The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Appendix (2 of 2)

The Nullity of the Romish Faith · Appendix (2 of 2)

p. 51Answ. 3. Although fragmenta auri sunt pretiosa the least shreds of Scripture are of inestimable value, yet we must distinguish between the essentiall and integrall parts of the rule of Faith, every part and parcell of it is a choice blessing for our bene esse and more abundant direction and consolation, yet is it not an essentiall part of the rule of Faith, for the farre greatest part of those sacred Books is spent in the explication of such general lawes and directions as were of themselves sufficient strictè loquendo, or the repetition of the same things which mans dulnesse and backwardnesse to such things made highly expedient and beneficiall: The five Books of Moses were sufficient to Salvation before any of the other Books were indited, and the following Writings of the Prophets were but Comments upon them, which if by Gods 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 VVritten his Gospell 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 Ioh. 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 wonderfull favour from God that he hath so plentifully provided for us, and so carefully watched by his Providence p. 52for the preservation of the severall Books of Scripture, that all the wit and learning of Adversaries can only furnish them with two instances of Apostolicall VVritings which they suppose to be lost viz. one Epistle from Laodicea, and another to the Corinthians.

Arg. 3. A rule must be plaine and cleare, but the Scriptures are darke and doubtfull, and that in things appertaining to Salvation, as appeares from 2 Pet. 3.16. —things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their destruction: Now this could not bring destruction, if they were not hard in things appertaining to Salvation: And here the Captaine musters up severall necessary Doctrines which he supposeth not to be clearly laid down in Scripture.

Answ. The Scripture is plaine and cleare in things necessary to Salvation, as hath been abundantly evinced by Protestants out of expresse 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 referre the Reader, onelyonly I shall take notice of such assaults as he hath made upon this Doctrine.

For the Text 2 Pet. 3.16: I confesse 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 darke even to ignorant, unstable, ungodly men: VVhen Protestants say Scripture is cleare, they do not meane 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 onelyonly some passages of St Paul but in generall all Divine and Spirituall Truths are darke to the naturall man (and such there is no reason to doubt these were) as is positively p. 53asserted by the Apostle S. Paul, 1 Cor. 2.14. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse 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 onelyonly some parts of Scripture will be dark, but not any part of it will be plaine, 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 meerly circumstantial, and not at all in it self necessary to salvation.

3. S. Paul's foreign, 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. Pauls, All things are lawful for me, (scil. all indifferent things; for he there speaks of the use of meats, or observation of dayes,) This, I say is not a fundamental Truth, nor is the knowledg of it necessary to Salvation, yet when the Libertines do abuse this Scripture, to justify themselves in the practice of all wickednesse, doubtlesse 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 it self 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 then a mans hand, did quickly overcast the whole Heavens. The doctrine of Predestination the Papists confesse is no fundamental, since their own p. 54Doctors are divided about it; yet if any man from St. Paul's assertions of the efficacy and immutability of Predestination, should infer the unnecessarinesse of Sanctification to Salvation, (as some have done) doubtlesse this man would wrest the Scriptures to his own destruction. But the Captain is not contented with a general imputation of darknesse 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 sence 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 baptizing of Infants, and womens receiving the Eucharist, and the observation of the Lords day, and the doctrine which condemnes 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 pitties me to trifle away time in the particular answer of such impertinent allegations, did not the weaknesse 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 &c. 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 then the others, p. 55but I may say, they are lesse darkly, because indeed not delivered there at all, being onelyonly 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 layes 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 Councel of Trent, which by the judgment of so many most learned Fathers, and grave Councels, 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, then we must damne 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 damne 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 judgment of the Tr…nt Councel) 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 conteined 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 Christs 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. p. 56This 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 onelyonly to shew, 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 beliefe of the Truths conteined 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 shewed before,) doth sufficiently appear from it self, 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 diverse p. 57copies, let any man look into them as he finds them collected in the late Polyglotte Bible, and his own eyes shall witnesse, that howsoever the differences of Readings 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, then 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 onelyonly confesse its insufficiency to evince its own uncorruptednesse, but acknowledge its actual corruption in several points, (as hath been shewed before:) nor can the Decrees of Popes and Councels be a rule, which being writings, must needs be lyable 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 p. 58permitted 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 Sc…pture 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 Keyes to find out the true sense of the Scripture, and sufficient to discover it, unlesse the readers 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 Onenesse in affection, as Joh. 17.21. And here my Captain is gravelled, and halfe 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 glosse is confuted out of the Scriptures, both out of the present chapter, (the Captain and Arrian being more blind then the Jewes, who understood Christs meaning better, viz. That he made himself God, v. 33.) and from other places of Scriptures, where Christ is expresly 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 Councel of Nice (as I shewed in the foregoing discourse) did confute the Arrian Heresy out of the Scriptures, they saw no need of going further.

