A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 43 – Chapter 44
CHAP. XLIII.
Detect. 34. ANother of their Devices is, to take nothing as Evidence from Scripture, but the Letters or expreſs words.
They will not endure to hear of conſequences, no nor Synonimal expreſſions. Bellarmine himſelf ſaith (de verb. Dei, lib. 3. cap. 3.) [Convenit inter nos & adverſarios, ex ſolo literali ſenſu, peti de bere argumenta efficacia: nam eum ſenſum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur, certum eſt ſenſum eſſe ſpiritus ſancti.] But this may admit a fair interpretation. It was Cardinal Peronius in his Reply againſt King James that is judged the deviſer of this Deceit: but Gonterius and Veronius the Jeſuites have perfected it. I ſhall ſay but little of it, becauſe it is already detected and refelled by Paul Ferrius 1618. and Iſaaccus Chorinus 1623. and Nic. Vedelius 1628. at large. Yea Vedelius ſhews, cap. 6. p. 50. &c. that it was hatcht in Germany by the Lutherans for the defending of Conſubſtantiation, and from them borrowed by the Revolter Perron.
For our parts, the cunning Sophiſters ſhall find us very Reaſonable with them in this point: but if they be faln out with Reaſon it ſelf, there's no way to pleaſe them but by turning bruits. And we will not buy their favour at thoſe rates.
Our judgement in this point, I ſhall lay down diſtinctly, though briefly, as followeth. 1. The Holy Scripture is the Doctrine, Teſtament and Law of Chriſt. And we ſhall add nothing to it, nor take ought from it. The uſe of it as a doctrine, is to inform us of the will of God in the points there written. The uſe of it as a Teſtament, is to ſignifie to us the laſt will of our Lord concerning our duty and Salvation. The uſe of it as a Law, is to appoint us our Duty and Reward, or Puniſhment; and to be the Rule of our obedience, and in a ſort, the Rule by which we ſhall be judged.
2. All Laws are made to Reaſonable creatures, and ſuppoſe the uſe of Reaſon for the underſtanding them. To uſe Reaſon about the Law, is not to add to the Law.
3. The ſubject muſt have this uſe of Reaſon to diſcern the ſence of the Law that he may obey it. And the judge muſt Rationally paſs the ſentence by it.
4. This is the Application of the Law to the fact and perſon: And though the fact and perſon be not in the Law, yet the Application of the Law to the fact and perſon is no addition to it. Otherwiſe to uſe any ſuch thing would be to add to it.
5. As the fact is diſtinct from the Law, ſo muſt the ſentence of the Judge be, which reſults from both.
6. To ſpeak the ſame ſence or thing in equipollent terms, is not to add to the Law in matter or ſence.
7. Yet we maintain the Scripture ſufficiency in ſuo genere, in terms and ſence: So that we ſhall confeſs that equipollent words are only Holy Scripture as to ſence, but not as to the terms.
8. But there is no Law but may many wayes be broken, and no Doctrine but may be divers wayes oppoſed. And therefore though we yield that nothing but the expreſs words of God are the Scripture, for terms and ſence, yet many thouſand words may be againſt Scripture, that be not there expreſly forbidden in terms.
9. The Law of Nature is Gods Law, and the Light of Nature is his Revelation. And therefore that which the Light of Nature ſeeth immediately in Nature, or that which it ſeeth from Scripture and Nature compared together, and ſoundly concludeth from theſe premiſes, is truly a revelation from God.
10. The Concluſion followeth the more debile of the Premiſes, in point of evidence or certainty to us. Where Scripture is the more debile, there the concluſion is of Scripture faith: but where the fact or Propoſition from the Light of Nature is more debile, there the concluſion is of Natural Evidence: But in both, of Divine diſcovery. For there is no Truth and Light but from God the Father of Lights. This is our judgement herein.
Now for the Papiſts, you may ſee their folly thus; 1. If nothing but the bare words of a Law may be heard in Tryals, then all Laws in the world are void and vain. For the ſubjects be not all named in them; nor the fact-named: And what then have witneſſes, and jurors, and judges to do? The Promiſe ſaith, He that believeth ſhall be ſaved: But it doth not ſay that Bellarmine or Veronius believeth: Doth it follow, that therefore they may make no uſe of it for the comforting of their ſouls in the hopes of Salvation: The Threatning ſaith, that he that believeth not is condemned: But it ſaith not that ſuch or ſuch a man believeth not: ſhould they not therefore fear the threatning?
