The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 1
THE Good old way defended, &c.
IT hath been observed by some, who have read this Book, that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists, not only for his Arguments; but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries (had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions, there had been less blame in it) and even the imputation of Noveltie, of the Opinions of Presbyterians, (with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned) is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine, which in their ordinary cant, is, the new Gospel. If he hath proved, or shall prove, that our Principles for Paritie, and against Prelacy, is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles; he hath some advantage against us: Yet if our way have been owned, and practised in Scotland, before the Papacy, and among the Waldenses, for many Ages; The edge of his prejudice against it, will be a little blunted: The former I have already debated with some of his Partie, and may have occasion to resume that Dispute, before I have done with this Book. The other may be easily made appear; For in their Confession of Faith (after they had fled to Bohemia) called Confessio Taboritarum, Joan. Lukawitz, Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny, that By Scripture warrant, Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops; and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests. Perin. Hist. of the Vaudois, p. 53, 62. (cited by Owen of Ordination, p. 4.) Sheweth, that they had no other Ministers for 5…0. years, than such as was ordained by Presbyters. Walsing. Hist: of England. pag. 339. Telleth us, that the Lollards (the same Sect with the Waldenses) had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops. Now of this Sect, even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius, an Inquisitor, in his Book contra Haereticos, sayeth, that it had continued longest of all the Sects; For some say, (these are his Words) they have been from the days of Pope Silvester. 1. (who was in the time of the first Nicen Council) others from the dayes of the Apostles.
§ 2. It may also be made appear, that his own opinion, of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours, not only by the Fathers (as will after appear,) but even the Church of England, was not of that Opinion, till Bishop Lands time, and but few of them after it. Spellman, p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin, hath these words, Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi. Catal. test. verit. To. 2. saith of Wicklif, tantum duos ordines min…strorum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Dia…onos. Fox. Act. monum. T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him, hath these words, p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church. there was no more Officers in the Church of God, than Bishop and Deacons, as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly. He citeth also Jerom, for this. After the Reformation, in the Book called, the Institution of a Christian man, made by the whole Clergy, 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament, to be preached through the whole Kingdom, it is said, That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. Cranmers, and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited. S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book, it is said, that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers, not mentioned in Scripture. For the same Opinion, Owen of Ordination, p. 114, 115. citeth Jewel, Morton, Whitaker, Nowell, and the present Bishop of Sarum.
§ 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie, and against the Divine right of Episcopacy, is as old as the Reformation from Popery; is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici, signed by Luther, Melanchthon, and many other Divines; as they are set down lib. concord. Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art. 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors, without Bishops. And cite Jerome saying, Eam (Ecclesiam Alexandrinam) primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris, & Ministris, communi operâ gubernatam fuisse. These articles were agreed on, An. 1533. After, p. 324, 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio, & Potestas excommunicandi & absolvendi, that, liquet confessione omnium, etiam adversariorum nostrorum, communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores, sive Presbyteri, sive Episcopi. And they cite Jerome, as holding the same Opinion, and from his words observe, hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum, & Presbyterorum, sive Pastorum, tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse: idque res ipsa loquitur, quia officium & mandatum plane idem est, quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum & Pastorem, &c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes, Palsegrave, Saxonie, and Brandenburg, by 45. Dukes, Marquesses, Counts, and Barons, by the Consuls, and Senates of 35. Cities. Yea, to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked, even in England; Bucer, and Fagius, who subscribed them, were brought into England by Cranmer, and employed in promoting the Reformation. The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned, you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book.
It is, then a confidence beyond ordinary, to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion.
§ 4. It is further to be considered, that as Antiquity is not, by it self, a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion; So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it. If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy, so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors; and this sort of Arguments, hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide: It is Divine Institution, not humane practice, Custome, or Antient Opinion, that must be a Foundation for our belief: and when they expose our way as new, they should consider, that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing, and Gods appointment, may be new in respect of its discovery and observation: What is old in it self, may be new to us; because, by the corruption of many Ages, it hath been hid, and at last brought forth to light again: So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers, and by them treated with disdain and mocking, on that account; more than with rational refutation, Acts 17. 19, 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion, is looked on by some as what was new in that time. So was Luthers Doctrine, and Calvins, and that of the other Reformers in their day, respectivè. If my Antagonist can make it appear, that our Opinion about Parity, was never countenanced by Scripture, nor practised in the Christian Church, till of late in Geneva, or Scotland; Let it then pass for a Noveltie, and on that account be condemned: but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie; tho for many Centuries; it was not practised under the Reign, and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ. We are very willing, according to the place of Scripture, he putteth before his Book, to ask for, and walk in the old paths: but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People (as some expound the place, of the way that Moses taught them) and which they walked in, who, we are sure did not err. (as Grotius expoundeth this place, of the way of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way, Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men, more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did, in making the Golden Calf, tho that was a very old practice, and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes, both Antient and Universal.