5 He alledgeth 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. p. 59This may suffice at present, That the Scripture doth not presse all Truths with equal vehemency; that there are some points, wherein the Scripture doth, though not approve of, yet dispence with differing opinions in Christians: such as those were concerning dayes, 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 dye 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 Romane Thunder-claps of Damnation, where I have one promise from God for my salvation. I am assured by God that to fear God, and keep his commandements, 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 onelyonly true God and Iesus 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 claime for eternal life, and have not so much reason to fear their cursing of me, (knowing that the curse causelesse 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 tels me, that love is the fulfilling of the law, Rom. 13.10. that he that loveth Christ shall be loved of his father, Ioh. 14.21. that hereby we know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren, 1 Joh 3.14. It tels 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 Iesus is the Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. Joh. 20.31. Christ hath p. 60…sured us, (it seems he should have asked his Vicars leave for it,) He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Ioh. 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 informes us of fundamentals. To which I might adde the common sense of Gods Church, and the learned Ministers in all ages, it having been acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors, both antient 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 contein in it a compleat 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 antient Author. They make the Churches 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 Fridaies, if the Church command it, is now become a Fundamental, and if any man obstinately refuse it, God will assuredly condemne 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 then 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 p. 61not 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 injoyn 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. Peters successor or the Church injoyns 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 shewed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse. But this is so grosse 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 Councel 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, (unlesse the Churches Authority command us to believe it,) and that it is a Fundamental to believe that (which so many of the Antients 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 overthrowes the Popish conceit of Fundamentals, then 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 p. 62refuseth 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 pr…pounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith, refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently pr…pounded to him for a truth revealed from God: this is proved from hence, because general Councels cannot erre. 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 Councels infallibility: and the infallibility of Councels 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 baff…ed 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 confesse it is one of those many arguments, which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather then to the convictions of his conscience, or the evidence of his cause. Behold the harmony between Socinianisme and Popery! Rather then not assert the Churches authority, these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity, and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands, to confesse 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 p. 63Christ before his birth of the Virgin, and his Divinity, and he will be of another mind. But this shews 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, unlesse 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly the Original Decalogue, which was written by Gods own finger, was a Rule to the Jews, and consequently, that Transcript of it which by Gods 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 p. 64discern what weight is in this part of the Discours: That a Copy cannot be a certain rule, for the Princes 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 Captaine 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 Councel, 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 onelyonly a Copy and Translation. The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers, when it is delivered onelyonly 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 diverse 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 watchfulnesse 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 p. 65both 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 passe 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 businesse 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 her self 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 vertue of this argument the Captain must either acknowledge p. 66himselfe an unreasonable man, or an Atheist▪ I tell you it was good hap, That in stead of the Catholick 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 affordes no better arguments.

A sixth argument is this▪ Scripture is no sufficient rule, because it is lyable to diverse 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 Kingdome p. 67are no rule, for learned Lawyers differ in their expositions. The Decrees of Popes and Councels are no rule, because lyable to diverse 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 it self, since there are amongst them not onelyonly diverse 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 levell) but indeed there are contrary Texts, the decrees and sentences of one Pope directly contrary to another, and one Councel 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 lesse then 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 onelyonly diverse, but in several passages directly contrary to it, (for which I refer the reader either to those two Bibles themselves, or to Dr. Iames 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 enjoynes this for the one…y Authentick Translation, and so it is held to this day. The like I might shew of Councels, as it were p. 68easy to furnish the Reader with many instances not of the seeming but real contradictions of Popes and Councels 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 Councel; so true it is, That some may better steal a horse then others look over the …edge.

