QUEST What to judge of Creeds and Confessions Here a needfull question comes to be solved as What are we to judge of the Creeds confessions declaratios formes of faith synodal-conclusions both of the Antient and Moderne Kirk for since they containe the summe of credenda agenda petenda speranda that is of what we are to beleeve to do to aske and to hope for which are the Synopsis of all Christian duties the Question is If these are to be looked upon as fundamentalls or grounds of Answ Faith and trueth To answere this aright let us avoide these two extreams 1. None of these are so to be looked upon as Scripture or of equall authority to it It was an idol and idle word that of GREGORY to exequat the first foure generall Councells to the foure Evangelists 2. Avoid that other 1. of the vile Swenkfeldian who in disputing as they reject the Scriptures so also all Church determinations pretending though falsely that they are opposite to Christian liberty 3. That of the ARMINIAN Who though they admitt the reading of such Confessions and declarations yet they will not ascribe the least authority to them The pure Antient Kirk and our Orthodox present kirks oppose both these and have published very needfull and worthy vses of these formes as 1. They are looked upon as the Expositions of the true Catholick Faith 2. As strong barres both to hold out and to remove heresies 3. As a ready Catechisme containing the grounds of both what we are to beleeve what to do 4. They are a singular Meane to beget preserve a good understanding between kirks and to foment Peace unitie and concord amongst them as by the harmonious Confessions of the Reformed Churches is now seen as when that which indeed is an Orthodox ground is received and the Heterodox tenet is rejected That axiom of Lyrin was much esteemed Quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus creditum est which ever and everie-where and by all is beleeved In Ignaetius his Epistles it is often remarked and inculcated That whosoever will not joine to the abridged doctrines of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee is corrupted III. Vindication But passing this I next offer to vindicate this place from the false inferences of the Rhemists Bellarmine Becan Tirinus Valent Gretzer If the Church bee the ground of trueth then all Christians may should at last acquiesce to its determinations 1 Ob. answered so safely resolve their faith into it at last To which I answere first by denying the Consequent because the Churches Authority is not the formall cause of our assent to divine trueths as shal be shewen in the Answere to the third Objection 2. Giving but not granting what is in the illation yet I deny that to appertain to the present Roman Church which is the maine aime of these Sophisters 3. I propose to them this question which they force us to startle which is What is that Christian Society into which all credible Objects are vltimately resolved into Is it the Antient Catholick Kirk or is it the lawfull oecumenick Councells or is it the concurrent judgement of the Antient Fathers or is it the present RomaÌ„ Kirk To these the late Jesuits answer far otherwise theÌ„ the Moderate Schoolmen did I shall succinctly repeat some of their most absurd answers to this I meane of the Iesuits Bellarm. lib. 4. de P. R. chap. 1. affirmes every successour of Peter to be the rock and foundation of trueth Gretzer lib. 3. cap. 10. defens by the Church wee interpret the Pope D. Bann 2. secundae The authority of the universall Kirk that of the Pope are the same The Cannon Law lib. 6. Extravag tit 14. The Rescripts of the Pope are Canonicall scripture D. John Whyte in his way c. Digress 16. p. 36. collects out of their Writers this to be their judgment 1. say they The Catholick Church is the Rule to be followed in all points as the rule infallible 2. The Roman and the Catholick Faith are all one 3. By the Kirk we mean her Head saieth Valentia tom 3. d. 1. p. 24. so that this Catholick Church wherof they so much brag is no other but the Pope Now this Valentia finding the bed to be shorter then that he can stretch himself upon it as wee have Isai 28. 20. down right maintains that neither Antient Councells nor the antient Kirk nor old Decretalls nor the present Roman Kirk but the Pope is that whereunto at last we must resolve our faith of which rule to resolve unto he saieth Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 7. Stante hac regula rationali animata infallibili omnes fidei articuli ultimatè resolvuntur in ipsam tanquaÌ„ in rationem formalem So that according to this new doctrine of the Roman Kirk Alexander VII now Pope is that ground of trueth whereon all are to lean so that the Pope now as D. Clerk wittily observes is growen so bigg that hee is both Head and whole Body yea the whole Church both holy Father and holy Mother both Husband and Wife nay the Pope is God as one Felinus Sandeus blasphemes This compendious way that they are fallen upon puts me in minde of a like foolish conceit one S. Cornaeus a late Iesuit hath fallen on who to reject Bellarmins 15 notes of the kirk falls only upon one as sufficient to confirme truths confute errours which is the Miracles of the RomaÌ„ Church Now to shew the folly of Valentia such flatterers heare what to the contrar says J. Picê° in concl It may happen that the Pope the vicariaÌ„ head be sick and as the naturall head sends down noxious humours into the body so also this Vicarian corrupt doctrines into its body But Puteanus a late Iesuite is now more plain and bold in his CoÌ„m on 2. 