus destinatum con Hermogenem cap. 22. Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Hermogenes that things were made of prae existent matter with I never read it let Hermogenes show where it is written or else let him fear the woe denounced against those those that add to the Scripture e And again I do not receive what thou bringest of thy own without the Scripture (a) Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers de carne Christi ca 7. And again Take away from Heretics the things they have in common with Heathens that they may refer their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand (b) Aufer Hereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas fistant & stare non possunt De resurrectione earnis cap. 3. But the Papists are of another mind for if you will believe them if Scripture alone must judge Controversies Heresies will never fall Theodoret professeth he was not so bold as to assert any thing wherein the Scripture was silent (c) Dialog 2. Thus Origen It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of Scripture for without this our expositions have no credit (d) Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi Divinarum scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant De unitate ecclesioe cap. 16. Austin is most full and plain I will mention but one place Whether they have the Church they cannot show but from the Canonical Books of Scripture And yet there is no question wherein Tradition seems more pertinent and where the Papists urge it with more vehemency I might add a thousand pregnant places more but either these or none will suffice to prove that the Ancients did judge Scripture proof necessary for the confirmation of any Doctrine in Religion which the Romanists now judge not necessary The Father's pretended Tradition for their opinion and the Papists pretend it now Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then or it deceives the Papists now Either will serve our turn to show the Fallibility of Tradition If it be said there are no les●e express Testimonies alleged by the Papists on the behalf of Tradition and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalf of the Scripture I Answer 1. If the Fathers do in some places assert the sufficiency of proof from Tradition and in other places the necessity of Scripture proof these assertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of Religion For so say the Lawyers most justly and truly Testis pugnantia diceus fidem non facit 2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition especially if you compare them with those alleged for Scripture that they do plead Tradition only as a secondary Argument to confirm that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture but it is as clear as the Sun that they ever made Tradition strike fail to the Scripture and made no scruple of deserting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments stood on the other side Answ. 6. The Romanists themselves are undeniable instances of the vanity of their own Argument They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us Why Tradition hath deceived them There are divers contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome about 300 are reckoned out of Bellarmine The dissenters though never so implacably divided amongst themselves do agree in this That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers and so from the Apostles Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived some of them or both the parts of a contradiction may be true I shall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions nor take notice of petty differences amongst obscure Authors but shall instance in two material points viz. The Doctrine of God's grace and man's will and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papists In both of them it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncertain found for Tradition tells the Jesuits this is truth That the will is determined to good actions not by God's grace but by its own inclination and agency Tradition tells the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a gross falsity So for the Church if you inquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility resides for that is the great question Tradition tells the Jesuits it is in the Pope Tradition not long since told the Counsels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Council not in the Pope and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day And I will tell you a thing in your ear both these are Apostolical Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary It is true that S t james saith No Fountain can yield both Salt-water and Fresh Chap. 3. 8.12 But that is to be understood only of the Fountain of the Scripture but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh both bitter and sweet You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible for you see it can work wonders and reconcile contradictions If this seem strange to you you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M r Whites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera to be dedicated to the Defenders of Transubstantiation but to return What say our masters to this difficulty why I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies and what their pretences are I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadful shock 1. They say these are only Doctrines ventilated in Schools not of any great consequence to Christians Thus the controversies between the Jesuits and Dominicans about God's free grace and man's freewill they say are but Scholastical niceties wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned So for that point of Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter The dissenters only seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know which be our Articles of Faith whether by the Popes or Counsels or both which is not much material saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. § 9 to our purpose whatever the truth be supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descended to us from Christ and his Apostles For Answer I would know whether a private Christian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the decision of Pope or Council or not If they say he can know it than it follows that private Christians may be Infallible of themselves and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Counsels for what need any more than Infallibility If they say he cannot than an Infallible guide judge and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible and consequently if it be doubtful and disputable who this Judge is it must be also doubtful whether the Tradition be right and therefore Tradition cannot make me Infallible It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so material as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider should say this amongst themselves is not material for as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controversies and not to be agreed who it is according to that known maxim of the Lawyers Idem est non apparere & non esse As for the other points between the Jesuits and Dominicans how material they are we will take their own judgements If we may believe either one or other of them the points are of great moment If you ask the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuitical Doctrine they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pelagian Heresy yea it is worse than Pelagianism that they are contemners of Grace such as rob God of his honour taking half of it to themselves that it is here disputed Whether God alone be God or whether the will of man be a kind of inferior yet in part an Independent Deity These are M r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae quaest. Theolog. in Epis & in parag 7. And for the Jesuits they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine which say the Jesuits brings back the stoical paradox robs God of the Glory of his goodness makes God a liar and the Author of sin and yet when we tell them of these divisions the breach is presently healed these savages are grown tame their differences trivial and only some School niceties wherein Faith is not concerned And now both Stoics and Pelagians are grown Orthodox and the grace glory sovereignty and holiness of God are matters but of small concernment and so it seems they are to them else they durst not so shamelessly dally with them But it is usual with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters which in computation sometimes stand for pounds sometimes for pence as interest and occasion require And it is worth Observation These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants between Calvin and Arminius they are represented by our Adversaries as very material and weighty differences but when they come to their share they are of no moment 2. It may be said Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible not particular Doctors For Answer let it be remembered that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors but the points alleged are controverted amongst as learned and devout men as they call Devotion as ever the Church of Rome had here is Order against Order University against University Nation against Nation all of them pretending Tradition for their contrary opinions with greatest confidence and eagerness Premising this I Answer That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedest Romanists may deceive ten thousand That which deceives the Jesuits in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others the Franciscans in others If it deceive the French Papists in some points it may deceive the Italians in others and so is not Infallible in any Or else what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition Will they say Tradition is only Infallible in France and those of the same persuasion who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Council above the Pope Or will they say the Infallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alps among the Italian Doctors who urge Tradition for the Pope's Supremacy above Counsels But what security will they give us That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot pass over the Alps and get from one side to the other Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains But Fallibility can travel to all parts and at all times In short it being certain that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest Nor can this be any way prevented but by pretending the promise of Infallibility but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition and that is hereby disproved and for the fiction of a promise I have discovered that before But the third and last pretence is most frequent That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divided yet they are agreed in all that is de fide in all points of Faith that is in such things as have been decided by Pope or Council I answer in few words and thus I reinforce my Discourse If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision it might deceive them afterwards because the Decision of a Council doth not alter the nature and property of Tradition It is true according to the opinion of some Papists such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied because he may judge the Church's Authority so infallible and obliging to him that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike sail to it But the decision of a Council cannot make that a Tradition which was no Tradition nor can it hinder but that Tradition did deceive me before and consequently might deceive me afterwards For instance If the Pope determine the controversy between the Jansenists and Jesuits about Predestination Grace Frewill etc. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgements because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the Infallible Judge of Controversies to whom they must all submit But supposing that the Pope's decides according to the verity of Tradition and that must always be supposed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had until that time been deceived by Tradition So it seems Tradition in that point was Fallible for above 1600 ye●rs together after Christ and now upon the Pope's determination An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible but neither will this do their work for the nature of Tradition being the same either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages or else it must now be acknowledged Fallible § 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to show the impossibility of any mutation or corruption where Tradition is pretended viz. that it is apparent there have been several mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alleged to prove that there was no motion when his Adversary walked before him though happily the other brought some Arguments that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer which in that point is not hard to do Or if any man should urge a subtle Argument to prove the impossibility of Sins coming into the World because neither could the understanding be first deceived nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding it were sufficient to allege the universal experience of mankind to the contrary So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called which no man that hath the use of his Eyes and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it yet because I will use all possible means to convince them if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover themselves from the snare of the Devil I shall proceed farther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case and point at some of those many fountains of corruption from whence the streams of error might flow into the Church notwithstanding the pretence of and adherence to the Doctrine of Tradition And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches If saith he a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach could teach falsehoods than some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joined to deceive their posterity but neither of these are credible I shall apply my Answer to him first in general and then to the several branches of his Argument § 12. In general the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide as if it were impossible that the Tares of Error should be sown in the Church while men slept and never dreamt of it The basis of this Argument lies in an assertion of the impossibility of that which the nature of it shows to be most rational and probable and the experience of all ages shows to be most usual i. e. that corruption of Doctrines and manners for in this both are alike should creep in by degrees As jasons' ship was wasted so Truth was lost one piece after another Nemo repent fit turpissimus Who knows not that errors crept into the Jewish Church gradually and why might it not be so in the Christian Church We know very well Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa One error will breed an hundred yet all its Children are not borne in one day S t Paul tells us the mystery of iniquity began to work in his dai●s but was not brought to perfection till many ages after The Apostle hath sufficiently co●suted this senseless fancy whilst he tells us that Heresy eats like a cank●r or a gangreen i. e. by degrees and is not worst at first but increaseth to more ungodliness 2 Tim. 2. 16 17. As that cloud which at first appearance was no bigger than a man's hand did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens so those opinions which at first were only the sentiments of the lesser part might by degrees improve and become the greater or at least by the favour of Princes or power & learning of their advocates become the stronger until at last like Moses' Rod they devoured the other Rods & monopolising to themselves the liberty of writing & professing their Doctrines and suppressing all contrary Discourses & Treatises their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholic Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages which was frequently pretended by several Heretics and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons which in some Ages were few and those easily biased or the contradiction being speedily suppressed which is very possible and hath been usually 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 Spiritual notion And de facto that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees hath been so fully demonstrated that I need only point the Reader to those Authors who have done this work 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 mind of the foregoing Age of which many rational accounts may be given 1. There was no certain 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 turn 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 Gospel had got sooting Hence than I offer this Argument Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition that the Christians in several Cities and places did understand what their Ancestors 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 general Council If they say the former than they assert the Infallibility not only of the Church or Bishop of Rome or of a general Council or of the Catholic 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 than retract their errors and return to the Truth and say the Church of Ephesus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity than 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 general Council to compare Traditions and declare the Truth than they are desired to remember that as yet there had been no general Council 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 remains 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 satisfactoriness of this one Answer if there were no more appears plainly from hence that the great Architects of this devise make it essential to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles so Mr White informs us since all Catholics 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 neither 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 than I thus argue The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a general Council of all the Churches severally taught by the several Apostles but such general Council there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolical Traditions delivered in the second which was the thing to be proved § 14. 2. There are many instances which may be given of men's misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age We have one instance among ourselves concerning the judgement of the Church of England of the next preceding ●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 ●rin on the one side and D r H●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 always 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 judgement 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 divers of their works were no other than their Sermons can any man without nonsense say that the diligent Reader may be mistaken and the attentive Hearer is infallible We all know the five Propositions of jansenius condemned lately at Rom● The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of jansenius his words which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them both parties are agreed in his words which seldom happens in Oral 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 remembered the words 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 Council of Trent in divers 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 t●at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tells us a man is justified by faith without the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sense Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrote 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. james preached and wrote a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembering 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 james as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied than 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 misunderstood 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 etc. 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. john given us an Instance of easiness and earliness of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning john 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 die vers. 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shows 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 until 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 remembered and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lies so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally liable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Tradition 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 express 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 (a) Qu. 94. in Exodum 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 engender 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 calls 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 Maxim let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is always orthodox Oh say these Sophi john of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the only Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor john never dreamt of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperor would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that john desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholic Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever aught to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish gloss be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to show how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in at that door though Tradition hath made a true report of the words which it seldom 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 judge 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 barrenness of good is wont to be called the Iron age from the deformity of abounding wickedness the Leaden and from the scarcity of writers the obscure age (a) Anno Christi nongentesimo Indictione terti● novum inchoatur seculum quod sui asperitate a● boni sterilitate Ferreum malique exund antis deformitate Plumbeum atque inopique Scriptorum appellari consuevit Obscurum ad An. 900. 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 tells us This is called the unhappy age being barren of ingenuous and learned men (a) Infelix dicitur hoc seculum exhaustum homimbus ingenio & doctrinâ claris In Chronol 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 virtue of their Ancestors and were rather Apostates than Apostles (b) Pontifices ā majorum virtute desecerunt Apotartici Apostaticive potiuns quam Apostolici ib. 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 careful 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 pr●ve not only the possibility but a great probability both of mistaking their ancestors and of deceiving themselves and their posterity 1. Ignorance 2. Carelessness and Profaneness 3. Scarcity of Writers No man can adjudge Infallibility to such an age unless he will offer violence to all his rational powers § 17. 1. Here was gross ignorance in the generality of the Clergy the Pope's themselves not excepted The whole world was overspread with darkness as thick as that in Egypt saith Baronius (c) Orbis terrae totus tenebris fuit offusus Peccatorum fuit caligo AEgypti penè tenebras superans in An. 974. It is reported that at that time there were no public Schools saith Carolus Sigonius (a) Scholae publicae nullae tum fuisse produntur De reg●o Italiae c. 7. 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 (b) Cum hoc tempore Romae nullus pene sit ut fama est qui literas didicerit Baronius An. 992. 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 sampson's 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 divers 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 carelessness and profaneness upon men's 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 designs and the people were as careless to understand the concernments of religion And if this very carelessness and profaneness 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 allegeth to prove the disparity viz. That only one man and one woman were witnesses of those high wonders whereas the Gospel had innumerable miracles witnessed to multitudes of people in divers countries that the hearers could hardly believe them that they had but a sl●ight care of recommending God's service to their children and that they w●re taken up with the world's plantation and other secular affairs and there was no set form and institutions of Priests and governor's to join all nations in communion no chief Bishop etc. Dialog 3. § 15. For 1. supposing that which Divines generally believe viz. that Adam truly repent of his sin it is contrary to common sense to believe that he who had such a fresh knowledge and lively sense of the difference between highest felicity and utmost misery should be careless 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 endeavour 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 than 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 though it be easy in this and all other resemblances to devise several dissimilitudes and disproportions yet in the main there is an agreement That the carelessness of posterity may blast the most powerful and important Traditions If it be further pretended that there is a disparity because God hath promised his Spirit to guide the Christians into truth and to preserve them from mistake I shall only say two things having fully answered this before 1. Whatever promise or privilege of the Spirit is made to Christians surely it is a most absurd and unreasonable thing to pretend the donation of this privilege and the performance of this promise unto such as we have now described concerning whom the Scripture expressly tells us that they are sensual not having the spirit Jud. v. 19 and they cannot receive the spirit of God Joh. 14.17 Where the Spirit of God is it brings light with it it turns men from darkness into a marvellous light it rouseth men out of the sleep of carelessness and makes them give all diligence to make their calling and election sure And therefore where ignorance and profaneness are allowed and predominant as apparently they were in this age we may safely say such have not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them for where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty especially that which is the principal part of it a liberty from the bondage of sin and Satan by whom that age was so woefully captivated that we need not many arguments to show that they were not influenced by God's Spirit but acted by the rulers of the darkness of this world the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience 2. This is impertinent to the present argument which is drawn not from the efficacy of a divine promise but from the nature of the thing and the common prudence of men and that natural principle of self-preservation as you will plainly see if you look back upon Mr. White 's words This argument proceeds as if it were morally impossible for men wilfully to deceive themselves and their posterity which is not from the influence of a divine promise but from an instinct of nature and so this evasion is insufficient To return therefore having removed this rub out of the way and to make good what I have said concerning the carelessness and wickedness of the age that this disease had overspread the whole body Civil and Ecclesiastical the Pope himself not excepted you shall hear from the approved Authors of the Romish Church Platina calls several of those Pope's Monstra & portenta hominum monsters of men john the 11 th' is called by Cardinal Baronius one who we may be sure would do the Popes no wrong and the Protestants no right rather a defiler then ruler of the Roman seat (a) Sedis Apostolicae inquinator potius quam rector ad an 936. They were prodigious Popes saith Genebrardus (b) Pontifices isti prodigiosi erant ad An. C. 913. Pope Sergius saith Baronius was a slave of all vices and the wickedest of men (c) Sergius erat vitiorum omnium servus facinorosissimus omnium ad An. 908. And of john the 10 th' he saith Than whom none was more filthy (d) Quo turpio● fuit nullus And such characters they give to divers of the Popes of that age and these are the supreme Heads of the Church the prime subjects and fountains of Infallibility And conformable to the head were the generality of the members of that politic body the ministers and governor's as well as the people of that age as you heard acknowledged by their own most approved Authors Now compare this with their argument for Tradition and you will be able to judge of the solidity of it The two Pillars upon which the infallibility of the argument from Tradition is built are these I shall give you them in the words of Rushworth in his applauded Dialogues 3. § 15.1 It was no hard matter for the Church to conserve the truth of her doctrine if she were careful which histories plainly bear witness she was 2. That nature forceth men to have care of Religion and therefore it was impossible any error should creep into the Church And elsewhere saith he Nature permits not men to be sleepy in Religion § 8. To which discourse I reply three things which plainly evince the folly of this opinion 1. That the infallibility of Tradition by these arguments depends upon the faith of some few Historians whom all confess to be fallible which is a contradiction 2. That the supposed carefulness upon which the infallibility of Tradition depends being the effect of thatnature which is equally in all men if it make any person or Council infallible it must make every particular Church nay every Christian infallible at least such ashave common konwledge and prudence in them 3. Observe the impudence of this sort of men that dare avouch those Histories for witnesses of the Church's care which have so expressly and unanimously recorded her carelessness both in this and other ages See ch. 4. § 19 3. There is another thing very considerable in this matter viz. There was a great scarcity of writers which cuts the sinews of that grand objection which they urge in all their Treatises That there could be no change in doctrine without schism and a notorious tumult as White saith and they prove there was no change because we cannot show the Authors times and places of them As if one that had got the plague might say he is free from it because he knows not how nor where nor from whom he got it Now here appears the unreasonableness of their demand and the absurdity of their argument how can it be expected that we should give an account of all the occurrences and mutations of that age when they confess so few books were written and those that were were written by such as were either wholly or in part leavened with the corruption of the time and therefore for their own honour obliged to conceal all such changes and defections as themselves had an hand in And if any reputed Heretic durst venture to betray any of the secrets of the mystery of Iniquity which was then working his book was presently suppressed and he and it both confuted by an argument fetched out of the fire or rather thrown into it So the Papists do by us as if a man should blow out all the Lights and then blame me for not finding what I was making inquest after or as if one should burn my principal evidences and then charge me that I cannot make out my Title And yet notwithstanding all the frauds and force of the Romish Sea God hath not left his Truth without witness nor us without notable testimonies even from among themselves of the successive depravations and corruptions in religion by them foisted into the Church but that hath been fully proved by others and therefore I shall say nothing of it I shall add only this that although I have instanced but in one age yet indeed there were several other ages overspread with the same deluge of ignorance and carelessness and looseness and consequently liable to the same mistakes such as the age before the reformation of Religion was and divers others wherein learned men were thought to be Conjurers and reading of Greek was counted as hard as the quadrating of a Circle and skill in the learned languages made a man half an heretic and this all records are full of I think I need say no more to prove the firs● branch viz. That it was possible for some ages or the major part of them to mistake the mind of their Predecessors in matters of Religion But I must not omit Mr. Whites animadversion upon this consideration which he calls a ridiculous cavil and a slander so palpably absurd that he can scarce persuade himself to think they that use it are not rather blinded with malice th●n ignorance You will easily judge his reason runs low because his passion flies so high and what is the reason of this clamour why saith he The Protestants acknowledge the doctrines of the Roman● Church which th●y call errors were already flourishing some hundreds of years before these times of Ignorance Apolog for Tradition Encounter 1. Shall I return Mr. White his own language What shall I ascribe this intolerable mistake to shall I attribute it to his ignorance I cannot tell how to do so to one of his parts and reading Dare he say that all the present doctrines of the Church of Rome were flourishing some hundreds of years before the tenth age whose ignorance I have represented and proved Or if he say and think so yet dare he say the Protestants are of this mind if he ever looked into any Protestant Author Is it not evident to the whole world that the Protestants do both universally deny and solidly disprove this audacious assertion and evidently prove even by the suffrages of learned Papists the far later novelty of many of their errors Shall I then ascribe it to his malice I am loath to do so although none more frequently guilty of that crime than they that most boldly charge it upon others One may by this & such like passages imagine how vain a thing it is to expect sincerity and honesty from these men in the handling of controversies when such a one as Mr. White a person of more repute for candour and ingenuity than most of their writers shall not fear to assert in Print in the face of all the Protestant world That the Protestant's do boldly acknowledge the Roman church hath had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since S. Gregory's days which is now a thousand years then which nothing can be said more notoriously false and monstrously absurd But again suppose the age most famous for its ignorance were after S. Gregory's days who knows not that is not a mere stranger to all Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History that there was in some ages before S. Gregory at least among the generality of Christians and many Ministers so much ignorance as might easily betray them to mistakes in several doctrines and pretended Traditions And finally if all he aims at were granted it signifies not much and cannot pretend to prove any more than this That in the first ages errors did not creep in at that door which may be granted without any considerable prejudice to the Protestant assertion since in other ages most of their great errors might come in that way and in all ages they might come in several other ways § 20. The second Branch is this That as some ages might mistake the doctrines of their Fathers so they might knowingly deliver to their posterity not the doctrine they received from their Ancestors but some other And of this many reasons may be given but I shall confine myself to three § 21. 1. It might be from God's just judgement giving men up to believe what was false viz. That such doctrines did come from the Apostles by their Ancestors which indeed did not Nay what these men would needs persuade us was impossiible the H. Ghost hath assured us is certain and future 2 Thes. 2.10 11 12. Because they receiv●d not the truth in the love of it God shall send strong delusions that they should believe a lie a place more considerable because it is particularly leveled at the Romish faction as might be evidently showed if it were not extravagant from my present business That the character here described suit with the quality of divers ages forementioned viz. that they were such as did not receive the truth in the love of it that they had pleasure in unrighteousness he that reviews what hath been here said will find no cause to doubt and therefore that the judgement here denounced should be inflicted upon them is no more than what might be expected from the faithfulness of God and the usual course of his providence And if they might believe other lies of greater importance and more dangerous consequence why might they not believe such a lie as this viz. That a doctrine came from the Apostles which indeed did not And because the generality of the forementioned ages the Clergy and Popes not excepted were apparently guilty of the sins here deciphered and consequently obnoxious to the judgement here predicted therefore it is intolerable impudence to assert that those men were infallibly g●ided into all truth whom that God who cannot lie hath threatened to give up to believe lies of which this is not the least considerable and dreadful to believe such persons to be infallible § 22. 2. The greatest part of the Church in one age might knowingly recede from the doctrine of their immediate Ancestors and deliver another doctrine to their posterity because they might believe that the Church's and Father's of the next foregoing age might fall into some errors for that which is actually believed by Protestants now might possibly be believed by the Fathers then Ab esse ad posse valet argum●ntum And this is sufficient for the answer of this argument and the defence of our cause but ex abundanti I add That de facto this was the faith of the greatest part of the Church and writers in some ages as I have already showed out of undeniable testimonies To which I shall only add 2 or 3 passages out of Cyprian by which the Reader may evidently discern how little weight was then laid upon that which is now said to be infallible Tradition and the testimony of the present Church Tradition indeed was the plea urged by the Bishop of Rome against Cyprian and the African Bishops now mark what the reply is Two things Cyprian answers 1. That th●y of Rome did not observe all ancient Traditions and this saith he appears from their opinion about Easter which by the way discovers the vanity of that supposition which they lay as a basis of the present position viz. That the Church of Rome delivers nothing but what she professeth to have received from her Ancestors 2. He answers That this was but a humane Tradition and therefore not infallible (a) Epist. 74. ad Pompeium fra●rem And it is considerable that he writes thus to the Pope by which we may sufficiently understand what was Cyprian's judgement and the faith of that age concerning the infallibility of Tradition as also of the Pope and Church of Rome And conformable to Cyprians was the decision of the whole Council of Carthage When truth is manifest say they let custom yield to truth and although hitherto none did baptise Heretics in the Church now let them begin to baptise them (b) Veritat● manifestatâ c●dat consuetudo veritati ut ●tsi in praete●itum quis in Eccl●sia baerelicos non baptizabat nunc baptizare incipiat Opera Cypriani per Pamil●um p. 402. And in another place Cyprian speaking of the custom of mixing wine and water in the Sacrament hath these words Nor should any one think that the custom of some is to be followed for we are to inquire whom they followed for only Christ is to be followed and he adds that we are not to regard what others have done before us but what Christ who is before all first did for we must not follow men's customs but God's Truth (a) Non est quod existimet aliquis sequendam esse quorundam consuetudinem quoerendum est enim quem ipsi sunt secuti Nam non nisi Christus sequendus est Non debemus attendere quid aliud ante nos faciendum putaverit etc. Epist. 