The seventh assault which the Captain makes is this. If the Scripture be our sole rule and Judge, then it was so in the Apostles dayes, 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 onelyonly rule, when there were several governours of the Church acknowledged on all hands to be infallible both singly and joyntly: Ergo it is not the onelyonly 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, unlesse the Captain and Mr. Cressy and the rest will change their notes, and in stead of the Pope and Councel 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 Councel, 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 p. 69may 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 Gods Word, and he repeats it in reimemoriam, Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospell 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 then 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 equall Avthority (the Councell of Trent goes no higher while they assert that Scripture and Tradition are to be received pari pietatis aff…ctu ac reverentia, with equall piety and reverence) it consequently followes, that he who renounceth all pretensions of Authority Superior, or not subordinate to the one, cannot be said with any colour of sence 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 despoticall, having dominion over the peoples Faith, and being Lords over Gods Heritage, but onelyonly Ministeriall, 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 farre as it concernes his own actions; It is true, and that Judgment (as I have shewed) the Scripture allowes and enjoynes to private Christians, and informes us of the sad condition of those that neglecting their own judgment, give up p. 70themselves to a blind obedience to their rulers (an errour common to the Jewes 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 mans being Judge in words and shew, yet they receive it in truth and practise upon it, and whatever noise they make of Fathers and Councels 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 Captaine 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 turne Catholick he had no infallible assurance that Christian Religion was true, was not he himselfe Judge of the validity of this Argument? And when Cressy or others are perverted by that great Title of the Churches 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 Churches Authority be a sufficient and safe foundation for a mans faith to rest upon? So if I come to any Papist who is capable of Discourse, I would aske him whether he continues in the Popish communion and beliefe 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 Councell is this Judge: In this case I say, the Romanist makes himself the Judge of the first and principall question, upon which all the rest depend, viz. p. 71whether such a Judge be necessary, and whether the Pope or Councell 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 Captaine 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 Rushworths Dialogues, or in M^r Whites Apology for Tradition; For doubtlesse si Pergama 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 a…quiesce in the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine.

Another Argument therefore against the Scriptures is taken from the occasion of VVriting the Books of the New-Testament of which Cressy Treats, Sect. 2. chap. 10. And it is observable that his Argument (however it regularly ought to reach the whole Scripture, yet) is onelyonly (upon the matter) levied against the Epistles in the New-Testament, which (saith he) were never intended to be Written as Institutions or Catechismes containing an Abridgment of the whole Body of Christian▪ Faith for the whole Church, for they were Written onelyonly 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 Hereticks 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 cleare and evident that there can be no rationall possibility of contradiction p. 72or diversity of opinion) and for a man to venture his Soule upon. This is the summe 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 cleare and so evident, that there can be no rationall 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 cleare and evident, &c. as is pretended to be necessary, or rather, whether it be not so dark and doubtfull, that it is not onelyonly rejected by Protestants upon solid and cogent grounds, but also disputed and denied by diverse of their own great Doctors: The question under favour is not this, whether our rule be so cleare as to admit of no possibility of contradiction, (for who can dream of this that ever heard or read of the Academicks 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 VVorld men so absurdly scepticall, 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 p. 73urge 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 Councell of Trent in its Decree concerning the Canonicall Scriptures, notwithstanding this objection ascribes this to the Scriptures no lesse then to Traditions, That both of them together are the Canon or rule of Faith and manners, and to both they allow equall 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 concernes onelyonly one part of the New-Testament viz. the Apostolicall 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 speciall occasion, but for the common benefit of all succeeding Christians as an History of his Life and De…th, and a summe of the principall points of his Doctrine, (They are the Authors words, and we need no more to justify the Scriptures sufficiency) and partly because the occasions, however casuall 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 p. 74the 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 onelyonly to them, but to others, yea to all succeeding Christians. What else meanes St Paul in charging Timothy to keep the command there mentioned — untill 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 diverse of them were written upon speciall 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, repro…fe, &c. 2 Tim. 3.16. An irrefragable Argument that what was Written upon a speciall occasion may be a standing rule. And the constant universall practise of all the Ancient Fathers and Counsels confirming Truths or Duties, and reproving sins or errors in after Ages from the Testimonies of the Apostolicall 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 generall rules and lawes as have been of perpetuall force and use, no man that knowes 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 sorth, are in their own nature and quality indifferently calculated for, and equally fit to be a guide to other persons or Churches, needs no proofe, but the reading of them, and a reflection upon the daily practise of all Preachers as well Popish as Protestant which from time to time deduce p. 75such documents from them as are singularly usefull in whatsoever age or place they live in.

