The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Treatise · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of the Authority of Scripture according to Romish Principles.
Prop. 2. Sect. 1. THat the Scripture in it self, without the Interpretation, Testimonie, and Authority of th… Church, is not a sufficient foundation o… Faith for private Christians, according to the Doctrine the Romanists: This is so plaine, so often asserted b… them, so universally owned, so vehemently urged in a… their Treatises, that if there were not an horrible per…versnesse and tergiversation in that sort of men (wh… indeed by the badnesse of their cause are forced to sa… and unsay, give and recall, affirme and denie the sam… things as occasion requires, and the strength of an Ar…gument forceth them:) I might supercede from an… further paine or trouble therein; I shall therefore onelyonly observe two Principles of the Popish Creed, either o… which (and much more both put together) do plainly and undeniably evince, that according to their Hypotheses the Scripture in it selfe is no solid ground nor foundation of a Christian Faith. 1. That a Christian canno… know, and is not bound to believe, any, or all of the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God, without the Churches Witnesse and Authority. 2. That the senc… of Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous in the Article of Faith, that a Christian cannot discover it without th… Churches interpretation.
§. 2. For the first of these, it may suffice at present t… mention two or three passages out of their approved Writers. Baily the Jesuite, in his Catechisme of Controversies made by the command of the Archbishop o… Burdeaux. puts this Question: Doctor Jesuita. Ad quem pe…inet de libris Canonicis Determinare? Catholicus Papista. Ad …ccl…siam, sine cu…us authoritate, non plus fidci a…hiberem Ma…thaeo quam Tito Livio. par. 1 …. 12.To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonicall Books! and Answers thus, To the Church, without whose Authority I should no more believe St Matthew then Titus Livius. When Brentius alledged the saying of a Papist; that if the Scriptures were destitute of the Churches Authority, they would weigh no more then AEsops Fables: the Cardinall Hosius replies,(b)Po…uit illud pio sensu dici—Nam revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret authoritas hanc scripturam esse Canonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet. de Authoritate Scripturae contra Brentium Lib. 3. Fol. 271. That these words may be taken in a pious sence; For in truth (saith he) unl esse the Authoritie of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonicall, it would have very little weight with us: So Charron plainly tels us,(c)Scriptura nullam babet authoritatem, nullum pondus, nullam vim erga nos & nostram fidem, nisi quod ecclesia dicit & declarat Charron vers. 3. That the Scripture hath no Authority, no weight or force towards us, and our Faith; but for the Churches assertion and declaration. Andradius in expresse termes denies(a)Neque in Scripturis quicquam inesse divinitatis, quae nos ad credendum, quoe illis continentur, religione aliquâ constring at, at Eccles…e, quae codices illos sacros esse docet—nemo sine gravissimâ impietatis notâ …ossit rep…g…are. Defens, Trident. lib 2. That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture, which bindes us to believe the things therein contained, but the Church, which teacheth us, that those Boo ks are Sacred, none can resist without the high…st impiety. One may well cry out-Heu Pietas, heu priscae fid…s! To disbelieve the Scripture, that is no impiety, but to resist the Church, that is the Highest impiety: To make God a lyar, that is no impiety; but to mak the Church a lyar, that is impiety in the highest. You see now the reason why Violations of the Churches Authority are more severely punished at Rome, then the grossest transgressions of Gods Lawe… because there is more impiety in them, and so more sev…rity should be exercised against them. And Pighi… useth no lesse freedome, telling us(b)Scripturae, nisi ab Ecclesiâ accepto veritatis testimonio, nuliam, ex scripsis aut suis authoribus, apud nos authoritatem habere, Lib. 1. Hierarchio cap. 2. That the Scriptur… have no Authority with us either from themselves, or from their Authours, but meerly from the Churches Testimon… Thus you see, that according to the systeme of Popis… Theology, the Scripture doth not discover it selfe to b… the Word of God, nor oblige my faith, unlesse it brin… along with it the Churches Letters of credence: An… whereas in St Pauls dayes, neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought credentials fro… Scripture, Acts 17.11. And St Austine in his dayes, in hi… Controversies with the Donatists, batters down thei… Church by this Argument, that they could not show it in, nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures: Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received, unlesse it be confirmed by the Churches Authoritie: And as Tertullian argued of old:(a)Net Deus ern nisi homini placuerit. God shall not be God, without mans consent. It is here, as in dealings between man… and man; if I say to some unknown person recommended to me by one whom I know and trust, I should not believe your professions of honesty (for I know you not) were it not for the Testimony which my worthy friend gives of you: In this case, the mans professions of honesty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him, but onelyonly my friends Testimony. Or as if a learner in Philosophy should say to his Tutor, I should not believe that to be true, which I read in my Book, that the Earth moves, were it not for the reverence I beare to your deep judgment and great abilities: Here it is plaine, the reading in his book, is not the foundation of his faith or perswasion, but onelyonly the reverence he bears to his teacher. And just this (say they) is the case of the scripture, to which purpose they alledge, and own those words of Austin, (though they pervert the sence) (a)Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas.I should not believe the Gospell, unless the Churches Authority did move me. Which if true in their sence, then the Churches Authority is the sole foundation of my faith, and without it the scripture is a meer Cypher or at least not sufficient to command, or ground my faith, which was the thing to be demonstrated, The truth is, the Papists put the same scorn upon the scriptures, that the prophet Elisha did upon that ungodly King Iehoram— 2 Kings 3.14. and bespeake it in the same language—were it not that I regard the presence, the testimony and the authority of the Church, I would not look towards thee, not believe, nor reverence thee.
Sect. 3. If it be said, that although the Churches Testimony was necessary before, yet since the Church hath long agoe consigned the Canon of the scripture, my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches testimony; but upon the scriptures Authority.