63. And in another place he positively asserts that when any thing is out of order the only way to be satisfied is to go to the fountain to the head and original of Divine Tradition to Evangelicall and Apostolical Tradition (b) Ep. 74. From all which it undeniably follows that Cyprian and his brethren did not judge the Tradition of the next preceding Age Infallible nor the Testimony of the present Church sufficient as these Gentlemen now do and consequently thought it might introduce opinions contrary to what they received from their Ancestors when by these allegations it appears as plainly as if it were written with a Sun beam they judged it liable to mistakes and errors and this is the very Doctrine of the Protestants protestants 23. 3. There might be an agreement and design amongst many persons and eminent members of the Church to corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors for their worldly interest and carnal ends of which almost all Ages afford us woeful and innumerable instances With the Readers leave I will exemplify this Proposition in a notorious instance in a Doctrine of great concernment which is the prora & puppis The foundation stone and corner stone of the Romish Religion and if you will take Bellarmine's word necessary to Salvation I mean the Pope's Supremacy I beg the Readers pardon if I do a little more largely insist upon it than my manner is because the story is remarkable and strikes at the root of this novel conceit concerning the impossibility of a wilful deception Mr White tells us the Church cannot be deceived in Tradition and especially the Church and Bishop of Rome who by the consent of all the Papists have been the most faithful conservators of Tradition The Papists generally agree that they have an authentic and universal Tradition on the behalf of the Pope's Supremacy of which the right of appeals is a principal branch and the greatest evidence And this Tradition say they came to them from the Apostles by the Fathers of all Ages successively Well then to come to the story In the year 417 There was a famous Council at Carthag● owned by Bellarmine and Baronius by the name of The general Council of Carthage consisting of 217 Bishops among whom was Alypius and St Austin Zosimus being Pope at that time sends his Legates thither and pretends a right of appeals from the African Churches to himself at Rome and to make this good he allegeth for it some of the Canons of the Council of Nice for he ascends no higher the more silly wretch he for if the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome be true he might have brought that which was more evident and irresistible than 100 Canons of Nice which now all the World rings of and all their discourses are full fraught with viz. The institution of Christ the supremacy of Peter devolved upon him the universal Tradition of the whole Church But of all these here is altum silentium for you must conceive these were Arguments laid up in store like the Treasure in S t Mark● Chest for some high future exigencies or wisely reserved for a season wherein the World should wonder after the beast and be most capable of such impressions Well The Fathers consider his Petition for as yet the Popes were not masters of their Art and had not Learned their lesson of volumus statuimus mandamus and marvel at the proposition and tell Faustus and his colleagues that they find no such Canons in their Copies of the Council of Nice as were alleged and had indeed been forged at Rome as is acknowledged even by that Popish Council of (a) Nun vides Reverende Pater summum Pontificem Zozimum falsum decretum & non in Synodo promulgatum ad tantum Concilium pro re tam magnâ misisse Florence Hereupon a motion is made and agreed that they send forthwith to the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch for their Copies of the Acts of that Council A saucy trick it was not only ●o deny the Pope's Infallibility but also to question his verity when they receive them they find that the pretended Canons were not there and so conclude there should be no appeals from Africa to the Roman Bishop A strange boldness in this Council to reverse the institution of Christ and usurp upon S t Peter's jurisdiction and provoke him upon whom they wholly depended for the Confirmation of all their decrees it is great pity they were not better advised Well you may imagine what sad tidings this was at Rome You will desire to know what their Answer is why then for your satisfaction I pray you take notice They have a Tradition at Rome it is part of that inscription upon Seth's Pillars erected before the flood which josephus mentions the Counterpart whereof they have in the Vatican that when ever his Holiness is gravelled with an hard Argument and can do no good about the premises it may be lawful for him or others pleading for him to deny the Conclusion Bellarmine's words are express The African Fathers were deceived through ignorance (b) Africani Patres ignorantiâ decepti erant de Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 25. §. Respondemus What pity was it that Bellarmine was not their Secretary to inform them better The African Fathers did rashly and departed from the example and obedience of their Ancestors saith Stapleton (c) Patres Africani temere fecerunt & à majorum suorum obedientiâ & exemplis hac in re recesserunt in Princip sid. con 3. qu. 7. in solut arg 2. q d. they were naughty boys and deserved to be whipped into better manners The more inexcusable the Pope that did not thunder them into order by his Excommunications But why do I mention these Behold a greater than Bellarmine or Stapleton is here Enter Boniface the second who thus Writes in his Epistle to Eulabius an Epistle owned for his by Pighius Lindanus Sanderus Turrianus Alanus Copus and Harding though Bellarmine being urged with it pretends it is suspected but dare not say it is forged Aurelius with his colleagues whereof S t Austin was one by the instigation of the Devil began proudly to exalt themselves against the Church of Rome (a) Aurelius cum Collegis instigante diabolo superbire contra Eccle● siam Romanam eaepit So it seems these Fathers were wickedly resolved against the Supremacy of the Pope with a Flectere si n●queo superos Acheronta movebo and they whom so many of the Learned Papists affirm to be infallibly guided by the Spirit of God his Holiness declares they were acted by the Devil By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blind may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholic Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with oth●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 Governors 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 appeals to Rome it irresistibly follows that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismiss this Answer with a remark upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designs 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 carelessness when all the World was in a deep sleep and the Pope only vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had almost all Princes and People in the Christian World 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 only proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the ways and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falsehoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will add 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 already proved it in that fundamental Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Pope's Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of divers Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgements of their departing from the Doctrines and practices of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content myself with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largely discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Original 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 showed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities etc. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Council of Trent sufficiently appears from their Decree about Original 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 sense of which decree according to that favourable gloss which M r White puts upon it was this That the Council did judge both opinions probable Now from the business thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Ancient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Council 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 add 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 showed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned Writers to which I may add those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessed Virgin was wholly free from Original sin 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 adds presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolical Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other than those Bishops and holy Authors which succeeded the Apostles But it is evident that those ancient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity (a) Beatam virginem à peccato originali faisse penitus liberam è Libris sacris juxta germa●um literae sensum nusquam habetur Ne vero dici potest per Traditionem Apostolorum id in Ecclesiam descendisse Cum hujusmodi Traditiones non per alios quam Episcotos illos antiquos & sanctos Authores Apostolis succedentes ad nos usque pervenerint At constat priscos illos Scriptores non id à majoribus accepisse Traderent enim bonâ fide & ipsi posteris suis. loc. come l. 7. cap. 3. conclus 4. And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spite of your eyes you shall believe not only 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 days 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 Apostolical Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confess the most Ancient Fathers to be on our side at least as to several of their Apocryphal Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in general The Ancient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall (a) Prisci patres Libros controversos pro Non-Canonicis habuerunt Biblioth sanct lib. 1. Sect. 1. Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom (b) De verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 20. Canus gives us Orig●n Damascen Athanasius and Melito (c) Loc. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 10. a famous and ancient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgement and venerable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely traveled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principal residence and employment to learn out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphal Books and returns with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolical Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Council within the compass of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for aught appears in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seems by the story when the Image of Diana dropped down from Heaven she brought this Tradition along with her The like might be showed in ●undry other particulars In the caelibacy of Priests which is only de jure humano not divine by the confession of Thomas Durandus Lombardus and Scotus four principal pillars of the Papal Church and Turrianus was noted by Cassander as the only man of all both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it But if it were an Apostolical Tradition it was de jure Divino and the Council of Nice would never have dispensed with a divine Injunction So in the worshipping of Images Transubstantiation Purgatory and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing because it hath been so fully cleared by divers Learned Protestant Writers particularly by jewel Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Moulins Novelty of Popery Dallaeus in several pieces Rainolds de Libris Apo●ryphis Whitaker Chamier and innumerable others But manum de Tabulâ This I hope may suffice for the refutation of this novel invention concerning the Infallibility of Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church where I have been more large because it is a late plea and less hath been said of it by Protestant Authors And so it remains unshaken That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in oral Tradition and the present Church's Authority which was the business of this Proposition CHAP. 8. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility Sect. 1. BUt we are not yet come to the end of our journey And although the Arguments urged by Protestants against their resolution of Faith have probably convinced the consciences of divers of them yet have they not stopped their mouths We have showed in the former Chapters how they have been driven from post to post and as in a besieged City when the Walls and Works of it are battered down they raise new fortifications so having seen their former pretences battered about their ears some of them have devised one shift more for finding themselves yet in that ridiculous Circle of believing the Scripture for the Church's sake and the Church for Scriptures sake notwithstanding all the attempts of their Brethren to get out Some of them have taken up their rest in the marks of a Church and the motives of credibility This though rejected by former and learneder Papists yet of late hath been taken up by Turnbull in his T●tragonismus a discourse about the Object of Faith and after him by the late Answerer of Bishop laud's Book called Lawa's Labyrinth whose words are these We prove the Church's Infallibility not by Scripture but by the motives of Credibility and signs of the Church which are these Sanctity of life miracles efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine fulfilling of Prophecies succession of lawfully sent Pastors Unity Antiquity and the very name of Catholic Then saith he having thus proved the Churches Infallible Authority and by that received the Scripture we confirm the same by Scripture which Scripture proofs are not Prime and Absolute but only secondary and ex suppositione & ad hominem or ex principiis concessis against Sectaries (a) Chap. 5. This is their plea concerning which I shall need to say the less because the Book wherein it is revived and urged called Labyrinthus Cantuariensis is so solidly and Learnedly Answered by my worthy friend M r Stillingfleet Yet having finished this Discourse long before that excellent work came forth and having twisted it into the method of the present Treatise and design I thought not fit wholly to supersede it whereby the body of the work would be rendered lame and incomplete but rather to be shorter in it and as far as I can to cut off such passages as happily may be coincident with what is said by Mr Stillingfleet in that particular for I do not desire actum agere § 2. Answ. 1. Let it be observed how shamelessly these men abuse their Readers when they pretend the Infallibility of the Church is solidly demonstrated from Scripture and this they generally do Here you have reum confit●ntem they confess the imbecility of those Arguments For say they they are but secondary proofs and Argumenta ad hominem Now such Arguments are not cogent and concluding in themselves but only do conclude against some particular Adversary from his own principles So they acknowledge that although their Arguments may persuade one that is docible yet they cannot convince a gainsayer And the strength of their Argument depends upon the Courtesy of the Protestants protestants 3. 2. In vain are these Marks of a Church pleaded for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome when other Churches have a juster claim to them and so little colour have the Romanists for their monopoly of them that upon enquiry it will be found they have no considerable interest in them This I shall show in the principal and most important of them 1. The first in dignity though not in order is the glory of Miracles The most eminent in this kind are confessed to be those which were done by Christ and his Apostles Those Miracles were done in Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches not of the Church of Rome which appears thus These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures but the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is repugnant thereunto Ergo These Miracles were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches The Major our adversaries dare not deny The Minor hath been undeniably evidenced so much to the conviction of our Adversaries that they dare not own the Scripture for their Judge and instead of submitting themselves to its sentence bend their wits to except against the judge and decline its Tribunal following that Counsel which was given to Pericles when he was studying how to give up his accounts to the Athenians that he should rather study how to give up no account at all And some of them whose words are recited in this Treatise acknowledge the folly of their brethren who would manage their cause by Scripture Arguments But whether the Protestant Doctrine hath been solidly evinced from Scripture or not thus much undoubtedly follows that if any miracles be pretended against that Doctrine which Christ sealed by his miracles they are not to be regarded and the miracles done by Christ etc. are infinitely to be preferred before them And consequently the glory of Miracles is more ours then theirs theirs 4. The like I may say secondly for the efficacy of Doctrine which they so confidently appropriate to themselves But if the efficacy of their sword were not greater than that of their Doctrine the world would quickly see the vanity of that Argument And how little confidence themselves put in it may be seen by the professed necessity of an Inquisition Next news I expect is to hear this Argument pleaded on the behalf of the Koran I am sure it may upon as good grounds their religion being much of the same complexion and the Popish cause being managed most commonly by Mahometan weapons But on the contrary let a man consider with himself the miraculous success of the Protestant Religion in the late Reformation how strangely speedily generally it diffused itself in the very same manner as the Gospel did in its first Plantation in the World notwithstanding the great disadvantages it was to grapple with the horrible ignorance and perverseness of the Age the mighty power of long custom and inveterate prejudice the craft of Politicians the learning of the whole World the might of Princes and Emperors the threats fires inqu●si●ions of Persecutors the great offers and multiplied allurements to Apostasy I say he that shall review all these things as they are recorded by the Historians of both parties will quickly understand to whom this Character belongs § 5. For the purity and excellency of their Doctrine If their and our Doctrines were to be tried by that test the controversy would speedily be at an end The Word of God is the palace and rule of purity and that Doctrine which hath most of conformity therewith hath most of purity Howsoever it is too gross a begging of the question to allege that for a note and evidence of their Church which is more doubtful than the Church itself And for the Sanctity of their Lives we are heartily glad to hear of it if the reports were as credible as the news is good it would rejoice our hearts because their own Authors in several Ages have successively acknowledged and bewailed the horrible and universal wickedness of their own Church Clergy Popes etc. All stories are full of their monstrous filthiness though ordinarily masked under the pretence of external holiness And for the holiness of their Church of late times I shall only say this Of all men they have least cause to dispute against faith alone for he that can believe their sanctity had need be a Solifidian and have ne●ther sense nor reason But you must know the Church of Rome lives upon her old stock it is the holiness of their Ancestors which they intent Bellarmine is forced to go far back for his proofs for he allegeth the Sanctity of the Patriarches Prophets Apostles Ancients Fathers as arguments of their Holiness so the Church of Rome is all on a sudden grown Orthodox in the doctrine of imputation with this proviso that they allow the imputation of the righteousness of their Ancestors to the present Church but not of their wickedness you may as far as you please even to Adam nay if you will even to theFather of the Praeadamitae impute to them the Holiness of their Ancestors but for the prodigious filthiness the Sorceries Adulteries Murderers Heresies of their Fathers and former Bishops and Popes that ought not to be imputed to them § 6. And for the other grand Character of consent with Antiquity which they vaunt so much of among those that either have not learning to search into the Ancients or wit to judge of what they read to say nothing of this that the hoary head of Antiquity is not to be respected if it be not found in the way of righteousness evil doctrines or habits the more Ancient the worse and the inveterateness of a disease is no commendation to it He that shall please to look into the Fathers with his own eyes or peruse the Discourses of our Learned Authors upon this point such as Rainolds jewel Whitaker Chamier Dallaeus Albertinus Usher Morton Morney Rivet and multitudes more will soon discover the impudence of this plea and the fruit of their labours would quickly appear in the World but for that piece of their imposture that as they deny the reading of the Scripture to lay-men so they forbid the reading of our Protestant Authors to their Scholars excepting such whose consciences they find to be of a Jesuitical complexion and free from the heresy of tenderness § 7. I know it will be said that we want divers of those marks which they have as Duration Amplitude Visible succession Union among ourselves and with the Pope But although the Papists have no colourable pretence to those Characters among such as will inquire into the verity of their Assertions and not greedily swallow down all of them though in point of duration divers of the most material Doctrines of the present Romish Church are so far from it that they stand convicted of Novellisme by the confession of their own Authors And for Amplitude notwithstanding all their intolerable boasting with the credulous vulgar the learned know the Church of Rome containeth not one third part of the Christian World And for Succession their own Authors have acknowledged frequent and long interruption yea even in the Papal See Yet if all that might be said upon those points were superseded If they grant us or we can prove the former viz. That the miracles confirm our Doctrine the Fathers profess our Faith that the efficacy purity and excellency of Doctrine belongs to us we do not much matter the rest nor will the Reader who is satisfied in the former be at all startled at the latter § 8. 3. Consider what rotten Pillars most of these are upon which the Church of Rome leans and you will find they need no Samson to pull them down one of them excepted which Bellarmine therefore puts in the first place and that is from the name of Catholic as being grounded upon that infallible Maxim Conveniunt r●bus nomina saepe suis That therefore cannot be resisted only I blame Bellarmine's oversight that being so hard put to it to prove the Sanctity of his Church he did not prove it from the Title of Holiness given to the head of it And then here had been a pair of Demonstrations not to be paralleled in all Euclid § 9 And for several other marks there is this inexcusable error in them that they allege those notes to prove the Church which are altogether impertinent and ridiculous if you do not presuppose the Church so they wisely suppose what they see they cannot prove I instance in Duration Antiquity Unity Amplitude Succession against which I thus argue Either these do prove the being of the Church where ever they are and the want of a Church where they are absent or they do not if they do not than they are absurdly brought to prove their Church if you say they do then where those Characters are found there is a true Church and where they are wanting there is no Church But neither one nor the other is true not the first for there is not one of those now mentioned but have agreed to Pagans or Heretics Who knows not the Antiquity Duration Amplitude and Unity of the Pagan Religion All those were the Arguments of the Heathens against the Christians and the Papists have these arrows out of their quiver and to say truth it is but reasonable that they that have borrowed so much of their Religion and Worship from the Pagans should also borrow their Arguments for you know the accessary follows the principal the only wonder is how those Arguments which were weak and absurd in the Pagans and so judged and rejected by the Ancient Fathers are become strong in the Papists But I know a reason for that too The Pope pretends to a Divinity upon Earth and consequently he can make weak things strong and as the Authority of the Romish Church is Infallible so their Arguments are without all doubt irresistible Who knows not that the Arrian Heresy overspread the World That the mystery of iniquity which began to work in St Paul's days was not to be finished and destroyed until Christ's second coming 2 Thes. 2. That there was a time when the whole World wondered after the beast And for the latter branch who knows not that the Christian Church was a true Church when it wanted those Characters or at least divers of them when it was in its infancy and therefore could not have Duration when confined to a narrow room Act. 1. and therefore had no amplitude and consequently these are no necessary marks nor certain discoveries of the true Church as the Popish Doctors make their simple Proselytes believe So succession of Pastors signifies nothing unless you presuppose the truth of the Church whereof they are Pastors which forceth their own Authors to confess that without true doctrine there is no true succession and that a local succession alone without a profession of sound doctrine is no certain note so Stapleton (a) Etsi absque vera doctrina non sit vera successio Et post Sola loci occupatio non est certa nota ut carnales Iudaei de suo templo supponebant sed sanae quoque doctrinae pariter cum loco professio Relect. con 1. qu. 4. art 2. And Bellarmine ingenuously acknowledgeth that this argument of Succession is brought by them chiefly to prove that there is no Church where there is no succession from whence it doth not follow saith he necessarily that the Church is there where succession is (b) Hoc argumentum probat non esse Ecclesiam ubi non est successio ex quo tamen non colligitur necessariò ibi esse Ecclesiam ubi non est successio lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 8. §. Dico secundo So if this argument should possibly disprove our Church yet it doth not prove theirs theirs 10. So for Unity it is a shoe will fit every foot and hath been urged by Pagans whose great argument against Christianity was taken from the divisions of Christians and the unity of Pagans in their Religion and the Fathers answered the Pagans as we do the Papists that as the Church of God is one so the Devil 's Babylon is one as S. Austin expresseth it and that Unity without Verity is not to be regarded It was no argument of the verity and infallibility of the Jewish Church that they were united against Christ nor was it an evidence that the Church of Corinth Galatia and others mentioned in the New Testament were not the true Churches of Christ because they were peste'rd with fearful divisions and worse opinions than those which are owned by any Divines of the Protestant confession But if this test were allowed if things be weighed they would have little benefit by it I know there is nothing more familiar with the Romanists then to possess silly seduced creatures with an opinion of their unity and our divisions I wish the latter were not more evident than the former God open the eyes and humble and forgive those who by causing divisions and offences among us have laid this stumbling block in their way It is no wonder they that cannot examine things are deceived with words But if any discreet person look within the veil and compare their condition and ours he will find Clodius accus at moechos and that they do as if a man infected with a leprosy should reproach one who was troubled with the itch or as if a man whose hand was cut off should quarrel with another for having a scratch on his finger As for our Churches I know it is usual for the Papists to charge us with the frantic opinions of Quakers the desperate heresies of Socinus and the like but they would take it ill if we should charge their Religion with all the Blasphemous atheistical heretical opinions of some that have liveed amongst them Their own consciences tell them that these though they are among us yet they are not of us He that would judge righteous judgement must take his aestimate from the public confessions of the Protestant Churches whose Harmony is published and proved to all the world and such of our learned Doctors as adhere to it and there he shall find the diversities of opinion amongst us are only in some lesser points happily about government or other circumstantial things but it is most certain and undeniable that all of them do hold the head & agree in all the fundamental points of Religion But on the other side what if there be cloven Tongues in Protestant Churches Is Rome a City at unity within itself How come we then to hear the noise of axes and hammers among the builders of their Temple 300 differences have been collected out of Bellarmine's words and works and several of them of greater importance than any of our divisions (a) See Pappus his Contradictiones doctorum Romanae Ecclesiae and Bishop Hall's Peace of Rome It is true they have a pretty knack when we tell them of their divisions they say they are not in things de fide I see Duo cum faciunt idem non est idem It is a woeful division among us between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants but the same difference among them between Jesuits and Dominicans that is of no moment Oh ye foolish Papists how long will you be bewitched by such silly impostures how long will you love simplicity So for that great division among them about the very foundation of their faith which is ten times more weighty than all the Protestant differences put together the Pope's Infallibility they tell you it is not the fide although indeed it be their fundamentum fundamentorum and their whole Religion hangs upon it at least in the judgement of all the Jesuits and the far greatest number of the learned Doctors and eminent writers of the Church of Rome of this age It is confessed by themselves that they are divided in this great point so Bellarmine tells you The second opinion is that the Pope as Pope may teach heresy this opinion saith he is defended by Nilus some Parisians as Gerson and Almain and Alphonsus de Castro and Adrian the sixth a Pope in his question of Confirmation So we have the infallibility of the Pope to assure us that the Pope hath not Infallibility And this opinion saith he is not properly heretical for we see the Church doth still tolerate it yet it is erroneous and very near heresy (a) Secunda sententia est Pontificem etiam ut Pontificem posse esse haereticum & docere heresin banc opinionem sequitur & tuetur Nilus & aliquot Parisienses & Cerson & Almain nec non Alphonsus de Castro & Adrianus 6. Papa in quaestione de Confirmatione Et pòst Haec sententia non est propriè haeretica nam adhuc videmus ab Ecclesia tolerari qui illam sententiam sequuntur tamen videtur omnino erronea & baerese proxima De Pontif. lib. 4. c. 2. I will tell you how near it is when the Jesuits have throughly leavened the world with that opinion and perfectly destroyed the liberties of the Gallican Churches and the Pope can do it without raising a commotion in his own kingdom than you shall find this Embryo perfected and it is become a complete heresy In like manner saith Dr. Holden speaking of the Pope's Infallibility We see it is argued on both sides by many most godly and learned Catholics both ancient and modern and neither part hath yet been censured or prohibited and therefore it is evident no Catholic is bound to this or that side By which one instance you may see how much reason we have to bespeak them as Christ did the Pharisees Math. 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast out the Beam out of thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye Thus we see when their pretended signs come to be examined they are lighter than vanity as we have seen by this short and transient consideration of the most and weightiest of them § 11. But although other evidences are pleaded yet the rest of them come in only as handmaids to the principal Character of miracles for here it is that they set up their rest and so must I too for a season So the Answerer of Bishop Land The Church is proved to be infallible the same way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be infallible and that was by the sanctity of their life and the glory of their miracles The works of Christ did of themselves without Scripture prove Christ to be infallible joh. 5.36 and 10 25 38. and 14 11. and the Apostles confirmed their words by signs Mark 14.19 (a) Chap. 5. of Lawds Labyrinth And consequently the miracles done by the Church of Rome do without Scripture prove her infallibility This is their last plea they are now brought to their last legs if this fail them they are lost § 12. Ans. 1. If the miracles of Christ and his Apostles did prove their infallibility in the doctrine they delivered than they prove the fallibility of the Church of Rome and their actual error because they are visibly departed from that doctrine and if they prove any infallibility they prove theirs who adhere to the doctrine of the Scriptures And so we thank them for this argument § 13. Ans. 2. Although where miracles are true and many and evident and uncontrolled they give a great stroke to the proof of that doctrine which is confirmed by them yet it is false to say that Christ or his Apostles did require an absolute submission to and belief of every doctrine upon the bare account of miracles without any reference to Scripture And it is most certain that Christ and his Apostles notwithstanding their miracles did prove their doctrines from and allow their hearers to examine their doctrines by the Scripture This strikes at the foundation of their argument & plea and therefore I shall endeavour thoroughly to prove it § 14. 1. This appears from the express commands of Christ and the Apostles to that purpose In the same place where Christ bids them believe him for his works sake he commands them to believe him for the Scriptures sake Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures And if the former prove the sufficiency of their argument from miracles why should not the latter prove the sufficiency of the Protestants argument from Scripture especially if you consider that Christ apparently prefers Scripture arguments before that of miracles for in that 5. of John where he ascends gradually from the weakest to the strongest testimonies he placeth them in this order First he urgeth John's testimony vers. 32. next the testimony of his miracles vers. 36. and last the testimony of Scriptures v. 39 And this more fully appears from Luke 16.29 If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead Upon which words Chrysostome's gloss is full and cogent at least to them who pretend to rely upon the Father's authority and exactly to maintain their doctrines his words are these That you may see that the doctrine of the Prophets and consequently of the Apostles is more to be believed then the preaching of one raised from the dead consider this that every one that is dead is a servant but what the Scripture speaks those things the Lord speaks (a) etc. Tom. 5. operum de Lazaro concione 4. Whence I thus argue The authority of the Lord is not only greater in se but more credible quoad nos than the authority of the Servant This no man living will deny But the authority of Scriptures is the authority of the Lord and the authority of the Pope add a Council to him if you please is the authority of a Servant yea if you take that in earnest which is intended only for a compliment a Servant of Servants Ergo the Scripture is more to be credited then the Pope or Church It was a good turn for the Pope that Gregory de Valentia hath assured him that if the Fathers do at any time talk saucily Sua tum constat authoritas Romano Pontifici i.e. The Pope will keep his authority and infallibility in spite of them else I am afraid this passage of S. Chrysostom's might have done his Holiness a discourtesy And this farther appears from 2 Pet. 1. where you have the question expressly decided for after the Apostle had confirmed his doctrine from that miraculous appearance of God in the Mount and that voice from Heaven he adds ver 19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy The Bereans did not believe S. Paul's infallibility barely upon the account of his miracles nor are they therefore blamed but did examine his doctrines by the Scriptures and for that they are commended Act. 17.11 § 15. 2. It was not the will of Christ that all miracles should be believed but he would have some miracles rejected therefore he would not have all miracles in themselves and for themselves credited and owned The Assumption I prove by three arguments § 16. 1. Christ's will was compliant with his Father's will and he came to fulfil God's word not to destroy it But this was the express will of God that all miracles should not be credited This no man can doubt of that reads Deut. 13. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a sign or a wonder and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spoke unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods and let us serve them thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet for the Lord your God proveth you Whence it irrefragably follows that if it could without blasphemy be imagined that Jesus Christ had delivered such a doctrine as this Let us go after other Gods his miracles should have been disowned and rejected and therefore miracles of themselves are not to be credited § 17. 2. Christ and his Apostles have foretold us that miracles should be done by the teachers of false doctrines Therefore miracles in themselves are no sufficient evidence of the truth of a doctrine The Consequence none can deny The Antecedent which alone can admit of doubt is so evident from plain Scriptures that I need only recite them I will mention only two places 2 Thes. 2 9 The coming of Antichrist is said to be after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and that you may see they are called lying wonders not so much ratione materiae because they are fabulous and pretended as ratione finis because brought to confirm a lie it is said Apoc. 13.13 14. That he doth great wonders so that he maketh fire to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do I tell you the world is well mended with the Church of Rome that those miracles which in the Apostles days were foretold as a character of Antichristianity are now become an evidence of Infallibility § 18. 3. That evidence which Christ speaks of as common to himself and counterfeit-Messiahs is no sufficient evidence nor at all to be equalled with that evidence which is peculiar to the true Messias But the evidence of miracles Christ speaks of as common to himself and counterfeit Messiahs This is plain from Mat. 24. 