F.

Burdeaux, puts this Question: (a) To whom doth it belong to determine of Canonical Books? and answers thus. To the Church, without whoft Authority I should no more ber lieve St. Matthew then Titus Livius. When Brentius alledged the faying of a Papitt; that if the Scriptures were deltiture of the Churches Authority, they would weigh no more then fups Fables: the Cardinal Hofins replies, (b) That these words may be taken in a pious fence; for in truth (faith he) unleffe the Authority of the Church did teach us that this Scripture were Canonical, it would have very little weight with us: So Charron plainly tells us, (c) That the Scripture hath no Authority, no weight or force towards us, and our Faith,but for the Churches affertion and declaration. Andradius in expreffe termes de nies (a) That there is any thing of Divinity in the Scripture, which binds us to believe the things therein contained, but the Church, which trachethms, that thofe Books are Sacred, none can refift without the higheft impiety. One may well cry out-Hen pietas, ben prifca fides! To disbelieve the Scripture, that is no impiety, but to refift the Church,that is the higheft impiety: To make God a lyar, that is no impiety, but to make the Church a lyar, that is impiety in the highest. You fee now the reafon why Violations of the Churches Authority are more feverely punished

Doctor Jefuita. Ad quem pertinet de libris Canonicis determinare? Catholicus Papifta. Ad Ecciefiam, fine cujus authoritate, non plus fidei adhiberem Matthæo quam Tico L.vio. par.i.qu.12. (b) Potuit illud pio fenfu Lici -Nam revera nifi nos Ecclefie doceret authoritas hang Scripturam effe Canonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet. de anthoritate Scripture contra Brentium. Lib.3. Fol.271. (c) Scriptura nullam habet authoritatem, nullum pondus, nullam vim erga nos & no❤ ftram fidem,nifi quod Ecclefia dicit & declarat, Charron verf. 3. (a) Nequ: in Scripturis quicquam ineffe divinitatis, que nos ad creden dum,quæ illis continentur, religione aliquá conftringat, at Ecclefie, que codices illos facros effe docetnemo fine graviffima impietatis notâ pof* fit repugnare. Defens. Trident.lib.2.

1

at Rome, then the grossest tranfgreffions of Gods Lawes; because there is more impiety in them, and fo more feve rity should be exercised against them. And Pighius ufeth no leffe freedome, telling us (b)That the Scriptures have no Authority with us either from themselves, or from their Authors, but meerly from the Churches Teftimony. Thus you fee, that according to the fyfteme of Popish Theology, the Scripture doth not discover it felfe to be the Word of God, nor oblige my faith, unlesse it bring along with it the Churches Letters of Credence: And whereas in St. Paul's dayes, neither Church nor Apostle was believed further then they brought Credentials from Scripture, Acts 17.11. And St. Auftine in his dayes,in his Controverfies with the Donatifts, batters down their Church by this Argument, that they could not show it in,nor prove it from the Authority of Scriptures: Now on the contrary the Scripture is not to be received, leffe it be confirmed by the Churches Authority: And as Tertullian argued of old: (a) God shall not be God,without mans confent. It is here, as in dealings between mani and man, if 1 fay to fome unknown perfon recommended to me by one whom I know and trust, I should not be lieve your profeffions of honefty (for I know you not) were it not for the testimony which my worthy friend gives of you: In this cafe, the mans profeflions of ho nefty are not the ground of my faith or confidence in him, but onely my friends Teftimony. Or as if a learner in Philofophy should say to his Tutor, I fhould not believe that to be true, which I read in my Book, that the Earth moves were it not for the reverence I bear to your deep judgment and great abilities: Here it is

(b) Scripturæ,nifi ab Ecclefia accepto veritatis teftimonio, nullam, ex feipfis aut fuis authoribus, apud nos authoritatem habent. Lib. 1. Hierarchio cap.zo (a) Nec Deus erit nię homini placuerit,

plaine.

plaine, the reading in his book, is not the foundation of This faith or perfwafion, but onely the reverence he bears to his Teacher. And juft this (fay they) is the cafe of the Scripture, to which purpofe they alledge, and own thofe words of Austin, (though they pervert the fence) (a) I should not believe the Gospel, unless the Churches Anthority did move me. Which if true in their fence, then the Churches Authority is the fole foundation of my faith, and without it the Scripture is a meer Cypher,or at leaft not fufficient to command, or ground my faith, which was the thing to be demonftrated. The truth is, the Papifts put the fame fcorn upon the Scriptures,that the Prophet Elifba did upon that ungodly King Jeboram-2 Kings 3.14. and befpeake it in the fame lan guage were it not that I regard the prefence, the teftimony and the authority of the Church, I would not look to wards thee, nor believe nor reverence the

Set. 3. If it be faid, that although the Churches Te ftimony was neceffary before, yet fince the Church hath long agoe configned the Canon of the Scripture, my faith is now grounded not only upon the Churches teftimony, but upon the Scriptures Authority.

