To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
§. 1. HAppily they will fay of us, as Ierome did of Lactantius, that he could facilius aliena de∣struere, quam stabiline sua, that we can more easily overthrow the foundation of their Faith, then make our
own good: I shall therefore (though it be besides my present designe, which is onely to undeceive the World in that great cheat of Infallibility) in few words enquire whether the Protestants have not a better and more solid foundation of their Faith, then the Papists have: And this I shall shew onely by one Argument.
The Popish foundation of faith is such, as many of their own great Doctours are unsatisfied in, (There being no foundation laid by any of them, but it is both denied, and disproved by others, no lesse eminent of their own communion, as I have proved at large and such as is un∣animously opposed by all Protestants and solidly dispro∣ved) But the Protestant foundation of Faith is such as all Protestant Churches (of what denomination soever) are agreed in, yea such as diverse of our most learned Ad∣versaries acknowledge to be solid and sufficient. You will say if you can prove this, the controversy will be at an end, and if I do not, let the Reader Judge. There are but three things that need proof. 1. That the Books of Scripture (which Protestants build their Faith upon) are, and may be proved to be the word of God. 2. That in the substantials of Faith, these Books are uncorrupted. 3: That the sence of Scripture may be sufficiently under∣stood in necessary points.
§. 2. For the first: That the Protestants Bible is, and may be proved to be the word of God: It is true, when they meet with any of our Novices they use to put this perplexing question (as they call it) to them, How know you Scripture to be the word of God? what matters it how I know it, seeing they acknowledg it, and by gran∣ting the thing make their question superfluous? But I Answer, I know it even by the Confession of our Ad∣versaries: So they acknowledge and own the verity and solidity of our foundation, and the testimony of an ad∣versary against himself is undeniabe: It may be of good
use here a little to compare the several discourses of lear∣ned 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 im∣possible to know the Scripture to be the word of God, but by the Churches Testimony. But if you take them in their lucid intervals, and their disputes against Atheists, or Heathens, then you shall have them in another tune: then Bellarmine can say, Nothing is more evid••nt, and more certain then the Sacred Scriptures, so that he must needs be a very fool that denies faith to them (a). Here he can fur∣nish us with several arguments to prove the authority of the Scripture (distinct from, and independent upon the Churches authority,) the verity of Prophecies, harmony of writers, works of Providence, glory of Miracles, con∣sent of Nations, &c. Either then these arguments do so∣lidly prove the Divine authority of the Scriptures, or they do not: if they do not, then Bellarmine is a Baffler to use fallacious arguments, and a Lyar too, having said, nothing is more evident, nothing more certain: if they do, then the Scriptures may be evidenced to be the word of God with∣out the Churches Testimony, which they so boldly deny at other times. The like might I shew out of Gregory de Valentia, who musters up diverse convincing arguments, whereby even Heathens may be satisfied, that the Scrip∣ture is the word of God, without the aid of the Churches authority (b). And the like is done by several of their learned and approved Authors: from which it plainly ap∣pears, That the foundation of Christianity and Protestan∣cy is one and the same, and that we have the same argu∣ments
and evidences for the ground of our Faith as Pro∣testants, (viz. for the Divine authority of the Scriptures, independently upon the Churches testimony) which we have as Christians; and that the Papists cannot say nor do any thing towards the subversion of the Faith of the Re∣formed Churches herein, but at the same time, and by the same art and arguments, they must oppugne the Chri∣stian cause, and acknowledg it untenable against a subtle Pagan or Atheist. And I desire the Reader to consider, that this is not an answer or argument ad hominem, which I now insist upon, but fetched from the nature of the thing, & the verity of the Christian Religion. And for what they pretend, That without the Churches Testimony we can∣not know that S. Mathews Gospel was written by him, and so the rest: they shall take an Answer of a very eminent and approved Author of their own, Melchior Canus: It is not much material to the Catholick Faith, that any book was written by this ••r that Author, so long as the Spirit of God is b••lieved to be the Author of it: which Gregory learn∣edly delivers, and explaines; For it matters not with what pen the King writes his Letter, if it be true that he writ it (a).