To this I answer. 1 That now as well as formerly, the faith of a Christian (acted by Romish principles) doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches testimony, which I shall make plain by an instance. I do not believe (supposing I were a Papist) the Popes supremacy because I read these words. Thou art Peter, (for if I read those words in Tacitus, I should not draw an Argument from them, unless happily I should fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doth when he proves Purgatory out of(b)Bel. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 7. Plato, Cicero, and Virgil) But because the books wherein I read those words, Thou art Peter, is a book of Canonicall scripture, and a part of the word of God, there lies the whole stress of the argument. And this I cannot know, (say our Catholick masters,) and am not bound to believe, but for the Churches Testimony: Which testimony, as it is the onelyonly cause which makes the scripture in generall, Authenticall, Quoad nos, saith Stapleton, so it must be that alone, which makes this place: Thou art Peter, Argumentative quoad nos, that is, all the force that Argument hath to perswade or convince me, is from the Church and not from the scripture, and the scripture makes it Canonicall to me, and its being Canonical, gives the whole weight to the Argument, and quod est, causa causae, est causa causati.
Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words, but sence of Scripture, where the strength of the argument lies. And that sence, say they, wee cannot understand, nor attain, but by the Churches interpretation, which leads me to the second principle of the Romanists, viz. That the sence of scripture, (which is indeed the very Soul of scripture, and the onelyonly ground of faith, and Arguments,) is in many matters: of faith, so obscure, and ambiguous, that there is an absolute necessity of an Authentick, and infallible Interpreter, and Judge to acquaint us therewith, that is the Church, or (per aequevalentiam Iesuiticam) the Pope. And it is absurd to expect, and impossible to receive satisfaction of doubts, and dceision, of controversies, of faith from the scripture, which is but a dead letter, unless the Church animates it. This is so notoriously owned by them all, that it is needless to quote Authors for it. That which I inferre from hence is this, that according to this Hypothesis, the scripture in it self, (I say in it self, for that is all the present Proposition pretends to prove) is no solid foundation for my faith; and indeed, that it is a meer Cypher, which if your Church be put to it, may have some signification and value, butelse none at all. And that it is not the letter of the Scripture in it selfe, but the Churches interpretation which gives weight to this argument. And this plainly appears from that saying, of their great Master Stapleton, which deserves to be often men tioned, in rei memoriam, and the rather, because Grotserus (a)Defens. Bel. Tom. 1 pag, 386.owns it and justifies it when Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker, c. 17. that even the Divinity of Christ, and of God did depend upon the Authority of the Pope. And when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that assertion. Gretsers defence is: that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope: in se & ex parte rei, but onelyonly quoad nos, in respect of us, and so (saith Gretser) it is very true, for that I believe that Christ is God, and that God is one, and three, I do it, being induced by the Authority of the Church, testifying that those books wherein such things are delivered, are divine, and dictated by God: (a) I desire the reader to observe this as fully opening the mysterie of the Romish Cabal, and discovering the dreadfull tendency of Popish principles making the Divinity of Christ precarious, that the Divinity of the Pope may be absolute and certain. And thus I trow the Pope hath quit scores with Christ, for as he was beholden to Christ, for his Authority, so now Christ is beholden to his vicar, for his Divinity: and saith hee, it was truely said by Tannerus (nor needed Pappus to wonder at it,) that without the interpretation and testification (b)Rectè hoc ab illo asseritur. Addit enim Stapletonus divinitatem Christi & Dei pendere à testimonio & judiciariaâ potestate Pontificis quoad nos, non in se, & ex porte rei. Et paulò post: Neque Praedicanti adeù mirum videri debet, quod à Tannero nostro in Examine Relationis Hunnianoe scriptum, est, sine hae interpretatione & testificatione Ecclesiae impossibile fore credere (supernaturaliter) ex solâ Scripturâ, Deum esse unum; esse cres hypostases divinas in unâ essentiâ: non est, inquam, quod adeò miretur & irascatur insulsus Pappus, quia uihil ā veritate alienum complectitur. Defens. Bel. Tom. 1. in Append. 1. ad lib. 1. Card. Bel. p. 386.of the Church it is impossible to believe out of Scripture alone, that God is one, and that there are three persons. Who is it that dare charge these Jesuites with Equivocation? I think they speak as plainly as their greatest enemies can desire: Here you see the meaning of that distinction quoad se & quoad nos, viz. They acknowledg the Scripture in it self to be true and Canonicall, and it is a Truth in it selfe, that Christ is God; but so far as concernes me, I am not bound to believe either the one or other; but for the Churches Testimony, which is the very thing I am now proving and hereby granted, That the Scripture in it self is no foundation of my Faith. And this is the more weighty, because you see it was not an unadvised slip of one mans Pen, but here you have it deliberately asserted and defended by a Triumvirate of Popish Authors, each of whose works, where that passage was, is set forth with the approbation of severall Romish Doctors of principall note.
§. 5. But peradventure, Quae non prosunt singula a juncta juvant. Although, neither the Popes Authority, nor the Scriptures Testimony alone will, yet both together may constitute a solid and sufficient foundation of faith; and the Popes Authority being asserted in, and demonstrated by the Scriptures, is a sure sooting for my faith; To which, though it might suffice to object the circle (which is here most palpable and evident) yet I shall at present forbeare that answer, and referre it to another place, and shall here consider, whether the Scriptures assert the Popes infallible Authority, as it is pretended. And first in generall, whereas severall Texts of Scripture are pleaded by the Romanists, in favour of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, as Feed my sheep—Thou art Peter I have prayed for thee—and the like: I demande whether these words or Texts of Scripture, in, and for themselves, without the interpretation and testification of the Romish Church, do bind me to believe the Popes Supremacy, and Infallibility, or no…; If they deny the validity of these Texts, without the Churches Testimony and Authority (as needs they must according to their Principles) then it followes, that there is nothing in Scripture, considered in it selfe, that bindes me to believe the Popes Supremacy, and consequently I do not sin, when I do not believe and own their Arguments drawn from these Texts, and that the Scripture in it selfe is no sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith: If they affirme it, then let all the Papists in the World give me a reason why these Texts The Word was God, Joh. 1. He thought it no robbery to be equall with God, Phil. 2. This is the true God—1 Joh. 5. Should not in themselves, and without the Churches Authority as solidly prove the Divinity of Christ, as the other mentioned Texts are affirmed to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope.
