CHAP. XLIII. Their new device of receiving nothing as Scripture Evidence; but the express words
CHAP. XLIII. Their new device of receiving nothing as Scripture Evidence; but the express words.
D etect. 34. Another of their Devices is, to take nothing as Evidence from Scripture, but the Letters or express words.
They will not endure to hear of consequences, no nor Synonimal expressions. Bellarmine himself saith (de verb. Dei, lib. 3, c. 3.) [Convenit inter nos & adversarios, ex solo literali sensu, peti de bere argumenta efficacia: nam eum sensum qui ex verbis immediate colligitur, certum est sensum esse spiritus sancti.] But this may admit a fair interpretation. It was
Cardinal Peronius in his Reply against King James that is judged the deviser of this Deceit: but Gonterius and Veronius the Jesuits have perfected it. I shall say but little of it, because it is already detected and refelled by Paul Ferrius 1618, and Isaaccus Chorinus 1623, and Nic. Vedelius 1628, at large. Yea Vedelius shows, c. 6, p. 50. &c. that it was hatched in Germany by the Lutherans for the defending of Consubstantiation, and from them borrowed by the Revolter Perron.
For our parts, the cunning Sophisters shall find us very Reasonable with them in this point: but if they be fallen out with Reason itself, there's no
way to please them but by turning bruits. And we will not buy their favor at those rates.
Our judgment in this point, I shall lay down distinctly, though briefly, as followeth. 1. The Holy Scripture is the Doctrine, Testament and Law of Christ. And we shall add nothing to it, nor take ought from it. The use of it as a doctrine, is to inform us of the will of God in the points there written.
The use of it as a Testament, is to signify to us the last will of our Lord concerning our duty and Salvation. The use of it as a Law, is to appoint us our Duty and Reward, or Punishment; and to be the Rule of our obedience, and in a sort, the Rule by which we shall be judged.
2. All Laws are made to Reasonable creatures, and suppose the use of Reason for the understanding them. To use Reason about the Law, is not to add to the Law.
3. The subject must have this use of Reason to discern the sense of the Law that he may obey it. And the judge must Rationally pass the sentence by it.
4. This is the Application of the Law to the fact and person: And though the fact and person be not in the Law, yet the Application of the Law to the fact and person is no addition to it. Otherwise to use any such thing would be to add to it.
5. As the fact is distinct from the Law, so must the sentence of the Judge be, which results from both.
6. To speak the same sense or thing in equipollent terms, is not to add to the Law in matter or sense.
7. Yet we maintain the Scripture sufficiency in suo genere, in terms and sense: So that we shall confess that equipollent words are only Holy
Scripture as to sense, but not as to the terms.
8. But there is no Law but may many ways be broken, and no Doctrine but may be diverse ways opposed. And therefore though we yield that nothing but the express words of God are the Scripture, for terms and sense, yet many thousand words may be against Scripture, that be not there expressly forbidden in terms.
9. The Law of Nature is God's Law, and the Light of Nature is his Revelation. And therefore that which the Light of Nature seeth immediately in Nature, or that which it seeth from Scripture and Nature compared together, and soundly concludeth from these premises, is truly a revelation from God.
10. The Conclusion followeth the more debile of the Premises, in point of evidence or certainty to us. Where Scripture is the more debile, there the conclusion is of Scripture faith: but where the fact or Proposition from the Light of Nature is more debile, there the conclusion is of Natural Evidence:
But in both, of Divine discovery. For there is no Truth and Light but from God the Father of Lights. This is our judgment herein.
Now for the Papists, you may see their folly thus; 1. If nothing but the bare words of a Law may be heard in Trials, then all Laws in the world are void and vain. For the subjects be not all named in them; nor the factnamed: And what then have witnesses, and jurors, and judges to do? The Promise saith, He that believeth shall be saved: But it doth not say that Bellarmine or Veronius believeth: Doth it follow, that therefore they may make no use of it for the comforting of their souls in the hopes of Salvation:
The Threatening saith, that he that believeth not is condemned: But it saith not that such or such a man believeth not: should they not therefore fear the threatening?
2. By this trick they would condemn Christ himself also, as adding to the Law in judgment. He will say to them, I was hungry and ye fed me not, &c.
But where said the Scripture so, that such or such a man fed not Christ? It needs not: Christ knows the fact without the Scripture. The Scripture is sufficient to its own use, to be Rule of Obedience and Judgment: but it is not sufficient to every other use which it was never made for. The Law said to Cain, Thou shalt not murder. But it said not to him, Thou hast killed thy brother, therefore thou shalt die. It was the Judges part to deliver this.
3. By this trick they would give a man leave to vent any Blasphemy, or do any villainy, changing but the name. But they shall find that the Law intended not bare words, but by words to signify things: And if they do the things prohibited, or hold the opinions condemned, whatever names or words they clothe them with, they shall feel the punishment.