§ 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction, and first, the ill words that he very liberally, and at … random, bestoweth on these who are not of his way; calling their Principles, and Writings, Lybels, Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to complain of them, whom he supposeth, do persecute them, I am sure it should less be his work to Rail; with such unmanly, and unchristian revilings, at them who no other wayes oppose him, and his Partie, but by dint of Argument. He doth p. 5, 6. Suppose, The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority, and telleth us, How in the Primitive times, they were opposed, by men chosen by the People, who calculate their Doctrine, to the fancies and humours of the Multitude, and prostituted the Gospel to promote error, and delusion, in stead of serving our blessed Saviour, they became slaves of the People, by whom they were originally imployed; and because they were so unhappily successfull, as to gratifie their lusts, they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers. Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre, or to plead for Truth, to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith, vvise men vvill judge. It is rather to be lamented, than denyed, that there are such Ministers in the Christian, yea, in the Reformed Church: but I may confidently say, they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men, than among the Presbyterians in Scotland: Whom it is evident, that by all this Discourse, he designeth to defame; We preach against this Inclination, even as it is in mens hearts: and vve censure it, vvhen it appeareth in their practise, either to the promoting of Error, or disturbing the Peace of the Church. More of this he hath, p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises, and looser theorms, and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie, and true faith, that worketh by love, to airie notions and mistakes. Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper, or of the Presbyterian Ministers, I shall leave to others to determine. I am sure, they who know the Scots Presbyterians, and do not spitefully hate them, will not say, that either their Doctrine, or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie. This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose. Whether the Presbyterian, or Prelatick Church Discipline, as they have been exercised in Scotland, come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church, it's easie to determine, by them who have seen the one, and can judge of both, without prejudice.
§ 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion, p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion, had their immediate commission from heaven, and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men: To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned. If he mean the Apostles, I shall not contradict his Assertion; but must look on it as most impertinent: Seing the other, who he saith, had their Authority from Men, were distinguished from, and opposite to, not only the Apostles, but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church, who were in, or after their dayes. Also the Assertion, so understood, could make nothing for Prelacy, or against Paritie, in the primitive Church, which seemeth to be the design of this Passage. If he understand it of Bishops, who, he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles; this is a new opinion, with a Witness; and for any thing I know, himself first hatched it: and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery, that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven: I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians, so new as this, of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions. Sure, if it be so, they must then shew their credentials from Heaven, and the signs of Apostles wrought in them. As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King's Congedelire, and their Consecration, and also, all the debate that is about their Prelation, and will excuse us from owning them, till we be satisfied in this matter, wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous.
§ 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches, and unaccountable Extravagancy; while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie, (as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way) and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence, and Impiety. Supposing (without any semblance of Proof…) that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded but demolished, when Episcopacy is laid aside, and that without these sacred Vehicles (viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy,) true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm. If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie, (to use his own words) I know not what can be called by that Name. It is of the same strain, that the extravagance of these last dayes, (which is wholly charged on Presbytery) is boundless, and Sceptical, and Christianity is more dangerously wounded, by the delusions of some that are Baptized (Presbyterians) then by the open blasphemies of Infidels; and that the first (viz. the Presbyterians) are altogether inaccessible by reason, that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations, and will not be instructed, their Errors are made stronger by their vanity. And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose. To which I have no other Reply, but the words of Psalms 12. 3, 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, who have said, with our tongue will we prevail, our lips are our own, who is Lord over us, and Psal. 120. 3, 4. What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, O false tongue. We can answer his Arguments, and are willing to be Instructed by him, and attacked that way: But who can stand before this kind of Topicks? I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure, only by Division and Singularitie, save this Author. p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself, of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians, that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts. I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author; But it is evident that the strain of both is the same: I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation. p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour, taught by his Apostles, and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages: For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate; But I cannot overlook his suposing, that we reject certain Ritualls and practises, which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture, and the uniform Belief of all Christians: If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such, we shall correct our Opinion about them.
§ 8. He layeth some Foundations, p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute, which we cannot allow, as first, that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion; but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order, and Discipline; under which Head, he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church. It is to be lamented, that even in Doctrine, there was not that Unitie, that was fit, in the Primitive times: we read of many Heresies early broached: for Order, it was not the same among all, there were sad Schisms, as well as Heresies: and for Ritualls, we find no General Rule they agreed in, for Ordering them, save the Word of GOD, contained in the Scriptures. For General Councills, that medled most with these, were later than the times we speak of. And it is well known, what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them; such as the time of observing Easter. Yea, the first Churches had different Ritualls, about which they made no Divisions, but used Christian forbearance. Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this; which is, C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi. Iraeneus reproving Victor, for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani, hath these words, foreign. And at large sheweth, that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another, for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them. Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were, from uniformity in their Fasting; Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat: in the frequency of Communicating: about the time and manner of Baptising: about the time and degrees of publick penance, placing the Altar, or Communion Table, &c. It is evident then, that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls, as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of: They minded things of higher moment, and greater necessity.
