The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Table of contents – Postscript
The INDEX.
The Introduction.
Pag. 1.
CHAP. 1.
The Popes infallible Authority is no sufficient foundation of Faith, and is a meer nullity
pag. 2.
CHAP. 2.
Scripture is no sufficient foundation of Faith to a Papist according to their principles proved out of their prime Authors.
Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4.
The Scriptures alledged by them for the Popes infallible authority examined in generall.
Sect. 5. 6.
In particular Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter
Sect. 7. 8, 9,
Iohn 21. Feed my sheep.
Se. 10,
Luk. 22. I have prayed, &c.
§. 11.
Deut. 17. 11, 12,
§. 12.
CHAP. 3.
Of the Infallible authority of the Fathers
Asserted by the Papists.
Sect. 1.
Disproved,
1. By the same arguments by which the Papists derogate from the authority of Scripture.
§. 2, 3.
2. Because Infallibility is the Churches Prerogative.
§. 4.
3. The Fathers disclaime it.
§. 5.
Exc. But Fathers where they agree are Infallible Answered.
§. 6. p. 46.
4 The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting.
§. 7, 8, 9.
CHAP. 4.
Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels
Asserted by Papists.
§. 1.
Disproved,
1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition.
§. 3, 4.
For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible.
§. 5.
Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible:
Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent.
ibid.
2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels, they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition.
§. 6.
3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels. Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara.
Sect. 7, 8, 9, 10.
Of St Austins judgment.
§. 10, 11.
4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels.
§. 12.
2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture. Proved in generall.
§. 13.
In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it.
1 Tim, 3. 15.
§. 14.
Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16.
§ 15.
That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith.
1. Christ denies this to the Apostles:
2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours.
3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines.
Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth.
§. 16.
Acts 15. 28.
§. 17.
Mat. 28.
§. 18. pag. 103.
3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels.
§. 20.
An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this, that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible.
§. 21.
4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as
1. That they be generall.
§. 23
2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church.
§. 24.
3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty, piety, and love to Truth.
§. 25.
Exc. Pope, Councels, Fathers, Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible.
Answered.
§. 26.
CHAP. 5.
Of O…all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church.
This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors.
§. 1.
Refuted.
1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own.
§. 2, 3
2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing, against the judgment of God and all men.
§. 4. pag. 140.
3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition.
§. 5.
4. Traditionary proofs disowned,
1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old.
§. 6.
Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables.
Answered.
§. 7.
2. By Christ and his Apostles
§. 8.
Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15.
ibid.
5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers.
§. 9.
…. Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves.
§. 10. pag. 158.
Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide. Answered.
ibid.
…. Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument, yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way.
§. 11.
It might creep in by degrees.
§. 12.
1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors.
§. 13. pag. 166.
1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second.
ib.
2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age.
§. 14.
3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted.
§. 15.
4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age.
Sect. 16, 17, 18.
And few Writers.
§. 19.
2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors.
1. From Gods just judgment.
§. 21.
2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred.
Sect. 22.
3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so.
Sect. 23.
Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes.
ib.
8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines, not descending by Tradition but new.
Sect. 24.
Exemplified in two Doctrines
The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin,
And the Canon of the Scripture.
ibid.
CHAP. 6.
Of Miracles and the motives of credibility
The o…inion represented in their words.
Sect. 1.
Refuted
1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome.
Sect. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church.
Sect. 8.9.10.
The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted.
1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fall…bility.
Sect. 12.
2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed. Proved by Arguments.
Sect. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
3. Miracles onelyonly prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person.
Sect. 19.
4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be, and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks.
Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists.
Sect. 20.
5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly.
Sect. 21
6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists.
Sect. 22.
A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists.
Sect. 23.
Another plea from Gods providence, and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge.
Sect. 25, 26, 27, 28.
CHAP. 7.
Of the Solidity of the Pro…stants Foundation of Faith.
The Protestants have a solid fou…dation of Faith in the Scri…tures, the Papists themselves … ing judges.