24. There shall arise false Christ's and false Prophets and shall show great signs and wonders that if it were possible they should deceive the very elect The Scripture only is the sure and therefore what Divines observe of the Spirits testimony that it is always conjunct with the testimony of conscience and therefore it is not said but the like we may discern in this That where Christ urgeth the argument of miracles he doth it in conjunction with the Scripture as we saw in Joh. 5. and the like we have Joh. 10 25-38 where Christ pleads his works only as they are done in his Father's name that is not only as he pretended his Father's name for so did the false Christ's Mat. 24. but he really acted them with his commission and in conformity to his will and word So that the Scripture is the only and not miracles in themselves as this argument of the Papists falsely supposeth § 19 Ans. 3. If it were admitted that miracles and the like may be said of all the rest of their marks of a Church do prove the verity of a doctrine yet they do not necessarily prove the Infallibility of him that doth those works or receives that doctrine Observe this for it strikes at the root of this their last pretence The notes of a man may prove his manhood but they do not prove his nobility wisdom learning these must be proved aliunde from another head The Protestant notes of a Church do prove the being and truth of our Church but not its infallibility nor would they do it if the Protestants pretended or desired it for men's pretences or desires do not alter the nature of things I say the notes do prove the Church's verity But what are the privileges of that Church so constituted in being and whether Infallibility be one of them that is another question and the resolution of it must be fetched from another Topick now that this is so I shall plainly and briefly and if I mistake not undeniably prove It is granted that the gift of miracles was not peculiar to the Apostles but was communicated by God to other Ministers and Christians in the primitive times either than they must say that every such Minister and Christian singly considered was infallible which no man ever yet was so impudent to assert or confess that miracles are no sufficient evidence of Infallibility It was enough that miracles did confirm the doctrines delivered whether by Apostles or other Ministers for the confirmation of our Faith though they had been otherwise fallible But if they will do that which never man did viz. assert the infallibility of every such worker of miracles than not only the Pope & Counsels and Catholic Church are infallible but also Xaverius the Jesuit of whose miracles they tell us so many fine stories though he himself in his Epistles speaks not a syllable of them and bewails the want of the gift of Tongues a miracle if any most necessary for the conversion of the Indians I say if their own relations of these miracles may be credited he must be infallible And so here is another article of the Popish Creed for besides the Infallibility of the Church Pope or Council here is the infallibility of the Jesuits Non equidem invideo miror magis Yet farther if miracles were solid proofs of Infallibility yet they prove it only in such persons as do them Papae nec seritur nec metitur Why should the miracles of Gregory of Nazianzen prove the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome or how come the miracles of the thundering Legion to prove the infallibility of the thundering Church of Rome or by what Magical art do those miracles which left poor Bernard that did them fallible pass over to Rome and render his Holiness Infallible The Jewish Church was not therefore infallible because the Prophets who wrought miracles amongst them were thereby proved infallible nor do the Papists assert the infallibility of that Church by virtue of such a privilege belonging to those Prophets but only because of that promise to the High Priest Deut. 17. In like manner if their narrations concerning the miracles of S. Francis S. Dominick &c. and if it were farther granted that such miracles did prove their infallibility yet this would no way prove the Infallibility of the Romish Church in which they were done so in divers respects you see the argument falls to the ground § 20 Ans. 4. Miracles are so far from proving the infallibility of the persons that do them that they do not so much as prove the verity of doctrines delivered by them That miracles have been done or at least such things as the strictest observation of common prudence could not distinguish from miracles by heretics yea by pagans is confessed by the Papists themselves and evinced by the known examples of Vespasian who cured a blind man as Baronius himself acknowledgeth and all Historians relate and Apollonius Tyanaew and others You may see how this troubles Card. Bellarmine that he is forced to this answer That the Devil had possessed the eye of that man that he might seem to cure when he ceased to hurt Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur For so whatsoever miracles are done or pretended by the Papists for confirmation of the doctrines of Devils and such are all repugnant to Scripture and two of their doctrines are particularly so called 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. may as well be said to be done by the collusion of the Devil And yet by the way this is no blemish to God's providence to permit such miracles but an act of his wise counsel and righteous judgement that those who will not be won by the Word and those glorious abundant and evident miracles done in the confirmation of it may be hardened by other miracles which though far short in number and commonly less notorious for observation and less bebeneficial for use God permits to be done and justly may having forewarned the world of such impostures and forestalled the minds of men with such clear irradiations of his truth and such illustrious glory of miracles that in comparison of them the following wonders were no more than the glimmering light of a Gloworm to the splendour of the Sun in his Meridian Of which we have eminent Instances in the wonders of jannes' and jambres after Pharaoh had hardened his heart against the word of God and his glorious works and afterward in the wonders of Apollonius Tyanaeus when men had wickedly rejected the offers of grace by Jesus Christ and resisted the glorious light of his most excellent doctrine and inimitable works To make this more clear I shall show it under the hands of the greatest champions of the Romish Church Estius writes thus The Fathers and Historians do every where witness so that here you have a multitude of testimonies in one that true miracles may be done without the Church by false Prophets Heretics and Schismatics (a) Passim fatentur Patres & testantur historiae fieri vera miracula extra Ecclesiam etiam à Pseudoprophetis haereticis & schismaticis in sentent lib. 2. distinct 7. §. 18. and he quotes among other witnesses Hilary and Austin and Gregory the great a Pope and therefore infallible in this assertion and a little after he doth so positively assert our doctrine and so strongly batter down the pillar of the Papacy that if you did not know the Author you would judge him to be an absolute Protestant in that point for after he had said that wonderful works may be done by heretics and Devils in confirmation of false doctrine he adds but against this dec●it Christ hath forewarned his faithful ones saying Do not go forth do not believe It is to be noted that he doth not say Examine diligently whether they be true miracles for the principal confirmation of the faithful aught to be the doctrine of the Church of old confirmed by Christ and his Apostles by undoubted miracles (b) Fieri possunt ab haereticis & Doemonibus etiam in confirmationem falsoe doctrinae mirabilia sed contra hujusmodi deceptionem fideles suos praemunivit Christus dicens Nolite exire nolite credere Notandum enim quòd non dioit Disquirite diligenter signa num vera sint miracula Nam praecipua confirmatio fidelium esse debet doctrina Ecclesiae jam olim à Christo & Apostolis per indubitata miracula confirmata Estius ubi supra §. 19● And Maldonate though as seldom guilty of ingenuity as most I have read is forced to confess that Hierom. Chrysost. Euthymius and Theophylact do prove by many examples that true miracles may be done by unbelievers and saith he Christ admonisbeth us that we do not believe false Prophets even when they work true miracles So little reason had the Author of Lawed's Labyrinth to call it a strange Paradox that true miracles may be marks of a false doctrine and to say that all Divines confess that true miracles are not feasible but by an extraordinary power of God and that God thereby seals to the truth of a doctrine chap. 9 sect 5. and then to run away as if he had throughly done his work when you see his bold assertion confuted by more learned persons of his own party Then again the said Maldonate puts a question Whether no argument can be drawn from miracles to prove the truth of a doctrine and answers It follows not that no argument can be drawn from them but no certain argument (a) Hjeron Chrys. Euthym. & Theoph. multis exemplis docent eliam per ba●ui●es infideles vera fieri miracula Et monet nos Christus ne falsis Prophetis credamus vera etiam miracula sacientibus Qn. An ergo nullum ad protandam veram doctrinam argumentum ex miraculis sumi possit Resp. Non sequitur non omnino nullum sed non necessarium sumi posse in Mat. 7. 22. that is the argument from miracles is next door to none it is probable but not undeniable it is conjectural but not certain And yet these new Doctors dare lay the foundation of all viz. the Church's infallibility upon mere conjectures and probabilities One would think the Jesuit had borrowed this as he hath done hundreds of his best passages out of Calvin and unadvisedly transcribed it into his commentary And Andradius the great defender of the Tridentine faith is leavened with the same heresy for he saith S. Augustine contendeth that sure and certain tokens of the Church are to be fetched out of the sacred Scriptures because they are free from all suspicion of falsehood but miracles may be done by the help of the Devil (a) Augustinus contendit Ecclesiae certa atque firma indicia è sacris literis petenda esse quia ab omni sunt falsitatis suspitione libera Nam iùm miracula Daemonum operâ fieri posse dicat Def. fid lib. 2. p. 239. And Gregory de Valentiâ tells us plainly that miracles of themselves do not beget infallible certainty of the truth of a doctrine and Church but on the contrary the true and lawful Church gives us assurance of the truth of miracles as S. Austin shows (b) Ipsa per se miracula non efficiunt certitudinem infallibilem de vevitate doctrinae & de Ecclesiá legitimá sed contrà potius Ecclesia vera & legitima certos nos de veritate miraculorum facit ut Aug. indicat tom 3. disp. 1. qu. 1. punct 4. §. 3. To conclude this answer I shall only add Bellarmine's words Before the approbation of the Church it is not evident nor certain by a certainty of faith concerning any miracle that it is a true miracle (c) Ante approbationem Ecclesiae non est evidens aut certum certitudine fidei de ullo miraculo quòd sit verum miraculum lib. de notis Ecclesiae c. 14. And therefore the Church's infallibility cannot be proved by miracles because it must be presupposed before these miracles can give us any certainty § 21. Ans. 5. If all the former difficulties were removed it profits them not for when a man comes to look into the pieces of their argument from miracles he shall find such horrible mistakes and woeful impostures that indeed it makes their cause the worse and gives prudent men occasion to discern that these are the Badges of the Antichristian faction that they are the very signs and lying wonders foretold 2 Thes. 2. I shall briefly look upon some of the parts of the argument 1 They allege for themselves the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and the first Fathers which being done in confirmation of a doctrine as repugnant to theirs as Heaven is to Hell are so far from proving their Infallibility that they demonstrate their falsehood and heresy 2. They plead all those miracles as testimonies to the present doctrine of the Romish Church which were done by such as though they lived in the communion of the Church of Rome yet did complain of their corruptions and condemn divers of their present doctrines as appears in Bernard particularly in the great doctrine of Merit 3. They allege such miracles as were done by Papists in order to the conversion of Heathens to Christianity which if really done by the cooperation of the divine power do prove no more but this That God thereby bare witness to the common cause of Christianity for confirmation whereof such miracles were done ● and not to their particular opinions wherein they stand divided from other Christians 4. They allege such miracles as for the generality of them their own Authors such of them as have not sacrificed to Impudence acknowledge to be fictitious and ridiculous What should I tell you of that known censure of Melchior Canus concerning the Legends of the Saints which are the great treasuries of Popish miracles and received by the poor besotted Papists with the same veneration as the four Gospels That the lives of the Saints were written with less integrity and faithfulness than the lives of the Heathen Emperors were written by Heathen authors (a) Dolenter hoc dico multò à Laertio severiùs vitas Philosoph●rum scriptaes quam à Christianis vitas sanctorum Nostri plerique Scriptores vel affectibus inserviunt vel de industriâ quoque multa confingunt ut eorum me nimirum non soli●m pudeat sed etiam tae dear Canus in operibus lib. 11. c. 6. pag. 533. A dear sentence it cost him the loss of a Cardinals Cap. Agreeable to this was that of Vives that the Legends were written by a man of a Brazen forehead and a Leaden wit I shall forbear further particulars for it were endless to enumerate all the complaints amongst their own Authors in whom there were any relics of candour and conscience of the fictions in this kind and the many notable instances of those impious frauds discovered upon the reformation of Religion which before that time were reputed such certain miracles that it was sufficient to make a man an Heretic to doubt of the truth of them I shall add only this that our Adversaries could not possibly do a greater spite to Christianity nor a greater dishonour to those illustrious and unquestionable miracles done by Christ and his Apostles in the face of all the world so as their greatest enemies were forced to acknowledge the verity of them then to compare with them and equal to them their fabulous relations concerning some seeming wonders commonly done in a corner and by such who served their own interest in them and whose evidence was so dark that the truth of them was questioned by their own friends as you have now heard as if their design were to make good that passage of one of their holy Fathers who called the Gospel Fabula Christi the fable of Christ in that known expression How great riches hath this Fable of Christ procured to us But if every syllable of what their Fabulists have recorded of their miracles were true it will stand them in little stead for the reasons before alleged and proved And therefore I conclude that the miracles pretended or done by Papists are no certain and sufficient evidence of their Infallibility and no solid foundation for their Faith § 22. Ans. 6. To which I shall only add this word at parting that if miracles must pass for arguments I know no reason but Protestants have as good a Title to them as the Church of Rome For although we do not use to boast of wonders nor indeed have any need to use that Argument having such solid evidence and sufficient ground for our Faith in the Holy Scriptures yet if our adversaries will force us to it I think our plea is as just as theirs and we could very easily fill a Volume not with such fictitious narrations as they stuff their Legends with but with undoubted Histories of Protestant wonders If the Ancients esteemed the first propagation of Christianity by such contemptible means against such potent and universal opposition an eminent miracle why may we not reckon this for a miracle that the reformation of Religion should be carried on by a despicable Monk in despite of all the power policy cruelty flattery learning of the last Age we can tell them of miraculous cures of Diseases and dispossessions of Devils by the Prayers of God's people of certain predictions of future contingencies by Protestant Ministers of miraculous preservations and deliverances of Protestant Princes and Ministers from the bloody rage and deep designs of Papists of eminent and unusual judgements of God upon Popish Persecutors of all these there are remarkable instances already extant in Print and such as the Papists were never able to disprove to this day so that the Protestant cause is not inferior to the Romish in this particular but only here are two things evident in Protestants which are not so in their Adversaries viz. 1. The Modesty of the Protestants that they do not boast of what they might justly plead 2. The or self sufficiency of the Protestant cause that hath evidence enough in Scripture and hath Arguments enough and to spare whereas the penury of the Popish cause forceth them to catch at shadows for want of substance § 23. Thus I have considered the several pretences of their great Doctors and all the Pillars upon which this vast structure of the Church's Infallibility depends I have stated the several pretensions in the words of their own most approved Authors I have weighed I think I may say all their considerable Arguments by which they seek to maintain them in the balance of the Sanctuary and have found them light I shall close this particular with a brief reflection upon the whole matter and the divers and repugnant courses of their Learned Authors in the resolution and foundation of their Faith wherein we shall see these miserable creatures running like the false Prophet in jeremy from chamber to chamber to hide themselves 1. They made a bold venture at Scripture and fairly offered to try their cause by it for which they deserve this Motto Magnis tamen excidit ausis But their own brethren pulled them by the ear and told them that would not do their work Gainsayers can never be convinced out of Scripture therefore you must confound them with Tradition says their great Salmeron (a) Proter vere volentes Scripturis refelli non possunt ideo unâ Traditione jugulandi sunt Salmeron in Tom. 13. lib. 1. comment super Epistolam Paulis And they soon found that to be true which once a Popish Clergy man said when he had found a Bible He knew not who was the Author of it but sure he was it was some pestilent Heretic for he every where condemns the Doctrines of our Church 2. They fly to the Fathers and their Infallible Authority There upon a fair trial they are beaten out of the field Upon debate they find the Fathers so so uncertain in some things so positive against them in other things that they presently cry Crucifige to those whose ears had rung with Hosannas before and down goes the Infallibility of the Fathers and to fetch in miracles that they may not want Arguments 3. Then they fly to Counsels and by all means they must be Infallible well the Protestants follow them thither That point comes to be scanned Instances are given of the errors of Counsels if either Papists or Protestants may be Judges And which had the greatest hand in the deposing of Counsels several notable passages are alleged out of Counsels against the Pope's Supremacy and divers of the present Doctrines of the Romish Church And upon the hearing of the cause the Pope himself and the most of the learned and considerable Papists now in the World are resolved to trust Counsels no longer with this jewel and not content to deny they dispute down the Infallibility of Counsels as I have showed 4. Then they fly to the Pope for help and Jesuits cry out They have found the man that is infallible Now saltat senex salva res est well the Protestants join issue with them upon that give many shrewd instances of the errors of Popes allege the express words of Adrianus Sextus a Pope confessing the Fallibility of Popes whom Bellarmine himself reckons among those who hold that the Pope may be an Heretic and teach Heresy (a) Lib. 4. De Roman Pontifice cap. 2. §. secunda sententia And besides all this two Popish approved Counsels are pleaded viz. Constance and Basil who absolutely deny the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility Well what shall they do next 5. Then there must be another device a coalition of Pope and Council and those meeting together are Infallible Thus Infallibility is but a short-lived business and dies at the expiration of the Council for when they are dissolved their Writings as well as those of Holy Scripture are uncapable of being a judge And thus they have devised an Infallibility made of a commixtion of two Fallibles an ingenious invention it is by which one may 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 Jesuits make the Pope alone Infallible and the Council only in dependence upon him And their Adversaries ascribe this Infallibility to the Council alone and to the Pope only by communication from them And so they are both gone by the Arguments already mentioned under each of those heads And if we may believe either there is security in neither And besides all these divers of their late Learned Writers reject the Infallibility both of Pope and Counsels as White Holden Cressy S r Kenelm Digby etc. who assert that neither one nor other are further Infallible then they keep to the Golden rule of Tradition and in that sense every Christian viz. so far as he keeps to Tradition is Infallible 6. The next devise is oral 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 Bellarmine's works with saying Mentir is Bellarmine Bellarmine thou liest In like manner do these men confute all the Protestant Writers and maintain 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 pass for a solid demonstration & their pretence that they hold nothing but what they had from the Apostles must be admitted as a proof that it is so & shadows must go for substances But this besides the ridiculousness of begging the question & craving what they cannot 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 partial rules and there is besides these required a living judge endued 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 far 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 work a Miracle for than they can reconcile contradictions and they can do that which the ineffectual essays of all their greatest wits have showed to be above the wit of man or Devil either for doubtless those Popes who had familiar acquaintance with the Devil would not fail 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 several pretences and showed the nullity of them all and consequently the nullity of their Faith § 24. There is only one thing to be added They have one Argument more which although if their other cords break they acknowledge 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 aught to be 2. There is an Infallible Judge 3. Their Church is it § 25. Answ. 1. Why may not I turn their Argument upon them God hath not provided such a judge Ergo such a judge is not necessary When God thought fit to appoint a judge for the decision of some controversies in the Old Testament he thought fit to express 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 hear the Bishop of Rome in all things all those infinite and dreadful distractions divisions persecutions errors and mischiefs which have since risen in the world had been prevented So if reason may be judge who can believe it consistent with the goodness of God or Christ's care over his Church or God's design in giving the Scriptures to omit such a necessary point as this upon which all the rest had depended especially when Doctrines of far less 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 Atheism and to all imaginable Superstition What a fine model of Divinity should we have if once this door were opened 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 Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility should have been engraven upon every man's heart or at least plainly revealed in the Bible this being of more use than 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 gross wickedness as all other infallible persons recorded in Scripture were It was fit that obstinate Heretics should be consumed with fire from Heaven Therefore by this Argument all these things are done how much better and more becoming 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 granted that there is an Infallible judge yet it doth not their work for particular Christians are not Infallibly assured of the Infallibility of their Church unless they will say that every Papist is Infallible And therefore no particular Papist hath better ground for his Faith upon this score then the Protestants have for they neither have nor pretend to better Arguments upon which they believe their Church to be this Supreme and Infallible judge than what Protestants allege to prove the Scripture to be judge viz. Texts of Scripture Tradition Fathers Counsels Miracles rational Arguments etc. And if a Protestant may be deceived in these when he infers from them the Infallibility of the Scripture why may not a Papist be deceived when he infers from them the Infallibility of his Church since he hath no better Arguments nor more Infallible guidance And therefore as to particular Christians of whom the whole Church consists and about whom alone the care of Christ and God's Providence is exercised God hath not taken more effectual care for their infallible guidance according to the Romish Principles then according to ours For as they say Protestants have no security for their Faith though the Scripture be Infallible because they cannot Infallibly underitand it or believe this to be the Scripture so say I the Papists have no security of the Infallibility of their Church though the Church's Infallibility be acknowledged true in itself since they cannot infallibly know either that there is such an infallibility or theirs to be the Church to whom it is promised § 28. 4. It is neither necessary nor suitable to the methods of God's Providence and the declarations of his will that there should be a final end and infallible judge of all controversies in this life That which these men teil us was fit to be done God hath told us he did not judge fit and who is most credible do you judge 1 Cor. 11. 19 There must be Heresies that they which are approved may be made manifest God hath acquainted us that it is his pleasure that Tares should grow with the Wheat unto the end of the World In respect of wicked men it was fit in regard of God's Justice that there should be stones of stumbling and Rocks of offence for the punishment of those that were disobedient And in regard of elect and sincere Christians who live holily and humbly believe and pray fervently and seek the true way diligently such a judge is not necessary God having provided for them other ways by giving them the promise of his Spirit and guidance into Truth which is as good security as the Pope himself hath or pretends for his supposed Infallibility by that anointing which teacheth them all things 1 joh. 2. 27. in confidence of whose conduct they may say with David Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterwards receive me to Glory Psal. 73. 24. They are kept by God's power 1 Pet. 1. 5. and the care and strength of Christ joh. 10. And what need a Christian desire more Truly saith Amesius God hath provided for the safety of the Godly not for the curiosity or perverseness of other men And therefore this plea must go after all the rest and they are still lest in a Forlorn and desperate because in a faithless condition And thus having forced my way through all the obstructions which they laid before us I know not what hinders but I may pronounce the sentence notwithstanding all their big looks and glorious pretences of Infallibility notwithstanding all the noise of Scripture Fathers Popes Counsels Tradition Miracles when things come to be scanned it appears they have no foundation for their Faith and consequently have no Faith Lord be merciful to them CHAP. VII Of the Solidity of the Protestants foundation of Faith § 1. HAppily they will faith of us as Jerome did of Lactantius that he could facilius aliena destruere quam stabiline sua that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith then make our own good I shall therefore though it be besides my present design which is only to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility in few words inquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith than the Papists have And this I shall show only by one Argument The Popish foundation of faith is such as many of their own great Doctors are unsatisfied in There being no foundation laid by any of them but it is both denied and disproved by others no less eminent of their own communion as I have proved at large and such as is unanimously opposed by all Protestants and solidly disproved But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches of what denomination soever are agreed in yea such as divers of our most learned Adversaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient You will say if you can prove this the controversy will be at an end and if I do not let the Reader Judge There are but three things that need proof 1. That the Books of Scripture which Protestants build their Faith upon are and may be proved to be the word of God 2. That in the substantials of Faith these Books are uncorrupted 3 That the sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary points § 2. For the first That the Protestants Bible is and may be proved to be the word of God It is true when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question as they call it to them How know you Scripture to be the word of God what matters it how I know it seeing they acknowledge it and by granting the thing make their question superfluous But I Answer I know it even by the Confession of our Adversaries So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation and the testimony of an adversary against himself is undeniabe It may be of good use here a little to compare the several discourses of learned Papists to different persons and how prettily they contradict themselves and confute their own arguments When the Papists dispute against us they tell us It is impossible to know the Scripture to be the word of God but by the Church's Testimony But if you take them in their lucid intervals and their disputes against Atheists or Heathens than you shall have them in another tune then Bellarmine can say Nothing is more evident and more certain than the Sacred Scriptures so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them (a) At sacris Scriptures quae continentur in Propheticis & Apostolicis literis nihil est notius nihil certius ut stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem habendam esse neget De verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2. Here he can furnish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture distinct from and independent upon the Church's authority the verity of Prophecies harmony of writers works of Providence glory of Miracles consent of Nations etc. Either then these arguments do solidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures or they do not if they do not than Bellarmine is a Baffler to use fallacious arguments and a Liar too having said nothing is more evident nothing more certain if they do than the Scriptures may be evidenced to be the word of God without the Church's Testimony which they so boldly deny at other times The like might I show out of Gregory de Valentia who musters up divers convincing arguments whereby even Heathens may be satisfied that the Scripture is the word of God without the aid of the Church's authority (b) Analys fidei lib. 1. c. 3. And the like is done by several of their learned and approved Authors from which it plainly appears That the foundation of Christianity and Protestancy is one and the same and that we have the same arguments and evidences for the ground of our Faith as Protestants viz. for the Divine authority of the Scriptures independently upon the Church's testimony which we have as Christians and that the Papists cannot say nor do any thing towards the subversion of the Faith of the Reformed Churches herein but at the same time and by the same art and arguments they must oppugn the Christian cause and acknowledge it untenable against a subtle Pagan or Atheist And I desire the Reader to consider that this is not an answer or argument ad hominem which I now insist upon but fetched from the nature of the thing & the verity of the Christian Religion And for what they pretend That without the Church's Testimony we cannot know that S. Mathews Gospel was written by him and so the rest they shall take an Answer of a very eminent and approved Author of their own Melchior Canus It is not much material to the Catholic Faith that any book was written by this ●r that Author so long as the Spirit of God is believed to be the Author of it which Gregory learnedly delivers and explains For it matters not with what pen the King writes his Letter if it be true that he writ it (a) Deinde librum esse hujus aut illius Scriptoris non admodum interest Catholicae fidei dummodo Spiritus sanctus author esse credatur Quod Gregorius eruditen tradit & explicat nec enim refert quâ pennâ Rex Epistolam scripserit si verè scripsit de locis Theolog lib. 2. c. 11 p. 75. § 3. The second thing is That the Books of Scripture are not corrupt in the essential and necessary points of Faith This a man may easily discern by looking into the nature and quality of those various lections which are pleaded as evidences of corruption where he shall quickly find them generally to be in matters of less moment and such upon which Salvation doth not depend But because the examination of this would be a tedious work I shall save myself and Reader the labour and shall prove it in general as at first I proposed from the confession of the Papists themselves who condemn the rashness of those of their own Brethren which out of a preposterous respect to the vulgar Translation assert the malicious corruption of the Hebrew Text and positively maintain the incorruption of the Bible in matters of importance Of this opinion are among the Papists Bellarmine Arias M●ntanus Driedo Bannes Tena Acosta Lorinus and divers others If you please we will hear the foreman of the Jury speak for the rest I confess saith he that the Scriptures are not altogether pure they have some errors in them but they are not of such moment that the Scripture is defective in things that belong to faith and manner's For for the most part those differences and various lections consist in some w●rds which make little or no difference in the Text (a) Scripturae non sunt om●i●o integrae n● purae sed babent suos quosdam error●s Caeterùm non ●an●i momen●i sunt e●usmodi error●s ut i● iis quae ad fidem & mores pertinent Scripturae sacrae integrit as des●deretur Plerumque enim tota discrepantia variarum lectionum in dic●ionibus quibusdam posita est quae sensum aut parum aut nibil mutant De verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. versùs fi●em To whom I shall add the acknowledgement of a late Author S. Clara whose words are these Considering a moral thing morally it is altogether impossible that the Books of the New Testament were or are considerably adulterated (b) Rem moralem moraliter consideran●o planè impossibile est libros proesertim Novi Testamenti suisse vel esse notabiliter adulteratos System fidei c. 11. in 8. And so he goes on proving what he had asserted This may suffice for the second thing § 4. For the third particular which alone now remains in doubt concerning the sense of Scripture My assertion is this A Protestant hath or may have a sufficient assurance of understanding the sense of Scripture in things necessary to salvation This I shall briefly prove by this argument God's promise is sufficient assurance the Papists do not pretend an higher assurance for their Church's Infallibility but a protestant is or may be assured of this by God's promise as appears from Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God Protestants have the assurance of Reason and whatever the Papists talk they have no other It is true they talk of several things Fathers Counsels Tradition Motives of Credibility etc. but in these and all other arguments both Papists and Protestants agree in this that when they go to settle and satisfy their consciences though they hear many things yet reason weighs them all and rejects what it judgeth false and holds fast what it esteemeth true and good if that will not do they have the assurance of the Spirit which God hath promised to those that ask it Luk. 11.13 and this is as much as the Church herself pretends In a word to strike the business dead you shall see the perspicuity and evidence of the Scriptures in things necessary to salvation acknowledged by our Adversaries from whom the force of Truth extorted these confessions That part of Scripture is plain and evident which contains the first and chief principles of things to be believed and the principal rules of living so Sixtus Senensis (a) Illam Scripturae partem apertam & dilucidam esse qu● prim● summaque verum credendarum principia ac praecipua vivendi praecept● complectit●r Biblioth sanct lib. 6. Annot. 