§ 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is, that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals, they (the Primitive Christians,) strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks. This Assertion with respect to Rituals, is wild and absurd; not only because such Uniformity was not found, nor much regarded among them, as hath been shewed; but also, because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion, could afford them no strength; more than an Army is the stronger, by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour. It was their Unity in the Truths of God, their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule, and their Love and forbearance of one another, in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ, in these as the Means, did their strength ly. Yet another strange Position; he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians, (which never hath yet been proved) and affirmeth, that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity; and consequently, we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family. His Supposition (which p. 11. and often else where, he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate) is groundless; as I hope, will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition. His Assertion is false and dangerous. For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches, where several of the Constitutions he talketh of, were practised by some, and neglected or despised by others; as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio, and many others. 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God, there were Debates in the primitive Churches, and some differed from that which was generally held, and yet they were not Excommunicated, but dealt with by more soft Means, and born with, till the Lord should enlighten their Mind, according to the Apostles direction, Phil. 3. 15, 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church, but of few others, to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing, even in Rituals: this is not the Spirit of the Gospel. If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church, who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians, his Assertion cannot be contradicted; yet it may be Ridiculed, for that is impossible for any who is a Christian, to do: but if he speak of what is commonly received, this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church: that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity, who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine, or Ceremony, even though they Dissent never so modestly: and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition. Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them?
§ 10. What followeth, doth surmount all that we have heard. p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians, (their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters) must be received as the infallible Truth of God▪ else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages, from the Combinations of Hereticks. And a little below, The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages, is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors. I make here two Observes, before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted. The former is, that (may be through oversight) he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining, or decisive Power about what must be received as the infallible Truth of God, together with the Bishops: Ergo, Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church; but of this afterward. The other is, it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles, but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church, who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles, and after the Canon of Scripture was finished. Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation. First, that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church, so as they cannot erre; seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God. 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church, beside the Scripture; and without this, we have no Standard of Truth, but must wander in the dark, the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth, and to discover Heresie to us. 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies, is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together, and uniformly Determining what is Truth. But here our Author leaveth us at a loss: What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith, or Canons for our Practice, be none of the Wisest, Best, nor Learnedst, yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter? Next, what if his wisest and best Christians, that is, the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters, do not Determine uniformly about our Faith, or what concerneth our Practice; but some few Dissent, or are not clear to go along with the rest? Whether in that case, have we any Standard for our Religion? He would do well to give us Light in this, when he hath better digested his Notions, and writeth his second thoughts on this Head. If some other Person had written at this rate, we should quickly have had a whole Book, or a long Preface to one, exposing his Ignorance, Impudence, and other such qualities: but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor, but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith.
§ 11. It may be it will have little weight with him, if I affirm and make it appear, that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church; yea, their darling Principle: and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built; and without believing of which, they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion: even as this Author thinketh, we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks. That this is their Doctrine, I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations; I shall single out a few. Eccius, Enchirid: de conciliis. Tollatur Patrum & Conciliorum authoritas, omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua, dubia, pendentia, iucerta. Melthior Canus, loc: Com: 7. C: 3. conclus: 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum, communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant, ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas; quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit. Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis, in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia, majoribus nostris debes, nulla etiam ratione habita, credere, & quas sententias de lege, de fide, de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere. Greg: de valent: Analys: fidei, lib: 8: c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt, infallibiliter verum est. Bellarm: lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 2: & lib. 1: de Purgatorio, cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant, etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret, nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt. Here is a sweet Harmony, between our Authors assertion, and the Doctrine of these learned men, from whom it seems he hath borrowed it. But because (as I said) perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this, I shall bring an Argument or two, against these Principles that he asserteth, or are by just consequences, drawn out of his words: referring the Reader for full satisfaction, to the learned Protestant Writers (whether Episcopal or Presbyterian) who have defended the Reformation against the Papists; for I am sure, many even of the Prelatical Party, differ from him in this Principle.
