Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 1
I. The Proteſtants, he ſaith, affirm, That there is not in the Church One, and that an Infallible Rule, for underſtanding the Holy Scriptures, and conſerving Ʋnity in matters of Faith.
Anſwer.
THIS Propoſition is drawn up deceitfully. For neither we maintain this, nor they maintain the contrary univerſally, and without limitation. No Papiſt dare ſay there is one, and that an Infallible Rule, for underſtanding all the Holy Scripture. For then, why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible? Why do their Doctors diſagree in the interpretation of a thouſand places? He ought therefore to have ſaid, that we hold, There is not in the Church one, and that an infallible Rule for underſtanding as much as is neceſſary to Salvation, &c. And then he belies us: For we believe the Scripture it ſelf gives us infallible Directions for the underſtanding of its ſenſe, in all things neceſſary: which if all would follow, there would be Unity in matters of neceſſary belief. But God will not force men to follow thoſe Directions. They may err; and they may quarrel, when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both.
The Scriptures therefore, whereby he proves what he charges upon us, muſt needs be impertinent. But it is ſomething ſtrange, that in the very firſt of them he ſhould be ſo ſenſleſs, as to give himſelf the lye. For he pretends to refute our errors, as his words are, by the expreſs words of our own Bibles, and immediately puts in a word of his own, inſtead of that in our Bibles; which ſay quite another thing. For inſtead of, according to the proportion of faith, (which are the words of our Tranſlation XII. Rom. 6.) He ſays, according to the rule of faith. What is this, but that chopping and changing, which he falſly charges us withall, in the end of his Preface? And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible, (which he promiſed to quote expreſly) but of the ſenſe of that Scripture; as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors: particularly St. Chryſoſtom and his Followers;XII. Rom. 6. who by proportion underſtand the ſame with Meaſure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius, one of their own Interpreters, and a Jeſuit, [ſecundum proportionem & menſuram Fidei], i. e. according to the meaſure of Ʋnderſtanding and Wiſdom which God hath beſtowed.
Now what can you expect from a man who falſifies in this manner, at the very firſt daſh? In the next Scripture, indeed, he finds the word Rule, (III. Philip. 16.III. Phil. 16.) and preſently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly, &c. Whereas it is manifeſt to all who are not blinded with Prejudice, that the Apoſtle ſuppoſes in the words before, v. 15. they were not all of a mind in ſome things, for there were thoſe among them that believed in Chriſt, who thought the obſervation of Moſes's Law to be neceſſary alſo to Salvation; which was a dangerous error, to mix Legal and Evangelical things together, as Theodoret here expounds it; but might poſſibly be cured, if Chriſtian Communion were not broken on either ſide, by reaſon of this difference: but every one, both the perfect, who underſtood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law, and the imperfect, who fancied it ſtill lay upon them, walked by the ſame rule, &c. that is, preſerved Chriſtian Communion one with another, in the bond of Peace. For he ſpeaks here, ſaith Theodoret, of concord; and the Rule is, the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine: by which if we walk't, it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith. But they of the Church of Rome are ſo far from this, that they have broken all Communion, by their Tyrannical impoſitions, and making other rules beſides the Evangelical Doctrine.
VI. Gal. 16.The next place evidently ſpeaks of the ſelf-ſame thing; that there is no neceſſity of being Circumciſed and obſerving the Law; but if we be regenerated by the Chriſtian Faith, we are ſure of the Divine Favour. In ſhort, the Rule here ſpoken of, is that of the New Creature, mentioned in the foregoing words, v. 15.