151. We deny not that the chief articles of faith which are necessary to salvation to all Christians are plainly enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles so Costerus (b) Non inficiamur praecpua illa fidei Capita quae omnibus Christianis cognita sunt ad salutem necessaria perspicuè satis esse Apostolicis scriptis comprehensa in Enchirid. p. 48. And Salmeron having said that all Doctrines and Traditions are to be examined by Scripture he saith The Scripture is so framed and ordered by God that it might be accommodated to all places times persons difficulties dangers diseases to drive away evil to procure good to overthrow errors to establish truths to instil virtue to expel vice (a) Scriptura sic est à spiritu sancto concinnata atque contexta ut omnibus locis temporibus personis difficultatibus periculis morbis malis pellendis bonis accersendis erroribus jugulandis dogmatis statuendis virtutibus inserendis vitiis propulsandis sit accommodata Salmeron in Proleg 1. And Hieronymus ab Oleastro saith We are to praise God for it that those things which are necessary to salvation he hath made easy (b) Gratificandum Deo valdê quòd quae sunt necessaria ad salutem facilia fecit super Deut. 30. From all these things put together I think I may say it undeniably follows which I proposed to evince That the foundation of a Protestants Faith is solid and sufficient our adversaries themselves being Judges § 5. Only I must remove one block out of the way Peradventure they will say that if all these things be true concerning the word of God in its own language yet there is one notorious defect in the groundwork of the Protestants Faith viz. That they build it upon the credit of a Translation made by persons confessedly fallible This because they make such a noise with it amongst ignorant and injudicious persons however to men of understanding it is but an impertinent discourse it will be convenient to say something to it and but a little To this than I Answer 1. The Papists cannot in reason charge us with that fault of which themselves are equally guilty nor can they accuse our Faith of that infirmity to which their own is no less obnoxious for the generality of unlearned Papists in the world have nothing but a Translation or which is worse a mere Report for the foundation of their Faith If their suppositions were admitted that the Pope or Council is the infallible Judge of controversies and that their Decrees are of undoubted verity yet forasmuch as it is the lot of very few Papists to be eye or ear-witnesses of them they are forced to receive the rules of their Faith i.e. the Decrees of Popes or Counsels either from the mere reports of such men whom they acknowledge fallible unless they will as indeed they may upon as good grounds having once fallen into the humour of inventing devise Infallible Nuntios as well as an Infallible Judge or at best if they be transmitted to them in writing yet since they are written in a strange language and unknown to vulgar Papists they cannot understand them but by a Translation And consequently the case of vulgar Protestants who rely upon a Translation of the decrees of holy Scripture is not one jot inferior to that of vulgar Papists who rely upon a Translation of the Pope's decrees § 6. Ans. 2. Those Protestants that understand not the original languages have a sufficient foundation of their Faith in the Translations they enjoy and that for two reasons 1. They have so great a moral assurance of the verity of their Translation in all matters of moment that no man can doubt of it that is not within one remove of madness and this is such a certainty as the Papists have no reason to quarrel with It is the observation of a grave Author of their own Those things are certain amongst men which cannot be denied without perverseness and folly (a) Certa apud homines ea sunt quae negari sine pervicaciâ & stultitiâ non possunt Canus loc. come lib. 11. de humanae historiae authoritate c. ● p. 468. And again Such things as are delivered by common consent of histories it is a most foolish thing either to deny them or doubt of them (a) Plurima sunt ejusmodi quae communi historicorum consensione traduntur Haec non modo negare sed in his etiam addubitare stultissinum ●st ibid. Now to apply this A man may have as great an humane assurance as is possible of the verity of our Translations by the collation of differing Translations made by several persons in divers times and places and they too in several languages and sometimes by men of opposite principles in Religion yet all agreeing in the main by the impossibility of a design among some learned men to cheat the vulgar by a false Translation there being so many watchful eyes upon them in every Translation so little benefit by such a deceit such extreme danger and disgrace attending upon it such improbability of any success by the ridiculousness and impertinency of Popish exceptions against our Translations as may be seen in the discourses between Dr. Fulk and Greg●ry Martin upon that Subject being in the gross so inconsiderable that if all were granted they desire we need nothing else to confute them but their own Douai Bible or Rhemish Testament and several other ways In a word the Papists themselves have not so good security for that upon which all their Religion and Infallibility depends viz. whether Alexander the 7th be a regular Pope for if he be not a Priest which he is not say the Papists if his Ordainer did not intend to make him a Priest and who knows another man's intentions or if there was any Simony in his election to the Popedom which how is it possible for us to be assured that there was not in which case by their own profession the Election is null and all the actions done by him afterward so till they have better fortified their own Faith I am sure they have no reason to quarrel with ours § 7. 2. There is more than a moral assurance even a Divine Faith of the verity of that Scripture which is contained in our Translations For whereas amongst other arguments alleged by Christians and owned by the Papists themselves they urge the Majesty of the Style the sublimity of the matter the efficacy of the Doctrine and its influence into the hearts of men of which Gregory the Valentia saith I know not whether it be a greater argument for the Scriptures than all the rest yea than miracles confession of adversaries &c (a) Anal. fidei lib. 1. c. 20. Now the power of these arguments is not confined to the original languages but common to true Translations for it is not the shell of the words but the kernel of the matter which commends itself to the consciences of men and that is the same in all languages The Scripture in English no less then in Hebrew or Greek displays its lustre and exerts itspower and discovers the characters of its Divine original The most unlearned Christians do ordinarily feel such a supernatural force in the Scriptures though conveyed to them only in a Translation they find in themselves and observe in others such a sharpness and energy in oft time's convincing the proudest sinners converting the most profligate wretches comforting the most distressed consciences that it forceth them to say Non vox hominem sonat God is in this Scripture of a truth When a man finds the Law of God in English converting the soul and enlightening the eyes which was David's argument for its Divinity Psal. 19 when men feel the Scripture in the English Translation quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword piercing even to the dividing as under of soul and spirit and the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart which was S. Paul's argument Heb. 12. and so I might instance in divers others properties what can they infer but that it is the voice of God though he speaks by an Interpreter that it is the water of life though conveyed to them in the Glass of a Translation § 8. Ans. 3. At worst this may fully stop their mouths that the argument doth not touch the merits of the cause nor shake the foundation of our Faith but only concerns some particular persons viz. such as are ignorant of and unlearned in the original languages So the defect lies in the persons not in the cause not in the groundwork of our Faith but in the neglects of some men to build up themselves fully upon it If any man be unsatisfied with Translations he hath under God a remedy in his own hands if he like not the Cistern he may go to the Fountain if he will take the pains of so long a journey A little industry and diligent use of those means and helps which are offered even to vulgar Christians will wholly remove this difficulty and put a period to this argument § 9 I shall conclude this discourse with the consideration of two particulars The first is an objection they urge against the solidity of our Faith The second is one plea more they have for the solidity of their own The first is an objection which they frequently urge in all their Treatises That circular way of argumentation which we justly object against them they boldly retort upon us and tell us that we have no way to prove the Scripture but by the Spirits testimony and no way to prove the Spirits testimony but by the Scripture This is counted one of the hardest knots and therefore it will be worth the while in few words to untie it though it may seem a little heterogeneous to my present design § 10. 1 They have no reason to object this circle to us that they cannot free themselves from I speak not now of the other famous circle of the Church and Scripture which their most learned Authors of late have ingenuously confessed but here is another Circle The Papists have Circulum in Circulo For they profess a man cannot know the Church but by the Spirit nor the Spirit but by the Church That a man cannot know the Spirit nor the mind of the Spirit nor distinguish it from false and counterfeit ones but by the Church is their great principle He cannot know it say they by the Scripture unless he read it with the Church's spectacles Revelation they do not pretend to therefore this is known only by the Church to whom the discerning of Spirits belongs and by others only from the Church's authority and infallible testimony But that is a clear case the only doubt lies about the other branch viz. That a man according to their principles cannot know the Church but by the Spirit and that you shall have under the hands of their great Masters Stapleton's words are these This secret testimony is altogether necessary that a man may believe the Church's judgement and testimony about the approbation of the Scriptures neither will Faith follow without this inward testimony of the Spirit of God although the Church attest commend publish approve the Scripture a thousand times over (a) Arcanum hoc testimonium necessarium prorsus est ut quis Ecclesiae testimonio ac judicio circa Scripturarum approbationem credat ne● absque hoc in●erno Divini Spiritus testimonio etiamsi millies Ecclesia at● tesietur commendet promulget approbet Scripturas fi●es consequetur Desens contra Whitak lib. 1. c. 1. So Canus tells us that Humane authority and other motives are not sufficient inducements to believe but there is moreover a necessity of an inward efficient cause i.e. the special help of God moving us to believe (b) Statuendum est authoritatem humanam & incitamenta omnia illa praedicta sive alia quae cunque adbibi●a ab co qui proponit fidem non esse sufficientes cousas ad credendum ut cred●re tenemur sed praeterea opus est interiori causa efficieule i. e. Dei speciali auxilio moventis ad ●re Loc. Theol. lib. ● cap. 8. What can be more plain let them answer themselves and that will serve our turn Either they must leave themselves in the Circle or help us out jam sumus ergo pares And it is unreasonable that they should urge that as a peculiar inconvenience of our Resolution of Faith to which their own is no less obnoxious § 11. 2. It is false that we have no other way to prove the Scripture to be the word of God but the Spirits internal Testimony They cannot be ignorant that we have divers arguments of another nature and independent upon that Testimony of the Spirit by which the authority of Scripture is solidly proved And Papists as well as Protestants have substantially defended the cause of the Scriptures against Pagans and Atheists Either those arguments are solid rational and convincing or they are not if they say they are not then Be it known to all men by these presents that the Assertors of Popery are the Betrayers of Christianity If they be then is the Scripture proved other ways then by the Spirits testimony How can our Adversaries vindicate themselves either from shameful Ignorance if they do not know or abominable malice if they wittingly belly us that we have no argument to prove the Scripture but the Testimony of the Spirit What are those glorious miracles by which the Scripture was sealed and propagated now become no argument Is the Transcendency of the Matter and Majesty of the Style and admirable Power of the Word of none effect to prove the Scriptures Divinity Are not the patience of Martyrs the concurring testimony of Jews and Heathens to the truth of Scripture-relations the verity of predictions and the like as solid arguments now as they were in the Primitive times when the Fathers confounded the learnedest Pagans' by these and such like arguments If they be as they must affirm unless they will turn perfect Pagans as they are in the half way to it already than their Assertion is false That we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scripture but by the Spirits Testimony and the Circle which they impute to us is indeed in their own Brain and their Argument is the fruit of their Vertigo § 12. 3. Here is no Circle because although the Spirit and Scripture do mutually prove one another yet they do it in diverso genere in divers ways and several capacities but a Circle is when a man proceeds ab eodem ad idem codem modo cognitum when a man's knowledge proceeds from the fame thing to the same thing in the same way But in this case though the thing be the same yet the way of knowledge varies and that breaks the Circle The Scripture proves the Spirit per modum objecti & argumenti objectively and by way of argument by suggesting such truths to me from which I may collect the of the Spirit and prove its Divinity But the Spirit proves or rather approves the Scripture per modum causae effectivae & instrumenti as a Divine instrument infused into the soul whereby I am enabled to apprehend such verities as are contained in the Scripture The Papists indeed cannot get out of their Circle of Church and Scripture because each of them is the argument by which they prove the other the argument nay the only argument say they for which I believe the Scripture is the authority of the Church testifying it and the argument for which they believe the Church is the authority of the Scripture And here the Circle is so gross and evident that it is acknowledged by divers of their own late learned Authors Holden confesseth in express terms that they who resolve their Faith in this manner and so do almost all the learned Papists in the world do unavoidably fall into a Circle (a) In Circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur & in orbem turpissimè saltantes etc. Holden the resolute fidei lib. 1. c. 9 So the late Answerer of Bishop Lawd confesseth it is a vicious Circle to prove Scripture from the Church's Tradition and the Church's Tradition from Scripture (a) Lawed's Labyrinth ch 5. as they generally do some few Excentrical spirits excepted nor can he get out of it but by returning to that Vomit which his former Masters had discharged themselves from viz. to prove Infallibility by miracles and the motives of credibility But in our case it is quite otherwise for the Spirit works ut instrumentum by way of Instrument the Scripture ut argumentum by way of Argument It were an absurd aspersion to call this a Circle if any man should say I believe the Sun to be bigger than the Earth because my reason tells me it is so and I believe my reason saith true because Mathematical arguments convince me it must needs be so That which frees this discourse from the Circle is that the Mathematics prove it ut argumentum Reason proves it ut iustrumentum and the same may be said in the present case I shall farther illustrate this by a similitude or two It is here as when a man through the infirmity of his eye apprehends a thing to be less than it is There are three ways whereby this man may be convinced of his error 1. By arguments taken from the thing itself 2. By bringing the object nearer to the eye which was at too great a distance whereby it appears in its due proportion 3. By curing the infirmity of the eye Thus the Physician that removes the distemper of the eye and restores it to its native strength and vigour may be said to convince him Now to apply this The Spirit of God doth not convince a man of the Divinity of the Scriptures the first way as a Philosopher but the last way as a Physician not by an elucidation of the object by arguments but by the elevation of the faculty or by anointing the eyes with eyesalve and curing its infirmity To which the second may be added viz That the Spirit of God brings his word and the characters of its Divinity impressed upon it nearer unto us and writes it in the heart according to God's promise to that purpose and so we see the object better by reason of its approximation to us Or as it is with a Philosopher when he reads a book written in the defence of some Position as suppose the doctrine of the circulation of the Blood possibly his mind may be discomposed and his brains by reason of some peccant humour much distempered and in this case he reads the book but is not at all satisfied by it afterwards Physical means are applied whereby the brain is restored to its native constitution and purged from those distempers whereby it was clouded now he returns to the book again and reads it over anew and yields himselve captive to the opinion You see here is no change of the old arguments nor any addition of new ones only the impediments which were in the faculty or the organ are removed Just so it is in the matter now in controversy The Spirit of God doth not prove the Scripture to me by arguments which I never had before but by the illumination of my mind to apprehend the arguments which I did not apprehend before It is with men as it was with Hagar Gen. 21. there was a Well of water but she saw it not till God opened her eyes vers. 19 There is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures only the Spirit of God cures that blindness of mind whereby the Devil hindered the world from discerning it Thus the Spirit convinced the Jews of the Truth of the Gospel by removing the veil which was upon their hearts in the reading of Moses 2 Cor. 3.15 16. And so God convinced his elect among the Heathens not by discovering any more arguments to them than he did to the reprobates among them for the same doctrine and arguments were preached to both alike but by opening their eyes to see what others saw not Act. 26.18 and by opening their hearts to receive what others would not receive as Act. 16.14 To conclude forasmuch as the testimony of the Spirit is not the Argument for which but only the Instrument by which they believe and on the contrary the Testimony of Scripture is the proper argument for which they believe it is most evident that they work in several capacities and so we are fully discharged from that Circle which they causelessly charge us with and notwithstanding this objection the foundation of our Faith standeth sure This is the first particular § 13. The other particular concerns the Popish foundation for some of the Romanists finding themselves so woefully entangled in the business of Infallibility are grown sick of the notion Cressy the English Apostate in his Exomologesis confesseth That Infallibility is an unfortunate word combated by Mr. Chillingworth with too too great success that he could wish the word were forgotten or at least laid by these therefore tell us that if the Infallibility of the Church be denied yet a Papist hath sufficient ground for his Faith in the Church's authority in which he is obliged to acquiesce and whom he must hear in all things and this way some others go This I thought fit to mention that the world may see the complexion of a Romish conscience and the desperate shifts which the wretchedness of their cause forceth them to But because the absurdity of this new fancy doth suâ luce constare I shall dismiss it with two remarks upon it 1. That it is disclaimed by the Romish Church and it were a frivolous thing to concern ourselves in refuting all the wild fancies of their particular Doctors It is true Cressy saith No such word as Infallibility is to be found in ●ny Council the good man had forgot the definition of the Council of Basil wherein they call it a pernicious error to say that a Council can err the passage I cited before or else he meant to be witty for it is very true that non potest errare is not the same word with Infallibility though it be the same thing Nor do the Papists only assert the Infallibility of their Church but generally acknowledge That without this their Faith would have no solid Foundation nor their Religion any certainty I shall not multiply instances in so known a thing you have many instances in one in that forementioned passage of the Council of Basil That if once that pernicious error were admitted that general Counsels may err the whole Catholic Faith would t●tter (a) In Responsione Synodali And Bellarmine in a forequoted passage confesseth That it is a most unreasonable thing to require Christians to be finally subject to the judgement of that Church which is liable to error (b) lib. 2. the Council motor c. 3. And therefore I need not cast away precious time in confuting those particular fancies of some private Doctors which are directly repugnant unto the confessed opinion of the Pope and the Decree of a general Council 2. This is so far from mending the matter that it makes it far worse for he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things because she is infallible in all things speaks that which is coherent in itself and the consequence is agreeable to reason the only fault lies in the Antecedent But he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things though she may err in many things and none knows how many throws himself and me upon such desperate Rocks as none but a madman would run upon When Bellarmine delivers that desperate doctrine That if the Pope should command us to sin we are bound to obey him and when others have said That if the Pope should lead thousands to Hell we must not reprove him their followers mollify the harshness of those assertions with this favourable construction That the Propositions are only Hypothetical depending upon such conditions as by reason of the promise of Infallibility can never be fulfilled for say they the Pope cannot command sin and cannot lead men to Hell and this if true were a plausible evasion But to tell me that if the Pope or Church may err yet I am bound to believe & obey them in all things this is to make that my Duty which God hath threatened as a terrible Curse 2 Thes. 2. viz. to believe lies This is to confront the Apostle Act. 5. and to say That it is better to obey men th●n God when their commands are contrary this is to bring me under a necessity of that Woe denounced against such as call evil good and good evil that put darkness for light and light for darkness Isa. 5.20 This is to say That I am bound to follow my blind Leaders though it be into the Ditch That I am under an obligation of offending God by making him a liar and of damning my own Soul This is to say That the Israelites were bound to obey Aaron's Idolatrous decree concerning the observation of the Feast of the Calf nay more That the Jews were bound to obey their Church in putting Christ to death though they had at that time known him to be the true Messias In a word such and so many are the prodigious absurdities which would inevitably follow from that wild assertion that Madness itself unless in its highest Paroxysm could not equal it and when the Authors of it come to themselves or return to the judgement of their own Church or when their Church comes over to their opinion and lays aside their bold pretences to Infallibility they may expect a farther Answer But since I wrote this I find Mr. Cressy hath saved me the labour of farther Answer for in his second edition and secundae cogitationes sunt meliores I find him sick of his former notion I suppose he hath met with sharp rebukes from his wiser Brethren what Penances or censures they have inflicted on him I know not but the effect is visible and the man is brought to a recanting strain And that he may have some colourable Palliation for it he pretends he was misunderstood and that he never meant to deny Infallibility to the Church save only in the most rigorous sense that the Term could import and therefore he roundly asserts That the Church can neither deceive believers that follow her nor be deceived herself Exomolog sect 2. ch. 21. And Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church for to say that the Church hath authority to oblige all Christians to receive her Doctrines and withal to say she is fallible is extremity of Injustice and Tyranny Appendix to Exomolog chap. 5. num 14. So this pretence is also gone after the rest and therefore from all that hath been discoursed and proved I may take the boldness to conclude That the Faith of a Papist if he keep to his own principles hath no Foundation or is not built upon the Rock but merely upon the Sand or in the Prophet's language they have forsaken the Scriptures the fountain of living water to hew out unto themselves broken Cisterns that can hold no water An APPENDIX by way of reflection upon Captain Robert Everards' EPISTLE and account of his Conversion and Submission to the Romish Church and M r Cressy 's EXOMOLOGESIS SInce the finishing of the foregoing Treatise I was told of an Epistolary Discourse of Captain Everards' and withal that the substance of it was fully Answered by what I had there discussed only it was convenient to accommodate the passages relating thereto to the several parts of his Epistle Upon this sugestion I procured the Epistle itself as enlarged in the second Edition and diligently read it once or twice over And I confess I was at first dubious whether I should take any notice of it partly because I saw it was nothing but a collection out of others as he most properly calls it and a repetition of those old Sophisms that have been answered and exploded an hundred times over and partly because I discerned by the spirit of the man and the frame of his Discourse and the circumstances of his change that there was no likelihood at all of retriving and reclaiming him how clear and irresistible soever the evidence and arguments were that should be produced He that hath but half an Eye may see a design in the whole management of the change And although he assures us with a teste me ipso that he is not biased by worldly interests and private ends he must allow discreet persons the liberty of their Faith in that particular and not take it amiss if seeing the feebleness of his Arguments and their insufficiency for the producing of such a change they suspect it was done by the power of interest which is so secret an affair and its methods so cryptical and the ways of serving it so various that no wise man will believe it impossible and I am sure the contexture of his Discourse and the manner of his process doth not render it at all incredible And these considerations inclined me to silence But on the other side when I considered that the hand of joab sufficiently appears in the penning of this Epistle that it was a collection of the strength of more Learned Writers and a conjunction of abler heads than his own who were resolved in this occasion and instance to represent what could in brief be said to persuade unsettled persons to change their Religion and whatever other men's opinions are what a reverend esteem the Author hath of it who tells us he saw reason enough to believe it could not be Answered pag. 88 and that he challengeth it as a piece of justice to show him his errors I thought it not amiss to take some notice of it knowing that if what I should say were unsuccessful to him yet it would not be unacceptable to God since we are a sweet savour of God in them that believe and in them that perish and that if I were not an instrument of God's mercy to him in reducing him to the truth from which he hath revolted yet I should be an instrument of God's Justice and a witness on God's behalf to leave him without excuse In one thing I must crave Mr Everards' pardon if I do not take his Counsel in Answering him and setting down each of his Paragraphs before the several Answers It is a course which I confess I do not approve of in the answering of other Authors because it runs a man into personal contests and petite animad versions and catching at little advantages and so expends the answerers' pains and the reader's patience and the buyers money to no purpose and if I did like it in some others yet really he must excuse me if I do not esteem him so classical an Author nor his Epistle so weighty a Discourse as to deserve such solemn consideration Yet this I shall promise him and I call God to witness it that I shall not wilfully decline any part of it wherein his strength may lie but shall endeavour to the utmost of my poor skill to single out such things as are most plausible and considerable and such as if they be solidly Answered the rest will fall of course or need no further trouble What I have to say I shall reduce to two heads 1. Personal 2. Dogmatic The first I shall pass over in few words because it concerns not the merits of the cause and yet it is not convenient wholly to neglect it because it is set forth and M r Everard whom I would by no means deprive of his due praise hath showed wit and art in it something therefore must be said to disabuse such as are too apt to be deceived with good words and fair speeches and the influence of examples And if there be some seeming harshness in my expressions it must not be ascribed to my temper which my friends will assoil me from or principles or hatred of M r Everard a person known to me nec beneficio nec injuriâ but to the discharge of my duty which is to rebuke such as he is sharply and the necessary caution of others My personal reflections shall only be two The first upon the quality of the person The second The occasion and manner of the change 1. As for the quality of the person I must confess I am not at all surprised with the Apostasy for so I must ●all it with S t Paul 1 Tim. 4.1 and 2 Thes. 2.3 of a person of his character as we have it drawn by his own pen pag. 4. When I professed myself against Infant-Baptisme I had run through almost if not altogether all the several Professions of Christianity then appearing in this Kingdom It is no new thing that a giddy headed man should get a fall It is no more than was long since foretold and this day in this person those Scriptures are fulfilled which tell us that the unlearned and unstable should wrest the Scripture as this Epistler most horribly doth to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3.16 That such as received not the Truth in the love of it should be given up to strong delusions to believe lies 2 Thes. 2.10 11. that such as were ●ver learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth should be led away 2 Tim. 3.6 7. that evil men and seducers as he now acknowledgeth he was should wax worse and worse deceiving and b●ing deceived vers. 13. that unstable souls should be beguiled 2 Pet. 2.19 It is not at all strange that he that despised the persons vilified the function contemned and forsook the guidance of able and faithful Protestant Ministers by whom he might have been easily antidoted against this Infection should be betrayed into the hands of Romish Priests It is not strange that he that loved to wander should antiquum obtinere and having passed through all the varieties which England affords should gratify his temper and follow his inclinations to see what news at Rome In the mean time it concerns all Protestants and especially persons of the same complexion and condition with fear and reverence to behold the just and tremendous judgement of God upon unsettled and unstable Christians and such as are given to change whilst they see these smaller rivulets of lesser errors leading to the dead Sea of damnable delusions And as we have many woeful instances of poor deluded Souls that having wandered from party to party from opinion to opinion from congregation to congregation have at last been swallowed up some in the gulf of downright Atheism others of the besotting dotages of the Quakers so we have here an instance of one whom the same wildness and wantonness of opinion hath betrayed to Popish impostures The second personal reflection concerns the occasion and manner of his change which in brief is this as himself represents it pag. 5 6 etc. He falls into the company and acquaintance of a Lay-Papist which he had been always told and so supposed that they were an ignorant Generation and he proposeth and presseth an Argument which the Captain could not Answer and therefore submits and borrows two or three Popish Books from that Gentleman viz. the question of questions Fiat Lux and Knots answer to Chillingworth and so the work is done my Captain is conquered and become a Papist or stilo novo a Roman Catholic Upon this relation I shall take the boldness to make these following Animadversions 1. In general It is very observable how easily he gives up the cause how valiantly the Captain fought in the field I know not but sure I am if he fought at the same rate that here he disputes no man could desire an easier adversary Happily because he was about to commence into a belief of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass he was resolved his Antagonist should not have a bloody victory I shall adventure to commend this pattern as an effectual receipt to make Papists and that you may see it is a if not a it will indifferently serve to make Turks Jews Pagans or Heretics of any kind Let a person unlearned or unstudied in the point he debates such as none that read this relation will deny this Author to have been unless they be such themselves enter the lists with some able Champion of the adverse party a Character which the Captain himself ascribes to his then Antagonist and when he meets with an objection that himself cannot Answer let him conclude it unanswerable which our Author did and read two or three such Books as his Adversary shall put into his hand if this do not speedily and effectually work the cure he may be given over for desperate 2. Though to determine that this supposed conversion was a plotted business may seem an intrusion into the Divine prerogative to judge the heart yet this I may safely say that it looks so like a plot that it requires more than an ordinary charity to believe it was not For as the Philosopher well observes no man must and no serious man will forsake a solid and well grounded Truth for some subtle objection suggested by a crafty disputer which he cannot answer If it was not a designed thing how can it be imagined that in a matter of Salvation and damnation he should be so grossly negligent in the use of means to come to the knowledge of the Truth and the answering of his Objection Otherwise who can believe that he would not have addressed himself to some able Protestant Minister or Scholar to see whether he could Answer it unless peradventure through the pride of his heart he scorned the advice of Ministers and thought himself wiser than his Teachers and then no wonder such pride had a fall or would he not by the direction of some knowing Protestant have rather searched into some Protestant Books for an Answer as here he falls upon the reading of Popish Authors by the advice of a Papist if he really were a Protestant at that time when he pretended to be so for if this Captain had understood those controversies and spent that time in the reading of the solid Books of excellent Protestant Authors and grounding himself in the Principles of Religion which he spent in talking and teaching others and scribbling of idle Pamphlets and railing at Learned and Godly Ministers these objections which through his ignorance and unacquaintedness with those points seemed new to him would have been discovered to him as they are to others to be but coleworts not twice but twenty times sod and Arguments long since exploded 3. To this let me add the wonder is the greater and the design more credible to consider that his conversion should be wrought by such Authors as Fiat Lux and Knots Answer to Chillingworth The former nothing but an heap of words and an empty sound which if stripped of all its gauderies and rhetorical flashes apt to take none but children in understanding and all the weight of reasons were picked out and brought together it might without such Art as was showed about Homer be put into a Nutshell unless happily that was the Argument that convinced him that the Author tells us us I say who are Englishmen and remember the Marian Persecution and the Irish Massacre and the bloodiness of the French Leaguers and the barbarities of High and Low Germany and the late Ferities of Piedmont that the Pope is a very honest Gentleman that never did any harm And for Knots infidelity unmasked that man that shall take that Book for a solid confutation of M r Chillingworth must have lost both reason and conscience for the loss of one of them will hardly serve turn by which you may see the Captain was prepared for a change and like soft-Wax ready to receive the impression And this is all I shall say concerning the quality of the person and the manner of his change I shall now come to the Dogmatic part The first and principal thing will be to consider the force of that Discourse which did the work which though it be a very silly one yet is commensurate to many men's capacities and meeting with an ignorant proud or loose Protestant sometimes is the mean of their perversion The Popish Gentleman asked me saith my Author whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or for those who taught me Christianity to be mistaken therein and he gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true and we could not condemn the jew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well persuaded of their several ways as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty and for aught we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way for it is possible you may be mistaken pag 5 6. This is that that did the deed and this is the shield of Hercules or rather the sword of Goliath by which they sometimes do execution upon an ungrounded or ungodly Protestant which therefore it will be worth while a little to insist upon 1. Let it be observed what rare Champions the Papists are for the Christian cause and what a singular course they take for the Conversion of Jews and Turks and Pagans For more clearness I shall represent it in a Syllogistical form If the Church of Rome i.e. the Pope and a Council be not infallible a Jew or Turk or Pagan are as well persuaded of their several ways as we of ours these are the Author's words But the Church of Rome whether you mean the Pope or Council or both is not infallible This I hope hath been made evident enough from the foregoing discourse Ergo a Jew or Turk or Pagan are as well persuaded of their several ways as we of ours a glorious Conclusion and most true of Italian Christians Turks and Pagans are as well persuaded of their ways as they are of Christianity Nor is it without cause that so many Authors some of them Popish complain so much of the swarms of Atheists in the Church of Rome for certainly this is as compendious a way to Atheism as can lightly be imagined to hang the verity of Christianity and the Pope's or Counsels Infallibility upon the same pin and consequently those learned Papists who doubtless many of them laugh in their sleeves to see so credulous and simple a world to believe the latter can easily shake off the sense of the former 2 Let us examine a little the strength of this pretty Proposition That if we be not infallibly assured of the truth of Christianity Jews and Turks and Pagans are as well persuaded of their ways as we of ours What a mad assertion is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between probabilities and improbabilities and yet such Whirlpools and quick sands must they needs sink into that give up themselves to the conduct of Popish guides and principles I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as jamaica for it is possible all Geographers may mistake and all Travellers may lie unless his Holiness should chance to make a voyage to see therefore by this doughty argument I am as certain that there is a Sea-passage to China by the North. I am not infallibly sure that the Sun is bigger than a Bushel for Epicurus thought it no bigger as Cicero informs us Therefore it seems I am as certain that there is a World in the Moon or in every Star as some Philosophers held I am not infallibly certain of the existence and achievements of Alexander the Great by this argument it will follow that I am no less sure of the history and adventures of St. George of England What if I be not infallibly sure of the truth of the Christian Religion may there not be such clear probabilities and cogent evidence that none but a mad man can deny it What if in a frosty morning I should find 2 or 3 verses written upon a glass window will any man in his right wits doubt that some man or other writ them and yet it is not impossible because it implies no contradiction that the Frost which oft times carves out various and curious figures should some time or other have a lucky hit and fall into a vein of Poetry Or what if I see a Calf in a field will any sober man question whether it came from a Cow because I am not infallibly certain it did not drop out of the Clouds as once one did In like manner if I be not simply infallible taking the word in a strict and proper notion of the Truth of Christian Religion yet certainly it may suffice against any Turk or Jew or Pagan or Papist either who in this argument as in many other things are confederate with them whose Reason makes him a person fit for Discourse that there are so great and many and pregnant evidences that no man can deny without forfeiture of his reason discretion and modesty and all the principles of humanity 3 If this argument be cogent and