cause of this Separation lyeth in the Church of Rome namely the cup of abomination in the whores hand which is their haereticall and schismaticall religion Vpon this foundation of these learned men I set this frame of disputation Euery erroneous faith is to be refused The faith of the Church of Rome is an erroneous faith Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is to be refused Can there be any question made of the first part or proposition of this reason when the holy Apostle Saint Iude exhorts all men without exception of person time or matter to striue for the faith delivered to the Saints Iudev 3. But how striue we for that faith which is the reuealed truth of God if we can be content to beleeue errours which are against the truth Yea what doe we else by holding errours for truth but adde to the diuine reuelation giuen by the Lord God himselfe contrary to his charge Deut. 4. 2. You shall put nothing to the word that I command you The second part which we call the assumption or minor Deutr. 4. 2. is that wherein all the doubt lieth for what is the Church of Rome the worse for granting that an erroneous faith is to be refused vnles their faith can be proued erroneous And whereas I say in my question and disputation erroneous rather then hereticall I doe it od of purpose because I would shunne all needlesse wrangling about the word for it seemes to many somewhat doubtfull what is properly to be called heresy For my part I can not see that any false proposition deliuered for an Article of faith can be lesse then heresie I doubt not but a man may thinke somthing to be true which is false be no heriticke buâ— he thâ— shall obstinately hold such a point for an Article of faith necessarily to be beleeued by all men vpon paine of damnation cannot for ought I see be freed from heresie As for the errours of the Papists Dr. Reynolds Dr. Whitakers and Mr. Perkins as we haue seene make no doubt to call them heresies Now that we may the better vnderstand whether the faith of the Church of Rome be erroneous or no we must enquire how the truth and falsenesse of faith is to be discerned which we cannot doe either better or otherwise then by considering how the Article of faith or proposition enioyned to be beleeued agreeth with the diuine testimonie concerning that point or Article for the diuine testimonie is the thing or rule to which the Article must be applied and by which it must be squared so that if it agree wholy with it it is true if in any part it differ from that testimonie it is false and erroneous This Sess 14. caâ— Decret de necessitate satiffaction is Decâ—ct de sacram paenitentiae can 6. description of errour and falsehood in matters of faith is warranted by the Councell of Trent where they make falsehood consist in differing from the word of God and That which differs from the institution of Christ is called an humane tradition and therefore is erroneous According to this declaration of a false and erroneous faith I proceed now to shew that the faith of the Church of Rome is false and erroneous That faith which hath a false and ertoneous foundation is false and erroneous Wherein first I take it for granted that Faith must haue an extrinsecall foundation out of the shings themfelues which are to be beleeved This outward and extrinsecall foundation is the credit and authority of him that delivereth those things for true and requires assent or agrement to them Secondly I hold it for certaine and agrred vpon by all that faith is true or false according to the foundation whereon it stands as the diuine restimonie begets a diuine faith an humane testimonie breeds an humane which may thus appeare What makes the faith of the ancient heathen and the now heathenish Turks and all sorts of Infidels who beleeue that there is but one God to be humane false and erroneous and the faith of Christians concerning the same point to be diuine and true but the diuerse foundations of these faiths the former depending vpon the coniectures and testimonies of men the other arising out of the witnesse of God himselfe To come nearer home why doe the Papists denie that wee are of their faith although they confesse wee hold the very same Articles of the Creed that they professe and aagree with them in most points of religion but for that we haue not the same foundation of our faith which they haue of theirs It is then the goodnesse or badnesse of the foundation that make the faith good or bad so that where the foundation is false the faith whatsoeuer it be cannot be true The proposition thus prooued I will adde the assumptition to it The foundation of the faith of the Church of Rome is false and erroneous For the foundation of their faith is the authority of the Pastors of their Church as it Sect. 4. Decret de edit scriptur sect praeterea is manifest by the Councell of Trent It is the office of the Church saith the Councel to giue sentence of the true meaning and sense of the Scriptures Now by the Church they meane the Pastours of the Church as their continuall practise declareth no man being suffered to giue a voice in any Councell but their Bishops whom onely they hold to be the Pastours of the Church By true sense and meaning they vnderstand the doctrine of faith which is nothing else but the Word of God truly vnderstood By the Scriptures they meane euery particular place of Scripture for if they should meane some places onely there could be no certainty in this their decree vnlesse they had determined what particular places they are whereof the Church may giue sentence These things thus declared I dispute thus They that haue the office to determine which is the true faith their authority is the foundation of Faith But the Church hath the office to determine which is the true faith as it appeares by the words of the Councell ere-while recited Therfore the authority of the Church is the foundation of their faith That the Church of Rome claimes this authority it may further appeare by those titles whcih it vsurpeth in the said Councell that The Bishop of Rome is Gods Vicar on Sess 6. de reformat cap. 1. Sess 14. de poenitentia cap. 7. Sess 7. de Baptism Can. 3. Sess 22. de sacrificio missae cap. 8 De verbo dei lib. 3. cap. 3. Sâ—ct Tota igitur Cap. 5. Sect. Ex his earth The Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches Yea euerie man may plainly see that Bellarmine teacheth the same things of the church of Rome The Church is the iudge of the true sense of the Scripture and all controuersies By Church hee vnderstands the Pope with a Councell and this he saith is expresly