4. By this they would leave almost nothing provable by the Scripture, seeing a Papist or Heretic may put the same into other terms, and then call for the Proof of that. For example, they may ask where God commandeth or instituteth any one of the Sacraments in Scripture? And when we tell them where Baptism and the Lord's Supper were instituted, they may reply, that there is no mention of Sacraments; and so turn real Controversies into verbal.
5. Yea it seems by this they would make all Translations to be of little use.
And a man might lawfully sin in English, because God for bad it only in Hebrew and Greek.
6. If this be the way of it, let us remember that they must in Reason stand to their own Rules. Let them tell us then what Scripture saith, that Peter was the Vicar of Christ, or the Head of the Catholic Church: or the Bishop of Rome, or that the Pope is his Successor, or that the Pope is the Vice-christ,
or Universal Bishop. Where is there express Scripture for any of this? Yea so much as Bellarmine's Literal sense.
7. And why do not these blind and partial men see, that the same course also must be taken with their own Laws? And that all their Decretals and Canons are insufficient, according to these Rules. It's easy for any Heretic to form up his Error into other words then those condemned by Pope or Council: And if you go again to the Pope, and get him to condemn those new expressions, the men in Mexico may use them long to the detriment of the souls of men, before the damnatory sentence be brought to them. And when it comes, they can again word their Heresy anew. The Jansenists in France show how well the Popes decision of wordy Controversies is understood, and doth avail. But really if they will hold that no part of the Popes Laws oblige but in the literal sense, or that none offend that violate not the Letter, they will make a great alteration in their affairs. And perhaps any of their subjects may Blaspheme the Pope himself in French, Dutch,
Irish, English, Slavonian, &c. because he forbids it only in Latin; For if Translations be not God's Word, then they are not the Popes word neither. A pretty crochet for a Jesuit. It is mendacium, and not a Lye, that the Pope forbids. It is said that a Traitor or Murderer may be hanged: but it is not said that such or such a man shall be hanged; or that he was a traitor or murderer.
Their common instance is, [The Scripture nowhere calls itself the whole word of God; nor nowhere tells us which be Canonical Books, &c. and yet these are Articles of Faith.] Answ. 1. The Scripture doth call itself the Word of God, and signify its own sufficiency, and several Books have particular testimonies to be Canonical. 2. Though secondarily so far as Scripture affirmeth its own Divinity, it be to be believed: yet Primarily, that this is
God's Word, and that these are the Books, and that they are not corrupted, and that they are all, &c. are points of knowledge antecedent in order of nature to Divine Belief of them. There are two great Foundations antecedent to the Matter of Divine Faith. The one is God's veracity; that God cannot lie: The other is, His Revelations; that This is God's Word: The first is the Formal Object of Faith: The second is a Necessary Medium between the formal object and the subject; sine quo non, without which there is no possibility of Believing. The Material object called the Articles of Faith, presuppose both these, as points of Knowledge, proved to us by their proper evidence. And that this is All the Word of God, is a mere Consequence, from the actual Tradition of this much and no more.
To give you an undeniable illustration by instance. Let us inquire which be the Administering Laws of this Common-wealth. And we shall find that 1. The Authority of the Law-givers is none of them, for that is in the Constitution, before the Administration; and it is the formal objectum of every Law, which is more noble than the Material object: 2. And the Promulgation of these Laws, is not itself a Law; but a necessary Medium, sine quo non, to the actual obligation of the Law. 3. And that there is no other Laws but these, is not a Law; but a point known by the nonpromulgation of more. 4. And that all these Laws are the same that they pretend to be, and that they are not changed or depraved since, this is not a Law neither, but a Truth to be proved by Common Reason, from the Evidences that may be brought from Records, Practice, and abundance more.
So is it in our Case. 1. That God is True, and the Sovereign Rector, is first a point to be known by evidence; the one being the formal object of Faith, and the other the formal object of obedience: and easily proved by Natural
Light, before we come to Scripture. 2. And that this is God's Revelation, or Promulgation of his Law, is a point also first to be proved by Reason, not before we see the Book or hear the Word, but out of the Book or Doctrine itself, (propria luce) together with the full Historical Evidence, and many other reasons, which in order of Nature lie before our Obligation fide divina to believe. So that this is not Primarily an Article of Faith, but somewhat higher, as being the Necessary Medium of our believing. 3. And that there is no other Law, or Faith, is not Primarily a Law or Article of Faith, but a Truth proved by the Non-Revelation or Promulgation of any other to the world. He that will prove us obliged to believe more, must prove the valid
Promulgation or Revelation of more. 4. And that these Books are the same, and not corrupted, is not directly and primarily an Article of Faith, but an Historical verity to be proved as abovesaid. And yet secondarily, Scripture is a witness to all or most of these, and so they are de fide. But of this I refer the Reader for fuller satisfaction to my Preface before my second Part of the Saints Rest.
And thus it is manifest, that it is an unreasonable demand of the Papists to call for express Scripture, for these that are not Articles of Faith in proper sense.