besides the certitudo objecti the infallibility of the thing there be required a certitudo subjecti the infallibility of the Person to be satisfied which here is contended for then not only the Pope and Council but every particular Christian must have this gift of Infallibility an ampliation of the privilege which his great Ghostly Father will never allow for mark it that is the thing which the Catholic Gentleman urged and where with my Captain was gravelled He asked me saith he whether I was sure and certain and whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion or else said he as to me Christianity was but probably true else it is possible you may be mistaken and at this rate do they use to talk to such as they desire to Proselyte By all which it appears that the infallibility must be particular in every individual person that would be satisfied himself or would convince another of the Truth of Christianity I am not ignorant of a shuffling artifice which this Catholic used in confounding two things together necessary to be distinguished as no wonder to meet with confusion of language in the builders of Babel whilst he too cunning for twenty of these Novices states the business thus He asked me saith my Author whether I was so certain that it was not possible for me or for those who taught me Christianity to be mistaken in this p. 5. Here lies the mystery of Iniquity and here was the blind cast before the eyes of this unequal combatant which he had neither wit enough to understand himself nor humility enough to learn from others But I shall endeavour to bring this Fox out of his hole by this Argument Either a subjective certainty or infallibility of belief of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not if it be not necessary then in vain do Papists urge this argument and boast so much of it as unanswerable whereas now they give it up and confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and Infallibility necessary only for the Pope or Council and so the poor Captain hath lost his Infallibility and had best think of his old military word As you were for here the cord is cut asunder by which he was drawn over to Rome for now the Protestant stands upon even ground at least with the Papist For suppose for once contradictions were reconciled and the Popish opinion of the Churches infallible authority were true in itself certitudine objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the Infallible authority of the Scripture true in itself and certitudine objecti as the most desperate Papists do grant Stapleton and Bellarmine and all The Scripture say they is Divine and true and certain in itself but not quo ad nos therefore hitherto there is no difference now to proceed If it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that he hath such probable evidence of this doctrine of the Church's Infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a foundation for a Protestant that he hath such nay infinitely more probable evidence of the doctrine of the Scriptures Infallibility since the evidence of the latter is granted by the Papists themselves and the evidence of the former not only denied and disputed down by the Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors as I have showed at large This question I challenge the whole club of Jesuits which happily contributed to this Epistle solidly to answer But now on the other side if they will retire to the other part of the Dilemma and say That a subjective Infallibility is necessary for particular Christians than every Papist in England not only hath a Pope in his belly but hath got his Crown also upon his head and communicates with him in that great Prerogative of Infallibility and truly I must do them justice without doubt every Papist in England is as infallible as the Pope himself 4. But if nothing will satisfy but Infallibility let us a little inquire into it what it is and where it lies & what infallible and irresistible demonstrations the Romanists have for this grand principle for which a man must put out the eye of his reason and forsake the conduct of the Scripture and depose the holy Spirit from his Royalty Certainly it is madness in the highest to put us off with conjectures and suppositions and imagined probabilities in so important an affair upon which all the rest depends and to which all must strike sail so than the question will be this whether this pretence of Infallibility be not a gratis dictum a crude and bold assertion or rather whether it be evidenced with such strength and clearness as to compel the assent of all reasonable persons And here I shall do the Captain and the Popish cause this right as to consider it in its most advantageous notion If there be any Infallibility most certain it is that it is in the Pope and general Council together which is the most plausible and received opinion of the Church of Rome And here it is that our English Apostate Mr. Cressy in the last Edition of his Book centres and here also the Captain casts anchor The Prelates of the Church saith he though as men they are fallible yet when assembled in a general Council with their supreme Pastor they are still made infallible by the assistance of the same holy Ghost who was as well promised to them as to the Apostles Now for this notion I might refer the Captain and the Reader to what I have said and proved in the foregoing treatise which when he or any of his Fathers shall solidly answer it will be time enough then to consider it But because this is the sole foundation upon which the Papists build all the rest and Mr. Cressy adjures all Protestants that omitting or deferring all particular disputes with Catholics they would examine this point Sect. 2. Chap. 19 and because I am resolved by God's help to search and try where the strength of this Samson lies if there be any in it I shall a little farther consider it and if I find his arguments proportionable to his confidence and that he is as solid in proving it as he is daring in asserting it surely he will do the Christian world an inexpressible favour and infinitely oblige all Protestants and he will find us far from the madness of fight against God and our own souls But since all is not Gold that glisters and our Savour hath commanded us to try the Spirits and to prove all things and not to believe men saying Lo here is Christ or Lo there is Christ they must not take it amiss if after such evident discovery of their manifold impostures we dare not take all things upon trust from them nor swallow down so great a morsel without chewing and enquiring into it It seems to be granted on both sides and the nature of the thing requires it That this being a grand principle should have the greatest evidence which things of that nature can bear and such indeed they pretend for it So Mr. Cr●ssy tells us That as this controversy was of infinite importance Providence hath suitably furnished us with means of satisfaction infinitely more copious evident and powerful then in any other besides Exomolog ●●ct 2. chap. 18. And again That which I undertake to make evident to J. P. is that the Church speaking by a general Council confirmed by the Pope is an infallible guide and that with more evidence than he can produce for the Scripture itself Appendix to his Exomologesis chap. 4. num 9 It is well that Saying and Doing are two things or else the Protestant cause had been quite in the dust If Mr. Cressy make this good his work is done if not it will concern him to remember from whence he is fallen and repent of his Apostasy So now we are come to the point whether the Church's Infallibility be so evidently proved as they pretend They affirm and I deny it and the grounds of my denial have been a principal part of the foregoing discourse I shall forbear repetitions as much as is possible and shall here only give two arguments to show That this pretended evidence of of the doctrine of Infallibility is but one of their and a piece of their usual artifice to give us confident affirmations in stead of evident proofs My first reason is taken from the inevidence of this doctrine to themselves and many of their own Brethren What a desperate assertion is it to ascribe greater evidence to the Church's Infallibility which is denied by many of their own Authors then to the Divinity of the Scripture whose evidence is so great that both Protestants and Papists universally acquiesce in it I have already represented the differences and dissatisfactions of their own Authors in this supposed to be most evident point And certainly it can be nothing but want of evidence which hinders the assent of those whose interest so powerfully obligeth them to it Particularly I have showed the vanity of that pretence of agreement between their divided Authors in the Infallibility of the Pope and a Council together and that the several Partisans howsoever they put them both together in name and show yet in truth they ascribe the Infallibility entirely to the one or other either to the Pope alone or to the Council alone and to the other only in dependence thereupon Infallibility is not partly in the Pope and partly in the Council but wholly in the Pope say the Jesuits and from him communicated to the Council who are infallible no farther than they have his consent and concurrence And on the other side it is wholly in the Council and in the Pope only by participation from them say the Gallican Papists and Anti-Jesuitical party and of this mind were those Counsels that undertook the censuring and removing of Popes themselves And consequently the Infallibility of Counsels not being evident to the Jesuits and their party and the Infallibility of the Pope not being evident to the French Papists and many others it follows that there is no evidence at all in either nor in both together their own Authors being Judges For if I can prove to a Jesuit That the Pope in Cathedrâ is not infallible he will and by his principles must grant That the addition of a Council doth not make him infallible And if I can prove to a French Papist that a general Council rightly called and constituted is not infallible he will and by his principles must acknowledge the Pope's consent cannot render them infallible so that indeed if either be disproved both are disproved Nor doth any thing render this evidence more dark and the Romish cause more contemptible than the consideration of those poor Fig. leaves wherewith Mr. Cressy seeks to cover his Mother's nakedness in this particular For when Mr. Chillingworth urged this very argument against their infallible Judge that themselves were divided about it who it was whether Pope or Council etc. all that Mr. Cressy answers ad rem is this That these different Authors of theirs are all agreed in that decision of the Council of Trent It belongs to the Church to be judge of the true sense of the holy Scripture an answer so desperate that it shows that man who could acquiesce in it to be if not a Papist by interest rather than Conscience yet at least one given up by God to those strong delusions threatened to the Followers of Antichrist 2 Thes. 2. among whom he hath now listed himself And doth this indeed end the differences doth he offer that for an Answer which his Adversary before had acknowledged and is this all the relief they have towards the ending of all differences and the satisfaction of their consciences When Alexander was asked To whom he would leave his Empire and he answered To the best since he did not at all determine who this best was I think no man in his wits will say this was a likely or effectual way to end the differences among the Grecians It is true the Captains were all agreed in genere that it should be left to the best but some thought one best others another and so the dissensions continued among them and were not at all healed by that general agreement In the very same manner although they be agreed in the general that the Church must judge so long as they continue at variance and have implacable feuds about it who this Church is they are not one whit nearer agreement Suppose in former times a question arose between the Senate and Emperor of Rome which was the chief power and supreme Judge of all Civil controversies and the Subjects of the Empire were highly divided about it some ascribing the supremacy to the Emperor others to the Senate would Mr. Cressy say the Romans are agreed because they were all united in this That the supreme power was to end all their controversies Suppose 3 or 4 Competitors to a Kingdom and the inhabitants thereof severally divided about them will any man on this side Bedlam say they are all agreed because agreed in this general that the King must rule or must not every man acknowledge that this agreement signifies but little so long as they differ about this which is that King And is not this the very case of the Church of Rome They are all agreed forsooth not one dissenting voice among them but how why they are agreed that the Church is the judge But Mr. Cressy the great difference is behind who is the Church the Pope say some a Council say others a Pope and Council together say a third sort and the several assertors of each opinion confute and destroy the rest and all that hold any of these opinions are universally esteemed good Catholics saith Mr. Cressy in his Append ch. 4. num 7. So they are good Catholics that dispute down the Pope's Infallibility and they good Catholics too that dispute down the Infallibility of Counsels and for the reason before mentioned they good Catholics that reject the infallibility of both together And therefore 't is a m●st impudent position which Mr. Cressy lays down and the Papists are obliged to own That the doctrine of the Church's Infallibility is so evident that the Protestant's are inexcusable and that do not receive it out of thy own mouth will God judge thee O thou unfaithful Servant who hast thus expressed thyself in another place To my understanding there is some inhumanity in urging Protestants to more than Catholics will be obliged to or to think that to Protestants prepossessed with passion and partiality that can be made evident which is so far from being evident to some Catholics that they renounce it Appendix to the Exomologesis ch. 4. num 7. To this might be added as a farther demonstration of the inevidence of this point even to the Romanists themselves those secret checks which they meet with from their own consciences in the assertion of this supposed Infallibility discovered by their haltings and corrections and tergiversations and self-contradictions in explication of this new phaenomenon For however Mr. Cressy mounts this Infallibility so high that it must not yield to Scripture itself yet both himself elsewhere and their other Authors every where are contented with a far lower proportion Bellarmine whom Mr. Cressy rights and approves in his comparison of the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture gives the pre-eminence to Scripture in five several respects See Cressy sect 2. ch. 21. Truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture then in the decisions of the Church Cressy Appendix chap. 5. n. 2. And this Infallibility of the Church though they will not suffer us to call it humane and moral yet they dare not assert it to be Divine but only after a sort and in some manner Divine as the Author of Laua's labyrinth informs us And this Infallibility they farther confess is not in way of immediate revelation or inspiration from God but in the way of argumentation and discourse And here too they are wonderful cautious for it is acknowledged by Bellarmine and Stapleton and subscribed by Mr Cressy That the Church is fallible in the premises but infallible in the conclusion Cressy ubi suprà and sect 2. chap. 32. and Append. chap. 5. In the decisions of the Church the simple conclusion decided is only accounted infallibly true not so the principles upon which it depends or reasons by which it is proved Really these Romish Priests are admirable fellows in all things Admirable Builders Vitruvius himself might learn Architecture from them for they can teach him how to build a solid and durable Edifice upon a rotten foundation Admirable Logicians Aristotle might go to School to them and learn such Lessons as were above his apprehension for it is resolved he must blot out his Axioms Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem and Non debet esse plus in conclus●ne quam in praemissis and Ex falsis nil nise falsum The College of Jesuits at Rome are ready to make good the contrary against him when Plato's great year shall bring him and them together upon the Stage Admirable Divines that have outdone their Lord and Master and in spite of whatsoever is said by him Luk. 6.43 44. will it he please maintain a dispute with him upon this Thesis That a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit and that of thorns men may gather figs and of a Bramb●●bush grapes and this shall be not probably defended but infallibly demonstrated For it were a silly thing to think that they that are infallible Divines should be but fallible Disputants But to return The inevidence of this notion of the Church's Infallibility may sufficiently appear from Mr. Cressy's own expressions which have been observed by others who by the evidence of the Truth was forced to this acknowledgement That Infallibility is an infortunate word that Mr. Chillingworth hath combated it with too great success so that I could wish saith he the word were forgotten or at least laid by whereas all that understand any thing know that it was not the word but the thing which he combated and his arguments were not nominal against the Title but real against the thing itself It is true since this passage was published and taken notice of Mr. ●ressy having doubtless been severely schooled by his Superiors for such a dangerous passage is grown more cautious and hath stretched his wit and I fear his conscience too to palliate his assertion and make an honourable retreat and he honestly acquaints us with his design i. e. being crafty to catch the Protestants with guile Sect. 2. ch. 21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologesis will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty conscience whilst sometimes you shall find him tacitly denying the Church's Infallibility properly so called and contenting himself with great Probability in the room of it at other times you will meet him crying up this Infallibility in express or equivalent terms and in most places having no salvo for himself but this That his assertion and the Protestants disputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility which the Protestants advanced to an higher pitch than ever the Church of Rome did and so fought against an image that themselves had set up which is so notorious a falsehood that if Mr. Cressy's wit and memory and conscience had not all failed him together he could hardly have run into it since all Protestants of any note ever did and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth dispute against the Church's Infallibility only in that sense and degree which Mr. Cressy upon maturest advice in this second Edition hath thought fit to express in these words That God will preserve his Church in all truth so as to secure all believers that she can neither deceive them nor be deceived herself sect 2. chap. 21. Did ever any Protestant that understood himself or the point pretend to more Not Mr. Chillingworth I am sure They all knew and granted that abolute infallibility was God's Prerogative and neither pretended by the Church of Rome nor was that opinion by Protestants fastened upon them The only question was whether God did vouchsafe such infallible guidance to the Church that she could not err in her decrees and decisions This Papists affirmed and Protestants denied and let me add that this Infallibility is as high as was ever ascribed to the Prophets or Apostles and Penmen of the Holy Scripture And although their infallibility be said to be larger or greater extensiuè because in them it reached to all sentences and words and Arguments yet the Romanists themselves cannot say it is higher or greater intensiuè and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decisions decreed by Counsels are in their opinion as infallible as the same are when they are laid down in the Scripture This was the Notion M r Chillingworth combated against with so great success as Cressy confesseth The second Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Church's infallibility I shall take from the impertinency and feebleness of those crutches or reasons wherewith they endeavour to support it I observe the sum and strength of what he hath to say in this point is reducible to five heads The first and great pretence is this Take away Infallibility and you destroy all Authority all Authority that is not Infallible is mere Faction and Rebellion and Authority that reacheth only to the outward appearance or the purse Cressy Appen ch 7. num 2. And elsewhere Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church Ibid c. 5. n. 14. And the assertions of the Church's Authority which are frequent in the Father's Mr Cressy urgeth as if they had been directly leveled at the Church's infallibility Exomolog Sect. 2. chap. 19 Nay so daring is this man in his Argument that not contented with his own pretended satisfaction in it he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland which it is sufficiently known he abhorred viz. that if the Catholic Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches must expire The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme etc. Append. chap. 6. num 9 For Answer I durst appeal to the conscience of this very man but that Apostates in the Faith do at the same time make shipwreck of a good conscience let any Romanist that is not prodigal of his damnation seriously consider the gross falsehood of this bold supposition What! no Authority without Infallibility Belike there is no Authority in the King because no Infallibility He will say Civil Authority is but external But Ecclesiastical reacheth the conscience and commands the belief of the inward man Mr Cressy knew this to be a gratis dictum and justly denied by Protestants and therefore he should have proved it but crude suppositions and imperious dictates do pass among Romanists for solid demonstrations Yet again I would ask Mr Cressy whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Authority over that Church or no If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer If he grant it than Authority may be without Infallibility Again I ask him whether the Pope without a Council have Authority over the Church or no If he deny it 't is at his peril if he affirm it than his Argument is in great jeopardy For Protestants are allowed to disbelieve the Pope's personal Infallibility And he confesseth I gave you his own words before that good Catholics deny it and dispute against it Yet once more When general Counsels have been called to determine the pretensions of Anti-popes' or to depose usurping Popes or when they have had differences with the Popes I demand whether these Counsels had any Authority or no To say they had none or that their Authority was but an airy fantasme I think Mr Cressy will not dare and if they had then either a Council without the Pope is Infallible which most Learned Papists now deny and if Mr Cressy be of another mind let him tell us or Authority may be without Infallibility In a word that the World may see the complexion of an Apostates conscience This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superior over his Convent in every Bishop over his Diocese in ever General over his order and a weighty Authority too as their vassals feel by sad experience yet I hope these are not Infallible E. the more impudent is he that argues f●om Authority to Infallibility A second Argument is much of the same complexion taken from the stile and practise of general Counsels which was to propose their Doctrines as infallible truths and to command all Christians under the pain of Anathema and eternal damnation to believe them for such That Authority which should speak thus not being Infallible would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty and usurpation that ever was in the World Append. chap. 4. n. 9 This hath been fully answered before and therefore I shall here content myself with these two reflections 1. The utmost of this Argument abstracting from the invidious expressions he here clothes it with that it may have in tenor what it wants in strength would be no more than this That general Counsels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own and I hope well may since the Jesuits so great a part and support of the Roman Church have and do acknowledge that general Counsels and their decrees are not infallible until the Pope's consent be added yet such Counsels as is notoriously known have used to put their anathemas to their decrees before the Pope's assent was given And yet forsooth if you will believe a man that hath cast away his Faith this Argument is more evident than we can produce for the Scripture itself for so he saith ibid. 2. These anathemas do not at all prove that such Counsels either were or thought themselves Infallible It is true it is an Argument they thought one of these two things either that the Doctrine proposed by them was Infallibly true as indeed they did or that their Authority was infallibly certain which they never pretended either of these were a sufficient ground for such anathemas and therefore his Argument is infirm proceeding à genere ad speciem animal est E. homo They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematise and do so in case of Excommunication of Heretics Are they therefore infallible If it be said they do it only in pursuance and execution of the decrees of Counsels I Answer If such persons confessedly fallible may Anathematise them that renounce the Doctrines delivered in Counsels because supposed to be Infallibly true why may not the same persons Anathematise them that renounce the Doctrines expressly delivered in Scripture which all grant to be infallibly true Again if we look into the Records of Counsels we shall find that this practice of Anathematising was not only in use in general but also in particular and Provincial Counsels which are confessed to be fallible E. Mr Cressy look to your Arguments and conscience better once more The Pope's Anathemas a●l the World rings of yet you have seen his Infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists and they too such as are universally esteemed good Catholics saith Mr Cressy Append. chap 4. num 7. Therefore how dared he say anathemas are evidences of Infallibility The third Argument is taken from the promises of Infallibility made to this Church This Doctrine of the Church's Infallibility is the most express in Scriptures saith Mr Cressy Sect. 2. chap. 26. n. 5. I suppose he told us so upon the same account that the old Painter wrote under his picture This is a Lion for fear some should have mistaken it for a Bull for truly if he had not said it was most express there any rational man would have sworn the contrary I confess I thought Mr Cressy as well as Mr White and other Traditional Doctors had been sick of those pretences and sufficiently discovered the impertinency of them to their purpose and really when I read over the Scriptures quoted by him to prove this Infallibility and consider how insignificant they are to his business and how plainly and fully and frequently they have been answered by Protestants which he doth not here reply to I must not dissemble that I find a great difficulty to believe his conscience could be satisfied therewith sure I am whilst he was a Protestant if he understood himself he would have entertained such proofs with contempt I dare confidently say that most of the Scripture-allegations produced by the Quakers in defence of their absurd and ridiculous opinions are every whit as pertinent as any that are here cited It is true they are material to that purpose to which they are cited by the Fathers viz. to prove the Church's perpetuity and just Authority but for Infallibility how far the Fathers were from believing that I hope hath been made sufficiently evident from the foregoing Discourse where also particular Answers have been given to their Arguments from these places which when they solidly vindicate it will deserve and shall have our consideration At present I shall content myself with this general animadversion Those scriptural promises pretended for the Church's Infallibility either they do of themselves without the Church's sense and exposition evidently and solidly prove the point they are brought for or they do not if they say they do than other passages of Scripture undoubtedly far more plain and positive for divers doctrines rejected by the Papists do of themselves without the Church's sense and exposition prove those points they are brought for and so Scripture may decide controversies if they say not than the Church's Infallibility must be supposed before it can be proved from those Tex●s which is I confess agreeable to the Roman-Catholick way of Disputation and fit for them that cannot endure reason should be judge but I am sure it will never satisfy any man that hath any care of his conscience or Salvation But I can tell the Reader good news and that which is strange too among Romanists who use to confute Protestants by the mere naming of those Texts that have been substantially vindicated an hundred times Mr Cressy hath one Chapter entitled the Validity of such Texts etc. so it is called but I doubt it was the Printers mistake for invalidity as will appear upon perusal He offers but one Argument for proof of this Capital Assertion upon which all the Papacy depends and it is this The Ancient Fathers do usually Argue against their Heretics and Schismatics from those promises that Christ's Church should continue for ever and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her Now saith he if these promises of Christ be not Infallible and absolute and that Church Visible What then then woe to the poor Fathers than the Writings of these Fathers will prove to be the most foolish impertinent juggling yea blasphemous and pernicious discourses that ever were So Cressy Sect. 2. chap 28. that is to say if we take the notion out of this odious dress they used fallacious Arguments Very good And is this that that satisfied Mr Cressy's conscience O the modesty of the man you see a little thing satisfies him but if he will cheat himself let him not think to cheat us with such ridiculous Arguments 1. The utmost of what would follow is that the Ancient Fathers whose Writings are extant were Fallible and liable to mistakes A Proposition which I have formerly proved and the Popish Doctors themselves agree with us therein I suppose Mr Cressy will not descent 2. If upon every impertinent and unconcluding Argument produced by Fathers Counsels or Popes against supposed Heretics I should make this inference that they were all Jugglers Blasphemers etc. Mr Cressy would think it a very harsh censure When their great Lords and Masters argue at this rate as he knows who did Arise Peter kill and eat and here are two Swords Ergo the Pope hath civil and Spiritual power over all men They that are in the flesh cannot please God E. Priests should not be married God made man after his own Image E. Images are lawful Will Mr Cressy now say these were all Jugglers Blasphemers & c and their Writings the most foolish impertinent pernicious Discourses that ever were either than let Mr Cressy qualify his censure there or apply it here 3. If the Fathers were supposed infallible yet they might use impertinent and unconcluding Arguments You must remember our Masters the Romanists while they assert the infallibility of the Pope and Council they cautiously distinguish between the conclusion and the mediums or Arguments to prove it I will only mind you of him whom they all so highly approve and applaud i e. Stapleton whom Mr Cressy follows and the rest of them who as you saw limits this infallibility to the Conclusion not to the premises or Argument So if the Fathers were infallible as you see and the Papists confess they are not yet this being only in the Conclusion it will not at all secure them from impertinency and error in their Arguments or mediums used to confirm the conclusions which is all that this Discourse of Mr Cr●ssy pretends to prove So now judge whether the Printer was not a knave for sure the Author could not be so since he is a Benedictine to set in the front of this Argument The Validity etc. But you know non omnia possumus omnes Peradventure M r Cressy is a better respondent then opponent and though he cannot at all prove his own assertion yet he will at least solidly Answer his Adversaries But alas here he is so jejune that it moves my pity for when Mr Chillingworth pleaded that these promises were only conditional if Christians should make use of God's means The Church should continue Hereto saith Cressy the answer is very ready Oh the benefit of a ready wit when attended with an easy Conscience 1. There is no warrant from any circumstance in those Texts for such a new interpretation I will not engage in that Argument only I will refer a parallel place to his consideration It is said particularly concerning Jerusalem which never was said concerning Rome I have hallowed this house to put my name therein for ever and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually 1 Kings 9.3 And it is again repeated concerning that house that the Lord had said In jerusalem shall my Name be for ever 2 Chron. 33.4 Then if he have a conscience let him Answer whether there be not as much warrant from these Texts to prove this promise to jerusalem to be infallible and unconditional which they grant it was not as from the other Texts to prove them to be so to the Church of Rome He need not take day to answer it His second Answer is wholly ad hominem and the other you will say was little ad rem That Mr. Chillingworth applies this to future times only not to past or present and therefore it concerns not the dispute in hand about the Roman Catholic Church which all English Protestants acknowledge to be a true Church of Christ Just so they would persuade their Proselytes that all Protestants grant that theirs is a safe way and Salvation to be had ordinarily in the communion of their Church whereas neither the one nor the other are true But what if Protestants do and Mr. Chillingworth did grant their Church to be a true Church doth it therefore follow these Texts were pertinently alleged to prove it or did Mr. Chillingworth say these promises were absolute for time past or present and conditional only for the future no such matter but these are only his own dreams and shufflings who pro more when he cannot answer his Adversary endeavours to blind his Reader I have only one thing more to observe upon that which he tells us Mr. Chillingworth saw it That if there were such promises of Indefectibility none could challenge them but the Roman Church since she only claims them all others lay down their claim But that also is no more solid than the rest for since this promise of Indefectibility is general and indefinite it no more belongs to Rome then to any other particular Church neither have they any more interest in the promise because they boldly claim the Monopoly of it since an Usurpers claim gives him no just Title to the thing Nor have other Churches the less interest in it because their conscience and modesty will not suffer them to appropriate it to themselves for though they extend this promise of Indefectibility to the whole Church yet they reap the comfort and benefit of it in as much as they are true members of that Church and not upon any local or particular consideration There is a fourth argument behind taken from the Tradition or testimony of the present Church but this I have discoursed at large and I hope discovered the folly of that new device thither I refer the Reader A fifth argument there is and that is all I find in Mr. Cressy for I have diligently searched him and God is my witness I have endeavoured to single out the strongest and most plausible passages in him which I had not answered before and that is taken from the Church's Unity One Church th●re cannot be without one faith nor one faith where differences are irreconcilable and no reconciling of differences but by an Authority and that infallible Append. ch. 6. n. 3. And again The Sun shines not more clear I suppose he means in the Cloisters of his Convent then that there is no possible Unity without Authority nor no Christian Unity without an Infallible Authority ch. 7. n. 2. Ans. Very well it being premised That their only infallible Authority is as Mr. Cressy states it the Church speaking by a general Council confirmed by the Pope Appen chap. 4. num 9 then if this argument be solid let Mr. Cressy take what follows Then there was neither one Church nor one Faith for the first 300 years when there was no general Council then when the Pope dies or his Sea is vacant other ways as it oft hath been and when there is no Council as now there is none there is no Unity in the Church of Rome what thinks this man of the Gallican Church which unless they be throughly Jesuited do still hold as they used to do that the Pope personally considered is not infallible but only with a general Council will he justify it in the Assembly of the French Clergy that they have at this day no unity among them and no way to reconcile their differences because they have no infallible Authority But I shall not waste my time any longer with these impertinent and miscalled arguments I shall leave the point with this short Memorandum That it is a plain evidence of the desperateness of their cause that all the great wit and vast learning and deep cunning of the Romish Doctors can furnish them with no better arguments than these And since this is all that Mr. Cressy can pretend for his Apostasy I would entreat him in his next to furnish me with some Answers to those that suspect his Change was not from Conscience but Discontent or Passion or Worldly Interest as affairs than stood for I confess I am at a loss and know not what to say for him and the rather because the pretended motives of his Conversion are so ridiculously absurd and incredible among which I find two that deserve a special remark One is the scandalous personal qualities of Luther and Calvin which if all that he saith of them were true and material as it is either notoriously false or inconsiderable yet it amounts to nothing against the Protestant cause since though we own them for eminent persons and worthy instruments yet we readily acknowledge they were liable to error and subject to passions and infirmities no less than other men nor did we ever make them the pillars and grounds of the Gospel or the foundation and rule of our Faith But that this should occasion his Change I confess is beyond the faith of Miracles to believe This is prodigious That the supposed mistakes or miscarriages of two particular Protestant Doctors should really have greater influence to turn him from the Protestant Religion than the real Blasphemies and abominable filthinesses of their Masters and Pillars of their Faith and Church viz. the Popes should have to alienate him from the Popish Religion and these things not feigned by Adversaries as most of their Calumnies against Luther and Calvin are but acknowledged by their own Authors who have left us a particular account of the several sorts of their villainies so many Blasphemers as john 13. julius' 3. etc. so many Heretics as Boniface 8. john 23. so many Conjurers as Sylvester the second and his Successors for many successions so many Whoremongers so many Sodomites Poisoners Incestuous and what not 150 Popes saith Genebrard rahter Apostatical then Apostolical persons And yet this tender-conscienced man who knew all these things and could bear with all this and a thousand more such infirmities in the Popes was so squeamish that he was