to be found in the Councell of Trent Sess 4. which is the place I alledged ere-while It is committed singularly to Peter and his successors that they should teach all men what is to bee held concerning the doctrine of faith For the expounding whereof he saith a little after Sect. Si etiam that The Lord speakes of a singular office of teaching the whol Church by appointing and decreeing what is to be beleeued of all men And againe he saith that The Councels Popes execute the office of a Iudge committed Cap. 10. Sect. Respond aliud est to them by God What the Office of a Iudge is he shews in the same place a few lines before To explication after the manner of a Iudge there is authoritie required A Iudge deliuereth his sentence as a thing that necessarily must be followed To conclude hee tells vs in the same tenth chapter that Sect. Septiâ—um argumentum Christians who are sure the Church cannot erre in expounding the doctrine of faith are bound to receiue that doctrine and not to doubt whether those things be so or no. This matter Bellarmine makes plaine to all men by shewing the manner of this Office in this sort The Scripture for Cap. 10. Sect. Respondeâ— Christus It selfe needs not the witnes of men for it is most true in it selfe whether it be vnderstood or not but for our sake it needs the witnes of the Church because otherwise wee are not certaine what bookes are sacred and diuine nor what is the true and proper meaning In the same Chapter he giues vs to vnderstand what manner of foundation the testimony of the church is The word of God deliuered by the Prophets and Apostles is the first Sect. Respondeo Ad hoc foundation of our faith for therefore we beleeue whatsoeuer we beleeue because God hath reuealed it by his Prophets and Apostles But we adde that besides this first foundation there is another secondary foundation needfull to wit the testimony of the Church for we know not certainly what God hath reuealed but by the testimony of the Church Therefore our faith cleaueth to Christ the first truth reuealing those mysteries as to the first foundation It cleaues also to Peter that is to the Pope propounding and expounding these mysteries as to a secondary foundation And to make the matter yet more plaine he speakes thus in the same tenth chap. Sect. Respondeo verbum We are to know Sect. Respondeâ— verbum that a Proposition or article of faith is concluded in such a Syllogisme as this Whatsoeuer God hath reuealed in the Scriptures is true But this God hath reuealed in the Scriptures Therefore this is true Of the first of these Propositions no man makes any question The second is held for certaine truth amongst all Catholikes for it is grounded vpon the testimony of the Church that is the Councell or the Pope By which it appeares how little Mr. Fisher vnderstands the doctrine whereof he makes profession or how vnaduisedly he deliuereth his opinion For whereas Bellarmine will haue a two-fold foundation primary and secondary Mr. Fisher will acknowledge but one namely the authority of God speaking by the mouth of the church Christian beleefe saith hee ought onely to bee Treat of Faith in the Preface Sect of which point grounded vpon the authority of God speaking by the mouth of the Church We haue seene Bellarmines opinion of this matter which indeed agrees very well with the words of the Councell where it challengeth the office of interpreting the Scriptures For in that clayme it presumes that the diuine truth is already reuealed and that it is the first foundation of our faith to which the office of the Church is added which is but a secondary foundation Now by these places of the Counceâ—l and Bellarmine it is cleare that The foundation of the Romish faith is the authority of the Church This foundation of faith say wee is false and erroneous That our Sauiour Christ and his Prophets and Apostles are the foundation of faith wee beleeue and acknowledge and in this we and they agree That secondary foundation which lyeth in the authority and testimony of the church we refuse as false and naught and in this lyeth the true difference betwixt vs and them in this point as besides other De Script quaest 5. cap. 3. Apol. part 2. chap. 3. diuis 2. 11 Dr. Whitaker hath noted and the reuerend B. Iewell And this indeed is the main reason why we may not ioyn with them If they demand of vs VVhy we receiue not this authority of the church for a foundation of faith VVe answer Because we find no commission in the word of God wherby any such office is conueyed vnto it Neither deale wee herein any otherwise then reason and law direct men to do in the like case For is any man so destitute of reason or so ignorant of the law that he would receiue a man for L. Chancellour L. Treasurer or Lord Chiefe Iustice that were not able to shew any commission for the hauing and executing such an office And shall wee in a businesse of such importance that concernes our free-hold not onely for our present being of the church but for our future becomming heires of glory in heauen giue credit to men vpon their bare word without sight of their commission VVerfore doth our Lord and Sauiour so often in the Scriptures plead his authority from God warranted by the old Testament and vpbraid the Iewes with lightnesse and folly for being ready to receiue one that should come in his owne name If then the Papists would haue vs beleeue that their church is appointed to bee a foundation let them shew their warrant for it and we will accept it and build our faith vpon it But we looke that their commission should be very plain and certaine because it is of such a matter as no naturall reason can conceiue to be true For who would imagine or beleeue that the Apostles who had a little before receiued full power of order and iurisdiction ioyntly and equally with Peter as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth should suddenly De Rom. Poâ—t lib. 1. cap. 12. Sect. vt autem haue their authority abridged and be made subiect to Peter yea to his successors too as it fell out with S. Iohn to learne of them which wee bookes of Scripture and what was the meaning of the seuerall places or texts and what was true what false in Diuinity Besides the matter it selfe is of such importance by their doctrine that without the constant beliefe thereof and obedience according thereto there is no possibility of saluation For Whosoeuer saith Bellarmine will not be sed by Peter De verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 5. Sect. quartum that is learne of him or his successors as iudges and determiners what he is to take for matter of faith and what is the sense of the Scripture is none
