Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 2
Article. 2. The learned Proteſtants are infidels.
Anſwere.
The title is only of the learned, & of them al; the proofe of the vnlearned alſo, but of them only, that are in England.
Whoſoeuer buildeth his faith vponupon his owne priuate, and ſingular A.expoſition of ſcripture is an infidell.
But all Proteſtants in England build their faith vponupon their owne priuate expoſition of ſcripture: Ergo, all the proteſtants of England are Infidels.
The Maior cannot be denied; becauſe faith muſt beB. C. infallible, and impoſſible to be either erroneous, or chaungeable. But faith which is builded vponupon priuate expoſition of ſcripture, is ſubiect to errour and chaunge; and conſequently, vponupon better aduiſe and conſideration, may be altered.
The Minor I proue; for either they build their faith vponuponD. their owne priuate opinion, in expounding of ſcripture, the expoſition of the church, the Fathers, or councels, but not vponupon theſe three, ergo vponupon their owne priuate expoſition.
Some Proteſtants allow the fathers, & their expoſitions, ſo farre forth, as they agree with Gods word, and no further:E. but this is nothing els, but to delude the world, for what meane they when they ſay they will allow them ſo far …orth as they agree with the ſcriptures? meane they perhaps, that if the fathers bring ſcriptures to proue any point of religiō now in controuerſie, to allow that point as true? if ſo, why then reiect they aAuguſt. lib. de cura agenda pro mortuis.Saint Auguſtine and other fathers, who bring ſcripture to proue praier for the dead? yea and all cō trouerſies almoſt in religion, the fathers proue by ſcriptures, when they diſpute vponupon them.
Or perhaps they meane to admit the fathers, when they alleage ſcripture, but ſuch, as eueryevery proteſtant ſhall allow of,F. ſo it be conformable to their fancies, and fit their new coined Goſpell: and, in this ſenſe, who ſeeth not, that eueryevery paltry companion will make himſelfe not only the true Expoſitor of chriſts word: but alſo will preferre his expoſition, before all ancient fathers, when they daunce not after his pipe, and conſent not with his hereſies.
Proteſtant.
Firſt vponupon your propoſition, thus I concludeA.
Whoſoeuer builds his faith vponupon his owne priuate and ſingular expoſition of ſcripture, is an Infidell
But the Pope builds his faith vponupon his owne priuate, and ſingular expoſition of ſcripture.
Therefore the Pope is an Infidell.
Secondly I anſwere to your Syllogiſme.
The Maior, (you ſay) cannot be denied; And I ſay it cannot be proued; vnleſſe you can ſhew, either that no priuate, and ſingular expoſition of ſcripture can be true, or that a man is therefore an Infidell, becauſe hee buildeth his faith vponupon a priuate and ſingular expoſition, though it bee true. For, I take it, you will not wrangle with mee, becauſe I ſpeake generally of a priuate and ſingular expoſition. The reaſon of your miſlike being, not that a man ſhould take his owne expoſition, but that he ſhould ground vponupon any priuate and ſingular expoſition. Indeed no man is an Infidell, that builds his faith vponupon a true expoſition of Scripture, whether it be publick, or priuate, becauſe the truth of beleefe, depends not vponupon the publicknes of an expoſition, but vponupon the ſoundneſſe thereof.
If faith (ſaith he) must be infallible, and impoſſible to be eyther Proofe of the propoſition.erroneous or changeable, and faith built vponupon priuate expoſition be ſubiect to error, and change; Then he, that builds his faith vponupon his owne priuate expoſition, is an Infidell.
But faith must be infallible, and impoſſible to be erroneous, or changeable: And faith built vponupon priuate expoſition is ſubiect to error and change.
Therefore he, that builds his faith vponupon his owne priuate expoſition, is an Infidell.
His reaſon may be diuerſly concluded, but I hauehave takenC. the ſhorteſt courſe, and yet I hauehave ſet downe the full force of it; which indeed is in the later part of the Aſſumption (viz.) That faith built vponupon priuate expoſition is ſubiect to errour, and change.