§. 6. If they persist still to say, that the alleadged Texts are in themselves a solid foundation for my faith, although such an aspersion is contrary to their universall profession and overturnes the whole fabrick of Popery; yet because I know those Proteus's will turne themselves into all shapes, and indeavour to slip all knots, and because I observe all their writings are stuffed with severall Texts of Scripture, as if they would make their deluded Proselites believe they made them the foundation of their faith: I shall therefore make some briefe remarks upon the chiefe of their Scripture allegations, in pursuance of the Proposition under consideration, and shew that the faith of a Papist hath no foundation at all in the sacred Scripture, in the great and fundamentall point of the Popes Infallibility: OnelyOnly that you may understand the diffidence, which some of their own great Rabbies have in their Scripture Arguments, I shall minde you of a remarkable saying of Eminent Doctor Pighius, who perswading his Catholicks in their Disputations, rather to argue from Tradition then Scriptures, he breaks out into these memorable expressions: (a)Cujus doctrinae, si memores faissemus, haereticos non esse informandos seu convinecendos ex Scripturis, meliore sane loco essent res nostrae, sed, dum oftentandi ingenii & eruditionis gratiá, cum Luthero in certaemen descenditur Scripturarum, excitatum est hoc, quod, Proh dolor! videmus incendium. cap. 4. HierachiaeOf which Doctrine if we had been mindfull, that Hereticks are not to be convinced out of Scriptures, our affaires had been in a better posture; but whilest for ostentation of wit and learning men disputed with Luther from Scripture this Fire, which, alas, we now see was kindled, as if he had said: You may as soon fetch water out of a stone as prove the Romish cause from the the Scripture: Oh the power of truth! Oh the desperatenesse of the Popish cause. His Councell indeed was good, but they could not follow it; for having once been sumbling about some Scriptures, though they saw well enough how impertinent they were to their purpose, yet having once begun, they were obliged to proceed, and make good their attempts (for of all things in the World, they hate retreating and recanting) left they should put an Argument into our hands, against the infallibility of the Church from her actuall mistakes and errours in the exposition of Scriptures.
§. 7. The principall places of Scripture upon which the Popes Supreme Authority and infallibility is founded, are as follow.
The first is Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it: Ergo, The Pope is Supreme Head, and Infallibe: I shall forbear actum agere, and therefore shall omit severall Answers allready given, and onelyonly point at some few of those many allegations, by which the ridiculousnesse of this collection may appeare, and the desperatenesse of that cause that can find no better supports.
1. This promise concernes onelyonly the invisible Church of elect persons, which appears thus, because he speaks of that Church against which the gates of Hell do not prevaile, but the gates of Hell do prevaile against all reprobates) and therefore the meanest sincere Elect Christian in the World, hath a juster claime to infallibility from this place, then many Popes of Rome had (whom their own Authors confesse to have been reprobates.)
2. This promise secures the Church as well from damnable sins as damnable errours. I prove it; The Church is here secured against the prevalency of the Gates of Hell: But the Gates of Hell may prevaile as surely, and do prevaile as frequently by damnable sins, as by errors. Ergo, If therefore notwithstanding this Text, Popes have fallen into damnable Sins, they may consequently fall into damnable Heresies.
3. The Infallibility here promised, extends onelyonly to damnable Heresies, and such as lead to, and leave a man under the gates of Hell, and therefore if it were intended of the Pope and Church of Rome, Christ promiseth no more infallibility to him, then he hereby promiseth, and generally giveth to all persevering Christians.
4. This promise is spoken of, and made to the whole Church, and therefore belongs to all the parts and members of it alike: So that, if it prove the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop and Church, it proves also the same of the Bishops and Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, &c. which may further appeare, thus; That if we should grant the Papists their absurd supposition, that this work was not Peters confession, but his person, yet since the Bishops of Corinth, and Ephesus, and indeed all the Bishops in the World, according to this supposition were built upon Peters person, as well as the Bishop of Rome, and the infallibility supposed is here promised equally to all that are built upon the Rock, it must either prove all of them infallible, or leave the Pope fallible.
5. Whatsoever Authority or Infallibility is here promised to Peter is in other places promised and given to the rest of the Apostles, and therefore what is collected from this place, for St Peters Successors may be with equall truth and evidence pleaded from other places, for the Successors of the rest of the Apostles. The same Keyes which are here promised to Peter are actually given to all the Apostles, Math. 18.18. and Ioh. 20.22, 23. And if infallibility be here promised to Peter, as much is promised to all the Apostles, John 16.13. He will guide you into all Truth. And if St Peter be here called a Rock, so are the other Apostles called Pillars, Gal. 2.9. and Foundations, Eph. 2. Apoc. 21.14. And that 16th of Matthew speaks not one syllable more of transmitting St Peters Authority to his Successors, then those other places do to their Successors: And therefore it unavoydably followes, either that all their Successors are infallible, or that St Peters Successor is fallible, at best for any thing that appeares from this Text (whether the Popes infallibility hath other foundations we shall examine in their order.)
8. It may be said, That although this place may not seem to be cogent to one that considers it in it selfe, yet if you take it according to the exposition of the Fathers, it proves what it is alledged for:
But 1. The Fathers generally did understand this Rock to be not Peters Person, but his confession, or Christ as confessed by him, and this you shall finde proved to have been the minde of St Cyrill, Hilary, Hierom, Ambrose, Basil, Augustine, yea, and the whole Councell of Chalcedon in that incomparably learned and Irreffragable Discourse of Moulins, called The Novelty of Popery, Lib. 2. cap. 4.