§ 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 quick∣ly find them generally to be in matters of lesse moment, and such upon which Salvation doth not depend. But because the examination of this would be a tedious work,
I shall save my self and Reader the labour, and shall prove it in general (as at first I proposed) from the con∣fession of the Papists themselves, who condemn the rash∣nesse of those of their own Brethren, (which out of a preposterous respect to the vulgar Translation, assert the malitious co••ruption of the Hebrew Text,) and positive∣ly maintain the incorruption of the Bible in matters of importance. Of this opinion are, among the Papists, Bel∣larmine, Arias M••ntanus, Driedo, Bannes, Tena, Acosta, Lorinus, and diverse others: If you please, we will hear the fore-man of the Jury speak for the rest. I confesse (saith he) that the Scriptures are not altogether pure, they have some errors in them; but they are not of such moment, that the Scripture is defective in things that belong to faith and mann••rs. 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). To whom I shall adde the ac∣knowledgment of a late Author S. Clara, whose words are these: Consid••ring a moral thing morally, it is altoge∣ther impossible, that the Books of the New Testament were or are consi••erably adulterated (b). 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 re∣mains in doubt) concerning the sense of Scripture. My as∣sertion
is this: A Protestant hath or may have a suffici∣ent assurance of understanding the sense of Scripture in things necessary to salvation. This I shall briefly prove by this argument: God's promise is sufficient assurance, (the Papists do not pretend an higher assurance for their Churches Infallibility,) but a protestant is, or may be assured of this by God's promise, as appears from Joh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. Protestants have the assurance of Reason, and whatever the Papists talk, they have no o∣ther. It is true, they talk of several things, Fathers, Coun∣cels, Tradition, Motives of Credibility, &c. but in these, and all other arguments, both Papists and Protestants a∣gree in this, that when they go to settle and satisfie their consciences, though they hear many things, yet reason weighs them all, and rejects what it judgeth false, and holds fast what it esteemeth true and good: if that will not do, they have the assurance of the Spirit, which God hath promised to those that ask it, Luk. 11.13. and this is as much as the Church her self pretends. In a word, to strike the businesse dead, you shall see the perspicuity and evidence of the Scriptures, in things necessary to sal∣vation, acknowledged by our Adversaries, from whom the force of Truth extorted these confessions: That part of Scripture is plain and evident, which conteins the first and chief principles of things to be believed, and the principal rules of living: so Sixtus Senensis (a). We deny not, that the chief articles of faith, which are necessary to salvation to all Christians, are plainly enough comprehended in the wri∣tings of the Apostles: so Costerus (b). And Salmeron,
having said, that all Doctrines and Traditions are to be examined by Scripture, he saith, The Scripture is so fra∣med 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 sta∣blish truths, to instil vertue, to expel vice (a). And Hierony∣mus ab Oleastro saith, We are to praise God for it, that those things which are necessary to salvation, he hath made easy (b). 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 suffici∣ent, our adversaries themselves being Judges.