that the first part of it and the proofe thereof suppose that those two propositions There are Scriptures These we haue be they are formally that is expresly contained either in the Scriptures or tradition But this say we is false they are contained formally in neither where then shall we finde them Radically and originally in the Scriptures themselues which of themselues afford iust occasion to all men to conceiue both that There are Scriptures and that These are they They are contained formally in the apprehension of euery mans vnderstanding that beleeueth them and that this beleife is diuine faith not humane coniecture it appeareth because it is wrought in men by a speciall prouidence of God which perswadeth and draweth men to acknowledge the things to be as they are in themselues and is farther grounded vpon the diuine authoritie vertually affirming that they are both true indeed And yet wee make not a priuate spirit the ground or rule of our faith or the iudge to determine what is matter of faith what is not As Bellarmine slandereth vs and Bellar de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 3. cap. 5. Sect. Norum cap. 9. sect quod 〈◊〉 after him Mr. Fâ—sher and other But wee onely attribute to that speciall prouidence the office of in lightening and mouing the vnderstanding in lightened to giue assent to the bookes of Scripture that they are the word of God as indeed and truth they are Now to this assent it moueth vs by many reasons fit and effectuall for such a worke as namely by the continuall consent and testimonie of the Church by the matter deliuered in the bookes them selues by the stile or maner of deliuering it and the like as diuers of our diuines haue shewed at large and that this assent of ours is a true faith it is very manifest because it conceiueth of the thing deliuered as in truth it is which is the very rule of truth and wherein the nature of truth consisteth The assumption is false The last proposition is not part of sauing truth taught by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Neither all nor any of the Apostles for ought appeareth in the word did euer set downe a Catalogue of the Bookes of the New or Old Testament neither indeede was it possible for any of them to doe it but S. Iohn who out liued them all and writt after them all As for S. Iohn he neither might nor could doe it because that was onely Peters office or his successors to declare which were Scriptures and which were not as we learned out of Bellar. Chap. 3. 11. 9. Pâ—â—ar ubi supra sect dâ—nique The second and last argument lieth thus This Proposition There is no word of God besides that which is written is contained in tradition not written This proposition is a sauing truth taught by Christ and his Apostles Therefore some sauing truth taught by Christ and his Apostles is contained in tradition not written First it is to be considered that Bellarmine bringeth this assumption as a proposition of ours and from thence concludeth for the Church of Rome against vs For if hee brought it as his owne and acknowledged by him for true he should thereby gaine say the Councell of Trent affirming that There is some part of the word of God contained in tradition which is not to be found in the Scriptures But in this Bellarmine doth vs wrong for although we say that there is no word of God but that which is contained in the Scriptures as a Rellar de verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. adipsi Bellarmin alleageth out of b Caluin Instit lib 4. cap. 8. â— 8. Caluin yet we say uot that this proposition is a sauing truth taught by Christ his Apostles neither indeed need we say so For by that propositioÌ„ we only deny that which the CouÌ„cell affirmeth and set it downe as a contradictory thereto and Bellarmine himselfe in the place for enamed bringeth it to the same end The reason of our deniall is that the Scripture doth no where send vs to tradition nor hath any word to that purpose as hath appeared in the former disputation And this reason is very sufficient because nothing is to be receiued for an Article of faith but that which is taught in the word of God The like answer is to be made to the proposition If it be true in Bellarmines iudgement then the doctrine of the Church of Rome in his iudgement is salfe For the Councell of Tâ—ent teacheth that There is some word of God contained in tradition but this proposition affirmes that There is no word of God besides that which is written If Bellarmine would father it vpon vs he accuseth vs falsly For we neuer saiâ— nor thought that that proposition was contained in tradition but perhaps he thinketh it will follow vpon that wee say but in so thinking hee thinkes idly for we doe no more hereby but denie that which they say and neither do nor neede affirme that it is contained either in the Scriptures or in tradition It is enough for vs in matter of faith to refuse whatsoeuer is not taught in the Scriptures But it may be said that this proposition There is no word of God besides that which is written is either true or false we grant it because it is certainely true that in euerie contradiction properly so called the one proposition is true the other false What of this It will farder be said If it be false then the contradictory to it which we hold is true We grant this too what more If this be true it is contained either in the Scripture or in tradition This we denie It may be true and yet contained in neither of them For the truth of this proposition is not positiue whereby one thing is affirmed of or ioyned to another but negatiue by which one thing is denied of or seuered from another Now propositions of this kinde are then true when the things comprehended in them are indeed seuered the one from the other for then the proposition speaketh of the thing as it is Therefore it is enough to make this negatiue proposition true that the Scripture is silent in that which they affirme and doth not ioyne Heb. 1. 5. them together as they doe And this is the ground of those negatiue disputations wee find in the Scriptures P. Iewels answ to Dâ— Coles second 〈◊〉 let O. P. especially To which of the Angells said be c. He that desireth to see more of this may reade the reuerend Bishop Iewel in his answer to Dr. Cole I should now goe on according to the order followed in the Councell of Trent to examine the rest of the Articles set downe by me chap. 11. num 3. But for this time I thinke it enough that I haue debated these two questions because if these proue false as I trust they haue done all the other differences betwixt vs and the