2. That the Fathers are not infallible guides of Faith and Religion I shall prove in the next Proposition.
3. But howsoever, They that assert the infallibility of the Fathers, when they relate the Churches Judgment, yet allow their Fallibility in expounding Scripture: Caietan and Maldonate both acknowledge it, and practise accordingly, that a man may in many cases preferre a new exposition, though it be repugnant to the expositions of most of the Antient Fathers: And Sr Kenelme Digby speaking of the infallibility of the Fathers, expressely saith, he understands it onelyonly of the Traditions. or Doctrines, delivered by them as the Faith received from their Ancestours, not of their Comments or Sermons upon Scripture, which are to have no more weight then the reasons they give for them. Letters between Lord Digby and Sr Kenelme Digby, pag. 10.
§. But if all these, and other difficulties were cleared; yet, do two things remaine behind, in which this Text, and all others are wholly silent, and for them they are forced to fly to Tradition, and the Authority of the Fathers, (of which in the next place.) The first, That all this Supreme Authority and infallibility, which they suppose to have been in Peter, was transmitted to his Successor (and consequently Linus St Peters Successor was Superiour to the Apostle and Evangelist St Iohn, which he had need have no squeamish Conscience that can digest) and yet all this amounts to nothing, unlesse another thing be proved, viz: That the Bishop of Rome is St Peters Successor; and here the scripture failes them, and the Coronis or Apex of the Argument (without which it is both impertinent, and impotent, as to the probation of the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop) is fetched solely from Tradition and the Testimony of the Fathers: And so their Argument stands like the Angell in the Apocalypse with one foot on the Earth, another on the Sea, one Leg of it in Scripture, the other in History; an… because conclusio sequitur partem deteriorem, the conclusion cannot be de side; or rather to speak the truth: The whole Syllogisme is extra Scripturall. The prerogative of St Peter are transmitted to St Peters Successors; Bu… the Bishop of Rome is S Peters Successor; where it appeares from what hath been said, that neither propositio… is to be proved from Scripture, but wholly from Tradition, and that is all at present I am concerned to make good. And yet if all this were over, they have not done… Behold the misery of a desperate cause: for whereas it is known, and granted by the Papists, that St Peter had two Seas, he was Bishop of Antioch for seven Years saith Baronius, and Bishop of Rome, it must be further evin… ced, That the Bishop of Antioch was excluded from, and the Bishop of Rome invested with St Peters Prerogatives And would you know the proofe of this position (which is the very Foundation Stone of the Popes Supremacy You shall have the Argument in Bellarmines words (a)De Pontificiis, Lib. 4.… had its rise à facto Petri from St Peters fact. Peter leave… Antioch and comes to Rome, and there he dies, and so hi… Holinesse got the day. Here I desire the Reader to observe, that all the Faith of the Romanists, concerning the Popes Infallibility, depends upon, and is resolved into a matter of Fact, and an uncertain Historicall relation … Nay, to speak truly, there are severall matters of Fact, every one of which must be solidly demonstrated, before their Faith can have a firme Foundation. 1. That Peter was at Rome. 2. That Peter was Bishop of Rome properly so called. 3. That St Peter died at Rome. 4. That it was Christs, or Peters intention, that Peters Successor should enjoy all his Priviledges. 5. That Christ or Peter appointed his Romane not his Antiochian Successor to be this person, to whom such priviledges were to be transmitted: If there be a flaw in any one of these, their whole cause in this point, is lost. And all these are matters of fact. And such is the nature, and uncertainty of matters of fact, that the Papists confess those persons whom they suppose infallible in matters of faith, are fallible in matters of fact. Excepitng that modern dotage of some of the Jesuites, who have lately asserted the Popes infallibility in matters of fact: But that is such a piece of drollery, and impudence, that their own brethren, who have not forsworn all modesty are ashamed of it: now to assume, as some of these assertions are apparently false, so there are none of them, but are disputable points, and denied by divers learned men, not without a plausible appearance of authorities and arguments. And if the Jesuites opinion be true concerning the doctrine of probability, that a man may satisfie his conscience, and venture his salvation upon the opinions of two or three learn'd Doctors. Then a Protestant may satisfy his conscience, and venture his salvation upon it, that all these propositions are false, being denied by far more then that number of learned Doctors. At least this must be granted, that it renders the forementioned positions, dubious and uncertain. And so the Papists build their divine faith upon a dubious historicall faith: yet again: what if Peter dies there? must the universall headship needs go to the Bishop of the place where he dies, and not to another where he lived? Charles the fifth was King of Spain, and Emperour of Germany; if he die in Spain, must all the Kings of Spain be therefore Emperours of Germany? Haply they will say no, because the Empire is elective, not hereditary; and if that were granted, which the Papists will never be able to prove, that there was such a thing as this universall headship, and that this was to continue, will they pawne their soules on it, (for so indeed they do) that this universall headship was hereditary, not elective? How will they prove it? Christ dies at Ierusalem, by this rule the Bishop of Ierusalem must be universall head: Suppose the Pope should leave Rome, and go to Avignon, (a… once he did) and settle, and die there, by this rule, the Bishop of Avignon must succeed in the universall headship… But I need say no more of so absurd a fancy.