§ 5. Onely I must remove one block out of the way. Peradventure they will say, that if all these things be true, concerning the word of God in its own language, yet there is one notorious defect in the groundwork of the Protestants Faith, viz. That they build it upon the credit of a Translation, made by persons confessedly fallible. This, because they make such a noise with it amongst ig∣norant and injudicious persons, (however to men of un∣derstanding it is but an impertinent discourse) it will be convenient to say something to it, and but a little. To this then I Answer 1. The Papists cannot in reason charge us with that fault, of which themselves are equally guilty; nor can they accuse our Faith of that infirmity, to which their own is no lesse obnoxious: for the generality of un∣learned Papists in the world have nothing but a Transla∣tion, or, which is worse, a meer Report, for the founda∣tion
of their Faith. If their suppositions were admitted, that the Pope or Councel is the infallible Judge of con∣troversies, and that their Decrees are of undoubted ve∣rity, yet forasmuch as it is the lot of very few Papists to be eye or ear-witnesses of them, they are forced to re∣ceive the rules of their Faith, (i.e. the Decrees of Popes or Councels) either from the meer reports of such men, whom they acknowledge fallible, (unlesse they will (as in∣deed they may upon as good grounds, having once fallen into the humor of inventing) devise Infallible Nuntios, as well as an Infallible Judge) or at best, if they be trans∣mitted 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 con∣sequently 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 Popes 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 mo∣ment, that no man can doubt of it, that is not within one remove of madnesse: and this is such a certainty, as the Papists have no reason to quarrel with. It is the obser∣vation of a grave Author of their own, Those things are certain amongst men, which cannot be denied without per∣verseness and folly (a). And again, Such things as are de∣livered by common consent of histories, it is a most foolish
thing either to deny them, or doubt of them (a). Now to apply this. A man may have as great an humane assu∣rance as is possible of the verity of our Translations, by the collation of differing Translations, made by several persons in diverse times and places, and they too in se∣veral languages, and sometimes by men of opposite prin∣ciples 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 successe: by the ridiculousnesse and impertinency of Po∣pish exceptions against our Translations, (as may be seen in the discourses between Dr. Fulk and Greg••ry Martin upon that Subject) being in the grosse so inconsiderable, that if all were granted they desire, we need nothing else to confute them but their own Doway Bible, or Rhemish Testament: and several other wayes. In a word, the Pa∣pists themselves have not so good security for that, upon which all their Religion and Infallibility depends, viz. whe∣ther 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 a∣nother mans intentions?) or if there was any Symony in his election to the Popedome, (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 acti∣ons done by him afterward: so till they have better for∣tified their own Faith, I am sure they haue no reason to quarrel with ours.
§ 7. 2. There is more then a moral assurance, even a Divine Faith of the verity of that Scripture which is contained in our Translations. For whereas, amongst o∣ther arguments alledged 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 Gre∣gory de Valentia saith, I know not whether it be a greater argument for the Scriptures then all the rest, yea then mira∣cles, confession of adversaries &c) (a). Now the power of these arguments is not confined to the original langua∣ges, but common to true Translations: for it is not the shell of the words, but the kernell of the matter which commends it self to the consciences of men, and that is the same in all languages. The Scripture in English, no lesse then in Hebrew or Greek, displayes its lustre, and exerts itspower, and discovers the characters of its Di∣vine original. The most unlearned Christians do ordina∣rily feel such a supernatural force in the Scriptures, (though conveighed to them onely in a Translation,) they find in themselves, and observe in others such a sharp∣nesse and energy, in oft times convincing the proudest sinners, converting the most profligate wretches, com∣forting the most distressed consciences, that it forceth them to say, Non vox hominem sonat, God is in this Scri∣pture of a truth. When a man finds the Law of God in English, converting the soul, and enlightning 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 then any two-edged sword, pier∣cing even to the dividing as under of soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and in∣tents of the heart: (which was S. Paul's argument Heb. 12.)
and so I might instance in diverse 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 conveighed to them in the Glasse 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 one∣ly concerns some particular persons, viz. such as are ig∣norant of, and unlearned in the original languages. So the defect lies in the persons, not in the cause, not in the ground-work 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 Fountaine, 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 conside∣ration 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 unty it, (though it may seem a little heterogeneous to my present design.)