not able to endure the scandals of Luther and Calvin And another motive he adds not at all inferior to the former viz. The bloody commotions of the Calvinists and the sanguinary Laws and cruel execution of them upon Catholic Priests in England And this was a great offence to him who was well acquainted with the Massacres of France of Germany and the Low countries and the English too in Popish times who knew the history of the barbarous cruelties of the Inquisition torments who himself had been an eye and ear●witnesse of the inhuman butcheries of above one hundred thousand innocent Protestants in Ireland But all this did not move the good man at all he could swallow Camels but a Gnat hath choked him O Devilish Hypocrisy But God will not be mocked and I hope men that have any sense will not easily be deceived to believe the sincerity of that man's Conversion which is brought on by such ridiculous Motives But to return For a close of this great point I shall leave three things to the consideration of any discreet and conscientitious Reader and particularly of our two English Apostates with whom I am now treating if they have any sense of Eternity or Conscience left 1. That the principal Texts of Scripture and arguments urged by them and others for the infallibility of the Pope and Council together either prove nothing to their purpose or prove more than they would have or dare assert i. e. they prove either the Pope or Council to be infallible by themselves and without any reference to the other and are accordingly pleaded by each party for their opinion As for instance Thou art Peter upon this rock etc. I will give unto thee the keys etc. And Si● money I have prayed that thy Faith fail not and the like If these Texts prove any Infallibility the prove they Infallibility of the Pope or St. Peter's Successor whether with or without a Council So on the other side the Texts of Scripture pleaded for the Infallibility of Counsels from what was said to or of all the Apostles H● that heareth you heareth me It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Where two or three are gathered together I am with you to the end of the world If these Texts prove any Infallibility they prove the Infallibility of all the Governors of the Church and Successors of the Apostles at least when they are assembled together without any special reference to the Pope who is but one of them And because it is sufficiently evident that these places do not prove the infallibility of those of whom they are acknowledged primarily and formally to speak which is so evident that we have thousands of the most learned and resolved Papists consenting to us herein as is before proved it is therefore a strange presumption to pretend these places cogent proofs of the infallibility of them of whom these Texts are confessed not to speak save only by implication and consequently the infallibility of Pope and Council together which is the chief retreat of the most subtle and cautious Papists is destitute of solid proof and an ungrounded assertion 2● If all that these men say were granted that a general Council confirmed by the Pope were the infallible Judge yet since there is now no such thing nor like to be as a general Council in the Church of Rome but the Pope stands upon his own legs therefore the Church of Rome at this day is not infallible and hath no infallible Judge and no way to end their controversies nor any advantage above Protestants therein If they say the Pope hath the assistance and concurrence of general Counsels in their writings and Decrees I answer The infallible Judge which they plead for must according to their principles be a living judge and therefore requires the existence of the Council as well as of the Pope I would ask Mr. Cressy this question Is the Pope infallible in his exposition and application of the Decrees of Counsels or no if he be than the Pope alone is infallible without a Council which himself confesseth is a proposition so harsh that Protestants should not be urged to acknowledge it if he be not than they have no infallible judge at Rome at this time 3. Since the present Romanists have now no Anchorhold but the Pope's Infallibility for general Council there is none and by Mr. Cressy's argument if there be no Infallibility there is no Authority and therefore no Unity and therefore no Faith I shall desire the Reader to reflect upon the character of that person who is so boldly asserted the Supreme Infallible Judge of all controversies in Religion I will not take it from Protestants lest they should be thought partial but as it is drawn by a Papist & he too one non è multis one so eminent for learning and prudence and trustiness that he was employed by the French Bishops to manage that great affair against the Jesuits at Rome it is St. Amour in that famous & known book his Journal concerning the Transactions at● Rome relating to the five Propositions controverted between the Molinists and jansenests where it is left upon Record in perpetuam rei memoriam That when he solicited the Pope Innocent the Tenth to decide that controversy and to that end presented a paper to him desiring him to read it the Pope saith my Author would not receive and read it because he said this would engage him further and oblige him to too great toils as he knew the discussion of this matter required even of such as had applied themselves to that study all their time but much more pains must it cost him than others because said he they are the Popes own words it is not my profession besides that I am old I have never studied Divinity Part. 3. chap. 12. And yet this is the ground and pillar of Truth this is the prime subject of Infallibility the great Judge of all controversies to whom Scripture Reason Spirit all must veil whose Decisions must be taken for the Oracles of God And the same Pope Innocent the Tenth tells this story of a predecessor of his Clement the 8. who saith he after he had caused this matter viz. the question between them jansenists and Jesuits to be debated in his presence for a long time by the most excellent men after he had studied them himself with very great care so that as he remembered some take occasion thereby to say that Clement the 8. began very old to study Divinity yet he could not at last decide any thing therein but was fain to impose a perpetual silence upon both sides This is the man that must infallibly decide all controversies that could not decide this and we forsooth must all venture our souls upon his unerring guidance that is not convinced of it himself and our Papists most impudently assert the Pope's Infallibility who modestly acknowledged his own ignorance and insufficiency These things I hope may abundantly suffice for the demolishing of the grounds of their Faith I must now speak something to the establishing of ours The rather because the Captain requires it in his Answerer not to proceed in the way of Negatives not to rest in pulling down but to assert what we would establish And Mr. Cressy takes notice of Mr. Chillingworth and his book That he was better in pulling down buildings then raising new ones and that he hath managed his Sword much more dexterously than his Buckler and that Protestants do neither own and defend the positive grounds which Chillingworth laid nor provide themselves of any safer Defence Exomolog sect 2. chap. 3. num 4. To which it might suffice in general to reply that if once the grounds of their Faith be demolished and their great pretensions of supreme and infallible Authority subverted if it be proved that neither the Pope nor Counsels nor Church of Rome be infallible theu the Protestant Churches at least stand upon even ground with the Church of Rome and whatsoever they can reasonably pretend for the stablishing of their Faith will tend to the securing of ours and if Protestants have no solid and sufficient foundation for their Belief neither have the Papists any better and then one of these 2 things will follow Either that Scripture Reason and the concurring testimony of former Ages and Churches and Fathers are a firm Basis for a Christians Faith independently upon the church's authority and infallibility and this is a certain Truth though utterly destructive to the church of Rome or else which I tremble to speak and yet these desperate persons are not afraid to assert that the Christian Faith hath no solid ground to rest upon I mean without the Churches infallible Authority which is now supposed to be discarded and disproved Now here it must be confessed that some Protestants express themselves too unwarily in the point whereby they give the Adversary some seeming advantage and occasion to represent our Doctrine to their ignorant and deluded Proselytes as diversified into three or four several and contrary opinions about the judge and rule of Faith which some are said to ascribe to the Scriptures o●●ers to the Spirit of God within them others to reason and others to universals Tradition whereas indeed all these are really agreed and these are not so many several judges or rules but all in their places and orders do happily correspond to the constitution of the Protestant ground of Faith which I shall make thus appear by the help of a threefold distinction 1. We must distinguish between the judge and rule of Faith which the Papists cunningly and some others inconsiderately confound for instance If I should assert the Church to be the Judge or Reason to be the judge yet the Scripture is the rule to which the Judge is tied and from which if it swerve so far forth its sentence is null 2. We must distinguish between Judge and Judge and here we must take notice of a triple Judge according to the triple Court forum coeli forum Ecclesiae forum conscientiae the Court of Heaven the Court of the Church and the Court of Conscience Accordingly there are three Judges 1. The Supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all controversies and that is God and Christ who appropriates it to himself t● be the alone Lawgiver jam. 4.12 And this is so proper to God that the blessed Apostles durst not ascribe it to themselves however their successors are grown more hardy not for that we have dominion over your Faith 2 Cor. ● 24 This judge is Lord over all both in the Church and in the conscience which are all subordinate to him 2. There is an external and political Judge placed by God in the Church and these are the Governors whom Christ hath placed in and over the Church and these are subordinate to the Supreme Judge who if they really contradict His sovereign Sentence and higher Authority and require things evidently contrary to the will of their and our master must give their subjects leave to argue with the Apostle Peter and I tell you it was an unhappy accident that S t Peter should furnish the Protestants with such an Argument as would puzzle all his Successors to Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye Acts 4.19 3. There is an internal and secret Judge placed by God in every particular person and that you may call Reason or Conscience for as God hath made every man a reasonable Creature and capable to judge of his own actions so he hath not given that faculty no more than the rest to be for ever suspended and wrap● in a Napkin but to be duly exercised nor would he have men like bruit beasts that have no understanding but every where calls upon them to Judge I speak to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10 15. And the service God requires of every man must be reasonable service Rom. 12 1. And every man must be ready and able to give a reason of the hope that is in him 1 Pet. 3.15 3. We must distinguish between an instrument and an argument And here lies the Golden mean by which a man may avoid those contrary Heresies both equidistant from the Truth I mean the Socinian on the one hand and the Papist on the other whereof the former would make reason a sovereign universal judge to which even Scripture itself must veil And some go so high that I remember one of them faith If the Scripture should say in express terms That Christ is the most High God I should not believe it because utterly repugnant to reason but seek some other sense of those words And the latter the Romanists would quite put reason out of office and in terminis submit to a blind or implicit obedience without any examination whereas the truth lies between both Reason or Conscience is not an Argument I mean in matters of Faith purely such that is I do not therefore believe such a Doctrine of Faith to be true because my reason or conscience in itself and by virtue of rational and extrascripturall Arguments tells me it is true for this were to make my reason the rule and standard of Truth but my reason or conscience believes such a thing to be true because it reads or hears such Arguments and evidences from the Scripture as are the undoubted of the Truth And thus reason is the instrument by which I apprehend the Argument which compels my belief So again the Spirit of God as in this controversy it is taken for the gifts or graces of a believing Soul or its ordinary suggestions in my mind are not the argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to try 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 God's Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discern 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 compass 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 appears that there is none at least the Pope and Council and Church of Rome is none 2. An external political judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteem The true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Counsels whether lesser or larger are the external judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions we 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 men's consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by men's inward and unknown sentiments but by their external demeanour and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every man's own reason and conscience is judge for himself 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 himself 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 yourselves 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 Council 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 joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dim-sighted 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 rational he is made a Spiritual man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affairs 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spiritual judgeth 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 through a Glass without which a man could not discern many of them So are the aides of God's spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discern things afar 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 Counsels 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 Sovereign Lord and judge by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Universal 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 add 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 sense as the Papists understand it for certain unscriptural Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldness of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weakness of their proofs and evidences we plainly discern they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery itself or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confess 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 Water 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 Water alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the only rule by which our foreign plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tied yea so far tied that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebel against the King they are bound not only 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 whilst from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently run into the same solecism In a word Tradition was not appointed by Christ as a part of that ground upon which we were to build our rule by which we were to try particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith but was necessary not● ex instituto Christi but ex natura rei and from the condition of humane affairs there being no other way without a new revelation possible or imaginable to convey the Gospel and Scriptures to those that were to live so many hundred years after the first publication of it Tradition being to us that which Eyes and Ears were to them that were Eye-witnesses of his convincing miracles and Eare-witnesses of his irrefragable discourses that is neither their Eyes and Ears were nor to us Tradition is the Argument and ground of our Faith but a necessary mean or instrument to convey those Arguments and grounds of Scripture which were convincing and satisfactory 2. This Tradition is no Act of Authority but only of testimony not at all peculiar to the Church or general Counsels but common to all ancient Writers Yea let it be observed as a very material consideration in this point so far is the Capacity of a Church from being necessary to the validity of this Tradition and Testimony concerning the great rule of our Faith the Holy Scriptures that the Testimony and Tradition of such as neither are the Church nor any part of it but enemies to it I mean Jews and Heathens are in some respects more considerable according to that known maxim Testimonium adversarii contra se est validissimum It being one of the best Arguments and at this day so urged both by Protestants and Papists for the truth of the Holy Scriptures and particularly of the Gospel that the truth of those Historical relations of Christ's miracles was acknowledged by the most Learned Jews and Heathens that lived in ancient times And by those considerations we may discern the vanity of that trivial calumny of the great differences among Protestants about the rule of Faith and judge of Controversies whereas by what hath been said which is no other than the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches and Writers however sometimes they seem to differ in modo explicandi it appears how all these several things concur like so many Stones fitly compacted together to make up the building of our Faith which that I may in few words present it to the Readers review is this The Scripture is the Object the only rule and standard of Faith by which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged the res creditae and the ratio cred●ndi Tradition is the Vehicle to convey this rule to us and our times Reason is the instrument by which I apprehend or the eye by which I discern or see this rule The spirit of God is the Eyesalve that anoints mine Eye and enables it to see this rule The Church is the interpreter though not infallible and authentic the witness the guardian of this rule and the applier of the general rules of Scripture to particular cases and times and circumstances And things being thus stated which is really the sense of Protestants in this great point as it were easy to show from the confessors of our Churches and the Treatises of our most and choicest Authors is it not at all difficult to blow away with a breath those pitiful cavils whereby they endeavour to perplex the mind of ignorant or prejudiced persons lest the light of the Gospel should shine into their minds One thing is worth our Observation That divers of the Popish arguments do wholly arise from and depend upon either some in commodious expressions of some Protestant Writers or some false exposition put upon them by the adversaries As for instance when they argue against the Scripture from the nature of a Judge that a Judge must hear parties must not be mute but pass sentence etc. All these and many such cavillations are thus silenced by saying that which is true that it is an and figurative expression when we call Scripture a Judge in as much as it is the voice or writing of our Judge and indeed it is a rule So their Arguments against the judgement of reason either have no weight in them at all or else depend upon a scandalous and untrue suggestion as if the Protestants made reason the Judge in a Socinian sense So their Arguments against the Spirits being judge do proceed I doubt from a wilful mistake for in their Learned Writers it cannot be ignorance as if the Protestants submitted Scripture and reason and all to the judgement of the spirit in themselves in an Enthusiastic notion which is so far from being true that they try and judge of the spirit by the Word according to Apostolical prescription This being premised I come now to treat with my Captain and weigh his Arguments that have any colour or appearance of truth in them And first he argues against reasons being the judge of Controversies Concerning which let me be bold to say thus much That the Papists themselves do make reason judge of Controversies as far as the Protestants do though both the one and other tie up this judge to a rule If it be said the Protestants make the reason of every particular man judge which indeed they do in the sense forementioned and for their own actions so do the Papists make the reason of the Pope or a Council the judge For when they say the Pope or Counsel is the Judge of Controversies I would know what it is in them if not their reason which is the judge as it is their reason which examineth and heareth and considereth so sure it is the same reason which concludeth and judgeth so that the question between the Papists and Protestants is not whether Reason be the judge but whether the reason of particular persons or the reason of the Pope or Council The Arguments which he urgeth against the judgement of reason are so irrational that it is sufficient confutation to mention them 1. Saith he Reason must submit to the Judge E. it is not the Judge Answ. It is true supreme Judge it is not but subordinate and tied to rule Protestants assert no more 2. The Judge must be Infallible but reason is Fallible Ergo Answ The Major is a pitiful petitio principii They that helped him to make his Book will tell him what it means 3. If reason were Judge a man might please God without Faith for reason would teach us sufficiently how to please God Answ: The same Argument will overthrow his Church If the Church be the Judge than a man may please God without faith for the Church teacheth us sufficiently how to please God 4. If Reason be Judge we must not believe what we do not understand Answ: Non sequitur For this Judge is tied up to a Law and rule which commands us to believe what we do not understand But I am sick of such woeful Arguments though the poor Captain hath no better and therefore I will quit that work and come to that which is more material viz. To try whether he hath any better against the Scripture And here also I shall do his cause that right as with him to take into consideration what is said by M r Cressy in his Exomologesis which I am the more willing to do because if the Popish cause have any strength in it and if the Doctrine of the Scripture alone being Judge and rule of Controversies be untrue and indefensible as they pretend it is we may expect the demonstration of it from a man of his wit and learning and experience in the Controversy as having thoroughly considered all pretensions and arguments of both parties and taken in the advice of the most famed Doctors of the Romish Church But I must not dissemble that I was woefully disappointed in the perusal of M r Cressy's piece and whereas I expected something solid and substantial or at least very plausible which I might have some ground in charity to believe might give at least a colour for his change I find little in him worthy of consideration but what hath already received satisfactory Answers Yet because the cause affords no better Arguments I shall briefly consider what he and the Captain and his assistants deliver in this matter That the Scripture is not the only rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies is the Proposition they attempt to prove and their Arguments are those which follow Arg. 1. Scripture cannot be this Judge and Rule because it did not answer its end for they that own this Judge disagree among themselves Everard Epist. p. 33. Scripture doth not reconcile them Thus Cressy by this rule it is impossible that ever Controversies should be ended Sect. 2. chap. 4. n. 1. Answ. Scripture might be as really it was designed instituted and ordained for the ruling of men's Faith and the judging and deciding Controversies though through the depravedness of men this end might not be obtained If this Argument have any weight in it I may upon the same ground argue thus Preaching of the Gospel was not instituted for the salvation of the World because it doth not answer its end but proves to many a favou● of death Or the Law of God was not instituted by God for a rule of life because it doth not obtain its end and men will not be ruled by it In a word let it be observed If this Argument prove any thing it proves what the very Papists deny that the Scripture is not so much as a part of the rule neither of Faith nor manners for still according to the present Argument it doth not Answer its end for there is no one controversy in Faith which Scripture alone decides so as to silence all differences which is the thing pretended necessary to a Judge of Controversies For the further discovery of the impertinency and vanity of this Argument however it is their Goliath which they boast most of I shall offer them this Dilemma relating to that power of ending all differences among Christians which they suppose was necessary for and by Christ committed to the Judge of Controversies Either I say that power is absolute unconditional and effectual and if so there could be no Heresies Schisms or differences in the Christian World which we see is most false or it is a conditional power sufficient of itself for the ending of differences though frustrable and impedible in its effects by the ignorance or perverseness of men which is the real truth And in this sense the Scripture may be judge i. e. there is enough in it said and clearly delivered by which all Controversies might be ended if men would be humble studious and selfdenying and in the former sense the Church of Rome is no judge of Controversies Peradventure it will be said that all men are bound to submit and hearken to all the decrees of the Church of Rome and when they do so submit it is an effectual mean to end all differences In the very same manner and upon far better grounds I say of the Scripture that all are bound to submit and hearken to all its Counsels and decrees and when they do so it will effectually end all Controversies If it be further said that the Church hath a power of coercion to compel dissenters to submit I Answer either that coercion they speak of is spiritual by Church censures & excommunication etc. or civil by corporal penalties death etc. If they understand it of civil coercion that is not at all necessary nor intrinsical to an Ecclesiastical judge of Controversies otherwise the Apostles who had not this civil power Nay Christ himself who denies that he was judge or ruler should not be such a Judge and the Church for the first 300 years had no judge of Controversies Nay the Papists themselves in pretence at least abjudicate this from the Church and refer it wholly to the Civil Power If they speak of a Spiritual coercion than the Scripture hath such a power of inflicting Spiritual penalties upon its violaters and contemners such as obduration and ejection from the presence of God and such excommunication as the other is but a shadow of it And whether they speak of one or other the Protestant Judge of Controversies is not destitute of either advantage If it be remembered that the Protestants own an Ecclesiastical Political Judge whi●h Judge although their modesty will not suffer them to pretend to Infallibility and a power to oblige all people to receive all their decrees though anti-scriptural without enquiry and though they say with the Apostle they have their power for edification not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 and they can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth and though it is their advice to their people which was the counsel of the Apostle to his people 1 Cor. 11.1 Be followers of me even as I also am of Christ Yet they have a power to explain and maintain the Doctrines of the Scripture and they acknowledge a power in the Magistrate by civil sanctions and penalties to suppress and restrain such as shall corrupt the Truth and infect people's souls with the poison of Heretical Doctrines And this may abundantly serve for Answer to their Achilles or principal argument which makes such a noise in the world Arg. 2. Scripture cannot be a perfect rule because some books of Scripture are lost and it is the whole Scripture which is this rule Ans 1. Then Tradition also cannot be a rule for divers Traditions are lost as Cressy confesseth Sect. 1. ch. 8. n. 5. and all the Papists acknowledge Answ. 2. It doth not at all appear that any one of those Books are lost which concerned controversies of Faith or the rule of Life All which to this day hath been proved is this That some Books Written by Holy men and Prophets are lost But it is a vain imagination without the shadow of a proof that all which was written by such men was a part of Canonical or Divine Scripture for we read that the Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost which inspired them not at all times but only when he pleased there being this difference between the spirits inspiration of Christ and all other Holy men that it was in Christ without measure and without difference of time but in the Apostles it was a gift confined to such seasons and proportions as God saw fit for them Is any man so absurd as to think that every letter which a Prophet or Apostle might write about any private affairs was a part of the Sacred Scripture Or if Solomon's Herbal were extant must it needs be admitted into the Canon of the Sacred Scripture Or how can they prove and if they do not prove it this Argument is impertinent that the Histories which joshua or Nathan or Samuel or Gad etc. might or did write concerning the Wars of the Lord or the Civil transactions of the Kingdoms of Israel and judah must needs be a part of the Canon Or did the temporary transient and extraordinary inspirations of the Holy-Gost deprive them of their common gifts and faculties And was the capacity of a Prophet inconsistent with that of an Historian or because Balaam was once inspired must we needs Canonize all that afterwards he spoke if it were extant or because Hannah was once inspired 1 Sam. 2. and Simeon and Elizabeth Luk. 1. did ever any man unless in a dream imagine that all their after Discourses were Canonical Answ. 3. Although fragmenta auri sunt pretiosa the least shreds of Scripture are of inestimable value yet we must distinguish between the essential and integral parts of the rule of Faith every part and parcel of it is a choice blessing for our bene esse and more abundant direction and consolation yet is it not an essential part of the rule of Faith for the far greatest part of those sacred Books is spent in the explication of such general laws and directions as were of themselves sufficient strictè loquendo or the repetition of the same things which man's dulness and backwardness to such things made highly expedient and beneficial The five Books of Moses were sufficient to Salvation before any of the other Books were indicted and the following Writings of the Prophets were but Comments upon them which if by God's providence they had been lost no doubt the first five Books would have been sufficient for Salvation for that state of the Church So when St Matthew had Written his Gospel wherein the Doctrine of the person and office and works of Christ who is the marrow of both Testaments and the sole-sufficient object of saving knowledge joh. 17.3 is clearly revealed and fully proved I do assert and let any of our Adversaries prove the contrary if they can that that had been sufficient for our Salvation And yet it must be acknowledged a wonderful favour from God that he hath so plentifully provided for us and so carefully watched by his Providence for the preservation of the several Books of Scripture that all the wit and learning of Adversaries can only furnish them with two instances of Apostolical Write which they suppose to be lost viz. one Epistle from Laodicea and another to the Corinthians Arg. 3. A rule must be plain and clear but the Scriptures are dark and doubtful and that in things appertaining to Salvation as appears from 2 Pet. 3.16 things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrist to their destruction Now this could not bring destruction if they were not hard in things appertaining to Salvation And here the Captain musters up several necessary Doctrines which he supposeth not to be clearly laid down in Scripture Answ. The Scripture is plain and clear in things necessary to Salvation as hath been abundantly evinced by Protestants out of express Scriptures and consent of Fathers But that belongs to another point and I do not love to mingle distinct questions together therefore to them I shall refer the Reader only I shall take notice of such assaults as he hath made upon this Doctrine For the Text 2 Pet. 3.16 I confess I do not meet with any passage so plausible as this in his whole Book But the solution of the doubt is not difficult If you consider 1. To whom these things are said to be dark even to ignorant unstable ungodly men When Protestant's say Scripture is clear they do not mean it is so to those that are blind or to them that shut their Eyes or have discoloured Eyes and such are they of whom those things are said but unto such as are humble and diligent in the use of means to find out the Truth not only some passages of St Paul but in general all Divine and Spiritual Truths are dark to the natural man and such there is no reason to doubt these were as is positively asserted by the Apostle S. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned and consequently if the Popish argument from this place have any force in it not only some parts of Scripture will be dark but not any part of it will be plain which the most impudent Papist durst never yet assert 2. The wresting of the Scripture in any of its truths or doctrines is so great a sin that it may well be called destructive though the doctrine wrested be not simply necessary to salvation as the disbeliefe and contempt of any Truth or assertion plainly delivered by God is confessed to be damnable though the matter of the assertion be merely circumstantial and not at all in itself necessary to salvation 3. S. Paul's or difficult passages might be wrested to destruction although the matter of them was not necessary to be known or understood in order to Salvation As for instance That passage of St. Paul's All things are lawful for me scil all indifferent things for he there speaks of the use of meats or observation of days This I say is not a fundamental Truth nor is the knowledge of it necessary to Salvation yet when the Libertines do abuse this Scripture to justify themselves in the practice of all wickedness doubtless they wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction Besides the matter of a Text may be of lesser importance and the knowledge thereof not necessary to Salvation and the first and immediate mistake of it may be in itself inconsiderable and yet that may usher in other and those higher mistakes as we see error is fruitful and grows worse and worse and at last end in destruction as that Cloud which at first was no bigger than a man's hand did quickly overcast the whole Heavens The doctrine of Predestination the Papists confess is no fundamental since their own Doctors are divided about it yet if any man from St. Paul's assertions of the efficacy and immutability of Predestination should infer the unnecessariness of Sanctification to Salvation as some have done doubtless this man would wrest the Scriptures to his own destruction But the Captain is not contented with a general imputation of darkness to the Scripture but pretends several Instances of things necessary to Salvation which are not plain and clear in the Scriptures his Instances are these 1 The nature and number of the Sacraments 2 The number of the Canonical Books and that the Scriptures are the word of God 3. The incorruption of the Scripture 4. The understanding the true sense of Scripture which is literal which mystical 5. The number of fundamental points 6. The doctrine of the Trinity and 7. other doctrines concerning the baptising of Infants and women's receiving the Eucharist and the observation of the Lords day and the doctrine which condemns Rebaptization All these saith he are necessary to Salvation and yet Scripture is not plain and clear in them So that here are two assertions and both of them false in most of the Instances and all are false in one of them It pities me to trifle away time in the particular answer of such impertinent allegations did not the weakness of some in believing all that is boldly asserted make it necessary For the 1. The Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of those two Sacraments which Christ hath instituted as the Captain might easily have informed himself if in stead of going to Knot and Fiat Lux etc. he had looked into almost any of our Protestant Systems or common places of Divinity whither I refer the Reader having somewhat else to do then to transcribe common places And for the other 5 Sacraments I cannot say they are delivered in Scripture more clearly than the others but I may say they are less darkly because indeed not delivered there at all being only a fiction of their own of which God may say They never came into my mind For the 2. It is a crude and false assertion which the Captain lays down That it is necessary to salvation to believe all the books of the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to believe nothing to be the word of God which is Apocryphal If the latter part be true woe to the Church of Rome that now is which hath owned those writings for the word of God in the Council of Trent which by the judgement of so many most learned Fathers and grave Counsels and the Church of so many successive ages have ever been held for Apocryphal as no rational man can doubt that shall take the pains to read either of those excellent pieces Raynoldus de libris Apocryphis or Bishop Cousens his Scholastical history of the Canon of the Scripture And if the former part be true than we must damn all those Fathers and Churches who as both Papists and Protestants acknowledge did sometimes doubt of some books now universally received nay farther we must damn all the former ages and Churches and innumerable holy and learned writers and even many of the most famous Papists themselves who did all disown and disbelieve some at least of those Books which if we take the judgement of the Tr●nt Council are and were a part of the word of God The truth is and so it is generally owned by Protestant writers That the belief of those Truths contained in the Scriptures is necessary to Salvation though happily a man through ignorance or error should doubt about some one Book It is necessary that I should believe the history of Christ's life and death but it is not necessary to Salvation simply and absolutely to believe that the Gospel of St. Mark for instance was written by Divine inspiration This may appear from hence because Faith is sufficient for Salvation and faith comes by hearing Rom. 10. as well as by reading now as Faith might be and really was wrought by the hearing of the doctrine and history of Christ when preached by such Ministers as were not divinely inspired so might it be wrought by the reading of such things when written by the very same persons and consequently it was not and is not necessary to the working of Faith and therefore to the procuring of Salvation to believe That St. Marks Gospel was written by Divine inspiration And yet I do not assert this as if I thought that it were not a very great sin especially in and after so much light about it to disbelieve any one book of the Scriptures there being so many evident characters of a Divine inspiration upon the particular books besides the general assertion 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by divine inspiration and other convincing places but only to show That which is a certain and evident Truth it is not simply and absolutely and ex natura rei necessary for every person to believe every particular Book to be the word of God but a serious and practical belief of the Truths contained in those Books may be sufficient to Salvation even where there is an ignorance if not wilful and affected of the Divine Authority of some book or books of Scripture 3. For the Third thing the incorruption of the Scripture I Answer 1. The Scriptures incorruption in substantial and considerable points besides that it is confessed by the learned Papists as I have showed before doth sufficiently appear from itself by the collation of one place of Scripture with another as also by the collation of several copies And one great argument of it may be fetched from that which seems to twhart it viz. the various readings which learned men have observed out of divers copies let any man look into them as he finds them collected in the late Polyglotte Bible and his own eyes shall witness that howsoever the differences of Readins are numerous yet they are not of any moment and indeed the differences in lesser matters are a considerable evidence of the Scriptures uncorruptednesse in greater wherein the copies do wonderfully consent 2 If the Scripture not evidencing its own incorruption hinder its being a rule than neither can the Scripture be so much as a part of our Rule which yet is granted by the most insolent of our Adversaries for so the argument will carry it if there be any strength in it nor was the Decalogue a rule of life to the following generations of the Israelites nor can the old and unrepealed Acts of Parliament be a Rule to England nor yet can Tradition be a Rule to the Papists for the Papists not only confess its insufficiency to evince its own uncorruptednesse but acknowledge its actual corruption in several points as hath been showed before nor can the Decrees of Popes and Counsels be a rule which being writings must needs be liable to the same imperfections and corruptions that the Scriptures because writings are said to be subject to and consequently there is no rule neither for Papists nor Protestants but every one may do that which seems right in his own eyes 4. He pretends it is necessary to Salvation to understand which is the true sense of Scriptures when it is to be taken literally when mystically and this saith he cannot be understood from sole Scripture Ans. Here also both Propositions are remarkably false 1. It is not necessary to Salvation to a Christian to understand the true sense of every Scripture if it were what shall become of those Legions of poor deluded Papists into whose devotion ignorance is so considerable an ingredient who neither understand the se●se nor are permitted to read the words of the Scripture 2. The ●ense of Scripture in fundamental points is clear and intelligible and that from Scripture which is its own best Interprete● And if we consult the best Expositors either Popish or Protestant we shall find they never so well unfold Scepture riddles if I may so speak as when they plow with the Scriptures Heifer Every puny knows the collation of parallel or seemingly repugnant places and the observation of the scope and cohaerence and the like are the best Keys to find out the true sense of the Scripture and sufficient to discover it unless the reader's ignorance or negligence pride or prejudice stand in his way I will take an instance from the Captain himself of those Scriptures which confute the Arrians Joh. 10.30 I and my father are one but saith the Captain the Arrian will say this is meant of Oneness in affection as Joh. 17.21 And here my Captain is gravelled and half made an Arrian and because he could not answer the Arrian he concludes again no body else can But wiser men would have told him That this Arrian gloss is confuted out of the Scriptures both out of the present chapter the Captain and Arrian being more blind than the Jews who understood Christ's meaning better viz. That he made himself God v. 33. and from other places of Scriptures where Christ is expressly called God Joh. 1.1 the true God 1 Joh. 5.20 and thought it no robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2.6 And indeed the Council of Nice as I showed in the foregoing discourse did confute the Arrian Heresy out of the Scriptures they saw no need of going further 5 He allegeth the number of fundamental points which saith he the Scripture determines not Ans. This is most false The Scripture doth sufficiently determine fundamental points I must not here run into another controversy concerning the number of fundamentals This may suffice at present That the Scripture doth not press all Truths with equal vehemency that there are some points wherein the Scripture doth though not approve of yet dispense with differing opinions in Christians such as those were concerning days and meats and ceremonies in Religion and there are other points which it urgeth upon us with highest penalties such as that in Joh. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins To me this is a rule That to which God promiseth or annexeth salvation is surely sufficient for salvation I care not one straw for all the Roman Thunderclaps of Damnation where I have one promise from God for my salvation I am assured by God that to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man Eccles. 12.13 That he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him Act. 10.35 That this is life eternal to know thee to be the only true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17.3 and consequently if I know him and believe in him his person and office and work I may humbly put in my claim for eternal life and have not so much reason to fear their cursing of me knowing that the curse causeless shall not come as they have to fear the curse of God and an addition to their plagues for adding to God's word Rev. 22.18 In a word the fundamentals or substantials of Religion do apparently lie in two things the Law and the Gospel the Scripture tells me that love is the fulfilling of the law Rom. 13.10 that he that loveth Christ shall be loved of his father joh. 14.21 that hereby we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren 1 Joh 3.14 It tells me also That faith in Christ is the fulfilling of the Gospel ye believe in God believe also in me Joh. 14.1 and these things are written that ye might believe that jesus is the Christ the son of God and that believing ye might have life in his name Joh. 20.31 Christ hath ●●sured us it seems he should have asked his Vicar's leave for it He that believeth on me hath everlasting life joh. 3.36 For my part I am not afraid to venture my salvation upon this promise and for Popish comminations and curses I shall only say with the Psalmist Let them curse but bless thou Psal. 109.28 By these things we see the Scripture sufficiently informs us of fundamentals To which I might add the common sense of God's Church and the learned Ministers in all ages it having been acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors both ancient and modern both Popish and Protestant as may be seen at large in Dr. Pottèrs want of charity charged upon Romanists and Mr. Chillingworths' Defence of it That the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed doth contain in it a complete body of the fundamentals of salvation for the Credenda and all the Articles of the Creed are sufficiently evidenced from the Scriptures as I could with great facility demonstrate but I study brevity But you must know the Church of Rome hath another notion of Fundamentals a rare notion I tell you for you shall not find the like either in Scripture or any ancient Author They make the Church's definition the rule of Fundamentals That is a Fundamental Truth and de fide which the Church determines and decrees though never so inconsiderable and that is no Fundamental nor de fide which the Church hath not determined though it be never so material Thus to fast in Lent on Fridays if the Church command it is now become a Fundamental and if any man obstinately refuse it God will assuredly condemn such a person saith an English Apostate Cressy sect 2. ch. 13. n. 2. though he there confesseth it is but an action little more than circumstantial yet on the other side it is no Fundamental to hold That all men except Christ are conceived in sin because the Church forsooth hath not determined the Question of the Blessed Virgin Thus with the Romanists it is a fundamental doctrine to believe that Paul left his Cloak at Troas namely if the Church enjoin you to believe it for there is the knack it is not Fundamental because St. Paul asserts it 2 Tim. 4 13 but because St. Peter's successor or the Church enjoins you to believe it but it is no Fundamental that Christ is God if the Church doth not oblige you to believe it Did I say it was not a Fundamental I do them wrong in not speaking the whole truth for so far are they from owning it for a Fundamental Article that they will not allow it to be an article or object of our Faith without such confirmation and injunction from the Church as I showed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse But this is so gross a cheat and such a groundless imposture wholly destitute of all appearance of proof that it is a vanity to spend time in the confuting of it If any Papist think otherwise let him give us solid proofs That the Pope or Council have such dominion over our Faith That Fundamentals are all at their mercy though me● thinks the very mention of such a conceit is abundant confutation nor can any thing be more absurd then to say That it is no Fundamental to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them them tha● diligently seek him unless the Church's Authority command us to believe it and that it is a Fundamental to believe that which so many of the Ancients did not believe viz. the falsehood of the Millenary opinion or of the admission of departed Saints to the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement because these are determined by the Church And there is nothing which more essentially overthrows the Popish conceit of Fundamentals than the consideration of the Pillar upon which they build it which is the Churches Infallible authority as the Answerer of Bishop Land Discourseth whose great argument is this whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a damnable sin but whosoever refuseth to believe any point sufficiently propounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God this is proved from hence because general Counsels cannot err Where to say nothing of the Major you see this man proves and the Church of Rome hath no better proofs incertum per incertius their notion of Fundamentals from their opinion of Counsels infallibility and the infallibility of Counsels having been abundantly evinced to be but a Chimaerical Imagination I must needs conclude That the foundation being fallen the superstructure needs no strength of argument to pull it down if any desire to see this wild conceit baffled he may find it done in that excellent discourse of Mr. Stingfleets part 1 chap. 2 3 4. For the 6. particular the doctrine of the Trinity it is true that is a real Fundamental but to say that is not clearly proved from the Scripture and for one that pretends he was a Protestant to say thus I confess it is one of those many arguments which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather than to the convictions of his conscience or the evidence of his cause Behold the harmony between Socinianism and Popery Rather than not assert the Church's authority these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands to confess that they cannot be confuted by Scripture But the learned Papists are of another mind in their lucid intervals and some of them as Simglecius have sufficiently overthrown the Socinian Heresy from Scripture evidence however I am sure Protestants have abundantly evinced it Let any man read but those excellent discourses of Placaeus about the Praeexistence of Christ before his birth of the Virgin and his Divinity and he will be of another mind But this shows the Captain was prepared to receive any thing that could so easily believe a proposition which he could not but know from his own experience to be horribly false unless he were shamefully ignorant 7 For the remaining points they split upon the same Rocks with the former for there is none of them but is sufficiently evident from Scripture as hath been fully proved by those who have treated of those matters but I must forbear digressions And besides in the sense he intends he will find it an hard matter to prove their necessity to salvation if he think otherwise let him try his strength And this may satisfy the third argument concerning the Scriptures darkness in things said to be necessary to salvation A fourth argument urged against the Scriptures supremacy is that we have not the Originals but only Copies and Translations and these made by fallible men and therefore it cannot be a certain rule to our Faith This hath been answered in the former Discourse it will suffice therefore briefly to suggest some ●ew things 1 This argument if solid and weighty will prove that no Copies nor Translations can be a Rule to us that only the Original Decalogue which was written by Gods own finger was a Rule to the Jews and consequently that Transcript of it which by God's appointment the Prince had and was obliged to read was no rule to him which how false it is will appear from Deut. 17 18 19 When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein that he may learn to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them By which the Reader will quickly discern what weight is in this part of the Discourse That a Copy cannot be a certain rule for the Prince's rule is but a Copy and the Transcription of that not limited to an infallible hand When Moses of old time was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Act. 15.21 it is to be presumed each of them had not the Original of God's writing yet was it never rejected from being a rule upon that account What rare work would this Notion make in a Kingdom if throughly prosecuted Belike the Captain doth not hold his Statute book a rule to him because it is not the Original And observe the horrible partiality of these men The Decrees of the Pope or Council suppose of Trent are a Rule and a certain one too to our English Papists though they have nothing of them but a Copy and a Translation but the Scripture cannot be a Rule because it is only a Copy and Translation The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers when it is delivered only by a Popish Priest and he confessedly fallible by word of mouth and it ceaseth to be a rule when it is delivered by writing by a fallible hand yet surely the one is but a copy as well as the other though made by divers instruments 2. The copies and Translations of Scripture are a sure and certain rule because they do sufficiently evidence themselves to be the word of God and the same for substance with the Originals The incorruption of the Scriptures in substantial things is sufficiently evinced from the confession of its greatest Adversaries the Papists from the consent of Copies taken by persons of several ages and far distant places and contrary principles from the innumerable multitude of copies every where dispersed and the constant jealousy and watchfulness of so many wise and zealous Christians ready to observe the least considerable corruption and give warning of it and many other considerations All those arguments which are pleaded both by Papists and Protestants for the Divinity of the Scripture they reach to copies and Translations In these as well as in the Original is the majesty of the Style the sublimity of the doctrines the purity of the matter the excellency of the design To these as well as the Originals God hath given so many signal testimonies by the conversion of thousands by frequent and illustrious miracles by the cooperation of his Spirit with them in the hearts of his people and many other arguments which when a Papist is in a good mood and disputing with a Pagan must pass for undeniable demonstrations of the truth of Christianity and the Divinity of the Scriptures And for the differences in Translations either noted by the Papists or confessed by any of the Protestants which the Captain makes a great Flourish with and other Papists make such triumphs at they are so petite and trivial and so little concerning the substance and foundation of Religion or the Scriptures that to me it affords an unquestionable evidence That our Translations are unblameable in fundamental places because all their great wits and learned Doctors to this day could not discover any such mistakes though they have made it their business to find them out But I shall say no more to this argument in this place having in the former part of the Treatise spoken to it A fifth argument is taken from the seeming contradictions which are in Scripture not resolveable by the Scripture Hence saith the Captain Reason conceiveth herself to have this infallible demonstration viz. no one who speaketh two things the one contrary to the other is infallible in speaking but the Scripture so speaketh therefore saith Reason the Scripture is not infallible in speaking Nay he might and should have said the Scripture is not credible in speaking and therefore say I by the virtue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge himself an unreasonable man or an Atheist I tell you it was good hap That in stead of the Catholic Gentleman he did not meet with an Atheist for the arguments which convinced him are indifferently calculated for either Meridian But for all those seeming contradictions the short Answer is this 1. That there are no such places but are capable of convenient reconciliations as hath been already made good by several learned men both Papists and Protestants who have professedly treated of those matters and discovered the vanity of this objection And if it were granted That there are some places which men have not yet hit upon the right way of reconciling them that is no evidence of the impossibility of it since we can give instances in others which in former times were thought as insoluble as any now are which the learning and diligence of after ages hath fully cleared from all semblance of contradiction 2. Those seeming contradictions are either reconci●eable out of Scripture or else are but historical difficulties not at all necessary to salvation The Captain should do ●ell to put the parts of his discourse together and see how they agree because he will not I will do it for him The Proposition which Protestants assert and he attempts to disprove is That the Scripture is a perfect Rule in things necessary to salvation This he disproves by instancing in some insoluble difficulties in matters unnecessary to salvation But we must pardon him it is vitium causae the cause affords no better arguments A sixth argument is this Scripture is no sufficient rule because it is liable to divers and contrary expositions An invincible argument by which a man may dispute all Rules out of the world Probatur The Decalogue is no rule of life or manners for the Pharisees understood it one way Christ another Mat. 5. The Statutes of the Kingdom are no rule for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions The Decrees of Popes and Counsels are no rule because liable to divers and contrary expositions so far that Gratian the compiler of their Canon Law hath one entire Title De Concordantia Discordantium Canonum i. e. concerning the reconciling of disagreeing Canons And there is this remarkable difference between the condition of the Romish and our affairs our differences are in the exposition and accommodation of the rule but Popish differences are in the Text and rule itself since there are amongst them not only divers and contrary expositions of the same Canon which yet is sufficient to take off all their glorying over us and to bring them to our level but indeed there are contrary Texts the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another and one Council to another Pope Steph●n nulls the decrees of Formosus the three next Popes null the decrees of Stephen and re-establish those of ●ormosus Sergius the third comes after and again nulls Formosus his decrees But I will tell you of a greater matter even no less than the Authentical Translation of the Bible S●xthe 5th sets forth one Bible An. 1590. not rashly but deliberately with the advice of his Cardinals the assistance of the most learned men of all the Christian world they are his own words corrects the errors of the Press with his own hand imposeth this upon the whole Church Within 3 years comes Clemens the 8. and he puts forth another Edition not only divers but in several passages directly contrary to it for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves or to Dr. james his Bellum Papale and the Defence of it where he shall find above a thousand differences between them yet Cle●ens suppresseth all other Translations and enjoins this for the one●y Authentic Translation and so it is held to this day The like I might show of Counsels as it were easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Counsels among themselves and yet forsooth the appearance of a contradiction must exauctorate the Scriptures when real contradictions shall not prejudice the Authority of Pope and Council so true it is That some may better steal a horse than others look over the ●edge The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge than it was so in the Apostles days and if so the Authority of the Apostles ceased when they had done writing I Answer 1. The Consequence may very well be denied from the Apostles times to ours The argument is this Scriptures were not the only rule when there were several governor's of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and jointly Ergo it is not the only rule now when there is no person nor persons in the Church but who is proved to be fallible For this is the case at this day unless the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes and in stead of the Pope and Council combined say that the Pope alone is infallible wherein I desire to understand their minds 2. The other Consequence hath not a Dram more of Truth in it for if the Scripture were the sole rule yet did not the Apostolical Authority cease It is no diminution to their Authority to say they had not a power superior to the Scripture or the word of God i. e. That the Servant was not above his Master the Apostles never pretended to such a power but rather carried themselves in all things as became those who professed their subjection to the word of their God and Lord Observe the manner of their proceeding in that great Council Act. 15. still you shall find the Scripture is the rule by which they guide the whole debate and from which they draw their conclusion as none that read that chapter can deny You may observe that an Apostle and he too of so great Authority that he durst reprove St Peter to his face Gal. 2. makes no scruple of circumscribing his own Authority within the limits of God's Word and he repeats it in reimemoriam Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal. 1.8 I know it is said by M r White in his Apology for Tradition that this place makes for Tradition rather than for Scripture and for what the Apostles delivered by word of mouth not what they left in Writing To which the reply is most easy that since the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles either by word or Writing is and must be confessed to be of equal Authority the Council of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis aff●ctu ac reverentia with equal piety and reverence it consequently follows that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior or not subordinate to the one cannot be said with any colour of sense to challenge a Supremacy over the other The Apostles had not so learned Christ as they who arrogate the name of their Successors have The power they claimed was not Autocratoricall and despotical having dominion over the people's Faith and being Lords over God's Heritage but only Ministerial not for destruction but for edification not coordinate but subject unto their Master and his Word The last reason he urgeth is that this opinion of sole Scripture makes every man Judge who take upon them to read and understand the Scripture Answ. 1. If it be meant a private Judge so far as it concerns his own actions It is true and that Judgement as I have showed the Scripture allows and enjoins to private Christians and informs us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgement give up themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers an error common to the Jews of old and the Papists now assuring us this is no excuse nor security to them but if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch Matth. 15.14 2. The Papists themselves however they renounce this principle of every man's being Judge in words and show yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Counsels and the Pope and Church yet in truth they make particular men the Judges for their own actions For instance if we examine the grounds and manner of the Conversion as they miscall it of any man to the Romish Religion take Cressy and the Captain for instances we shall find the Papists that dealt with them made them Judges And when the Captain yields to that great Argument viz. That if he did not turn Catholic he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true was not he himself Judge of the validity of this Argument And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Church's Authority to which they think all should be subject what do they but make themselves Judges of this question upon which all depends whether the Church's Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a man's faith to rest upon So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse I would ask him whether he continues in the Popish communion and belief with reason or without it If he say without reason I shall forbear discoursing with bruit creatures If with reason I demand what it is and here he will enter into a large harangue concerning the necessity of a living and infallible judge for the ending of Controversies and that the Pope or Council is this Judge In this case I say the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principal question upon which all the rest depend viz. whether such a Judge be necessary and whether the Pope or Council be this Judge And certainly as St Paul argues 1 Cor. 6. They that are fit to judge the greater and weightier causes cannot be unfit to judge the smaller matters Thus I have gone over all the Arguments or appearances of reason which the Captain or others for him have collected and what M r Cressy hath pleaded for any of them I shall in the next place proceed to answer what farther Arguments I meet with either in M r Cressy or in that famous or rather infamous piece called rushworth's Dialogues or in M r Whites Apology for Tradition For doubtless si Pergamon dextrâ Def●ndi possent dextrâ hac defensa fuissent And if men of their parts and learning and study in the Controversy can say nothing to purpose against the Scriptures being a perfect rule I shall with greater security acquiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of Writing the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument however it regularly aught to reach the whole Scripture yet is only upon the matter levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament which saith he were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechisms containing an Abridgement of the whole Body of Christian Faith for the whole Church for they were Written only to particular Persons or Congregations without order to communicate them to the whole Church and they were written me●rly occasionally because of some false Doctrines which if those Heretics had not chanced to have broached they had never been Written And therefore surely are very improper for a rule of Faith which must be so true and clear and evident that there can be no rational possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion and for a man to venture his Soul upon This is the sum of that Discourse excepting what he saith of the obscurity of the Scriptures which I have considered before For Answer 1. Since M r Cressy requires it in a rule of Faith that it be so true and clear and so evident that there can be no rational possibility of contradiction or diversity of opinion let him or rather any other disinteressed or unprejudiced person seriously consider what hath been discoursed in the former Treatise and Answer it to his own conscience as he will give his account to God another day whether the Popish rule of Faith be so true and clear and evident etc. as is pretended to be necessary or rather whether it be not so dark and doubtful that it is not only rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds but also disputed and denied by divers of their own great Doctors The question under favour is not this whether our rule be so clear as to admit of no possibility of contradiction for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academics whose great principle was to contradict every thing and be confident of nothing but whether the Popish rule or ours be better whether is more true clear and evident And this one would think should not be very difficult to determine And whether the Protestant rule be so evident that it may satisfy the Conscience and Reason and prudence of any modest humble and diligent enquirer though it may not silence the clamours of every bold caviller since there have been and probably yet are in the World men so absurdly sceptical that they have cavilled against the certainty of this Proposition that two and three make five 2. The occasionality and particularity of those Writings is no impediment to their being a rule though this is a notion the Popish Writers oft mention and vehemently urge upon the simpler sort of men It neither hinders their being a rule nor their being a perfect rule 1. Not the former the Papists themselves being Judges for they acknowledge it to be regula partialis a part of the rule I tell you Christ is exceedingly beholden to them that will acknowledge thus much and allow him any share in the rule of his Church The Council of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no less then to Traditions That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners and to both they allow equal Piety and reverence as I said before Will any man say the law concerning Inheritances delivered Num. 27. was no Law or rule to the Israelites because it was delivered upon the extraordinary occasion of Zelophehads daughters Petition Or that the Law against the Priests drinking of Wine when he was to go into the Tabernacle Levit. 10.9 was no rule to the Priests because delivered peradventure upon the occasion of some intemperance of Nadab and Abihu 2. Nor doth this at all hinder the Scriptures being a perfect rule partly because this Objection concerns only one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolical Epistles But for the Gospels which of themselves are a sufficient rule though the addition of the other is an abundant consolation and a rich mercy Mr Cressy confesseth they were Written upon no special occasion but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and De●th and a sum of the principal points of his Doctrine They are the Author's words and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency and partly because the occasions however casual to men yet were foreseen and foreordained by God to be such as would recurre in all following Ages and partly because the Apostle extends his thoughts and instructions beyond the present occasion upon which or particular person or persons to which he Writes even to following Ages and consequently intended them for rules and directions not only to them but to others yea to all succeeding Christians What else means St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned until the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 which St Paul knew was at a great distance 2 Th●s 2.1 if he did not include his Successors The Books of the Old Testament at least divers of them were written upon special occasion and yet St Paul hath given it under his hand That whatsoever things were Written afore time were Written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and that all those Scriptures are profitable to us for Doctrine reproffe etc. 2 Tim. 3.16 An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a special occasion may be a standing rule And the constant universal practice of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolical Epistles doth unquestionably evince that they judged them however directed to particular persons or Churches yet indeed designed for a rule of the Church in all following Generations That particular occasions have given the rise to such general rules and laws as have been of perpetual force and use no man that knows any thing can be ignorant And that really this was the case and that the Principles Doctrines and Instructions which are laid down by the Apostles in their Epistolary Writings how particular soever the occasion might be that drew them forth are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches needs no proof but the reading of them and a reflection upon the daily practice of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce such documents from them as are singularly useful in whatsoever age or place they live in And this may serve M r Cressy's turn for I meet with nothing else considerable to this point in his Book In the next place I shall consider what Mr Rushworth saith who in the opinion of the Romanists is in his famed Dialogues His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two The first is that which hath been already handled from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible by Copyists and Translators And here he set his wit upon the rack to devise whatever could be said to blast the credit and the Authority of the Scripture Here he tells us of the many hazards doubts and mistakes from multitude of Copies depravations of Heretics the Jews at Tiberias and Greeks elsewhere mistakes of the negligent or ignorant Transcriber multiplicity of Translations equivocation of words which are used in several senses according to the variety of times places and persons the ceasing of these Tongues in which Scripture was Written and the quality of the Hebrew and Greek Tongues He computes how many errors probably might be in the Copies of the Bible we may well allow saith he 336 errors in one Copy which admitted you will find the number of errors in all the Copies made since the Apostles time fifteen or sixteen times as many as there are words in the Bible and so by this account it would be 15 or 16 to one of any particular place that it were not the true Text These are his words Dialog 2. Sect. 5. When I read these and other things of the same tendency I began to reason with myself Are these the Discourses of William Rushworth a Romish Priest Are these the Arguments which must make men Christians or which in their sense is all one Roman Catholics Is this the man that affected the rigour of Mathematical discourse even in his Controversies as we may perceive by this work for so M r White is pleased to tell us Is this the Book that so learned so ingenious a man as M r White must commend to the World as that which was very satisfactory to divers judicious persons Surely it is a mistake these are not rushworth's but Vaninus his Dialogues or it is a newfound remnant of julian the Apostate which some unlucky Heretic hath set out under the name of a Romish Priest May I be so bold as to ask our Holy Mother the Church of Rome Num haec est tunica filii Is this thy son's voice No sure It is some Priest of Apollo bidding defiance to the Christian cause and striving to render the Holy Scriptures contemptible and ridiculous But you see what desperate men will do in a desperate cause rather than not maintain the Papal Authority they will subvert the very foundations of Christianity The Jesuits tell us that in order to the coming of Antichrist Rome shall turn Pagan I am perfectly of their mind and I think the turn is half wrought already Ecce signum for none short of a Pagan could talk at this rate The insolency of the Discourse and confidence of the Disputer and the applauss of his party makes it necessary that I should say something farther by way of Answer The first Answer which alone may silence this impudent Objection is this Either this Argument proves nothing against us or it proves more than the Papists at best such of them as are not quite out of their wits and consciences too would have it let us reflect a little upon the premises and then forecast the Conclusion Take all his discourse for granted that by reason of the many mistakes corruptions doubts difficulties there is nothing but incertitude that it is fifteen to one of any particular place that it is not the true Text that it is as ridiculous to seek the decision of Controversies out of the Bible as to ●ut with a Beetle or to kn●ck with a straw These are the Author's words Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Go say these are faint-hearted fellows if you can Give me those honest souls that tell us plainly what they think of the Scriptures and how little they value them It were an hard case if all the the Church's Adversary's were crafty companions Now say I if these things be true then certainly it was not without cause that the Papist forementioned said that without the Church's Authority the Scriptures were of no more value than Aesop's Fables Their Father Costerus had good reason to say it was a Sheath that would admit any Sword and Pamelius did rightly call it a Nose of Wax If this were true we might throw all our Bibles into the Fire for Controversies cannot be decided thence nor errors detected nor truth evinced there 's nothing there but uncertainty and darkness and consequently our sins cannot be reproved nor duties pressed from the Scripture for the same reason unless these men will say who we see will not stick at small matters that the Copyists or Translators errors did happily hit only upon such places as concercerned Controversies that the Church alone might rule there not at all on such as concern duties and sins But if this be true whence come those high Characters and ample Testimonies which the most learned Papists and their Counsels have given to the Scripture that they acknowledge the Scriptures or Bible and they spoke of that which we have to be the word of God as much to be reverenced as Tradition itself How came Bellarmine to say of those Books of the Prophets and Apostles which we have Nibil notius nihil certius etc. i. e. nothing is more evident nothing more certain than that they are the Word of God and none but a fool can deny them credit de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2. Whence is it that the Papists accuse the Protestants of slander for saying they exauctorate the Scripture How is it that they all pretend the Church may not contradict those very Scriptures which we have In my opinion the Church of Rome was woefully overseen in disputing with the Protestants out of the Scripture or troubling themselves to answer the Scriptures which Protestants brought for Mr Rushworth hath furnished them with one Answer which will serve for an universal Plaster therefore I would advise them thus to Answer once