2. By this trick they would condemn Chriſt himſelf alſo, as adding to the Law in judgement. He will ſay to them, I was hungry and ye fed me not, &c. But where ſaid the Scripture ſo, that ſuch or ſuch a man fed not Chriſt? It needs not: Chriſt knows the fact without the Scripture. The Scripture is ſufficient to its own uſe, to be Rule of Obedience and Judgement: but it is not ſufficient to every other uſe which it was never made for. The Law ſaid to Cain, Thou ſhalt not murder. But it ſaid not to him, Thou haſt killed thy brother, therefore thou ſhalt die. It was the Judges part to deliver this.
3. By this trick they would give a man leave to vent any Blaſphemy, or do any villany, changing but the name. But they ſhall find that the Law intended not bare words, but by words to ſignifie things: And if they do the things prohibited, or hold the opinions condemned, what ever names or words they cloath them with, they ſhall feel the puniſhment.
4. By this they would leave almoſt nothing provable by the Scripture, ſeeing a Papiſt or Heretick may put the ſame into other terms, and then call for the Proof of that. For example, they may ask where God commandeth or inſtituteth any one of the Sacraments in Scripture? And when we tell them where Baptiſm and the Lords Supper were inſtituted, they may reply, that there is no mention of Sacraments; and ſo turn real Controverſies into verbal.
5. Yea it ſeems by this they would make all Tranſlations to be of little uſe. And a man might lawfully ſin in Engliſh, becauſe God for bad it only in Hebrew and Greek.
6. If this be the way of it, let us remember that they muſt in Reaſon ſtand to their own Rules. Let them tell us then what Scripture ſaith, that Peter was the Vicar of Chriſt, or the Head of the Catholick Church: or the Biſhop of Rome, or that the Pope is his Succeſſor, or that the Pope is the Vice-chriſt, or Univerſal Biſhop. Where is there expreſs Scripture for any of this? Yea ſo much as Bellarmines Literal ſenſe.
7. And why do not theſe blind and partial men ſee, that the ſame courſe alſo muſt be taken with their own Laws? And that all their Decretals and Canons are inſufficient, according to theſe Rules. It's eaſie for any Heretick to form up his Error into other words then thoſe condemned by Pope or Council: And if you go again to the Pope, and get him to condemn thoſe new expreſſions, the men in Mexico may uſe them long to the detriment of the ſouls of men, before the damnatory ſentence be brought to them. And when it comes, they can again word their Hereſie anew. The Janſeniſts in France ſhew how well the Popes deciſion of wordy Controverſies is underſtood, and doth avail. But really if they will hold that no part of the Popes Laws oblige but in the literal ſenſe, or that none offend that violate not the Letter, they will make a great alteration in their affairs. And perphaps any of their ſubjects may Blaſpheme the Pope himſelf in French, Dutch, Iriſh, Engliſh, Slavonian, &c. becauſe he forbids it only in Latine; For if Tranſlations be not Gods Word, then they are not the Popes word neither. A pretty crochet for a Jeſuite. It is mendacium, and not a Lye, that the Pope forbids. It is ſaid that a Traytor or Murderer may be hang'd: but it is not ſaid that ſuch or ſuch a man ſhall be hang'd; or that he was a traytor or murderer.
Their common inſtance is, [The Scripture no where calls it ſelf the whole word of God; nor no where tells us which be Canonical Books, &c. and yet theſe are Articles of Faith.] Anſw. 1. The Scripture doth call it ſelf the Word of God, and ſignifie its own ſufficiency, and ſeveral Books have particular teſtimonies to be Canonical. 2. Though ſecondarily ſo far as Scripture affirmeth its own Divinity, it be to be beleived: yet Primarily, that this is Gods Word, and that theſe are the Books, and that they are not corrupted, and that they are all, &c. are points of knowledge antecedent in order of nature to Divine Belief of them. There are two great Foundations antecedent to the Matter of Divine Faith. The one is Gods veracity; that God cannot lie: The other is, His Revelations; that This is Gods Word: The firſt is the Formal Object of Faith: The ſecond is a Neceſſary Medium between the formal object and the ſubject; ſine quo non, without which there is no poſſibility of Believing. The Material object called the Articles of Faith, preſuppoſe both theſe, as points of Knowledge, proved to us by their proper evidence. And that this is All the Word of God, is a meer Conſequence, from the actual Tradition of this much and no more.
To give you an undenyable illuſtration by inſtance. Let us enquire which be the Adminiſtring Laws of this Common-wealth. And we ſhall find that 1. The Authority of the Law-givers is none of them, for that is in the Conſtitution, before the Adminiſtration; and it is the formale objectum of every Law, which is more noble then the Material object: 2. And the Promulgation of theſe Laws, is not it ſelf a Law; but a neceſſary Medium, ſine quo non, to the actual obligation of the Law. 3. And that there is no other Laws but theſe, is not a Law; but a point known by the non-promulgation of more. 4. And that all theſe Laws are the ſame that they pretend to be, and that they are not changed or depraved ſince, this is not a Law neither, but a Truth to be proved by Common Reaſon, from the Evidences that may be brought from Records, Practiſe, and abundance more.