No faith built vponupon a true expoſition of Scripture, thoughTo the aſſumption. neuer ſo priuate, is ſubiect to error, or change. For truth is, in its nature, vnchangeable, and voide of error; and we diſpute now, not of the euent, whereby it may, and doth come to paſſe, that true doctrine is changed, but of the nature of that …octrine, which is true. I am ſure no Papiſt will deny, but a true Catholique in profeſſion, may become an heretick, yea an Apoſtata, as Iul…n did; and yet that faith of his, which he forſooke, was true, and vnchangeable.
But all Proteſtants in England (ſaith he) build their faith Principall Aſſūption.vponupon their owne priuate expoſition of Scripture.
Then belike not vponupon Luther, Caluin, Beza, &c. as ſometimeD. To the aſſumption. you charge vsus: vponupon whom indeed we build not, but only vpō the true expoſition of the Scriptures, being examined according to thoſe places, & points, which naturall reaſon, enlightned by the ſpirit of God, cānot but acknowledge
In which reſpect the Popiſh interpreters, do ordinarily refuſe former expoſitions, and deliuer their owne opinions, ſubmitted to the iudgement of the Church, which no Proteſtant euer miſliked, ſo they take not Antichrist for Christ.
But what is it you call priuate expoſition? doe we leaue eueryevery man to his owne fancie, in expounding the ſcriptures? How can that be, when as we hauehave certaine rules, according vntounto which all expoſitions muſt be framed. The Analogie of faith, conference of like places, examining the originals, with diuers other, and namely, the conſent of former diuines; to which though we may not tie our ſelues, becauſe they might, and hauehave erred: yet we allow no man libertie to refuſe their interpretations, but onelyonly where euident reaſon, taken from the Scriptures themſelues, neceſſarily requires it. Indeed we thinke it vnreaſonable, that a man ſhould, hand ouer head, receiue whatſoeuer is deliuered vntounto him, vponupon the credit of1. Ioa. 4. 1. men; eſpecially ſince we hauehave a charge giuen vsus, to trie the ſpirits, and meanes appointed vsus, for the tryall.
Not onelyonly ſome, but all learned Proteſtants; for ought IE. know, or (I thinke) he can prooue, allow the Fathers, and their expoſitions, ſo farre forth, as they agree with Gods word. And do any Papiſts allow them further? If they do, they allow falſe expoſitions of Scripture. For ſuch are all, that agree not with the word of God.
But how can we be ſayd to delude the world, when we profeſſe that we allow them no farther, then they agree with Gods word, and meane as we profeſſe? yet it is not our meaning to allow eueryevery point, that ſome of the Fathers endeuour to prooue by Scripture. Neither will any Papiſt, that knowes the writings of the Fathers, giuegive them ſuch allowance. Nay it is ordinary with them in their controuerſies, to acknowledge, that diuers texts brought by the Fathers in maine points of religiō, are not rightly alleaged. Looke what they proue by ſcriptures, that we gladly receiue, not becauſe they ſay it, but becauſe the truth of God approueth it.
But then, we make our ſelues iudges of the Fathers writings. If we doe, there is more reaſon that eueryevery man ſhould be made a iudge of a mans writing, then any man of Gods. But we do not; for we deſire not to hauehave any interpretation of Scripture allowed of, contrary to the expoſition of the Fathers; but (as I ſaid before) where euident reaſon taken from the Scriptures themſelues doth neceſſarily require it: As for our priuate expoſition, it is nothing elſe but a perſwaſion, that eueryevery man muſt hauehave of the interpretation deliuered, according to the courſe of Scriptures generally, and particularly to the context of the place expounded. Which to deny Chriſtians, is to bring them into ſlauerie, not obedience, to depriue them of the ſpirit of God, yea more, to ſpoile them of all vſe of reaſon, by which enlightened by the holy Ghoſt, the truth of God may be, and is to be diſcerned.