commission from our Lord Iesus to teach the whole Church by way of iudging and determining what is to be beleeued of all men and what is not It will bee looked for perhaps that I should proceed to the discussing of some other that are brought for the proofe of this question But I thinke it would bee but lost labour for Bellarmine who was as able as any Popish writer that hath dealt with this matter and had allowance of that he wirt especially in a point that so nearely touched the Popes free-hold if not from the Consistory immediately yet with the knowledge thereof from the office appointed for that purpose in Rome setteth vp his rest vpon that place in Iohn and telleth vs confidently that Then onely Peter receiued the keyes of the kingdome as principall Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 12. Sect. vt autem and ordinary gouernour when he heard those words Feede my sheepe and then also as he saith the charge of the rest of the Apostles his brethren was committed to him Therefore since we require a commission for such an office and that is either here or no where to bee found to what purpose should we examine other arguments which can proue no such matter Now that we haue good reason to call for the sight of a commission by which such an office should be erected no reasonable man can doubt if he consider what himselfe would doe if any man should challenge to himselfe the authority of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Treasurer of England would he take his word without knowledge of his commission vnder the broad seale And why then should wee be so simple as in a businesse of such importance to take the word of a Cardinall for the Popes prerogatiue Master Fisher the Iesuit after some other Papists alleageth for the proofe of this commission Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach all Nations But Bellarmine hath disclaimed and disproued all commission in that place and that not without reason For he saith Then onely he receiued the keyes of the Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 12. Sect. Vt autem Kingdome as principall and ordinarie gouernour when he heard Feed my sheepe In this he disclaimeth it his disproofe is that the commission Mat. 28. 19. is all one with that Ioh. 20. 21. as that which by Bellarmines confession Sect. Dices containeth power both of order and iurisdiction which is also conueyed to the Apostles Math. 28. 20. Goe teach and baptize And this Master Fisher must needs acknowledge if he will haue that place be a commission for the Popes authority As for that Iohn 20. 21. the power there was not committed seuerally to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as to Legates not to ordinary pastors as Bellarmine noteth All other Sect. Vt autem places of Scripture brought by the Papists to this purpose are of the same kind and concerne all the Apostles as well as Peter wherefore all this considered I hold it altogether needlesse to meddle with those other eight arguments of Bellarmines which indeed are of another kinde and perswade my selfe that I haue said enough of that weake foundation of the Papists faith the authority of the Church in person of the Pope for the time being Whereupon I infer my former conclusion that The saith of the Church of Rome is erroneous and false euen in the very foundation of it and therefore to bee refused and reiected of all men CHAP. XI Containing a second proofe that the faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous and false SVch as the foundation of the Romish faith is such is the faith it selfe namely false and erroneous as I will shew by the argument that followes in the seuerall parts of it If some of the Articles of the faith of the Church of Rome bee false and erroneous then the faith of that Church is false and erroneous But some of the Articles of the faith of the Church of Rome are false and erroneous Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome is false and erroneous Lest any man should hastily except against the consequence of the proposition as if I went about to proue the whole by the part which may not bee I must intreat him to remember that as I noted before in this question wee take the faith of the Church of Rome for one intire thing because of that one bond the authority of the Church or Pope by which all the parts of it are so ioyned together that they all make but one body By reason of which bond he that refuseth any one part reiecteth the whole For by that his refusall he accuseth their Church of errour and failing in determining matters of faith and so ouerthroweth the very foundation of their faith Besides the denying of any one such Article let it bee in it selfe of neuer so small importance draweth vpon the denyer that Anathema or curse which seizeth on all them which are not of the faith of the Church of Rome Wherefore I may presume without presumption that the consequence is good seeing euery Article is equally and alike a matter of faith My assumption I will make good by setting downe out of the Councill of Trent diuers Articles of the Romish saith which are false and erroneous and these they are 1 The sauing verity or truth taught by Christ and his Apostles is contained in written bookes or Scriptures and vnwritten traditions Concil Trident. Sess 4. decret de Canon Scripturae 2 The bookes of Iudith Tobit Ester chap. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Baruch Daniel chap. 3. 13 14. Macchabees 1 2. are canonicall scripture d. decret de scriptur 3 The whole bookes of Scripture and euery part of them as they are in the vulgar Latine edition are to be receiued for sacred and canonicall d. decret de scriptur 4 It is the office of the Church to iudge of the true sense or interpretation of the sacred or holy Scriptures d. sess 4. de edit vsu librorum sacrorum Sect. insuper 5 The Bishop of Rome is Gods Vicar on earth Sess 6. decret de reform cap. 1. and sess 14. de poenitentia cap. 7. 6 The Church of Rome is the mother and Mistris of all Churches Sess 7. de baptis can 3. and sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. and sess 22. de sacrif missae cap. 8. 7 Grace bestowed in baptisme doth take away whatsoeuer hath the true proper nature of sin sess de pec orig can 5. 8 Concupiscence in the regenerate is not truely and properly sinne d. canon 5. 9 Man doth freely assent to and cooperate or worke together with Gods exciting and cooperating grace so that he can also reiect or refuse the same grace Sess 6. de iustif cap. 5. And dessent if he will can 4. 10 The onely formall cause of iustification is iustice or righteousnesse inhaerent d. sess de iustit cap. 7. 11 By keeping the commandements of the