§ 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice, to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles; but that any of them, yea all of them, may in some of these Points, erre: I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any, or all of the Guides of the Church, tu es Petrus: lo am I with you: and such like Promises, cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion; for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell, and may have Christs presence, even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters. 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience: the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully, when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver: and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching, Upholding, and Presence, which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them. The Arian Church, and the Popish Church, have foully erred, and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly; but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise. 3. The Fathers (whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise, good, and learned Bishops and Presbyters) not only did each of them erre in some things, (which I hope he will not deny, and how then shall Infallibility in all things, be found among them joyntly?) but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves, or in others, as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose; Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined, p: 2. To which I now add Clem: Alexand: Strom: lib: 7. sub finem: foreign, &c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine, who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles. If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle, he doth not truly keep that Principle. And a little after, foreign &c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men, but we believe (concerning what is in Debate) the voice of the Lord: and a little before he telleth us, that we do not believe the Assertions of men, they must not only say, but prove; and that from the Scriptures. Basil, Regula moralium 72. foreign &c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures, must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers, they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture, and reject these that are contrary to it. Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium. Quod solus Christus debet audiri &c. that Christ alone should be heard, the Father witnesseth from Heaven. Non ergo attendere debemus, &c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done; but what Christ did, who is before all: for we must not follow tho Custome of men, but the Truth of God. Chrisost. Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem. foreign &c: Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude, but try things: ye have the Scripture, the exact Standard (foreign) the Index (foreign) and the Rule (foreign) leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things, enquire of all these things from the Scripture. Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth. Origen. Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures; for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith, without these Witnesses. Cyril. Catehes. 4. foreign &c. Do not believe me saying these things, unless I have them out of the Scriptures. Ambros. lib. 1. de fide. ad Gratianum. Nolo Argumento nostro credas, &c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning; let us ask the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Apostles; let us ask Christ.
§ 13. To say that all this is to be understood, of what one or a few Fathers say, not of that wherein they all agree: This hath various absurdities in it; for 1. It is falsly supposed (as in the Progress of the Debate will appear) that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for. 2. If every one of them may erre, why may they not all erre, seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men? Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name, doth not free them from all Mistakes. The Fathers together, and the same men apart, are the same persons under different Notions; and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible. 3. The Testimonies above brought, do not only make single Fathers fallible, but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine; for they are still men, and the Fathers above cited, make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word. Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction: contra Faustum, lib. 11. c. 5. id genus, &c. We must read that kind of Writing, not with necessity of Believing, but with liberty of Judging. And Ep: 112: ad Paulinam. Quod Divinarum Scripturarum, &c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, is without doubt, to be believed; but for other Witnesses or Testimonies (whether single or Combined, he maketh no difference as to this) ye may receive or reject them, as ye shall judge they have more or less weight. Also, Tom. 2: Ep: 19: Solus Scripturarum libris, &c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only, to believe there is no errour in them: but I read others, however learned or Godly they be, (see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion, of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise, learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters) I so read them, that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so; but because they prove it by the Scriptures, that it is so. This forced a Confession from Occam (a Papist of profound Learning, a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans) that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers, beside the Prophets and Apostles; whether they be Popes or others; whether they write in Council or out of it. I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers, who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General, and also more private Councils.
§. 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words, is, that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church, besides the Scripture; for he telleth us, that without the uniform Determination of Truth, by the wisest, best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters, we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church, from the Combination of Hereticks: this Principle falleth with the former; for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture, such a Judge cannot be necessary: for the Church doth de facto, subsist without such a Judge. Again, the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists, assert the necessity of such a Judge, is, because the Scripture cannot hear Parties, nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear, and be obliged by: I ask him, if his wisest, best, and most learned Bishops and Presbyters, can hear him and me, and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us, they being now all dead, as well as the Apostles and Prophets, and nothing of them extant but their Writings, as are also the Sacred Writings? The one is not a visible Judge more than the other; and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers, why not rather to the Scripture it self, which I have proved to be of more, yea, of the only infallible Authority. And indeed, there can be no visible Judge but the present Church, to which therefore the Papists flee. And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians; for they cannot all hear the Pope, or Council, pronouncing a Sentence, and therefore must be content with their Writings, or Report of their Priests, who pretend to no Infallibility: and it is strange, that more certainty should be expected from either of these, than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures. A visible Judge we own, to wit, the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened: an infallible Judge we also acknowledge; vix. God speaking in his Word: but a Judge that is both infallible, and also now visible to us, we cannot find. The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on; they are, 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture, sendeth us not to men, but to the written Word of God, for Decision in controverted, or doubtful Points. Isa. 8. 20: Luk: 27: 29: Mat: 22: 29: John 5: 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles, did always appeal to Scripture, and to no other Judge. 3. All men may erre, as hath been shewed; and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge. 4. If there were such a Judge, sure the Lord would have told us who he is, and that there is such a one: but not one word of either of these in the Bible. 5. Neither the Papists, nor such as this Author, can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge: they are not agreed whether the Pope alone, or a general Council alone, or both concurring, must be this Judge. He telleth us of the wisest, best, and most learned Bishops and Presbyters, but leaveth us to guess who these were: it is a hard case, if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin, who were the best, the wisest, and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch. The third Proposition above mentioned, cannot stand, the other two being taken away: it hath been made appear, that Scripture is the only Standard; and therefore not the learned and wise Bishops. Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men; Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis.