Page images

a refolved cafe ) Gretser defends 'Bel in it and tells us plainlythe people were bound to stand to the High- Priests judgement wbacfoever their fentence was (a). I think an Adversary will not require more for the proof of the first branch of the Minor. • The second branch of the Minor is, that this law was then in force, which prove thus. If Christ had noc ac that time destroyed or abolished this Law, it was in force: Buc Christ had not at that time destroyed or abolished ic: The Ceremoniall Law which was to expire yet ir: the judgment of all intelligent Divines, Ancient and Modern, Popish and. Protestanc did not expire cill the death of Cbrilt,and consequently wbile Chrilt lived, this Law was in force, which being considered quire invadidates the last and most plausible evasion of the Papills to this instance as Becanus delivers it Synagoga fire expiravit. The Synagogue 31' as almost expired: He thould have faid the precept, Deut. 17, was altugerher expired, and inflead of it here is cle Synagogue was almost expired:And wbat then? it was not yet expired, nor dead. A man that is almost dead is yet alive,and while the Law lives it haihits force over us as the Apostle argues Rom.7.1. Else. it is a pretty device of Becaniss,& wil do fine fears ;for by the fame Argument I will prove that the Jewes were not then bound co oblerve iheir Passeover, guia Syragoga fere expiravit: And if that Law which enjoyned the observation of the passeover was in full force to the Jewes,notwithstanding the nearness of its expiration, then the fame must be ac -knowledged of this Law, which required absolute obedience to the high Priests sentence,& confequently the Jews were then bound by it, and therefore(Horresco referens) did not fin in it; And because the conclusion is divelish & detestable to all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity,therefore che principles from which it flowes are rotten, and (a).Qysnacúmque fententiam tulerunt. Defens. Bel 3.cap. 4.1239.


that Popish cause which cannot fard without such pro

digious blasphemies ought to be abhorred by all that pretend to Christianity. Ard'therefore the Popith glosse

upon the place is false, and their Argunient from it is * wicked, and the true sencegs this, they were bound to

tearken to the Priests, if they delivered sentence accor ding to the Law, and not if they did grofly contradi& it : And the rejection of this exposition, and the allertion of the peoples implicit faith hath forced severall of them, who pasle for lober men amongst our Adveriaries into such expressions as these That this action of the Priifts ( in condemning Christ ) was indeed contrary to Christ, but their sentence was most true, and most prefitable, -Jea, that it was a Divine Oracle. So Canus (a) 2 hat at

that time the Priifts and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truib: So Petrus a Soto (b) That the Acts of that Ciunrell were wicked, but the sentence whereby they condemned Christ was just and true, So Harding. (c) Really Prote ftants must be tender in presling iheir Arguments too farre, for the Papifts, like wild Horses when they are chased will venture cver hedg & ditch. We have already made them turn Jewes; I am afraid rext remove we shall dispute them into Paganisme, if they be not there already. F. 13.

13. And thus I have dispatched the Romanist's precensions from Scripture, for the Popes Supreme and infallible Authority: ]finfallibility have any foundation in Scripture, it is in thcse places: Ard bow far they are from giving any countenance or support to their opinion I leave to that reader to judge, who hach either sence or conscience, or any care of his Salvation. Put

(a) Nam sacerdotum ceterum acta quidem Christo ad orla fuerunt, et fententia kominum alioqui peffimorum non folum serilima,fed reipub.era utilisima fuit. Quin Divinum oraculum fuiffe Johannes teftaiky. In operis ł (b) Non defuit tunc temporis facerdotio Leo Lilico Spiritus Propheticus, Spiritus Sanalus. Spiri'us ceritatis.In 1gomenis. (c) Against Tipo:ls Apology enabdiza', 3.fa?,6.

[ocr errors]

I must not do them wrong, I confeis there is one Argument belind, and that is taken from St Peters prerogatives : And Bellarmine reckons up no lefse chen twenty eight Prerogatives, wbich all undoubtedly belong to the Pope : yes, that I confess strikes all dead and therefore I mult crave cbe Readers pardon, and Bellarmines mercy, if I once do (as cbe Papists do ordinarily) palle over ip filence what I cannot Answer, for who can resitt these Evidences? Peters name is changed : Erge, che Popes nature is changed from fallible to infallible: Pater is oft mencioned in the first place, therefore ought to have the first leat, and is che chiese Bishop: Petir walks wich Christ upon the Water, and therefore the Popemutt raigne with him upon earth, and Divisum imperism cum fove Papa tenet. Peter payes Tribute and therefore the Pope should have a power of levying Tribuce to reinburie him. Christ teacheth in Peters Ship, and therefore co quic scores, the Pope should rule in Christs Church : Christ bids Peter let down his Ner, sherefore the Pope must catch the Fish of Supremacy: Christ washech Peters fiec, cherefore all men must kisse the Popes Toe: These and diverse other such

prerogatives. Bil: bach collected together, and vehemently argues from thein for the Popes Supremacy, (a) bat for these I must desire some time to give in my Answer.