But the 4th Text,2 Cor. X. 15. more fully ſhews this man to be a meer Trifler with words, without their ſenſe. For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule, or line of Faith, as he dreams: but only of the bounds and limits of thoſe Countrys, in which the Apoſtle had preach'd the Goſpel, as Menochius himſelf interprets it. This he might have learnt, if he had pleaſed, by the very next words, where the Apoſtle ſaith, he did not boaſt in another man's line, or rule, of things made ready to his hand: i. e. thoſe Countreys and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apoſtles; glorying (as Menochius well gloſſes) in other mens Labours, as if they had been his own. Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures, by the Regions in which the Apoſtles preached. An excellent proof, that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture, becauſe St. Paul had his own Rule, and others had their Rule: that is, not one and the ſame; for he took care not to preach the Goſpel in another man's line; i. e. in thoſe places where others had done it already. Are theſe Romiſh Emiſſaries in their wits, when they write on this faſhion? Either they have no underſtanding of what they write; or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers, who underſtand nothing; elſe they would be aſhamed of ſuch wretched ſtuff.
1 Cor. XI. 16.From hence he carries us back to the Firſt Epiſtle unto the Corinthians, Chap. XI. 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second, could he have found the Word Rule there; which was all he ſought for, not regarding the Senſe. But, alas! he could find only the Word Cuſtome in that place; which he hoped his fooliſh Reader would be content to take for the ſame with Rule. And what is this Rule (as he will needs have it) of which the Apoſtle is there ſpeaking? Is it about any matter of Faith? No, only about Womens praying bare-faced, without a covering over them; which the Apoſtle ſays was againſt the Cuſtom of the Church. So the ſame Menochius, whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church; becauſe he ſaith, in his Preface, he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the beſt Writers. And what Church doth St. Paul here mean? only one Church, or all that he had planted? He himſelf anſwers; We have no ſuch cuſtom, nor other Churches of God neither; therefore you not only croſs us, but the whole Church, as Theophylact expounds the words: And to the ſame effect Theodoret, he ſhows that theſe things did not ſeem ſo to him only, but to all the Churches of God. Let the Romaniſts ſhow us any ſuch Authority as this, of all the Churches, for any thing wherein we differ, and ſee whether we will be contentious: Tho' I muſt tell them, that there are a vaſt many differences between the Decrees of the Paſtors of late times, tho' never ſo many hundreds; and the Authority of thoſe few Paſtors (as this man calls them) which had the preſcription only of twenty or thirty years after Chriſt. For theſe few Paſtors were the Apoſtles themſelves, infallible men; and other Apoſtolical perſons, who were guided by their directions.
And now he comes to tell us, by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture; inſtead of telling us by what names, the Infallble Rule for underſtanding Scripture is called: For the good man, when he had gone thus far, had forgotten what he was about.
The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI. 17. will do him no ſervice; For it is,Rom. VI. 17. ſaith Theophylact, to live aright, and with an excellent Converſation. Or that Form of Doctrine, ſaith Menochius, which the Apoſtles had impreſſed upon the Romans by their preaching: Unto which, is there oppoſed, not diſunion and diſorder, &c. (as this Scribler pretends) but their ſerving ſin. But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themſelves to look into the places he alledges; elſe he would not have had the impudence (if it were not meer ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it) to mention the next place of Scripture: 2 Corinth. X. 16. A thing made ready to hand.
2 Cor. X. 16.He ſhould have ſaid, things made ready, if he would have ſtood to his promiſe, of quoting expreſs words of our Bible. For ſo it is both in our Tranſlation, and in the Original, and even in the Latin Tranſlation it ſelf. By which is meant, as the ſame Menochius judiciouſly obſerves, Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apoſtles, and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit. And ſo Theodoret, he reproves thoſe, ſaith he, who would not preach the Goſpel among unbelievers, &c. Let the Reader here again look about, and ſee if he can ſpy a word about diſunion, diſcord, diſobedience, &c. in this place; of which, this man ſaith there always is mention in the very Text which he alledges.