That which the Apostle commanded the Thessalouians to keepe was a sauing faith Therefore some sauing truth is contained in tradition There is no end of Bellarmines begging We must deny as before that whatsoeuer the Apostles taught is recorded and come to posteritie To the proposition I answer in particular that being vnderstood of that time when the Apostle writ that Epistle it is true he had then deliuered some things by word of mouth and not written them and those hee commandeth them to keepe But what proofe can Bellarmine make that those things were not written afterwards The assumption is not easily to be proued that those things were sauing truth Why doth not Bellarmine tell vs what they were Me thinks he dareth not so much as guesse at them otherwise he would let vs know at the least what his Catholickes worthily take them to be Would any man dally thus in a matter of faith to bee beleeued vpon paine of damnation Bellarmine will make amends for the want of weight in his reasons by the number of them and he propoundeth his fift thus to bee deliuered Bellar. ubi supra sect quaitam That which was committed to Timothy 1. Tim. 6. 20. and 2. Tim. 2. 1. 2. is contained in tradition That which was there committed to Timothy is a sauing 1. Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 1. 2. truth Therefore some sauing truth is contained in tradition Here he beggeth againe as before but wee cannot grant that whatsoeuer the Apostles preached is remaining vpon record to posteritie If that were granted yet should I thinke the proposition no sufficient warrant for an Article of faith Therefore Bellarmine offereth proofe of it on this maner That which Timothy had heard of Saint Paul 1. Tim. 6. 20. and 2. Tim. 2. 1. 2 and was to deliuer to faithfull men able to teach other also that is contained in tradition But that which was committed to Timothy 1. Tim. 6. 20. and 2. Tim. 2. 1. 2 he had heard of Saint Paul and was to deliuer to faithfull men able to teach other also Therefore that which was committed to Timothy 1. Tim. 6. 20. and 2. Tim. 2. 1. 2 is contained in tradition Least wee should deny the first part or Proposition of this Syllogisme because the things so delivered and given in charge by the Apostle might be matter for the present vse of the Church and such as needed not to be alwayes knowne Bellarmine telleth us that by those things so heard and so to be committed the vnderstanding of the sense of the scriptures and other doctrine is signified so that the whole force of his Argument lyeth in this interpretation which he never offereth to proue Therefore vnlesse we will take his bare word for proofe wee are as farre to seeke as we were before Now that we haue no reason to doe so I thinke it may appeare by those things which I will now propound to the consideration of all reasonable men First then I would know oâ— Bellarmine whether by Vnderstanding of the sense he meane generall rules for the vnderstanding of it or the sense of particular places Secondly I demaund whether he deliuered to him the sense oâ— euery place of Scripture or of some onely Whether he answer this or that I aske thirdly what is become of those rules and expositions How will he proue to vs that they haue beene continued from time to time till now If they haue not beene continued what haue wee to do with them who dispute onely of such traditions as are in the possession and vse of the present Church Fourthly is it likely euen in Bellarmines iudgement that Saint Paul would take vpon him to instruct Timothy in the sense of any place of Scripture when as the office of interpreting the Scripture is committed by the Councell of Trent to the Church that is as Bellarmine expoundeth it to Peter and his successours Did he meane ambitiously to vsurpe Peters office or to send him to Peter or his successours to learne of them whether the interpretation he had giuen were true or no. Touching the second part of the first Syllogisme that Those thinges which were committed to Timothy were sauing truths Bellarmine saith nothing which argueth that he knew not what to say What reason haue we then to imagine that they were sauing truths or that this argument concludeth any thing for the doctrine of the Councell of Trent concering traditions There is yet one argument more in the same fift chapter thus to be concluded Those things which Iohn had to write 2. Ioh. 11 and Bellar. ubi supra Sect. ultimum testimonium 3. Ioh. 14. are contained in tradition for he saith he would not write them But those things which he had then to write were sauing truths taught by the Apostles Therefore some sauing truths taught by the Apostles are contained in tradition I am inforced here also to repeate my former answer that Bellaâ—mine still takes it for granted that whatsoeuer the Apostles taught is continued to posteritie which we denie and no papist can proue His assumption or minor is to weake to beare vp the weight of an Article of faith vnlesse he be able to â—â—ll 〈◊〉 certainly what the things were which the Apostle would not write and to whom hee did or at the least that hee did afterward deliuer them to some body from whom the Church hath receiued them Till we know what they were how shall we be sure they were part of the sauing truth CHAP. XV. Of two other arguments of Bellarmine VVEE haue done with the fift Chapter and are now to examine two arguments set downe chap. 4 the former I frame thus That there are Scriptures that these we haue he they is â— Bellar de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 4 Sect. quarto quinto Soxio contained in tradition For we cannot find them in the Scriptures But that there are Scriptures that these wee haue are they is part of sauing truth taught by Christ and his Apostles Therefore some sauing truthes taught by Christ and his Apostles are contained in tradition It hath appeared by my answer to Bellarmines arguments that he can find no place of Scripture that sendeth vs to tradition for any part of sauing truth taught by our Lord or his Apostles Wee might therefore conclude that there are no such traditions without troubling our selues any further But that we may dit vp the mouths of the Papists wee will bestow a little time and paines in these arguments If there had beene no more intended by the Councell of Trent in the decree touching tradition but to signifie that these three points are contained in tradition the danger had not beene great for then both the number and the particulars had been determined but the Papists by vertue of that Article take authoritie to thrust what they list vpon the Church and warrant it by tradition Thus much to the argument in generall Particularly I answer