Sect. 10. A second place of scripture is, Ioh. 21. Pete… feed my sheep; And this feeding must denote ruling as wel… as teaching, and this rule (forsooth) must needs be the supreme power, and that power must bee attended with… infallibility, and these sheep must be all the sheep in the world, nay, shephards too, exceept the Pan, or princep… pastorum at Rome. Tantae molis erat Romanum conder… papam. And this rope of sand must be called an argument, by which one may see the intollerable confidence they have in themselves and their shamelesse contempt of the Readers, whom they think obliged to receive all their dictates without enquiry. I would have you to wit that the Church of Rome knew what they did, when they invented the doctrine of an implicit faith and a blind obedience to all the Churches decrees, for if men should once dare to open their eyes and examine their assertions, all their craft would be in danger to be set, at nought, and the Temple of Dominus Deus noster papa, (as the Canon Law calls him) would be despised and his magnificence would be destroyed, whom so great a part of the world worshippeth. But if indeed they will by Transubstantiation turn this handfull of straw into a pillar of their Church, (as I cannot blame one near drowning, for catching at every twig) then I shall offer these things to their consideration.
1 That Bellarmine (as his manner is) bestowes seaven arguments to prove that which none ever denied, that those words were spoken to Peter alone, and neglects that which he should have disproved viz. the reason thereof given by Aug. Cyril, Ambrose, and others; and after them the Protestants which was, not the collation of a new dignity superior to that of the other Apostles, but his restoration to his former dignity of the Apostleship, from which by his great transgression he might seem to have fallen as Iudas really did fall by his Transgression Act. 1.
2. If this Text afford them any support, they must have it either from the Act, or the word Feed, or from the object or phrase, my sheep: For the first, By what Arts can the Supremacy of the Pope he drawn from that word or precept! This feeding (in the judgment of the Romanists themselves) implies nothing but teaching and ruling, and both those are ascribed to all the Apostles without any discrimination, Mat. 28.19, 20. Mat. 18. Iohn. 20. And Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that not onelyonly the power of Rule, but the supreme power was conferred upon all the Apostles: (a)Lib. de Pontifice Romano, lib. 1. cap. 12. §. ut autem.Nay, they are ascribed to inferiour Ministers Heb. 13. Obey them that have the rule over you; and 1 Tim. 5.17. The elders that rule well; and to such, the very same Precept is given, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. The Elders—I exhort—Feed the flock of God which is among you: Doth Feeding in one place argue superiority, and in another place imply subjection? or rather in both places it seemes it signifies what the Pope pleaseth; But you must know the Romish Doctors having called …he Scripture a Lesbian Rule, and a Nose of Wax,—they were bound in honour aut invenire aut facere, either to finde it so, or to make it such; if it be said their charge … limited to the Flock of God among them, whereas Peters extends to all the sheep; the Answer is easie, if that …e granted, for then the difference doth not lie in the act of Feeding, but in the object of which I now come to speak, that is the second thing; the phrase my sheep:
Granting therefore what Bellar. desires that he speaks of all the sheep, yet herein St Peter had no prerogative above the other Apostles who are equally commanded to teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19. to preach the Gospell to every Creature, Mar. 16.15. And Peters Diocess surely cannot be larger, unlesse happily Utopia be taken in, or that which is in the same part of the world, I meane Purgatory: But you will say, surely they have somewhat else to plead for themselves from this Text; Why yes These good masters of the feast have reserved the best Wine to the last. Here comes in a rare notion not fit to be prostituted to vulgar apprehensions, you shall heare it upon condition you will not put them to the proofe of it which they are not bound to do, for nem… tenetur a… impossibilia, No man is obliged to do more then is in his power; Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary Pastour, the rest as extraordinary Ambassadors and with a certaine subjection to Peter, (a)Ut autem intelligeremus banc summam potestatem collatam A…ostolis omnibus, ut legatis, non ut pasteribus ordinariis & cum quâda… subjectione ad Petrum. Bel de Romano Pontifice lib. 1. cap. 12.If you ask, doth this Text say so? or any other Text? or is there one syllable from whence this may be deduced? you must remember the condition which I told you. And what if this be granted, how comes the ordinary power to be greater and higher then the extraordinary? In the Old Testament generally, the extraordinary officers, the Prophets whom God raised were superior to the Priests, And in the New Testament, the Apostles and Evangelists who were extraordinary officers were superior to Pastors and Teachers, which are the ordinary. How come the Tables to be turned? and the ordinary agent to be advanced above the extraordinary Ambassadors? And what if all this be granted it edifies nothing unlesse two things be superadded, of both which the Scripture is wholly silent and their proof failes them. 1. They must prove that this power of feeding is transmitted to Peters Successors in a more peculiar manner, then to the Successors of the other Apostles, and that whatever power Peter had is deposited in their hand. 2. That the Pope. is this Successor to whom these things are concredited. And these they do not pretend to prove from Scripture So that still the conclusion remaines intire, That the Scripture is not to the Papists a solid and sure ground of Faith.
§. 11. A third place alwaies in their mouths is Luke 22.31. Simon, Simon; Satan hath desired to winnow you, but I have prayed that thy faith faile not. A man would not believe if he did not see it with his own eyes that such Learned men as diverse of the Papists are should put any confidence in such broken reeds and shatter'd Arguments as this is, Truely saith a learned man, Hoc non est disputare sed somniare: This is rather a dreame, then an Argument: What thoughts the Papists have of our English Sectaries is sufficiently known; but I must needs do them this right to professe, I do not know that Sect among us (the Quakers excepted) so absurd and impertinent in the all gations of Scripture for their most irrationall opinions as in sundry particulars (and this especially) the Papists are. But because they shall not complaine of us (as we do justly of them) that we rather condemne them then confute them, I shall shew the ridiculousnesse of this allegation to their purpose.
1. If this Prayer secure the Pope from unbeliefe and errour in judgment, it secures him also from unbeliefe and Apostacy in heart and life: But this Prayer doth not secure the Pope from Apostacy in heart and life. The Papists generally confesse that severall of their Popes were Apostatici non Apostolici Apostates, not Apostolick persons. All the doubt lies about the Major, which I prove thus; If this Prayer was put up for Peter in the name and on the behalfe of his Successors as well as himselfe (as the Papists pretend it was though we denie it) then the same thing for which Christ prayes for Peter, Christ Prayes for it for his Successors also, and therefore if Christ prayed that Peter might be kept from Apostacy in heart and life as well as in opinion and judgment, then the Major is true. But Christ prayed that Peter might be so kept, which I thus prove Christs Prayer was the Antidote against the Devils malicious designe; Satan hath desired to winnow you, but I have prayed &c. And consequently the plaister must be as large as the sore: But the Devils designe was not only to draw Peter to error in judgment, but also, yea principally to draw him to Apostacy in heart and life. Ergo.