And this may serve M^r Cressy's turne, 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 foreign) in his famed Dialogues: His Arguments against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies are two: The first is (that which hath been allready handled) from the errors and corruptions which must needs be in our Bible, by Copists 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 tels us of the many hazards, doubts, and mistakes, from multitude of Copies, depravations of Hereticks, the Jewes 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 erro…s 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.)

VVhen I read these and other things of the same tendency, I began to reason with my selfe: Are these the Discourses of William Rushworth a Romish Priest? Are these the Arguments which must make men Christians or (which in their sence is all one) Roman Catholicks? p. 76Is this the man that affected the rigour of Mathematicall discourse even in his Controversies, as we may perceive by this worke? (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 VVorld, as that which was very satisfactory to diverse judicious persons: Surely it is a mistake these are not Rushworths, but Vaninus his Dialogues, or it is a newfound remnant of Iulian the Apostate, which some unlucky Heretick hath set out under the name of a Romish Priest.

May I be so bold as to aske our Holy Mother the Church of Rome Num haec est tunica filii? Is this thy sonnes 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 then not maintaine the Papall Authority, they will subvert the very foundations of Christianity: The Jesuites tell us that in order to the comming of Antichrist, Rome shall turne Pagan; I am perfectly of their mind, and I think the turne is halfe wrought allready: Ecce signum! for none short of a Pagan could talke 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 then 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 p. 77place, that it is not the true Text, that it is as ridicul…s 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 Authors words Dialog. 2. Sect. 2. Go, say these are faint-hearted fellowes if you can: Give me those honest soules 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 Churches Adversari…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 Churches Authority the Scriptures were of no more value then AEsops 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 darknesse) and consequently our sins cannot be reproved, nor duties pressed from the Scripture for the same reason, unlesse these men will say (who we see will not stick at small matters) that the Copists or Translators errors did happily hit onelyonly upon such places as concercerned Controversies (that the Church alone might rule there) not at all on such as concerne duties and sinnes: But if this be true, whence come those high Characters and ample Testimonies which the most learned Papists and their Councels have given to the Scripture, that they acknowledge the Scriptures or Bible (and they spake of that which we have) to be the word of God, as much to be reverenced as Tradition it selfe: How came Bellarmine to say of those Books of the Prophets and Apostles (which we have) Nibil notius, nihil certius, &c. i. e. nothing is more evident, nothing more certain then that they are the Word of God, and none but a fool can denie p. 78them 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 wofully 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 universall Plaister, 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 Apostacy 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 Hereticks 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 then give the hint, A word is enough to the wise, as doubtlesse 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 abhorre such heathenish discourses, it is enough to make the Scripture as insignificant a VVriting as the most contemptible Pamphlet that ever the VVorld was pester'd 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 p. 79nor would be any thing at all certaine, or credible, or clear in the Scripture, and the Sacred VVritings 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 Councell. 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 VVord of God, and that the severall Books reputed Canonicall by them are indeed Canonicall, suppose I say we should take all this for granted, what is this to our businesse? Tradition (I hope) doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copists 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 appeares and they confesse 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 lyable to the same uncertainties.

2. However M^r Rushworth pleaseth himselfe in this Argument as if it were unanswerable, and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it; there is one plaine p. 80evidence able to assure any rationall 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 diverse of the most learned, and discreet, and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church (who doubtlesse were too wise to let slip any reall 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 perswade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantiall things: All that M^r Rushworth offers in liew 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 shew that errours have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations (which no man denies:) But alas how farre short do they fall in proofe, if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person: That which seemes to threaten most is the corruption of Hereticks, and we are told of the Jewes at Tiberias who pointed the Bible, when enemies to Christ, and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text, as also of the Greek Hereticks: 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 Jewes have corrupted the Hebrew Bible malitiously 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 p. 81of Christs being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands: And for the Greek and other Hereticks, 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 alarme at it, that it was presently discover'd and abhorr'd, and they severely censured for it, and even Papists confesse the Doctours of the Church were so vigilant, that there could not be any wilfull and materiall depravation of the Greek Testament, and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copists. 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 strictnesse, that they abhorred the least depravation, and such jealousy and watchfulnesse to observe and secure that inestimable treasure, that it cannot with any probabi…ity be imagined that substantiall corruptions should come into the Texts, and much lesse can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration.