1 Tim. VI. 20.In the next indeed there is mention of vain babling; and oppoſition of Science, falſly ſo called, 1 Tim. VI. 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his truſt, (not the Churches truſt, as this man again ſhamefully corrupts both our Tranſlation and the Text.) And what is this depoſitum or truſt, but the plain Doctrine of the Goſpel? unto which he oppoſes the new Phraſes, and the new Doctrines, which the School of Simon Magus had brought in; as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret, whoſe words are theſe; They that had their Original from Simon, were called Gnoſticks, as much as to ſay, men endued with Knowledge: For thoſe things in which the Holy Scriptures were ſilent, they ſaid God had revealed to them. This the Apoſtle calls a falſe Knowledge; From whence I think it clearly follows, that Theodoret thought true Chriſtian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures: Which is the Doctrine he ſaith, (let the Romaniſts mind this) which all that have the dignity of Prieſthood, ought carefully to keep, and propoſe to themſelves, as a certain Rule, and by this ſquare all that they ſay, all that they do. In ſhort, Tertullian (de Preſcript. C. 25.) underſtands by the thing committed unto him, that Doctrine which the Apoſtle delivered in this Epiſtle. To which Theodoret adds, the grace of the Holy Ghoſt, which he received at his Ordination: That is, his Office committed unto him, and all the Gifts of the Spirit beſtowed on him, to qualifie him for this Office.
He bids us ſee more in ſeveral other places of Scripture, whoſe words he is not pleaſed to recite; and therefore I ſhall paſs them by: Becauſe if there had been any thing to be ſeen in them to his purpoſe, he would have ſet them forth at large.
And there is as little to be ſeen in the Fathers whom he mentions, to confirm his pretended Catholick Doctrine. And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus, and Tertullian, without alledging their words. But he adventures to ſet down ſome words out of Vincentius Lirinenſis, tho he doth not tell us where to find them. We need not go far indeed to ſeek for them, they being in the beginning of his Book: where, he that is able to read it, may find a full confutation of the Romiſh Pretences. For having ſaid, that the way to preſerve our Faith found, is firſt by the Authority of the Divine Law; Secondly, by the Tradition of the Catholick Church: He raiſes this Objection (which ſhows how much the firſt of theſe is above the other) Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect, and abundantly ſufficient unto it ſelf, for all purpoſes, (mark this, which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cauſe) what need is there to joyn unto this, the Authority of the Catholick Senſe? To which he anſwers, that the Scriptures being a great depth, are not underſtood by all in the ſame Senſe: But Novatian underſtands them one way, Photinus another; Sabellius, Donatus, Arrius, &c. another. And therefore becauſe of the windings and turnings of Error, the Line of Prophetical and Apoſtolical Interpretation, ſhould be directed according to the Rule of Eccleſiaſtical and Catholick Senſe. Thus he ends his Book, as he begins it. We have not recourſe to Eccleſiaſtical Tradition, becauſe the Scripture is not ſufficient to it ſelf for all things; but becauſe of various Interpretations. But then he immediately ſubjoins, in the entrance of his Book, what that Catholick Senſe is (Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where, and always, and by all. Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide our ſelves, and from which the Church of Rome hath departed. For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition, pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron, where he expreſly owns this Rule, p. 22. Edit. Lond. 1612.
And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himſelf; which this Writer ſhould have been ſo honeſt as to have confeſſed. For in concluſion (Cap. XXXIX.) he ſaith, that the ancient Conſent of Fathers is to be ſtudiouſly ſought and followed, not in all the little Queſtions of the Divine Law, or Scripture, (for alas! there is no Conſent) but only or chiefly in the Rule of Faith. That is, in thoſe Queſtions (as he explains it (Cap. XLI) on which the Foundations of the whole Catholick Faith rely. And further he obſerves, That all Hereſies cannot always be confuted this way, but only thoſe which are newly invented, as ſoon as they ariſe, before they have falſified the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients, by the ſpreading of their poiſon. For inveterate Hereſies, and ſuch as have ſpread themſelves, muſt not be impugned this way, but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture; or at leaſt-wiſe, by the Univerſal Councils of Catholick Prieſts, wherein they have been convinced and condemned.