2. If notwithstanding this Prayer it was possible, that Peter himselfe might fall so farre after Christ's Prayer, as to teach a false Doctrine; then this Prayer doth not prove the Popes infallibility. But notwithstanding this Prayer, it was possible that Peter might fall so far as to teach a false Doctrine. The Minor (which alone needs proofe) I prove thus, He that believed a false Doctrine, might preach a false doctrine; but Peter after this prayer did believe a false doctrine which plainly apeares from Acts 1.6. Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdome to Israel? by which it is evident and the Popish expositions confesse it) that the Apostles (and Peter with them) still retained the old leaven of the beliefe of a Temporal Monarchy of Christ upon earth, (a Doctrine which the Papists themselves condemne in the Millenaries) Nor was this▪ the onelyonly mistake of Peter or the Apostles after that Prayer. And indeed it was not Christs Prayer, but the gift of the Holy Ghost after his death which did secure the Apostles from errour, and us from deceit, in following their Doctrines.
3. If Christs Prayer for the not failing of Peters faith render the Pope infallible, then St Pauls Prayer for the Thessalonians, I pray God your whole Spirit, Soule and Body be preserved blamelesse, unto the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ, 1 Thes. 5.23. and for the Philippians, That they might abound in knowledge—and approve things that are excellent, that they might be sincere, and without offence, till the day of Christ, Philip. 1.9. prove the infallibility, yea, the impeccability of the Thessalonians, and the Philippians. The reason is this; because St Pauls Prayer being infallibly dictated by Gods Spirit, and made according to his Word, and in Christs name must as surely be answered, as Christs Prayer was, for God who cannot lie hath promised to answer such Prayers.
4. If the Prayer of Christ for the perseverance of Faith, makes him infallible for whom Christ prayes, then all elect and persevering believers are infallible. The consequence appeares thus; Because Christ did pray, and doth intercede for the perseverance of the Faith of every such person. Christ expressely tels us, Joh. 17. I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. And there is not one persevering Christian in the World, but owes his perseverance to the Prayer, care, and intercession of Christ: Hence they are said to be preserved in Christ Jesus Iude 1.1. And therefore either this Argument concludes, not for the Popes infallibility, or else it gives him ten thousand partners in that priviledge. And surely, if the prayer for this mercy makes the Pope infallible, much more doth the actuall donation of this mercy make believers infallible.
5. This Prayer was intended for the other Apostles, as well as Peter (though Christ speak to Peter in the name of the rest, as his manner was as evidently appears from hence. Christ prayes for those, whom the Divell desires to winnow. That is plaine from the words, Satan hath desired to winnow you, but I have prayed— But the Devils aime was, not onelyonly against Peter but the rest of the Apostles, as Christ expressely tels us foreign not foreign thee but foreign you in the plurall number. And therefore it followes, that as the disease and danger was generall and common to all the Apostles, so was that reliefe and succour, which Christ here afforded, and consequently all the Apostles are interested in this promise, and therefore either it makes not the successors of Peter infallible, or else it makes all the successours of all the Apostles infallible, let them chuse which they will.
6. And yet if all those difficulties be overcome, the Conclusion may be granted, without any advantage to their cause. For, what if Christ prayed for Peter alone? What if this prayer intended and procured infallibility for him? Quid hoc ad Iphieli boves? What is this to the Pope? What Scripture, what Father, what man (that is not wholly mancipated to the Popes ambitious humour) will say or can prove that the Pope is interested in all the prayers of Christ for Peter? Or why may not all the successours of the other Apostles upon as good grounds claime an interest in that prayer of Christ for the infallibility of all the Apostles Ioh. 17? (For sure I am those prayers of Christ that God would keep them through his own name, v. 11. keep them from evill, v. 15. sanctify them through his truth and keep them unto glory, v. 21, 22, 23, 24. do as fully imply infallibility as this that Peters faith might not faile,) Or, if I do grant, what they cannot prove, that Peters successours have this as their peculiar, yet why should not this prayer preserve the chaire of Antioch as well at that of Rome from fallibility? And how can this prayer that his faith may not faile be put up by Christ for one of them that he tels us, he doth not pray for. Ioh. 17.9. I pray not for th… World, i.e. of reprobates (and such many Popes are confessed to have been) or how can this prayer for perseverance in the faith be offered up by Christ for such as never had any true faith (as is acknowledged of many Popes) or how dare they say Christ prayed thus for the faith of all succeeding Popes, when they confesse the faith of severall Popes hath failed? It is true they have a miserable shift they tell us a Pope may erre as a private person, though not as a Pope, he may erre personally, though not judicially, not in Cathedrâ, it is no doubt among us (saith Costerus) (a)Dico nullum apud nos dubium esse, Romanum Pontificem, ut hominem privatum, errare ac in haeresin labi posse) in Apologiâ cap. 2.That the Pope as a private person, may erre and fall into Heresy. If this be granted, the Pope is not concerned in this prayer and promise of infallibility. For if this prayer for Peter reacheth to his Successors, then the same priviledge for which Christ here prayes for Peter, for the same he prayeth for his Successors: But the same priviledge, which according to their supposition is here prayed for on Peters behalfe, is not prayed for on the behalfe of his successors, themselves being Judges. For Christs prayer they confesse secured Peter from falling into errour, even as a private person, which you see they do not Pretend for the Pope. But here is the benefit of the popes reserving the key of interpretations in his own brest, for now he can order it as he pleaseth, and proportion the meanings of any Text as need requires, and so this Text (if you please to believe them) it procures. 1. That Peter cannot erre, neither personally, nor judicially. 2. That the Pope may erre personally, but not judicially. 3. That the whole Church of Rome cannot erre personally: But it is all the reason in the world that the first inventers and Authors of Infallibility should have the disposing of it in their own hands.