Church of Rome will easily be decided to the confirmation of the truth we maintaine and the ouerthrow of their false and erroneous faith I haue alreadie in another disputation in Latine discouered and proued the erroneousnesse of the faith of that Church in the seuenth and tenth Articles of the eleuenth Chapter before mentioned touching grace and iustification The like I will doe in the rest if it please God to giue me opportunitie and abilitie CHAP. XVI An answer to those things which the Church of Rome bringeth against the necessitie of separating from it ALthough the point propounded by me to be disputed is sufficiently proued by that which hath past and all men may see a necessitie of separating from the Church of Rome yet that the truth may be the more cleere and all mens consciences the better satisfied and fortified against the deuises of the Romish seducers I haue thought good to examine two principall motiues of theirs by which they mis-lead many that are simple or carelesse and in handling of them I will take the same course that hetherto I haue followed for the more plainnesse and certaintie in iudging what is true what false The former of the two is this Euery man must receiue his faith by the teaching of the Romish Church That it may appeare what force there is in this to conclud any thing for the Church of Rome against the question hetherto disputed I will apply it to the matter in question and answer to it accordingly They that must receiue their faith by the teaching of the Church of Rome must ioyne in faith with that Church Euery man must receiue his faith by the teaching of the Church of Rome Therefore euery man must ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome The proposition or first part of this reason I acknowledge for true because the teaching of the Church of Rome giueth being to the faith of that Church The assumption is false being grounded vpon that false foundation that The Pope of Rome is to feede the whole Church as Peters successour by determining what is matter of faith what is not But this appeared to be manifestly false chap. 8. and 10. wherein I propounded and handled the question The second deuise is commonly deliuered by way of question Where was your Church before Luther Now this question implyeth a negation as if they should say The Protestants Church was not before Luther This must be applied to the point in question after this sort Euery man must ioyne in faith either with the Church of Rome or with the Protestant Church But no man may ioyne in faith with the Protestants Church Therefore euery man must ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome Let the proposition passe for true to which we may iustly adde an assumption contrary to theirs No man may ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome and this assumption is alreadie made good by the foregoing disputation through this whole treatise which hath shewed that the faith of the Church of Rome is false and erroneous But to answer directly to their assumption we say it is vtterly false and the contrary to it euidently true that Euery man is bound to ioyne in faith with the Protestants Church For our faith is nothing else but Euery article or proposition to be assented to or beleeued as true vpon the authoritie of God the reuealer of them by his holy seruants the Prophets and Apostles The Articles which we assent to or beleeue in this sort are either expressely set downe in the Scriptures in direct words so that the sense of them cannot reasonably be doubted of or else gathered and concluded from such places by necessarie consequence so that if the one be true the other must needs be true also Whatsoeuer proposition is not of this nature we allow not for an article of faith how likely soeuer it seeme to be Now in this faith of ours there can be no danger seeing whatsoeuer proposition is plainely expressed in the Scripture or necessarily concluded from it is vndoubtedly the diuine reuelation which is the onely foundation of true faith More particularly I say touching the said assumption that it must be vnderstood of the Protestants faith so far forth as it differeth from the faith of the Church of Rome else by it they should disswade men from the faith of their owne Church Besides It is to be considered that this assumption supposeth that the Protestants haue a faith opposite to the faith of the Church of Rome Which is vtterly false All the opposition we make to them is by refusing their faith not by deliuering any of our owne and by ansswering to their arguments so that we hold the negatiue part of the contradiction in all points wherein we dissent from them although in some we adde a contrarie affirmatiue where the Scripture affirmeth that which they denie For example they say The Pope is Gods Vicar This we oppose by saying that The diuine reuelation doth not teach vs that the Pope is Gods Vicar Againe they deliuer this for an Article of faith that Concupiscence in the regenerate is not properly sinne To this we answer by way of opposition as to the former The diuine reuelation doth not say that Concupiscence in the regenerate is not properly sin Yea in this point we say further the Scripture saith it is properly sinne but our opposition to them in this point stands in this that the Scripture doth not say it is not properly sinne so that though there were no word to the contrarie of it in Scripture yet that proposâ—â—on of theirs were vtterly false By which it is manifest that in those things wherein we dissent from them we haue not articles of faith contrarie to the articles of faith which they propound but onely deny that Those they would thrust vpon vs are articles of faith If any man obiect as Stapleton and Wright doe that Our religion is negatiue we answer that if they meane we hold no articles of faith which are affirmatiue they charge vs vntruely for we consent with them in many affirmatiue articles of faith As for those points wherein we dissent from them it is no fault in vs to hold the negatiue for there is no other way for vs to oppose the errours they bring for matters of faith but by denying them to be matters of faith So theÌ„ this is that they auouch in the former assuÌ„ption No man may ioyne in faith with the Protestants Churches in those points wherein they dissent from the Faith of the Church of Rome The reason is because the faith of the Protestants in those points is false which they thus proue The true faith hath been professed so publikely in all ages since the Apostles that the professors of it from age to age may be named The Protestants faith hath not been so publikely professed in all ages since the Apostles that the professors of it from age to age may be named Therefore