§ 10. 1 They have no reason to object this circle to us, that they cannot free themselves from. I speak not now of the other famous circle of the Church and Scrip∣ture,
(which their most learned Authors of late have in∣genuously confessed,) but here is another Circle: The Papists have Circulum in Circulo. For they professe a man cannot know the Church, but by the Spirit, nor the Spirit but by the Church. That a man cannot know the Spirit, nor the mind of the Spirit, nor distinguish it from false and counterfeit ones, but by the Church, is their great principle: He cannot know it (say they) by the Scripture, unlesse he read it with the Churches spectacles; Revelation they do not pretend to, therefore this is known onely by the Church, (to whom the discerning of Spirits belongs,) and by others onely from the Churches authority, and infallible testimony. But that is a clear case: the onely doubt lies about the other branch, viz. That a man (according to their principles) cannot know the Church but by the Spirit: and that you shall have un∣der the hands of their great Masters. Stapleton's words are these: This secret testimony is altogether necessary, that a man may believe the Churches judgment and testimony a∣bout the approbation of the Scriptures, neither will Faith follow without this inward testimony of the Spirit of God, al∣though the Church attest, commend, publish, approve the Scripture a thousand times over (a). So Canus▪ tels us, that Humane authority, and other mo••ives, are not sufficient in∣ducements 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). What can be more plain? let them an∣swer
themselves, and that will serve our turn. Either they must leave themselves in the Circle, or help us out. Iam sumus ergo pares. And it is unreasonable, that they should urge that as a peculiar inconvenience of our Reso∣lution of Faith, to which their own is no lesse obnoxious.
§ 11. 2. It is false, that we have no other way to prove the Scripture to be the word of God, but the Spi∣rits internal Testimony. They cannot be ignorant, that we have diverse arguments of another nature, and inde∣pendent upon that Testimony of the Spirit, by which the authority of Scripture is solidly proved. And Papists as well as Protestants have substantially defended the cause of the Scriptures against Pagans and Atheists. Either those arguments are solid, rational, and convincing, or they are not: if they say, they are not; then, Be it known to all men by these presents, that the Assertors of Popery are the Betrayers of Christianity: If they be, then is the Scripture proved other wayes, then by the Spirits testi∣mony. How can our Adversaries vindicate themselves, either from shameful Ignorance, if they do not know; or abominable malice, if they wittingly bely us, that we have no argument to prove the Scripture, but the Testi∣mony 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 Mat∣ter, 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 testimo∣ny of Jewes and Heathens to the truth of Scripture-rela∣tions, the verity of predictions, and the like, as solid ar∣guments now, as they were in the Primitive times, when the Fathers confounded the learnedest Pagans by these and such like arguments? If they be, (as they must affirm, unlesse they will turn perfect Pagans, as they are in the half way to it already,) then their Assertion is false, That
we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scripture, but by the Spirits Testimony; and the Circle, which they impute to us is indeed in their own Brain, and their Argument is the fruit of their Vertigo.
§ 12. 3. Here is no Circle, because, although the Spirit and Scripture do mutually prove one another, yet they do it in diverso genere, in diverse wayes, and several capacities: but a Circle is, when a man proceeds ab eodem ad idem codem modo cognitum, when a mans knowledg pro∣ceeds from the fame thing to the same thing in the same way. But in this case, though the thing be the same, yet the way of knowledg varies, and that breaks the Circle. The Scripture proves the Spirit, per modum objecti & argumenti, objectively, and by way of argument, by suggesting such truths to me, from which I may collect the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 in∣fused into the soul, whereby I am enabled to apprehend such verities as are contained in the Scripture. The Pa∣pists indeed cannot get out of their Circle of Church and Scripture, because each of them is the argument by which they prove the other: the argument, nay the onely argument (say they) for which I believe the Scripture, is the authority of the Church, testifying it: and the argu∣ment, for which they believe the Church, is the authori∣ty of the Scripture. And here the Circle is so grosse and evident, that it is acknowledged by diverse of their own late learned Authors. Holden confesseth in expresse terms, that they who resolve their Faith in this manner, (and so do almost all the learned Papists in the world) do unavoidably fall into a Circle (a). So the late Answe∣rer