§. 12. A fourth place vehemently urged on the behalfe of the Popes Infallibility is, Deut. 17.11, 12. where the Iowes are commanded under paine of death to stand to the judgment of the High-Priest, and to do according to the sentence which the Priest should shew them.—Therefore (say they) the High-Priest was infallible (else the people had been bound to rest in a false decision) & consequently the Pope who succeeds in the High-Priests place is infallible.
To which I answer, 1. If a man should put them to prove the consequence, how wofully would they be gravelled? If these Romanists would lay aside their Dictatourship and condescend to the proofe of their assertions, how would they prove one of these things: 1. That the high Priest of the Jewes hath a visible Successour upon earth among Christians. 2. That the Pope alone is this Successor. 3. That this supposed successor must be invested with all the Priviledges which the High-Priest had. But I shall passe by all these and the horrible impertinency of the instance & feeblenesse of the consequence, and shall assault them on the strongest side by denying the Antecedent, viz. that any infallibility is here ascribed or promised to the High-Priest, for proof hereof I offer these Arguments.
1. No more infallibility is here ascribed to the HighPriest then to the Judg and to the inferiour Priests: But the Judge and inferiour Priests were not infallible; Ergo, This place doth not prove the High-Priests Infallibility, The Major is evident from the reading of the Words, the Judge or Civill Magistrate is joyned in the same commission with the Priest, and the people are commanded to acquiesce indifferently in the determinations, both of the one and of the other: and therefore either both are infallible, or neither: Again it is not the High-Priest alone, who is here meant, but others also, so the words run in the plurall number, the Priests, the Levites, v.9. And they shall shew thee, they shal inform thee.
For the Minor, it is acknowledged by the Papists Ergo.
2 If this text proves the high Priests infallibility, it proves it in the matters here spoken of: But this place doth not prove the high priests infallibility, in the matters here spoken of: for those are matters of fact, between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke: questions which were decided by Testimonies, and in such they confesse the Pope may erre: so then their Argument runs thus: The high Priest was infallible, in matters of fact. Therefore the Pope is not infallible in matters of fact, but he is infallible in matters of Faith: but our comfort is, as it is a dangerous Argument, so themselves furnish us with an Antidote; for they deny both propositions. 1. they deny the consequent, from matters of fact, to matters of faith. 2 They deny the antecedent, for they do not ascribe to the Pope, and consequently, not to the high Priest, infallibility in matters of fact. You see what shifts they are put to, to support their cause with such rotten posts: to argue from the Aut hority of the priests, to end particular controversies between man and man, between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, (which is all that place speaks of,) to the infallibility of the Pope, in all the matters of God, and deciding all the controversies of religion. I think they have sufficiently improved the stock the high Priest left them.
3 Those words (however they may seem to a carelesse reader at first view) do not assert the infallibility of the Priest or Priests, nor the obligation of the people to an absolute submission, and blind obedience to all their dictates and expositions, & that for two undeniable reasons.
1 Because other places of Scripture (with whom this, must be reconciled) command both Prince, and people to keep close to the word of God, and to that end, to read in the book of the law diligently, and to do according to all that is written therein, Deut. 5.32, 33. You shall observe to do as the Lord hath commanded you, you shall not turn aside to the right hand, or to the left: You shall walke in all the wayes which the Lord commanded you. So Deut. 6.6. &c. It is Gods speech to Ioshua, ch. 1.8. This booke of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein. And in case of doubt, it is the Prophets injunction to the people, to have recourse to the law, and to the Testimony. Isa. 8, 20, Now put case an high priest should fall into Idolatry (I may well suppose it, for it was done,) and should expound the law so as to favour his opinion, & practice, I demand whether in this case, the people of the Jewes were bound to believe & obey him, or not, to worship an Idol, or not? Affirme it none will, but one of a Jesuiticall h.e.a feared conscience nor can any Christian hear such an assertion without horrour, If they deny it, their argument from this place is lost.
2 That sence of Scripture which justifies the Jewes in in putting Christ to death, is a false fence, and corrupt exposition: But the Popish sence of this place, and their argument from it, doth justifie the Jewes in putting Christ to death. Ergo it is a corrupt exposition, for the Major, he that denies it, deserves not the name of a Christian: And whatever his successours will do at a pinch, I am sure St. Peter did not justifie them, but severely condemns them, and highly aggravates, their sin in it: Act. 2, & 3, & 4, & 5. The Minor, (about which alone the doubt lies) I shall easily prove: which I am more willing to do, that all Christians may observe the just Iudgment of God, and the fearfull Apostacy of these men, that rather then recant their errours will, (in effect) renounce Christianity, and justifie the murderers of Christ, I prove it thus: If the Jewes, in that Act, did nothing, but what by vertue of this place, they were obliged to do, then they did not sin. But the Jewes did nothing in the murdering of Christ, but what by vertue of this place (If the Popish sence bee true) they were obliged to do. Ergo: The Major they do, and must grant, for it cannot be a sin to obey Gods command. The Minor I prove, if this law did require absolute obedience to their Priests, and was in force at that time, then the Jewes did nothing, but what they were obliged to do: But this law did require such obedience, (say the Papists) and it was in force at that time (say I) Ergo: The consequence no man will deny, but he that doth not understand it. The Minor, I prove it in its two branches 1. This law bound the Jewes to absolute obedience to their Priests: This is known to be their opinion. But because I have no great confidence in the ingenuity of these men, I will prove it out of 2, or 3 of their most eminent authors. Becanus hath these words, the whole people in matters of religion were commanded to follow that which the High-Priest enjoyned them. (a)Totus populus in negotio religioais jubebatur id sequi, quod Pontife… judicabat sequi oportere. In manuali de Iudice controversiarum lib. 1. cap 5. nu. 62.What more plain? Thus Melchior Canus (one of great Authority with them) Moses doth not command that they should believe the Priests if they judged according to law, but rather, that they should take that for law, which the Priest taught them (b)Non praecipit Moses ut sacerdotibus credant, si judicarent secundum legem, sed potius, ut que sacerdotes docueriat, ea pro lege habeantur in Oper, Cani, lib. 6. p. 510.Bellarm disputes against the assertion of Brentius, That the people were to stand to the Iudgment of the High-Priest's only upon condition they judged according to law, and argues that they were absolutely bound to follow it.(c)De verbi Dei interp. lib. 3 c. 4. And (that you may see it is a resolved case) Gretser defends Bel in it and tell's us plainly the people were bound to stand to the High-Priests judgment whatsoever their sentence was(a)Quamcúmque sententiam tulerunt. Defens. Bel. lib. 3. cap. 4.1239. I think an Adversary will not require more for the proofe of the first branch of the Minor.
