The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Treatise · Introduction – Chapter 1
The Introduction.
ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into, and to ground it upon the Churches infallible T…stimonie and supreme Authority. But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church, and on what account they ground their Faith upon her, then they sall into diverse opinions. By the Church some understand the ancient Church, whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers, others, the present Church, whose living Testimonie, and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie: and this present Churh too, they cannot yet agree what it is: Some say the Pope, others a generall Councell, and others the Pope and a Councell together. Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie. This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture, others in the Authority of the Fathers, others in universall or all tradition, others in the motives of credibility (as we shall see in the process of this discourse.) My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew. That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars: and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions.
I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope. 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles. 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers. 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels. 5 Nor in unwritten tradition; and the authority of the present Church. 6 Nor in the motives of credibility. Of which in order.
CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility.
Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity, and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest. This needs no great proofe. For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome, then the Bishop of York, the onelyonly plea is, that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor, and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions, which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with. But if I ask how this appears, what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion (upon which hangs the whole Mass, and Fabrick of Popery.) There is no man so grosly absurd, to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion, that he is Peters successor. But for the proof of this, I am by the learned Romanist referred unto some passages of scripture; as Thou art Peter feed my sheep, &c. Unto Tradition and the Testimony of Fathers and acts of Councells, that have either devolved this power upon or acknowledged and confirmed it▪ in the Bishops of Rome: from whence it undeniably followes, that the Popes foreign or naked affirmation of his own Authority (though delivered …x Cathedrá, and with all immaginable formalities) is of no weight in it self, and hath no strength, nor vertue in it further then it is supported and demonstrated from such Testimonies of scripture fathers or Councells. Which will further appear from this consideration: That upon supposition, that the Scripture had been silent as to Peters supremacy, and the Fathers and Councels had said nothing concerning the succession of the Bishops of Rome, in St Peters chair, but had ascribed the same priviledges, which they are pretended to atribute to the Pope, to the Bishop of Antioch. I say upon this supposition, the Popes pretences would have been adjudged extremely presumptuous, and wholly ridiculous. From this then wee have gained thus much. That the Popes Authority and Infallibility being the thing in Question and but a superstruction upon those other fore-mentioned foundations; and not foreign, or credible for it self, that, it is not in it self a sufficient foundation for a Papists faith. And so that must be quitted as impertinent to the present enquiry, and we must go to the other particulars and examine whether a Papist without any reference to or dependence upon the Popes Authority or Infallibility can find a solid foundation for his faith either in Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, tradition or the motives of Credibility. And if I can shew, that the Papists according to their own principles cannot have a solid and sure ground for their faith in any of the now mentioned particulars, or if I can shew that all their other pretensions according to the principles of the most and learned'st Papists, depend upon this Authority of the Pope, and without it are no solid foundation of faith, that Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, and tradition, are not conclusive nor obliging to me to believe, without the Popes Authority and Interpretation (which I think will be made evident in the following discourses) then I may truly conclude that they have no foundation for their faith. Therefore I pass on to the second head.