the Protestants faith is not the true faith Before I answer directly to the parts of this Syllogisme I hold it needfull to note a few things concerning the reason in generall The first is that in this question wee inquire not of such professours onely as our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles were who deliuered the Articles of faith by way of reuelation but of such as haue beleeued and profest those articles as they haue beene gathered out of that which they reuealed Secondly it is worth the doing to consider a little way of gesse what the reason should be why the Papists are so loath to make tryall of their faith by the Scriptures and cry so loud for a catalogue or register of the names of such as haue from time to time beleeued as now we do This may well seeme strange to all men who vnderstand that the diuine reuelation is a most faithfull record and most certaine rule in all matters of faith so that whatsoeuer is agreeable thereto is a part of true faith whatsoeuer differeth from it either positiuely by affirming that which is not reuealed or negatiuely by denying that which is reuealed is vntrue and may not be taken for an article of faith As for a beadroll of names who knoweth not that it must needes be made out of humaine storie Wher as Diuine and infallible faith is not built upon deduction out of humane historie but diuene reuelation as is well obserued by the learned reuerend D. Featly And how can that be any foundation of diuine faith when it is not diuine authoritie nor free from errour but humane onely and subiect to errour yea among all kindes of humane authoritie of least credit Our of doubt then the Papists would neuer haue pursued this course so eagerly but for some especiall aduantage to theiâ— cause which in all likely hood is this that they saw well enough it was not for their religion to abide the tryall by Scripture in those articles of faith But what saith the Prophet Isaiah If they refuse the Law Isa 8. 20. 8 and the testimonie it is because there is no light in them Now in particular I say that the proposition is faultie diuers wayes First whereas it supposeth that the true faith hath beene in all ages in the word if they meane it hath been in the Scriptures in all ages we grant that they say is true but we adde that it is not to purpose for our question is not of faith as it is reuealed in the Scriptures but as it is gathered out of them and particularly beleeued and in this latter sence we denie that the true faith hath been in all ages For proofe of our deniall we alleage the experience of all ages by which it is manifest that some articles of faith haue been obseruÌ„ed and concluded out of the Scriptures from time to time and were not all known and beleeued for articles of saith at once I may bring for instance those great points debated and determined in the 4 first generall Councells For certainely if The god-head of our blessed Sauiour and the holy Ghost the distinction of the diuine and humaine natures of our Lord Iesus the Vnitie of his person had bin resolutely holden in the Church for articles of faith Arius Macedonius Eutyches and Nestorius would not haue durst to speake of them so wickedly and heretically as they did neither would the Church haue assembled Councells to aduise of the points but haue cast out those wretches as enemies of the faith The like might be said of Pelagius touching grace and of many other points of no small importance To come nearer to this our age there is no Papist of any reading and iudgement but will confesse that diuâ—rs propositions in tholate Councell of Trent which ended since I was borne were neuer receiued for articles of faith till they were neuer receiued for articles of faith till they were propounded for such by that Councell Secondly to grant them as much as they desire I yet except against their proposition as false because there is no necessitie that the being of true faith and such a profession thereof must alwayes goe together For such a publike profession of faith is neither of the essence of true faith as a reasonable soule is of the essence of a man nor proceedeth from the essence thereof as the faculty of speech doth from the essence of man neither are they lincked inseparably together by any ordianance of God as faith and iustification are The two former I am not out of doubt all Papists will grant If they fly to the last let them shew the record or deed wherein that coniunction of true faith and such a publike profession of it is inrolled and ingrossed Will they tell vs I know not what goodly matters of the visibilitie of the Church what is that but to beg the question For we denie that as no lesse vncertaine and vntrue then the other The assumption also is false which auoucheth so confidently that The professours of the Protestants faith in such things As they dissent from the Church of Rome in cannot be shewed in all ages from time to time since our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles If we call for a proofe of this they bid vs shew a beadroll of their names that were professours of our faith what if we cannot will they conclude thereupon that it cannot be done there may be a Catalogue though we cannot shew it Which cannot seeme strange to any man that shall consider that the Papists had for many yeares yea ages the whole sway command of Christendome and laboured all they could to make away if it had been possible not onely the writings but the memorie of all such as made any kind of opposition to their doctrine or proceedings Yet by the gracious mighty prouideÌ„ce of God it hath come to passe that the registers of their own bloudy persecutors haue by the worthy paines of som of our writers afforded the world a view of the names of many holy Martyrs confessours which from time to time haue refused as we do now to acknowledge many of the points wherein we dissent from the Church of Rome and it cannot be looked for that wee should shew that all of them haue been denied because many of them were first bred and hatched in the late Councell of Trent and were neuer articles of faith till then Wherefore to returne to my first conclusion since the faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous both in the foundation of it which is the authoritie of the Church and in many particular articles thereof I may boldly affirme that it is to be shunned as a perilous rocke whereon many haue suffered shipwrack of their eternall saluation CHAP. XVII That the faith of the Church of Rome is to refused vpon paine of damnation VVHen I first deliuered the proposition I intended to handle that there might be no ignorance by errour