I have been the longer in this, becauſe he is a moſt worthy Witneſs, as this man calls him; by whom we are willing to be tried. And ſo we are by Tertullian, ſome of whoſe words he alſo at laſt adventures to alledge, out of two Chapters of his Book of Preſcriptions againſt Hereticks. But as he jumbles together words far diſtant one from another; ſo he durſt not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX. which would have explained the reaſon why ſometimes they diſputed not with Hereticks out of the Scripture; becauſe that Hereſy of which he there treats, did not receive ſome Scripture; and if it did receive ſome,Cap. XVII. it did not receive them intire, but perverted them by additions and detractions, as ſerved its purpoſe, &c. In ſhort, they would not acknowledg theſe things, that is, the Scriptures, by which they ſhould bave been convinced. To what purpoſe then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures? No, let them believe (ſaith he Cap. XXIII.) without the Scripture, that they may believe againſt the Scripture; juſt as the preſent Romaniſts now do. From whence it is, that he calls Hereticks Lucifugae Scripturarum, men that fly from the light of the Scriptures.L. d. Reſur. Carn. C. XLVII. Inſomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the ſame Book, (Cap. III.) Take from Hereticks thoſe things which they have learnt from the Heathen, that they may ſtate their queſtions out of the Scripture alone; and they cannot ſtand. Unto which Rule, if the Papiſts will yield, their Cauſe is gone. Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture, and we deſire no more: Unto which it is manifeſt Tertullian appeals in other places ſo plainly, that there is no way to evade it; particularly in his Book of the Fleſh of Chriſt, Cap. VI. Let them prove the Angels took Fleſh from the Stars; if they cannot prove it, becauſe it is not written, then Chriſt's Fleſh was not from thence, &c. And again in the ſame Chapter, there is no evidence of this, becauſe the Scripture doth not ſay it. And plaineſt of all in the next Chapter, I do not receive what thou inferreſt of thy own, without Scripture.
Let theſe men bluſh, if they can, who thus ſhameleſly pervert all things to a wrong ſenſe; as they do theſe two words, Rule, and Form of Faith; Which this man hath the Confidence to ſay, is the knowledge of Tradition. But how we ſhould know any Tradition to be true, which is not contained in the Scripture, is the Queſtion; Eſpecially ſince there have been ſo many falſe Traditions, as is confeſs'd by all ſides. Beſides, it is ſo far from being true, that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith, or put it before the Scripture, that Vincentius expreſly puts the Divine Scripture in the firſt place as our Guide; and then the Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe, as a means, in ſome caſes, to find the ſenſe of Scriptures.Cap. XIII. And Tertullian as expreſly in that very Book which he quotes, and in the Chapter preceding, makes the Apoſtles Creed, the Rule of Faith: Which is all contained in the Scripture, and needs the help of no Tradition but that, to prove it.
But after all, I muſt ask, what's all this which he babbles in the concluſion of this Chapter, to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning? That there is one Infallible Rule for underſtanding the Holy Scripture? Which, if he would have ſpoken ſenſe, he ſhould have ſhown is Tradition: But not a ſyllable of this: He only endeavours to loſe his Reader in a miſt of Words. He knew, if he underſtood any thing, there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture: For if there be, Why is there ſuch difference among their own Interpreters in the Expoſition of it? Nay, Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture, for which there is ſome Tradition? As Maldonate, a famous Jeſuite doth upon XIX. Matt. 11. Where he confeſſes,XIX. Mat. 11. that almoſt all expound thoſe words, as if the ſenſe of them was, that all men cannot live ſingle; becauſe all have not the gift of continency: (And among theſe almoſt all, he himſelf mentions, Origen, Greg. Nazianzene, St. Ambroſe) But I cannot perſuade my ſelf, ſaith he, to follow this Interpretation. A moſt remarkable inſtance of the partiality of theſe men, who would tie us to receive the ſenſe of One or Two, and miſcall us if we will not be bound up by them; but take the Liberty to themſelves, of rejecting almoſt all, when it ſerves their Intereſt.