for all when a Protestant argues against merit from that Text When you have done all that you can say you are unprofitable servants Luk. 17.10 Let them say it was the error of the Copist & should have been profitable servants So when it is made a Character of the Apostasy of the latter times forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4.3 It is but saying it was an error of the Copist that put forbidding instead of commanding a familiar mistake at Rome and then I think the Heretics are paid home And so when Christ bids the people Search the Scriptures say the Copist left out the word not it should have been Search not for so Tradition assures us And so in a thousand other cases I need no more than give the hint A word is enough to the wise as doubtless they at Rome are in their generation In short what do these men and such Arguments tend to but debauch the consciences of men and depreciate the Scriptures that if men have not so much grace as to abhor such heathenish discourses it is enough to make the Scripture as insignificant a Writing as the most contemptible Pamphlet that ever the World was pestered with I easily apprehend there is one subterfuge that the Adversaries of the Holy Scriptures will think to make an escape at They will say all this is true there neither is nor would be any thing at all certain or credible or clear in the Scripture and the Sacred Write we now have but for the Infallibility of the Church which from Infallible Tradition receives them and delivers them to us But I Answer 1. Woe to us Christians if all the validity of the Scripture depended upon the Infallibility of the Pope or a Council Is not this a rare piece of intelligence for Heathens and Atheists and scoffers at the Scripture Are not these men worthy pillars of the Christian cause 2. Tradition is not at all concerned in the present dispute nor Infallibility neither For suppose the utmost of what can be or is said by the Romanists in this matter viz. that by Tradition we are Infallibly assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that the several Books reputed Canonical by them are indeed Canonical suppose I say we should take all this for granted what is this to our business Tradition I hope doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copyists committed no errors in Transcribing nor the Translators in Translating Tradition did not infallibly assure Sixtus 5th that his Translation was right for it assured his Successor Clement 8 that it was corrupt in above a thousand places And when those Popes put forth their Translations it sufficiently appears and they confess it they were not guided by inspiration but proceeded in all things more humano by collation of Copies advice of learned men as I mentioned before out of the Popes own words And consequently if all Copies be so corrupt that we can have no certainty from them no more could the Pope and his consultors have from those Copies they used and therefore are liable to the same uncertainties 2. However M r Rushworth pleaseth himself in this Argument as if it were unanswerable and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it there is one plain evidence able to assure any rational man that there is no weight and force in it because although these things have been formerly and frequently objected against the Scripture for M r Rushworth was not the first Antiscripturist yet divers of the most learned and discreet and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church who doubtless were too wise to let slip any real advantage and knew very well how much their cause needed it do utterly reject and deny it and together with us do assert the uncorruptednesse of the Books of Scripture now extant among us as I before proved out of their own words 3. Here is not any one convincing reason to persuade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantial things All that M r Rushworth offers in lieu of those solid Arguments to disprove the Authority and purity of our Bible is a collection of probabilities which witty men can easily multiply upon all occasions to show that errors have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations which no man denies But alas how far short do they fall in proof if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person That which seems to threaten most is the corruption of Heretics and we are told of the Jews at Tiberias who pointed the Bible when enemies to Christ and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text as also of the Greek Heretics I am very willing the cause should be decided by this one point For as it is well argued by the Assertors of the Integrity of the Hebrew Text to whom I refer the Reader such as Buxtorf and Glassius and many others if those Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Bible maliciously to weaken the Christian cause certainly they have done it in those places which are of greatest importance to evince Christianity But this it is notoriously known they have not done since most of the convincing proofs of Christ's being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands And for the Greek and other Heretics it is very true that some of them did attempt the corruption of some few Texts of Scripture but the very attempt made such a noise in the Christian World and the whole Church took such an alarm at it that it was presently discovered and abhorred and they severely censured for it and even Papists confess the Doctors of the Church were so vigilant that there could not be any wilful and material depravation of the Greek Testament and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copyists The Christians of former Ages had such an high opinion of the Scriptures necessity and transcendent excellency that they kept it with all possible care such exact acquaintance and familiar knowledge of the Scripture that they could not but discover the least considerable error such conscientious strictness that they abhorred the least depravation and such jealousy and watchfulness to observe and secure that inestimable treasure that it cannot with any probability be imagined that substantial corruptions should come into the Texts and much less can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration 4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bible's corruption so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption Some I have now mentioned to which may be added the general inconsiderableness of those various lections which Popish Writers triumph so much in the sameness for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of divers Ages and distant places and several languages the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of several other Authors as to material points notwithstanding all the different readings which yet were not read with that diligence and observation nor received with that veneration no● kept with that Religion nor watched with that jealousy nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatenings nor men's own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity and consequently were far more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture To all which may be added that which alone is sufficient even the providence and goodness of God which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for man's conduct to eternal bliss so it gives us just ground for a comfortable and confident expectation that it would preserve them to our use and not suffer these Holy Write to see corruption This is so material a consideration even in the judgement of our Adversaries that it is their principal Argument and urged by them with greatest vehemency and plausibility for the Church's Authority and Infallibility because as they pretend it doth not consist with the providence and goodness of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle and differ only in the application of it whilst they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Council which as you have seen their own Authors are not satisfied in and we urge it for the infallibility and incorruptibility of the Scriptures which all Protestants and divers Papists assert Thus I hope I have fully satisfied that first Argument The other Argument which M r Rushworth suggests is taken from the nature of the Books of Scripture If a law were to be given in Writing it must be thus First the common things must be commanded then by degrees they must descend to particulars still observing that several matters should be under several Chapters or divisions and not one piece here another there and things must be plain and distinct From which it is evident enough that the Scripture was never intended for a Law or judge of Controversies because the Book is so large and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our belief as Historical Epistolar Mystical and so many repetitions and lastly it is left to a mere conjecture what may be the meaning of it Thus Rushworth Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Is this the Mathematical man Is this the rigour of Mathematics This is enough to make a man forswear the study of the Mathematics if it produce no better demonstrations We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Laws of these men for you see they give Laws to God himself and it is already enacted in the conclave of Rome that if God do not speak in Mood and Figure he shall not be heard and that if he put forth any Law-book wherein he doth not rigorously observe the orders and methods of a Systeme it shall not be received Believe me it was a good turn that Mr cowel Writ his Institutiones juris Anglicani wherein he reduced the English Laws to a Method for else woe had been to the poor Statute-Books and all Records of our Laws for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Laws nor Judges of Controversies between men and men for so saith our Theological Euclid that scorns to speak under a Demonstration for we know how much more large a book they make then the Bible and how many things are mingled unappertaining to the substance of our estates and lives etc. The sum of the Argument is this The Scripture was not intended for the Law because it is so large so miscellaneous so full of repetitions etc. Shall I need to say any more for the answer of such an Argument wherein there is nothing evident but the disputers confidence and the Papists credulity and the desperateness of their cause Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jews But this is false and it was a Law to the Jews Ergo the principle is false from which such a conclusion is deduced The Major I prove from his own words and besides he particularly disputes against the Old Testaments being a Law The Minor I hope I shall easily prove Where to prevent equivocation or mistakes take notice I meddle not with the ambiguous term of JUDGE we are now disputing whether it were a Law nor do I meddle with that question whether it be a Law to us But to the Jews This than I assert that the Old Testament notwithstanding this objection was a Law to the Jews and a man would think the very mention of the proposition should cut off all necessity of proof It is so absurd and portentous a thing to Christian ears to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned I prove it only by this Argument That Book by which both people and Priests and Princes of the Jews were to be guided and ruled and commanded in their decisions was certainly a Law to them But such was the Old Testament 1. For the people it is plain They are commanded to observe to do all the Words of this Law that are Written in this Book Deut. 28.58 And Moses makes bold to call it a Law-book notwithstanding all the mixtures repetitions etc. and a curse is pronounced to every one that continued not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 and for the guidance of the people those Books were to be read by or to the people Deut. 31.9 jos. 8.35 Neh. 8. and divers other places 2. For the Princes it is no less evident that it was a Law and rule to them jos. 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is Written therein And Deut. 17.18 19 When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall Write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them Thus it is undeniable it was a Law both to Prince and People and that is sufficient to overthrow the whole argument But I add 3. It was a law to the Priests too I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tied to follow the Priests decisions I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced but my present assertion is only this The books of Scripture were a law to the Priests by which they were to be ordered and regulated in their proceedings The sentence which the Priests were to pronounce it must be the sentence of the Law Deut 17.11 and the Priests are oft censured and condemned for neglecting or transgressing the Law which plainly shows it was the law and rule of their proceedings Ans. 2. But what shall we say if the Papists themselves deny their own Conclusion which here they endeavour tanto molimine to prove You will say we have little reason to believe those that do not believe themselves or to assent to that Conclusion which they deny To make good this you must remember the question is not about the Judge properly so called but about the Rule or Law to which we suppose the Judge to be tied for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisiteness this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuits but there must have been another and that a living Judge of controversies This premised I thus proceed Either they of the Church of Rome have a Law by which they regulate all their Decrees and decisions or they have none if they say they have none than they act lawlessly and arbitrarily and we have found Antichrist by his character or Lawless 2 Thes. 2. but if they say as they all pretend and profess they are guided by a law than I inquire what that law is Here it is true they are divided while some make the judgement of the ancient Church and Fathers their law others the Pope's Decrees others the Acts of Counsels but all of them pretend some law or other and which opinion soever of their Church they take for they have good choice either their argument hath no force against the Scriptures being our Law or it equally militates against their own Laws As for instance if they make the judgement of the Fathers their Law are not they liable to the same exceptions with the Scripture of largeness alien mixtures repetitions & c And the like may be said of Pope's Decretals and the Acts of Counsels which they generally pretend to own as their Law and it is no less true of Tradition of the largeness whereof one may say as was formerly said of Livy Quas mea non totas Bibliotheca capit for according to the estimate which a learned Author of their own makes Charron by name the Scripture is but minima pars veritatis revelatae the least part of revealed Truth He that pleaseth may see good store of them collected by that great terror of the Papists Moulin in a Treatise of his in French concerning Traditions Nay to put all out of doubt these very men that argue at this rate though they do not acquiesce in the Scripture as a Judge yet they do own it for a Law they confess the word of God is their rule and law only they make as I may say this law to consist of two Tables the written and the unwritten Word which you saw the Council of Trent receive with equal piety and reverence Now certainly they that subscribe to this as the Papists generally do they own the Scripture for a Law though not for a complete and sufficient Law nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law divest the Scripture of it any more than the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and statutes that is not at all Much more might be said to show the folly and absurdity of this argument but if I should spend more words about it I should both question my own and too grossly distrust the Readers discretion And now having done with the Mathematics let us come to the Politics the best argument the Church of Rome hath Politic Mr. White who seeing their Scripture arguments in the suds and for the Fathers pila mi● nantia pilis comes in to succour a falling cause with Politic considerations and moral conjectures and finespun probabilities No man can deny that it was politicly done when they saw their Church could prove nothing to assert that her bare saying was sufficient that the testimony of the present Church that she holds nothing but what she hath received from Christ and the Apostles is security enough for a Christian's Faith but this notion I have largely examined and I hope Mr. White will abate something of his confidence in it therefore I have nothing to do here but to consider what he allegeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies and excepting what hath been before discussed I find only one argument that can pretend to merit any consideration and it is delivered by him pro more with great confidence and contempt of his Adversaries When the Protestants ask the question as well they may Cannot the Bible make itself be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle a question which all the wits of the Roman Church not excluding Mr. White were never able to answer and thence infer that the Scripture is sufficiently intelligible and able to decide controversies Mr. White 's answer and argument against the Scriptures is this That this depends upon a most false supposition viz that the Scripture was written of those controversies which now are whereas it is a most shameless proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world beginning from Genesis to the Apocalypse let them name one Book whose Theme is any now controverted Point between Protestants and Catholics Apology for Tradition fifteenth Encounter And consequently the Scripture is no fit Judge for our controversies This you must know is the argument of another Mathematical Papist who cries out of Protestants for resting in probabilities yet can satisfy himself or at least pretends to do so with such absurd and improbable ratiocinations O the power of prejudice or interest for I cannot tell which it is that blinds such men as Mr. White Be of good cheer Protestants the Papists are upon their last legs you see their arguments run very low The Answer is this in short for truly it needs no long nor laborious reply how much soever Mr. White is conceited of it It is not a most shameless but a most shameful proposition to say the Scripture is unable to decide any of those controversies which are since sprung up in the Christian world Is there any Freshman in the University ignorant of this That Rectum est Index sui & obliqui that the assertion of a Truth is sufficient for the confutation of all contrary errors wheresoever or whensover broached I may say to Mr. White as they did to Moses Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men Doth Mr. White think his Readers would have neither wit nor conscience I ask whether those passages of Scripture In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Joh. 1.1 who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 This is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 do not solidly and sufficiently confute the late sprung Socinian Heresy and prove Christ's Divinity and praeexistency before his Incarnation If he say no I will promise him hearty thanks though not from Christ nor peradventure from his Vicar yet from all the Socinians in the world and then he would do well to answer what Placaeus and other of the Protestants or rather as a demonstration of the unity of the Romish Church what Smigl●cius and others of his Brother Romanists have argued from those places or else let him give us the reason why his Brethren should play the knaves and own and urge those things for solid arguments which they did not think so If he say yea then down falls all this goodly structure and Mr. White must seek for a new prop to their declining Babel and Scripture is not unable to decide controversies of a later Date Yet again I will prove Jesus Christ was not of Mr. White 's mind for he thought Scripture yea even such parts of Scripture as were not written upon those Themes or controversies nor designed against those errors able to decide supervening controversies Thus he confutes the Pharisaical opinion about Divorce from a Text well nigh as old as the Creation of the world even the institution of marriage Math. 19.4 5 6. So he confutes the error of the Sadduces against the resurrection from a Scripture long before delivered and such an one too as seemed to have no respect at all to such an Heresy Mat. 22.29 30 31 32. May it please this worthy Gentleman to give us leave without offence to prefer our Saviour's opinion before his I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so senseless a cavil but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Nonsense pass for an Argument I need only advise the Reader to read over the New Testament and if he have either reason or conscience it is impossible he should be of Mr. White 's mind Did not the Apostles decide that controversy Act. 15. from ancient Scriptures and from such places as seem as irrelative to the matter debated as any which are urged by any considerable Protestant against the Popish errors And why then may not we tread in their steps why may not a Protestant as well confute the opinion of Justification by works in the Popish sense from that Scripture we conclude we are justified by Faith without the works of the Law as S. Paul might and did confute the same doctrine when held by the Jews from that passage of david's Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven Rom. 4 If these words long before delivered Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Deut. 6.13 were sufficient to decide the controversy between Christ and the Devil to confute the opinion of Devil-worship why may not the same words as urged by Christ be as sufficient to decide the controversy between the Papists and us to confute the opinion of Image-worship But I am not at leisure to transcribe all the New Testament I cannot think of Mr. White as it is said of many Popish Doctors that he never read over the Bible but I would desire him once more to read it and to put on his Spectacles and then tell me if he be still of the same mind If this will not do let him reflect upon the Fathers whether it was not the universal practice of the Fathers to confute later Heresies out of the Scripture this they did either pertinently or solidly and then it may be done still or impertinently and fallaciously and then Mr. White makes them mere Jugglers In a word as upon supposition that Aristotle was authentic and it were no hard matter out of him to confute all the new opinions of the Modern Philosophers So the Scriptures being confessedly such it may suffice for the confutation of later Heresies Lastly if all this will not serve turn it is to use his own words a shameless proposition to say the Scripture doth not speak of the matters now in controversy between us and the Papists and whoever asserts it either understands not what he saith or must be presumed never to have read any of our Protestant Controvertists who have fully confuted all the Popish errors and heresies from express Scriptures or which is all one from genuine consequences evidently deduced from them Nor doth it matter at all to say the Scripture treats not of the controversies at large since it is by all acknowledged that every part and parcel of Scripture is Canonical and Authentical and the Papists make this the difference between the Divinity of the Scriptures and Conciliary Decrees That these are Divine in the main Conclusion but not in the premises or mediums but the Scripture they say is Divine in all every verse every word being Divine and consequently if but one verse of Scripture speak against an error it doth as solidly though not so fully confute that error as if a whole Book were written against it For instance that Text This is the true God if the sense of the words be agreed and if they be not it would do nothing though an whole Epistle were written about it and so far there is no difference doth as substantially confute the Socinian Heresy in that point as a larger Discourse upon it would do and therefore Mr. White 's argument is empty and inffectual and must go after its fellows And so all their arguments of any note against the Scriptures being Rule or Judge of controversies are I hope sufficiently answered and the Protestant doctrine or Truth of Christ viz. The Scripture is a sufficient rule or judge of controversies stands-like a Rock at which their Waves are dashed in pieces And now I should come to the other part by positive Scriptures and arguments to prove the Scriptures authority and sufficiency but this is fully done by many learned pens only because our principal arguments for it are assaulted by the Adversaries I now have to do with I shall therefore consider their pretensions against the evidence of those places alleged by us in defence of the authority and sufficiency of their Scriptures for I am forced by them against my own desire and inclination to confound found these two heads and treat of them together I know there are several Texts rightly urged by the Protestants and vainly cavilled by the Papists but because the handling of this point was not my first nor is my main design at present and one solid argument or convincing Scripture is as good as a thousand and both parties are upon the matter willing their cause should stand or fall by the verdict of one place as it doth or doth not convincingly prove the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures and because above all places the Romanists most eagerly combat this I shall therefore more largely insist upon it and clear up the force and evidence of it notwithstanding all the clouds they cast before it The place is 2 Tim. 3.15 16. From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to all good works To ingenuous and disinterested persons the very reading of these words is a sufficient confutation of the Popish opinion but that you may see the Romanists have if no conscience yet some wit they are able to darken the clearest Texts and to perplex what they cannot answer Our arguments from this place are plain and cogent 1. That which can make a man wise unto Salvation is sufficient for Salvation 2. That which is sufficient for the conferring of all those things which are necessary to salvation is sufficient for salvation but so is the Scripture For there are but two things necessary to salvation viz. knowledge of the Truth and practice of righteousness and holiness and for both these the Scripture is said to be sufficient 3. That which is sufficient for a man of God or Minister is much more sufficient for a private Christian but so is the Scripture Ergo. But let us see what our Adversaries pretend against this evident place Excep 1 It is able indeed but that is through faith E. it is not of itself sufficient saith our Captain It speaks not of making Timothy a Christian by the Bible since it supposeth Timothy's being already made a Christian by Paul's institutions viuâ voce but it speaks of the perfecting of his faith not the first choice of it and this faith is a belief of Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition saith Mr. Cressy sect 2. cap. 6. And consonantly to him Mr. White thus glosseth upon the place The Scriptures will contribute to thy salvation so that thou understand them according to the faith of jesus Christ which I have orally delivered unto thee Apology for Tradition Sixteenth Encounter Ans. 1. The necessity of Faith is no argument of the Scriptures insufficiency The Scripture is sufficient i. e. in genere objecti in respect of the object or doctrine or revelation and yet Faith is necessary in genere instrumenti as an instrument for it is plain enough the faith he speaks of is the grace not the doctrine of Faith By this argument Scripture and Tradition together were no perfect rule for both will not make a man wise unto salvation otherwise then through faith Ans. 2. It is falsely supposed and can never be proved That the Faith here spoken of is the fides quae creditur or the doctrine of Faith not fides quâ creditur or the grace of Faith and that by Faith are here intended Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from St. Paul or the other Apostles and this Supposition is the Basis of their Answer The contrary sufficiently appears from divers considerations 1. This contradicts the Apostles scope which apparently is to commend the Scriptures as able to make wise to Salvation etc. But this were no commendation at all to say they together with such Christian verities are sufficient for salvation for according to this argument it might be said of any one verse in all the Old Testament what is here said of all the Scriptures viz. That that Verse together with Faith i. e. with the Christian verities delivered by Oral Tradition is sufficient for Salvation which no Papist will deny and therefore that Answer is absurd 2. Timothy's faith here supposed is of the same kind with the Faith of his Mother and Grandmother 2 Tim. 1.5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee which dwelled first in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice Was the faith of his Grandmother too the Christian Verities delivered by Oral Tradition from the Apostles after she was dead 3. It is not said The Scriptures are able with the faith but through the faith not but which plainly shows that this Faith is not another object distinct from the Scriptures but an instrument to apply the Scriptures especially if we consider a parallel place Heb. 4.2 The word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith i e. with the grace of Faith for none can be so senseless as to think they were damned for want of oral Tradition 4. The Faith here spoken of is together with the Scriptures sufficient for salvation and so is the grace of faith But the Dogmatical belief of Christian Verities delivered by Tradition together with the Scriptures is not sufficient for Salvation as the Papists confess E. the grace of Faith is the thing here spoken of 5. The Faith here spoken of is a thing distinct and totally differing from the Scriptures and not at all coincident with them But the Christian Verities or Traditions delivered by the Apostles were not things so different but coincident with the Scripture as evidently appears from Act. 26.22 where S. Paul in terminis professeth he said preached none other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come But I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome know what Paul preached better than himself a plain evidence of their Infallibility Exc. 2. By this argument the Scriptures of the Old Testament for of them he speaks are sufficient for salvation and so the New Testament is not necessary So the Captain p. 29. and Cressy ubi suprà Ans. 1. It is very true the Scriptures of the Old Testament were in those times sufficient for salvation This appears from the place now cited Act. 26.22 compared with Act. 20.27 where S. Paul saith he delivered the whole counsel of God Hence I argue The whole counsel of God was delivered by S. Paul and is sufficient for salvation but all that S. Paul delivered was in Moses and in the Prophets Act. 26.22 If the Old Testament was deficient in any doctrine it was that which the New Testament seems to supply viz. the doctrine of Christ and yet the Old Testament was sufficient to teach Christ for it did both instruct men about the Person and Office and work of the Messias as our Divines do abundantly prove against the Jews to whom I refer the Reader for the proof of it and also did sufficiently prove that Jesus was the Christ as appears undeniably from Act. 18.28 and consequently there was no defect but a sufficiency for that time and condition of affairs even in the old Testament in things necessary to salvation A Third Exception they take against our argument from this place is That it speaks only of perfection after faith but here is no question about the first choice of faith much less is there any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Thus Mr. White 's Apology for Tradition 16. Encounter Ans. Since then all our controversy is about that whether the Scriptures are so convincing it will be worth our while to examine the point for it is not my desire to catch at little advantages but to attaque the Aversary in his strongest Fort. But before I come to the proof let us inquire into the meaning of the Phrase What it is for the Scripture to be convincing in foro contentioso i. e. in way of disputation I take it for granted he is not so absurd as to expect that the scripture should be so convincing as actually to convince and satisfy and silence the most importunate and unreasonable Caviller In that sense the clearest demonstration in the Mathematics is not convincing but without doubt Mr. White takes his Apology and so his Treatise de fide and Mr. rushworth's Dialogues to be convincing Discourses because though they do not actually convince the stubborn Heretics yet they are apta nata to convince them there is so much evidence in them as may and aught to satisfy any understanding unconcerned inquisitive and prudent adversary and in this sense I do assert that the scriptures are convincing in f●ro contentioso which is the great thing Mr. White sticks at I prove it thus 1. The scriptures make a man of God i.e. the Minister as they acknowledge perfect and throughly furnished to every work but this is one of his chief works to convince Gainsayers Ti● 1.9 Ergo scripture furnisheth him with convincing arguments 2. The Scripture is here expressly said to be profitable among other things for Conviction first for doctrine i.e. for the confirmation of Truths then for conviction for so the Greek word more properly signifies then for reproof which is mentioned in the next particular for correction or for resutation of errors But surely Scripture were not profitable for conviction if it be insufficient to attain that end and be unconvincing nay more Scripture is not profitable for doctrine if it only beget conjectures and opinions and doth not give solid and satisfying evidence of its doctrines and if it do evidently assert or prove a Truth it must by consequence as evidently convince and consute the contrary error For example if any Scripture positively assert that Christ is the true God and equal with the Father as the facto it doth doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Heretics who make Christ but a Creature and inferior to the Father Neither let him tell me of their cavils against such places for so Anaxagoras did cavil against those that said Snow was white and gave a reason for it saith Tully because the water of which it had its rise was black yet no man I think will deny that there is convincing evidence even in foro contentioso of its whiteness 3. The Scripture was convincing formerly and therefore it is so still for I do not know that it hath lost any of its virtue Christ proved himself to be the Messias out of the Scriptures in sundry places and I think Mr. White will not deny that all Christ's arguments were convincing So Christ proves his Lordship and Divinity out of the Scriptures and I think convincingly for his Adversaries were not able to answer him a word out of the Psalms Read Mat. 22.42 etc. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jews out of the Scripture and proved as they did out of the scriptures that Jesus whom they crucified was Lord and Christ I would know whether their scripture-proofs were solid and convincing or no if they deny it they make the Apostles deceivers and wresters of the scriptures if they affirm than scripture is convincing Once more we read Act. 18.28 of Apollo's that he mightily convinced the Jews showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ I am ashamed to mention more arguments in so clear a cause and yet we must believe these men against our senses and reason and conscience that the scriptures are not able to convince men in foro contentioso and Mr. White who sometimes writes as if he believed an everlasting state dares hazard it upon such false and frivolous suppositions Excep 4. This word All Scripture must signify either every Scripture as the Original word aught to be rendered and then all Scripture save one Book is useless or all the Scriptures that ever were and then we have them not or all that were then written and then all since written are superfluous or all that we now have Epist. pag. 29.30 Ans. The Text speaks not of every scripture but of all the scriptures that then were As for the word two things are evident enough 1. That it may be taken collectively and the use of the word will warrant it I see the Captain is grown a Grecian therefore I shall desire him to look only into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectiuè not distributiuè Mat. 8.32 the whole herd not every herd and the whole city v. 34. 2. That it must be so taken here our Adversaries being judges for else this confessed inconvenience will follow That any one verse of the Scripture is profitable and sufficient to all these purposes nor doth it at all follow that all the rest are superfluous because not precisely necessary The Pentateuch alone was a sufficient law for the Jews yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous Excep 5. He says not the Scriptures are sufficient but only profitable Cressy Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable for every good work and what is so is undoubtedly sufficient 2. He saith they are profitable so far as to make one wise to salvation and I think that is sufficient 3. He saith they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation which are acknowledged to be only two Faith and Life and they are profitable to both of them 1 for doctrine i. the demonstration of the Truth 2. for conviction or reproof i.e. the consutation of errors 3. for correction i.e. the reproof of sins 4. for instruction in righteousness or the discovery of Duties And what is thus every way profitable cannot with any colour be charged with insufficiency Excep 6. It is a clear case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and applied by a Preacher Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various eulogiums which are here so emphatically given to all the Scripture do as truly belong to any one verse of Scripture By this those two words Dic Ecclesiae Tell the Church are able to make one wise to salvation and furnished to every good work etc. for so they are or may be through God's blessing if explicated and applied by an able preacher So those words Abraham beg at Isa ac are able to all these mentioned purposes viz. if explicated and applied So you see the Church of Rome is grown superlatively orthodox for they who ere while would not allow all the Scripture to be sufficient are now so abundantly satisfied in the point that they allow any one verse in the Bible not excluding Tobit went and his dog followed him to be sufficient This I hope may suffice for the vindication of this Text wherein I have been the larger because it is most plain and impregnable to our purpose and sufficient of itself to decide the whole controversy I shall not concern myself or trouble the Reader with the vindication of other Texts to the same purpose which are many and considerable and with great facility defensible against all the Romish assaults because to him that submits to the authority and self-evidencing light of this Text that labour is superfluous and to him whose Conscience will suffer his wit to quarrel against such forcible and clear expressions and arguments as this Te●t affords it is frustraneous And therefore upon the evidence that hath been delivered I shall take the boldness to conclude That not the Church but the Scripture is the sufficient Rule and Infallible Guide by which we are to be regulated in all things pertaining to Faith or Godliness FINIS