nor shifting by willfull mistaken I began to declare the meaning of the termes in which I propounded my question but because I purposed to examine the matter in two seuerall disputations I forbare to expound the last words till I should come to the particular debating of the second point Now I am to enter vpon it and must therefore shew what I meane by those words Vpon paine of damnation and then proue that the faith of the Church of Rome is to be refused vpon so grieuous a penaltie Those words Vpon paine of damnation are not so to bee vnderstood as if I tooke vpon me to pronounce sentence of condemnation against all that beleeue as the Church of Rome teacheth but I would thereby giue all men to vnderstand that the beleeuing of that doctrine as matter of faith is a thing in it selfe damnable and such as maketh a man liable to damnation How it shall fall out with particular men in the euent I neither know nor meane to enquire Onely I say againe that their mis-beliefe is a sinne which setteth them in the state of damnation Now hauing proued alreadie that their faith is erroneous I shall not neede to make many words about the point For the Church of Rome against which I dispute holdeth it for a ruled case that an erroneous faith is damnable Wherefore else doe they thunder out so many Iâ—ai 8. 20. curses in the Councell of Trent against all that shall conceiue otherwise of the matters of faith determined by that Councell then is therein decreed Notwithstanding that I may the better perswade all men to keepe good watch for feare they be suddenly surprized or vnawares intrapt by the great army of locusts the Priests and Iesuites which haue almost couered the Land from sea to sea I will bestow a little paines to giue them warning of the danger There are two wayes by which sinne leadeth a man into to the state of damnation the one is the desert or fitnesse it hath to procure damnation the other is the actuall meriting or deseruing of damnation Into the former sinne casteth a man off it selfe Into the latter he falleth as by sinne so by the ordinance or decree of God who hath layd a penalty of damnation upon it Out of this I raise this disputation against receiuing the faith of the Romish Church That which maketh a man vncleane in Gods sight hath a fitnesse to procure damnation For vncleane things are vnmeete for the presence of God and consequently are meete for damnation But the faith of the Church of Rome maketh a man vncleane in the sight of God For it is erroneous in so high a nature that it maketh a man guiltie of treason against God by installing the Pope in the Throane of God giuing him power and authoritie to determine as a iudge what is matter of faith what not without commission or warrant from God as I haue shewed in the former part of this disputation Neither doe they onely giue him authoritie to interprete the Scriptures but also allow him to set vp a forge where he hammers what he list and venteth it to be receiued vpon paine of damnation for the word of the euer liuing 2. Thes 2. 4. God What is it To sit in the Temple of God shewing himselfe that he is God if this be not And are not they accessaries to this high treason that acknowledge this authoritie and yeeld obedience to it How can it then reasonably be denied that there is a worthinesse and fitnesse in the faith of the Church of Rome to procure damnation hereupon it followeth that euery one that ioyneth in faith with the Church of Rome is lyable to damnation There remaineth nothing now but the ordinance or decree of God to appoint damnation as a punishment of this sinne according to the desert thereof but that was passed long since by the Lord himselfe You shall put nothing to the word which I command you The penaltie is expressed Deut. 4. 2 12 30. Revel 21. 18. If any man shall adde to those things God shall adde to him the plagues that are written in this Bookâ— But more plaine The Lord shall send them strong delusions that they 2. Thes 2. 11. 12. should beleeue lyes that all they might be damned which beleeued not the truth Behold the Lord wrappeth them vp in damnation by his sentence that beleeue lyes that is false and erroneous doctrine not agreeable to the truth which they ought to beleeue What is wanting then to make the faith of the Church of Rome damnable and the professours thereof lyable to damnation when both the thing it selfe deserueth it and the Lord hath decreed that they which beleeue it should haue according to their desert I might as our writers commonly doe adde to that which hath beene said diuers foule and grosse errors which seeme more specially to touch the glory of God and secretly to vndermine the very foundation of our saluation namely the Mediatorship of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ But this as I take it will more plainly appeare and be more throughly inforced against them in the particular handling of the seuerall Articles to which I reserue it Neither will I enter into the common way of prouing popery to be damnable because it is Antichristianisme much hath beene disputed by our men to this purpose and it is like enough that much more may and will be added to their disputations But the controuersie is long and requireth more time then I can now afford it onely this I will say for the present that as his Maiestie hath prudently obserued there is no Church State nor man that hath beene since the penning of the Reuelation to whom those things foretold by the Apostle from the mouth of the Lord Iesus can in any reasonable sort agree but the Church and Pope of Rome alone And it is vtterly against reason to imagin that the Lord Iesus would direct Iohn to spend so many words in deliuering prophecies for some three yeares and a halfe in the end of the world and leaue so many yeares betwixt vnspoken of wherein such strange matters haue befallen the Church It is manifest that the Historie is prophetically continued for the first 300 yeares at the least and of that because it seemeth not much to concerne them the Papists make no great doubt he that will take the paines to reade the whole aduisedly may easily discerne that our Lord continueth his discourse to his beloued Disciple of such things as were to fall out to the very end of the world I forbeare to shew how vnlikely that I may speake most fauourably of the point because it hath some collourable allowance from antiquitie I will not say how vnpossible it is that any man should imagine hee can deceiue Christians as Antichrist by their conceite must doe or force them generally to denie the Lord Iesus and take himselfe to be either God or any man