4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bibles corruption, so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption: Some I have now mentioned, to which may be added the generall inconsiderablenesse of those various lections (which Popish Writers triumph so much in) the samenesse for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of diverse Ages, and distant places and severall languages, the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of severall other Authors (as to materiall points notwithstanding all the different readings) which yet were not read with that diligence and observation, nor received with p. 82that veneration, no… kept with that Religion, nor watched with that jealousy, nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatnings, nor mens own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity, and consequently were farre more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture: To all which may be added that (which alone is sufficient) even the providence and goodnesse of God, which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for mans conduct to eternall blisse, 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 VVritings) to see corruption: This is so materiall a consideration even in the judgment of our Adversaries, that it is their principall Argument, and urged by them with greatest vehemency and p…ausibility, for the Churches Authority and Infallibility, because (as they pretend) it doth not consist with the providence and goodnesse of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide; so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle, and differ onelyonly in the application of it, whilest they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell (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 diverse 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 severall matters should be under severall Chapters or divisions, and not one piece here, another there, and things must be plaine and distinct: From which it is evident enough that the p. 83Scripture was never intended for a Law or Iudge of Controversies, because the Book is so large, and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our beliefe, as Historicall, Epistolar, Mysticall, and so many repetitions; and lastly it is left to a meer conjecture what may be the meaning of it: Thus Rushworth Dialog. 2. Sect. 2.

Is this the Mathematicall man? Is this the rigour of Mathematicks? This is enough to make a man forsweare the study of the Mathematicks, if it produce no better demonstrations: We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Lawes of these men, for you see they give Lawes to God himselfe, and it is allready 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 turne that Mr Cowell Writ his Institutiones Iuris Anglicani, wherein he reduced the English Lawes to a Method, for else woe had been to the poor Statute-Books and all Records of our Lawes, for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Lawes, nor Judges of Controversies between men and men, for so saith our Theologicall Euclide that scornes 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 &c. The summe of the Argument is this▪ The Scripture was not intended for the Law, because it is so large, so miscellaneous, so full of repetitions &c. 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 desperatenesse of their cause?

Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jewes, But p. 84this is false, and it was a Law to the Jewes, 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 terme of JUDGE, wee 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 Jewes: This then I assert that the Old Testament (notwithstanding this objection) was a Law to the Jewes, 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 eares to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned, I prove it onelyonly by this Argument: That Book by which both people and Priests, and Princes of the Jewes 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 plaine: 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, &c. 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. Ios. 8.35. Neh. 8. and diverse other places: 2. For the Princes it is no lesse evident that it was a Law and rule to them, Ios. 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 p. 85is before the Priests the Levites, and he shall read therein all the dayes 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 adde 3. It was a law to the Priests too. I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tyed to follow the Priests decisions, (I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced,) but my present assertion is onelyonly 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 shews 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 indeavour 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 tyed: for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisitenesse, this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuites, 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, then they act lawlessly and arbitrarily, and we have found Antichrist by his character foreign, or Lawlesse, 2 Thes. 2. but if they say, (as they all pretend and professe) they are guided by a law, then I enquire, what that law is? p. 86Here it is true they are divided, while some make the judgment of the antient Church and Fathers their law, others the Popes Decrees, others the Acts of Councels, 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 judgment of the Fathers their Law, are not they lyable to the same exceptions with the Scripture; of largenesse, aliene mixtures, repetitions, &c? And the like may be said of Popes Decretals. and the Acts of Councels, (which they generally pretend to own as their Law:) and it is no lesse true of Tradition, of the largenesse 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 terrour 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 confesse the word of God is their rule and law, onelyonly they make (as I may say) this law to consist of two Tables, the written and the unwritten Word, which you saw the Councel 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 compleat and sufficient Law: nor doth the investing of Tradition with the quality of a Law, devest the Scripture of it, any more then the addition of new Acts of Parliament doth derogate the name and authority of a Law from all former Acts and p. 87statutes, that is, not at all. Much more might be said to shew the folly and absurdity of this argument, but if I should spend more words about it, I should both question my own, and too grosly distrust the Readers discretion.