The second branch of the Minor is, that this law was then in force, which I prove thus. If Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished this Law, it was in force: But Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished it: The Ceremoniall Law which was to expire yet in the judgment of all intelligent Divines, Antient and Modern, Popish and Protestant did not expire till the death of Christ, and consequently while Christ lived, this Law was in force, which being considered, quite invalidates the last and most plausible evasion of the Papists to this instance as Becanus delivers it Synagoga fere expiravit, The Synagogue was almost expired: He should have said the precept, Deut. 17. was altogether expired, and instead of it here is, the Synagogue was almost expired: And what then? it was not yet expired, nor dead. A man that is almost dead is yet alive, and while the Law lives, it hath its force over us, as the Apostle argues Rom 7.1. Else it is a pretty device of Becanus, and will do fine feats; for by the same Argument I will prove that the Jewes were not then bound to observe their Passeover, quia Synagoga fere expiravit: And if that Law which enjoyned the observation of the passeover was in full force to the Jewes, notwithstanding the nearnesse of its expiration, then the same must be acknowledged of this Law, which required absolute obedience to the High-Priests sentence, and consequently the Jewes were then bound by it, and therefore (Horresco referens) did not sin in it; And because the conclusion is divilish and detestable to all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, therefore the principles from which it flowes are rotten, and that Popish cause which cannot stand without such prodigious blasphemies ought to be abhorred by all that pretend to Christianity. And therefore the Popish glosse upon the place is false, and their Argument from it is wicked, and the true sence is this, they were bound to hearken to the Priests, if they delivered sentence according to the Law, and not if they did grosly contradict it: And the rejection of this exposition, and the assertion of the peoples implicit faith hath forced severall of them, who passe for sober men amongst our Adversaries into such expressions as these That this action of the Priests (in condemning of Christ) was indeed contrary to Christ, but their sentence was most true, and most profitable, yea, that it was a Divine Oracle. So Canus (a)Nam sacerdotum veterum acta quidem Christo adversa fuerunt, at seatentia bominum alioqui pessimorum non solum verissima, sed reipub. etiam utilissima fuit. Quin Divinum oraculum fuisse Johannes testatur in operibus. lib. 5. ca. ult. pag. 283.That at that time the Priests had the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth: So Petrus a Soto (b)Non defuit tune temporis sacerdotio Levitico Spiritus Propheticus, Spiritus Sanctus, spiritus veritatis in Evolegomenis.That the Arts of that Councell were wicked, but the sentence whereby they condemned Christ was just and true, So Harding. (c)Against Iewels Apology ca. 6, divis. 3. par. 6.Really Protestants must be tender in pressing their Arguments too farre, for the Papists, like wild Horses when they are chased will venture over hedg and ditch. We have already made them turne Jewes; I am afraid next remove we shall dispute them into Paganisme, if they be not there already.
§. 13. And thus I have dispatched the Romanists pretensions from Scripture, for the Popes Supreme and infallible Authority: If infallibility have any foundation in Scripture, it is in these places: And how far they are from giving any countenance or support to their opinion I leave to that reader to judge, who hath either sence or conscience, or any care of his Salvation. But I must not do them wrong, I confesse there is one Argument behind, and that is taken from St Peters prerogatives: And Bellarmine reckons up no lesse then twenty eight Prerogatives, which all undoubtedly belong to the Pope: yes, that I confesse strikes all dead and therefore I must crave the Readers pardon, and Bellarmines mercy, if I once do (as the Papists do ordinarily) passe over in silence what I cannot Answer, for who can resist these Evidences? Peters name is changed: Ergo, the Popes nature is changed from fallible to infallible: Peter is oft mentioned in the first place, therefore ought to have the first seat, and is the chiefe Bishop: Peter walks with Christ upon the Water, and therefore the Pope must raigne with him upon earth, and Divisum imperium cum Iove Papa tenet: Peter payes Tribute, and therefore the Pope should have a power of levying Tribute to reinburse him. Christ teacheth in Peters Ship, and therefore to quit scores, the Pope should rule in Christs Church: Christ bids Peter let down his Net, therefore the Pope must catch the Fish of Supremacy: Christ washeth Peters feet, therefore all men must kisse the Popes Toe: These and diverse other such prerogatives. Bel hath collected together, and vehemently argues from them for the Popes Supremacy,(a)De Pontifice, lib. 1. ca. 17. ad ca. 25. but for these I must desire some time to give in my Answer.
I hope I have said enough to prove the second Proposition, viz. That the Scripture in it selfe is not a sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith (according to their Principles) and that the popes pretended Infallibility hath no solid foundation there; But when they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to the Fathers, and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers: And therefore that must be considered in the next place.