Sect. …
Their Learned men acknowle…
1. That the Scripture is, … may be known to be the … of God without the Church Testimony and by its ow… light.
Sect. …
2. That the Books of Scriptu… are not corrupted in essentia… and necessary points.
Sect. …
3. That the sence of Scripture … things necessary may be u…derstood.
Sect. …
Except: Protestants … upon an humane Transla…tion answered
Se. 5, 6, 7, …
Protestants freed from the pre…tended circle of proving Scrip…ture by the spirit, and the spi…rit by the Scripture.
Sect. 9… 10, 11, 12…
A consideration of that preten… ostered at by some Romanists.
That the Churches Authority … a sufficient foundation fo… faith without infallibility.
Sect. 13…
The APPENDIX.
THe occasion of it.
pag. 1
The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery.
p. 5.
The Argument which perverted him, viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion: considered and examined.
pag. 8. to the 12.
Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy.
p. 12.
Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare.
p. 14.
Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved.
The Negative defended.
1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves.
p. 15.
They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement.
p. 16.
Their haltings in the point, and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered.
p. 18.
2. Because their reasons to dedefend it are weak.
Mr Cressy's arguments examined.
Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority.
p. 21.
2. From the Anathema's of Councels.
p. 23.
3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church.
pag. 25 to pag. 30.
4. No unity without Infallibility.
pag. 30.
Other considerations against infallibility.
1. The Texts and arguments alledged, either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have.
pag. 33.
2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible, yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome.
ib.
A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist, and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity.
p. 34.
The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated, and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled.
pag. 36. to 45.
Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered.
pag. 45.
Everards arguments against Scriptures, being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies, examined & answered. 1 (Which is the great argument of the Papists) because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissent…rs.
p. 47.
2. Some books of Scripture are lost.
p. 50.
3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark.
p. 52.
2 Pet. 3.16. Vindicated.
pag. 52.
Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke. considered.
1. About the number of Sacraments.
pag 54.
2. About the number of Canonicall books.
p. 55.
3. About the incorruption of Scripture.
p. 56.
4. About the sence of Scripture.
p. 57.
5. About fundamentall points.
p. 59.
4. Protestants have not the Originals but onelyonly Translations.
p. 63.
5. There are contradictions in Scripture.
p. 65.
6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions.
p. 66.
7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes.
p. 68.
8. This makes every man judge.
p. 69.
Another argument of Cressy's, taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions.
p. 71.
Rushworth's two great ap…plauded a…guments in his Da…alogues refuted.
The first taken from the grea… uncertain…y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles.
p. 75 to 82.
The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers.
p. 82.
Mr. White's argument, viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies, considered and answered.
p. 88.
The Scriptures authority and sufficiency, argued onelyonly from one Text.
2 Tim. 3.15, 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard, Mr Cressy, and Mr. White.
p. 92. ad finem.
A Postscript to the Reader.
The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church, Pope, or Councels; it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence. Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence, the Reader will easily discerne. The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow.
For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decis…on. p. 9. l. 7. r. Gret…. p. 13. l. 31. r. rock. p. 14. l. 21. r. least. p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior. p. 35. l. 32. r. their. after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because. for best. p. …0. l. 8. r. least. p. …5. l. 26. r. Grill. … acquices. p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces. p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus. p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. …d there for …y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius. p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4.r. fricat. …b. l. 26. r. breaths. p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius. p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosi… p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione. p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus. p. 130. l. 1. r. student. p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers. p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish. p. 137. l. 25.r. recentieribus. p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the cit…tions are misplaced. p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks. p. 171. l. 20. r. things. p. 174. l. 33. r. Apota…ici. p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non. p. 218. l. last. r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last. r. undeniable.
In the Appendix.
Pag. 40. l. 3. after iu… read each particular. p. 44. l. 30. r. it is. p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuall…. p.62. l. 17. r. Stilling fleet. ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius. p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part.