of Bishop Lawd confesseth, it is a vitious Circle to prove Scripture from the Churches Tradition, and the Chur∣ches Tradition from Scripture (a), (as they generally do, some few Excentrical spirits excepted:) nor can he get out of it, but by returning to that Vomit, which his for∣mer Masters had discharged themselves from, viz. to prove Infallibility by miracles, and the motives of credi∣bility. But in our case it is quite otherwise, for the Spi∣rit works ut instrumentum, by way of Instrument; the Scripture, ut argumentum, by way of Argument. It were an absurd aspersion to call this a Circle, if any man should say: I believe the Sun to be bigger then the Earth, because my reason tels me it is so, and I believe my rea∣son saith true, because Mathematical arguments convince me it must needs be so. That which frees this discourse from the Circle, is, that the Mathematicks prove it, ut ar∣gumentum, Reason proves it ut iustrumentum: and the same may be said in the present case. I shall farther il∣lustrate this by a similitude or two: It is here, as when a man, through the infirmity of his eye, apprehends a thing to be lesse then it is. There are three wayes, whereby this man may be convinced of his error: 1. By argu∣ments taken from the thing it self. 2. By bringing the object nearer to the eye, (which was at too great a di∣stance) whereby it appears in its due proportion. 3. By curing the infirmity of the eye. Thus the Physitian, that removes the distemper of the eye, and restores it to its native strength and vigor, 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 Physitian; not by an elucidation of the object by arguments, but by the eleva∣tion
of the faculty, or by anointing the eyes with eye∣salve, 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 impress'd upon it, nea∣rer unto us, and writes it in the heart according to Gods 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 de∣fence of some Position, (as suppose the doctrine of the circulation of the Bloud,) possibly his mind may be dis∣composed, and his braines by reason of some peccant humor much distemper'd, and in this case he reads the book, but is not at all satisfied by it: afterwards, Physical means are applyed, whereby the brain is restored to its native constitution, and purged from those distempers, whereby it was clouded: now he returns to the book a∣gain, and reads it over anew, and yields himselve captive to the opinion. You see here is no change of the old ar∣guments, nor any addition of new ones; onely the impe∣diments which were in the faculty, or the organ, are re∣moved. 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 illumi∣nation 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 open'd her eyes, vers. 19. There is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures, onely the Spirit of God cures that blindness of mind, whereby the Devil hin∣dred the world from discerning it. Thus the Spirit con∣vinced the Jews of the Truth of the Gospel by removing the vaile, 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 argu∣ments to them, then he did to the reprobates among
them, for the same doctrine and arguments were preach∣ed 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 onely the Instrument by which they believe; and on the contrary, the Testi∣mony of Scripture is the proper argument for which they believe, it is most evident, that they work in several ca∣pacities, and so we are fully discharged from that Circle, which they causlesly charge us with, and notwithstan∣ding this objection, the foundation of our Faith standeth sure. This is the first particular.
§ 13. The other particular concernes the Popish foun∣dation: for some of the Romanists finding themselves so wofully intangled 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 forgot∣ten, or at least laid by: these therefore tell us, that if the Infallibility of the Church be denied, yet a Papist hath suf∣ficient ground for his Faith in the Churches 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 wretchednesse of their cause forceth them to. But be∣cause the absurdity of this new fancy doth suâ luce con∣stare, 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 our selves 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 Councel: the good man had forgot the definition of the Councel of Basil, wherein they call it a pernitious er∣ror, to say, that a Councel can erre: (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 Infallibili∣ty, though it be the same thing. Nor do the Papists onely assert the Infallibility of their Church, but generally ac∣knowledge, 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 ma∣ny instances in one, in that forementioned passage of the Councel of Basil, That if once that pernitious error were admitted, that general Councels may erre, the whole Catho∣lick Faith would t••tter (a). And Bellarmine in a fore∣quoted passage confesseth, That it is a most unreasonable thing to require Christians to be finally subject to the judg∣ment of that Church which is liable to error (b). And there∣fore I need not cast away pretious 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 Councel.