So is it in our Caſe. 1. That God is True, and the Soveraign Rector, is firſt a point to be known by evidence; the one being the formal object of Faith, and the other the formal object of obedience: and eaſily proved by Natural Light, before we come to Scripture. 2. And that this is Gods Revelation, or Promulgation of his Law, is a point alſo firſt to be proved by Reaſon, not before we ſee the Book or hear the Word, but out of the Book or Doctrine it ſelf, (propria luce) together with the full Hiſtorical Evidence, and many other reaſons, which in order of Nature lie before our Obligation fide divina to believe. So that this is not Primarily an Article of Faith, but ſomewhat higher, as being the Neceſſary Medium of our believing. 3. And that there is no other Law, or Faith, is not Primarily a Law or Article of Faith, but a Truth proved by the Non-Revelation or Promulgation of any other to the world. He that will prove us obliged to believe more, muſt prove the valid Promulgation or Revelation of more. 4. And that theſe Books are the ſame, and not corrupted, is not directly and primarily an Article of Faith, but an Hiſtorical verity to be proved as aboveſaid. And yet ſecondarily, Scripture is a witneſs to all or moſt of theſe, and ſo they are de fide. But of this I refer the Reader for fuller ſatisfaction to my Preface before my ſecond Part of the Saints Reſt.
And thus it is manifeſt, that it is an unreaſonable demand of the Papiſts to call for expreſs Scripture, for theſe that are not Articles of Faith in proper ſence.
CHAP. XLIV.
Detect. 35. ONE of their Practical Deceits conſiſteth in the chooſing of ſuch perſons to diſpute with, againſt whom they find that they have ſome notable advantage.
1. Commonly they deal with women and ignorant people in ſecret, who they know are not able to gainſay their falſeſt, ſillieſt reaſonings.
2. If they deal with a Miniſter, it is uſually with one that hath ſome at leaſt of theſe diſadvantages. 1. Either with ſome young or weak unſtudyed man, that is not verſt in their way of Controverſie. 2. Or one that is not of ſo voluble and plauſible a tongue as others. For they know how much the tonguing and toning of the matter doth take with the common people. 3. Or with one that hath a diſcontented people, that bear him ſome ill will, and are ready to hearken to any one that contradicteth him. 4. Or elſe with one that hath fixt upon ſome unwarrantable notions, and is like to deal with them upon terms that will not hold. And if they ſee one hole in a mans way of arguings, they will turn all the brunt of the Contention upon that, as if the diſcovery of his peculiar Error or weakneſs were the Confutation of his Cauſe. And none give them greater advantage here, then thoſe that run into ſome contrary extream. They think to be Orthodox by going as far from Popery as the furtheſt; About many notions in the matter of Juſtification, Certainty of Salvation, the nature of Faith, the uſe of Works, &c. they will be ſure to go with the furtheſt. And a Jeſuite will deſire no better ſport, then to have the baiting of one that holds any ſuch opinion, as he knows himſelf eaſily able to diſgrace. One unſound Opinion or Argument is a great diſadvantage to the moſt learned Diſputant. Moſt of all the inſultings and ſucceſs of the Papiſts, is from ſome ſuch unſound paſſages that they pick up from ſome Writers of our own (as I ſaid before.) And they ſet all thoſe together, and tell the world that This is the Proteſtant Religion. Juſt as if I ſhould give the Deſcription of a Nobleman from all the blemiſhes that ever I ſaw in any Nobleman. As if I have ſeen one crook-backt, another blind, another lame, another dumb, another deaf, another a whoremonger, another a drunkard, &c. I ſhould ſay, that A Nobleman is a whoremonger, and drunkard, &c. that hath neither eyes, nor ears, nor limbs to bear him, &c. So deal they by Proteſtants; And what a Character could we give of Papiſts on theſe terms?
But I would intreat all the Miniſters of Chriſt to take heed of giving them any ſuch advantage. By over-doing, and running too far into contrary extreams, you will ſooner advantage them, and give them the day, then the weakeſt Diſputants that ſtand on ſafer grounds. Inconſiderate heat, and ſelf-conceitedneſs, and making a faction of Religion, is it that carryeth many into extreams: when Judgement, and Charity, and Experience, are all for Moderation, and ſtanding on ſafe ground. A Davenant, a Lud. Crocius, a Camero, a Dallaeus, &c. will more ſucceſsfully confute an Arminian, then a Maccovius, a—ſo it is here. The world ſees in the Anſwer of Knot, what an advantage Chillingworth had by his Principles; when the Jeſuite having little but the reproachful ſlander of a Socinian name and cauſe to anſwer with, hath loſt the day, and ſhewed the world how little can be ſaid for Popery.