To this I answer. 1. That now as well as formerly, the faith of a Chriftian (acted by Romish principles) doth not depend upon the word but barely upon the Churches teftimony, which I fhall make plain by an inftance. I doe not believe (fuppofing I were a Papift) the Popes Supremacy, because 1 read thefe words, Thou art Peter, for if I read thofe words in Tacitus, I thould not draw an Argument from them, unleffe happily I fhould fall into as merry a vein as Bellarmine doch, when he proves Purgatory out of (b) Plato,Cicero, and Virgil.)

(a) Ego verò Evangelio non crederci, nifi me Ecclefia commoveret authoritas. (b) Bel de Purgat.lib. 1.cap.7. B 4

But

but because the books wherein I read thofe words, This art Peter, is a book of Canonical Scripture, and a part of the word of God, there lies the whole ftrefs of the argument. And this I cannot know, (fay our Catholick mafters,) and am not bound to believe, but for the Churches Teftimony: which Teftimony, as it is the onely caufe which makes the Scripture in general, Authentical quoad nos, faith Stapleton, fo it must be that alone, which makes this place Thwart Peter, Argumentative quoad nos, that is, all the force that argument hath to perfwade or convince me, is from the Church, and not from the Scripture, and the Scripture makes it Canonical to me, and its being Canonical, gives the whole weight to the Argument, and quod eft caufa causa est caufa caufati.

Sect. 4. 2. It is not the words, but fence of Scripture where the ftrength of the argument lies. And that fence, fay they, we cannot understand, nor attain, buc by the Churches interpretation, which leads me to the fecond principle of the Romanifts, viz. That the fence of Scripture, (which indeed is the very Soul of Scripture, and the onely ground of Faith, and Arguments, is in many matters of faith fo obfcure and ambiguous,that there is an abfolute neceflity of an Authentick, and infallible interpreter, and Judge to acquaint us therewith, that is, the Church, or (per equivalentiam Jefuiticam) the Pope. And it is abfurd to expect, and impoffible to receive fatisfaction of doubts, and decifion of controverfies of faith from the Scripture, which is but a dead letter, unleffe the Church animates it. This is fo notoriously owned by them all,that it is needlefs to quote Authors for it. That which I inferre from hence is this, that according to this Hypothefis, the fcripture in it self, (I fay in it felfe,for that is all the prefent Propofition pretends to prove) is no folid foundation for my faith, and indeed, that it is a meer Cypher, which if the Church

be

་

be put to it may have some fignification & value, but elfe none at all. And this is not the letter of the Scripture in it felf, but the Churches interpretation, which gives weight to this argument. And this plainely appears from that faying of their great Malter Stapleton, which defervès to be often mentioned in rei memoriam, and the rather, because Gretferus(a)owns it and juftifies it. When Stapleton had asserted in his triplication against Whitaker, c.17. that even the Divinity of Christ, and of God did depend upon the authority of the Pope, and when Pappus had charged Stapleton with that affertion, Greifers defence is that Stapleton did not mean that they depended upon the Pope in fe & ex parte rei, but only quoad nos, in refpect of us, and fo (faith Gretfer) is is very true, for I that bes lieve that Chriftis God, and that God is one, and three, I do it, being induced by the Authoritie of the Church, teftifying that those books wherein fuch things are delivered are divine and dictated by God: (a) I defire the Reader to obferve this as fully opening the mystery of the Romish Cabal, and difcovering the dreadful tendency of Popith principles, making the Divinity of Chrift precarious, that the Divinity of the Pope may be abfolute and certain. And thus I trow the Pope hath quit fcores with Chrift, for as he was beholden to Chrift for his Authority, fo now Chrift is beholden to his Vicar for his Divinity: and faith he, it was truly faid by Tannerus,) nor needed Pappus to wonder at it,) that without the interpretation and testifica

(a) Defenf. Bel. Tom.1.pag.386, (b) Rectè hoc ab illo afferiturs Addit enim Stapletonus divinitatem Christi Dei pendere à teftimonio judiciaria poteftate Pontificis quoad nos, non in fe, & ex parte rei. Et paulò pòft Neque: prædicanti adeò miram videri debet, quod à Tannero nostro in Examine Relationis Huanianæ fcriptum eft, fine bac inter¦ pretatione & teftificatione Ecclefie impoffibile fore credere (Supernaturalis ter)ex fola fcriptura, Deum effe uaum; effe tres bypoftafes divinas in una efentia non eft,inquam, quòd adeò miretur & irafcatur infulfus Pappus, quia nihil à veritate alienum complectųu, Defenf,Bel,Tom 1.in Append. ad lib.1.Card,Bel.p.386.

tion