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 it self, and the conse∣quence is agreeable to reason; the onely fault lies in the Antecedent. But he that saith, I am bound to believe the Church in all things, though she may erre in many things, (and none knows how many,) throws himself and me u∣pon such desperate Rocks, as none but a mad-man would run upon. When Bellarmine delivers that desperate do∣ctrine, 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 mollifie the harshnesse of those as∣sertions with this favourable construction, That the Pro∣positions are onely Hypothetical, depending upon such conditions, as by reason of the promise of Infallibility, can never be fulfilled, for (say they) the Pope cannot com∣mand 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 erre, yet I am bound to believe & obey them in all things, this is to make that my Duty, which God hath threatned 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 evill good, and good evill, that put darknesse for light, and light for darknesse, 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 un∣der an obligation of offending God by making him a lyar, 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 Calfe: nay more, That the Jewes 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 inevita∣bly follow from that wild assertion, that Madnesse it self, unlesse in its highest Paroxysme, could not equal it: and when the Authors of it come to themselves, or return to the judgment of their own Church, or when their Church comes over to their opinion, and layes aside their bold pre∣tences to Infallibility, they may expect a farther Answer.
But since I wrot 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 re∣bukes 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 mis-understood, and that he never meant to deny Infallibility to the Church, save onely in the most rigorous sense that the Terme could import, and therefore he roundly asserts, That the Church can neither deceive believers that follow her, nor be deceived her self. Exo∣molog. 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 withall 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 boldnesse to conclude, That the Faith of a Papist, if he keep to his own principles, hath no Foun∣dation, or is not built upon the Rock, but meerly upon the Sand, or (in the Prophet's language) they have forsa∣ken (the Scriptures,) the fountain of living water, to hew out unto themselves broken Cisterns, that can hold no water.
At sacris Scripturis, quae continentur in Propheticis & Aposto∣licis literis nihil est notius, nihil certius, ut stultissimum esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem habendam esse neget. De verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2.
Analys. fidei lib. 1. c. 3.
Deinde librum esse hujus aut illius Scriptoris non admodum in∣terest Catholicae fidei, dummodo Spiritus sanctus author esse credatur. Quod Gregorius eruditē tradit & explicat: nec enim refert, quâ pennâ Rex Epistolam scripserit, si verè scripsit. de locis Theolog: lib. 2. c. 11, p. 75.
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. Plerum{que} enim tota discrepantia variarum lectionum in dic••io∣nibus quibusdam posita est, quae sensum aut parum aut nibil mutant. De verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. versùs fi••em.
Rem moralem, moraliter consideran••o, planè impossibile est li∣bros proesertim Novi Testamenti suisse vel esse notabiliter adulteratos. System. fidei c. 11. in. 8.
Illam Scripturae partem apertam & dilucidam esse, qu•• prim•• summaque verum credendarum principia ac praecipua vivendi praecept•• complectit••r. Biblioth. sanct. lib. 6. Annot. 151.
Non inficiamur praecpua illa fidei Capita, quae omnibus Christi∣anis cognita sunt ad salutem necessaria, perspicuè satis esse Apostolicis scriptis comprehensa, in Enchirid. p. 48.
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.
Gratificandum Deo valdê, quòd, quae sunt necessaria ad salutem, facilia fecit, super Deut. 30.
Certa apud homines ea sunt, quae negari sine pervicaciâ & stul∣titiâ non possunt. Canus loc. com. lib. 11. de humanae historiae authoritate c. ••. p. 468.
Plurima sunt ejusmodi, quae communi historicorum consensione traduntur. Haec non modo negare, sed in his etiam addubitare, stultissinum ••st. ibid.
Anal. fidei lib. 1. c. 20.
Arcanum hoc testimonium necessarium prorsus est, ut quis Ec∣clesiae 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.
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.
In Circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur, & in orbem tur∣pissimè saltantes &c. Holden de resolut. fidei lib. 1. c. 9.
Lawd's Labyrinth. ch. 5.
In Responsione Synodali.
lib. 2. de Concil, motor. c. 3.