And now having done with the Mathematicks, let us come to the Politicks, the best argument the Church of Rome hath. Politick 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 Politick considerations, and moral conjectures, and fine-spun probabilities. No man can deny that it was politickly 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 alledgeth against the Scriptures being a Rule or Judge of controversies, and (excepting what hath been before discussed) I find onelyonly 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 it self be understood as well as Plato and Aristotle? (a question which all the wits of the Romane 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 p. 88were 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 Catholicks. 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 chear, 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 shamelesse 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 aske 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 prae-existency before his Incarnation? If he say no, I will promise him hearty thanks (though not from Christ, nor peradventure from his Vicar, p. 89yet) 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 fals 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 Saviours opinion before his. I am ashamed to spend time in confuting so sensless a cavil, (but that the reputation of an Author sometimes makes Non-sence passe for an Argument) I need onelyonly 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 controversie Act. 15. from antient 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 p. 90Protestant 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 Davids, 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 onelyonly 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 meer Juglers.) In a word, as upon supposition that Aristotle was authentick, and foreign, 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 p. 91from 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; onelyonly 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 alledged 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 p. 92found 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 combate 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 Iesus. 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 dis-interested 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. knowledg 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 p. 93Christian: 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 it self 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 vivâ 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 Iesus 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 falsly 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 diverse considerations. 1. This contradicts the Apostles scope, which apparently is to commend the Scriptures, as able to make wise to Salvation &c. But this were no commendation at all to say, they together with such Christian verities are sufficient for salvation: for according to p. 94this 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 dwelt 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 foreign, but foreign, which plainly shews, 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 senselesse, 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 deliver'd by Tradition, together with the Scriptures, is not sufficient for Salvation, as the Papists confesse: 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, then those which the Prophets p. 95and Moses did say should come. But I would have you to wit, that the Church of Rome know what Paul preached better then 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 onelyonly of perfection after faith, but here is no question about the first choice of faith, much lesse 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 p. 96at 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 Mathematicks is not convincing: but without doubt Mr. White takes his Apology, and so his Treatise de fide, and Mr. Rushworths Dialogues to be convincing Discourses, because though they do not actually convince the stubborn Hereticks, yet they are apta nata to convince them, there is so much evidence in them, as may and ought to satisfy any understanding, unconcerned, inquisitive, and prudent adversary: and in this sense I do assert, that the scriptures are convin…ing 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 acknowledg) perfect, and throughly furnished to every work: but this is one of his chief works, to convince Gain-sayers Ti…. 1.9. Ergo scripture furnisheth him with convincing arguments.

2. The Scripture is here expressely said to be profitable among other things for Conviction, foreign, 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 onelyonly beget conjectures and opinions, and doth not give p. 97solid 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 de facto it doth,) doth not the same Scripture sufficiently convince even in foro contentioso the Socinian Hereticks, 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 cavill 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 whitenesse.

3. The Scripture was convincing formerly, and therefore it is so still, (for I do not know that it hath lost any of its vertue.) 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 Psalmes. Read Mat. 22.42. &c. When Peter and Paul disputed against the Jewes 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, then scripture is convincing. Once more: we read Act. 18.28. of Apollos, that he mightily convinced the Jewes, shewing 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 p. 98men in foro contentioso; and Mr. VVhite (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 foreign ought to be rendred, (and then all Scripture save one Book is uselesse,) 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 foreign 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 Graecian, therefore I shall desire him to look onelyonly into two places which his masters the Rhemists intepret collectivè, not distributivè: Mat. 8.32. foreign the whole herd, not every herd, and foreign 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 Jewes, yet none will say the Books of the Prophets concerning the explication or application of that Law were superfluous.

Excep, 5. He sayes not the Scriptures are sufficient, but onelyonly profitable. Cressy.

Ans. 1. He saith they are profitable foreign, 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.

p. 993. He saith, they are profitable to the producing of all things necessary to salvation, which are acknowledged to be onelyonly 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 righteousnesse, 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 applyed by a Preacher.

Ans. 1. By this argument all these high and various elogiums, 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 &c. 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 applyed. 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 it self to decide the whole controversy. I shall not concern my selfe, 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 p. 100is 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 boldnesse 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 Godlinesse.

FINIS.

End of the text · Matthew Poole, The Nullity of the Romish Faith (1666)