I hope I have said enough to prove the second Propofition, viz: That the Scripture in it self is not a sufficient and solid foundation for a Papists faith (according to cheir Principles) and that the Popes pretended Infal. libility hath no folid foundacion chere; But wben they are beaten out of Scripture they use to fly to che Fathers, and to rest their Faith in the Authority of the Fathers. And therefore shat must be considered in the next place.

(a) De Pontifich, lib.1.64.37. ad cap.25.


[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

of the Authority and infallibility of the Fathers, Prop.3. THe third Proposition then is this: The Faith Sect. I. of the Papists hath no solid foundation in the Authority of the Fathers; This the racher deserves consideration, because they make their great boalt of it, and urge it as a principal Pillar of their Faith: It is asserted in their Canon Law; That the Fathers are to be owned and followed even to the least jot. And although some of them have declared their dislike of that assertion, yet they generally agree in this, That the Authority of the Fatbers, especially phere they consent, is a solid foundation for their faith to rest upon. Hence thole expressions of their great Doctors, Take away the Authority of Fathers, and Councels

, and all things in the Church are doubtful and uncertain, Eccius.(a) From the writings of the Fathers as from an Oracle Vniversities bave the certainty of their alertions, á Councels have their decrees, (b)Sixtus Senenfis. Melchior Canus, an Author of great nore among the Romanists laiés down this Conclusion, That the common Jence of the Fathers in the exposition of Scripture is a most certain Argument to confirme Theological asertions: For (faith he) the sence of all those Holy men is the sence of God's Špirit. And a little after, Although you may require of # Philosopher the reason of a Philosophical Conclusion, zés

(a) Tollatur Patrum da Conciliorum authoritas, de omnis in Ecclefia erunt ambigua,dubia, peadentia, incerta. In Enchiridio de Conciliis. (b) Ex Scriptis Sanctorum Patrum velut ex oraculis Theologorum Academic affertionum fuarum conftantiam accipiunta fummique Pontifices decicta sumaito ja piafab..lib.5. Biblioch,

in the exposition of Holy Scripture, you are bound to believe your Ancestors, though they give you no reason for it, and 80 defend whatsoever opinions you receive from them , of the Lam of faith and of Religion: And a little after, all those Holy men together cannot erre in a matter of Faitb. (a) All the Fathers together do never erre, nor can they agree in one error faith Bell. (b) The sayings and Testimonies of the Antient Fathers are not to be examined, when all or al most all do agree in one opinion, saith Salmeron. (c) That which the Fathers unanimously deliver about Religion is infallibly true,faith Gregory' de Valentia:(d) From all which we plainly see, that according to their opinion, the judg. ment of the Fathers is a sure basis and ground of Faich: That is it which I am now to disprove, and to fhew, Thac the Writings of the Fathers,neither are,nor can be a safe and sufficient foundation for a Papists Faith.

S. 2. Onely let me premise two things. 1. I would not be misunderstood, as if I did intend to derogate from the just Authority of the Fathers, or to defraud them of that veneration which is due to persons of such Antiqui,

(a) in expa itione facrarum literarum communis omnium fanctorun zeteYuia intelligentia certiffimum argumentum Tbeologo præftat ad Theologicas affcrtiones corroborandas. Quipe Sanctorum omnium fcafus Spiritus Sanlii sensus ipfe fit. Quanquam à Philoforbis quidem rationem Philofojbicæ conclufioris jure forfitaa poftularis,in facrarum autem lite is qum jittelligentia, majoribus noftris debes, nulli etiam ratione babita, credere, da quinta featcatias de lege, de fide, deque religione ab illis accepisti defendere. Loc. Theolog.7.6:3. Conclus.s. Sancti fimul omnes in fidei dogmate errare non poffunt. lbid.Conc, 6, (b) Patres nunquam omnes fisnill crrint, etiamfi aliquis eorum interdum erret zilam fimul omnis žil kito errore convenire noir dosjant. Bel.lib.z. de Christo cap.2. & l.r. de (c) won fini probanda (examinanda) veterum Patrum dicta di testimonia,quando omnes vel ferè omnes in uzam fententiam con. ueniunt lib.i. Epif.Pauli fine. (d) Quod Patres urs-, nimi con/ensu circa religionem tradunt, infallibiliter verum eft, in AnaLil fidei lib.8.c.8.


« PreviousContinue »