2. q. 1. a. 6. That the present Pope to wit Paul V. is Christ his true vicar successour is not not absolutely belonging to faith for this Proposition presupposeth two other Propositions 1. That Paul the V. is baptised 2. That Paul V. was Canonically elected to be pope but so it it that none of these two Propositions belongs to the Catholick faith thus he out of which I forme this syllogisme Whatsoever Alexand. 7. hath defined that is infallible the ground of trueth but he hath defined this or that Here grant that the Proposition wer true which yet is most false yet its AssumptioÌ„ can be no more then probable For how can he be certain that this Pope was lawfully ordained or at all baptised Of these there is no more then humane assent grounded upon probable conjectures or what certainty is there to all and every one subject to him that he hath published this or that definition Of these and the like is no divine certantie It is excellently well proven by S. V. LYND That in the Roman Church which they so farre extoll above Scripture
there is neither safety nor certanty whether we understand the Essentiall or the Representative or the Virtuall or the Consistoriall Church nor that Individuall Church barbarously so called which wants both personall and true doctrinall succession see his Via devia p. 513. and 452. And whereas Fisher and some others account it more safe to resolve into the Councell of Trent now I say this can be of no credit at all because this Councell was neither lawfully called nor was it free nor was it generally received by the Romanists themselves see Innoc. Gentill on it and Sess 12. see Chemnitii examen see Calvini Antidotum see the History of the Councell of Trent lib. 4. p. 319. see Whyts 3 Conf with Fisher Since the Nicen Creed hath I beleeve in the Church Therefore Ob. 2. primarly properly it is the pillar and ground of trueth wherupon Stapleton hath this assertion against WHITAKER I beleeve whatsoever the Church beleeveth lib. 1. cap. 9. and this indeed is the true ground of their circular argueing or the COLLIARRS faith and of that brutish assertion of Cajetan That the obedience of a Brute is the most perfect obedience of any But to speake to what is alleadged of the Nicen symbol I answere 1. That preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not at all in that Creed it is a false quotation of the Rhemists like many more 2. In the Symbol of Constantinople we reade it indeed and our Divines clearly shew that it was spuriously foysted in there 3. Make it to bee the reall composure of that second generall Councell yet Drusius that great Critick makes it to maintain no more then I beleeve the Church But 4. August Tom. 10. p. 311. de expos Symboli is of a farre better sounder judgement when he said there because the Church is not God therefore wee beleeve not into it or in it Faith its credere as to the Trinitie sayes hee is considere but Faiths credere as to the rest or secundarie objects of faith it is but agnoscere August knew nothing of that late Iesuit-opinion I may beleeve in the Kirk as I beleeve in the Virgin Mary neither of these is true Though all the superstructures of this Church were most true yet all its decisions are to be tryed and examined That even in Augustins judgement to whom Protestants appeale Ob. 3. so often The Church is the ground of trueth when contra epistolam fundamenti he sayes I would not have beleeved the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church had moved mee Now to cleare August and to satisfie as farre as may bee the Papist I answer 1. If it be well considered against whom and for what August disputes there which both our Divines have shewen and Papists knew well enough this testimony can make nothing either against us or for them 2. Some schoolmen as Scotus Gabriel Canus judge that Augustine is to be understood of acquisite historicall faith and not of infused 3. Others of them thinke that Augustin there is speaking of the Authority of that Church which the Apostles governed not of the succeeding Church But passing them I answer by this distinction of the meane of Distinguish between by which and for which the principall cause It is well marked by Baron Apod Cathol p. 628. h. 9. q. 4. That wee ought to use these two Prepositions warily Per and Propter that is by which and for which I beleeve The first imports the vse of means without which faith is not ordinarly produced but this other relats to the principall ground and formall cause of our assent And so I apply the Churches testification is a meane to beleeve the Gospell but the principall ground of my assent to its trueths is because God hath revealed Distinguish between the Morall proofe the Divine proofe it I make it yet more cleare by distinguishing between a Morall proofe and a Divine proofe the Testimony of the Church is a morall proofe motive or inductive of Faith but the Authority of the Holy Ghost speaking in the scriptures is that Divine proofe causing assent whereunto at last I resolve Altisiedorensis thus explains it It is with the beleever ordinarly as it was with the Samaritans Ioh. 4. 42. that is after her discovery to them by the light of grace they perceive the Divine Majesty Wisdome efficacie and trueth of Christs doctrine and resolve into them and as when a faithfull Preacher delivers Apostolick doctrine though by his preaching wee receive these trueths yet we resolve not our faith principally and finally into his Authority who preaches to us but into that divine truth that is preached by him Heare the same learned Baron yet clearing this As the principall effective cause of our assent is the Holy Ghost by inward illumination of the minde and effectuall moving of the will so the word of God it selfe revealed by its innate light vertue and Majesty manifesting its Divinity is the principall objective cause or ground of our assent to the trueths of the Gospell And after him D. Owen anent the divine Originall of Script p. 33. The sole bottome and foundation or formall reason of our assent to the Scriptures as Gods Word and submitting our hearts and consciences to these Scriptures is the Authority of God the supream Lord of all the first and only absolute trueth speaking in and by the the pen-men of the Scriptures evidenced singly in and by the Scriptures c. As for the innate Arguments in the scriptures that is The Power and Majesty of the Word the simplicity of the style the ingyring light the consonancie in it and in the Writters of it the divine trueths contained in it c. These and many the like shew what a ground it is to faith in so much that the Antient Kirk Traditor libri was judged Abnegator fidei But the Papists by attributing so much to church-Church-Authority and detracting so much from the divine-Divine-Authority of the Scriptures and not resting in them have fallen into a miserable and an unextricable Circle STAPLETON maintaining in his Triplicatio fol. 188. That the last ground of Faith is the Authority of the Kirk Then the question is By what authority beleeve ye that the Kirk hath divine-Divine-Authority His answere is The Scriptures say so Question againe By what beleeve ye this Answers hee The Church sayes so Marke the words of one H. Holden an Englishman and Parisian Doctor lib. 1. cap. 9. Div. anel fidei as they are cited by R. Baxter in his safe Religion p. 284. confessing the trueth of the cōmon labyrinth circular shift in which Divines cōmonly wont to be involved For when they asked how they know then Scripture to be the revealed Word of God They answere by the assertion of the Vnversall censenting Church And if they be againe asked how they know that this unanimous assertion of the Catholick Kirk is free from errour or infallible They answere by
IT is not misapplyed that of Prov. 9. 1. Wisdome hath built her house she hath hewen out her seven pillars c. But of this enough Now I come to the greatest and last title of the Church The ground of the Trueth Now I am to treate of the Church IV Title The ground of the truth under this notion and because this is most materiall I must insist a little on it And the rather in that the Moderne Jesuits affirme that wee Protestants abhorre to reade this and that this TEXT is so pungent that wee flee from the literall sense of it Therefore this shall be my Method First I am to cleare the words of this Title II. To propose that grand question that falls pertinently 1. The Title is explained here to bee discussed which is Whether this ground can make a ground or grounds III. I must cleare some other doubts proposed here that by way of vindication Then IV. Some vses to be made of this assertion That Gods Kirk is the ground of the trueth As to the first The greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by some is rendered Fundamentum by others better Firmamentum in latine As Whitak Contr. 4. q. 5. Criticks distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus That the first is properly rendered a ground the second properly a seat applying the word ground to the trueths existing and revealed and applying the word seat to the Church according to what wee reade Matth. 22. 2. of Moses Chayre or seat Of the which Criticisme P. Bayne gives this reason in Comment on Ephes 2. 19. 20. That which so supports all as that it is not supported in a right and strict notion is a ground so Maimonides call his booke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which so The ground of grounds supports as that it is supported is properly a seat and receptacle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a ground Yet wee shall vse it as it is here in the English rendered Theophylact. Beda P. de Aliaco Chaloner explicate this TITLE thus The Church is the ground of trueth because supernaturall divine trueths are in it we lean to the Church as to the seat of trueth but not to it as to the lowest and chiefest ground why these trueths are trueths D. F. Whyte 3. Conf. p. 4. clears this well thus The pure Apostolick Church was the pillar and ground of trueth simply intierly fully in all things but the subsequent and the Moderne Churches is onely so with limitation that is conditionally that is in so farre as they deliver Apostolick doctrines the Apostles were exempted in all their decisions from all errours but the Fathers and Councels are onely so in so farre as they adhere to the trueths written by Prophets and Apostles And indeed what hee sayes is all granted by the more moderate PAPISTS as by Occam Cusanus Picus Gerson IT was the old doctrine Ground 1. Personall 2. Doctrinall 3. Ministeriall of CHRYSOST Homil. 49. on Matth. Let no man beleeve Churches but in so farre as they lean to the Scriptures if thou wouldst know where is the true Church then flee and run to the Scriptures But yet further to cleare this NOTE as Davenant well observes That there is a threefold ground of trueth 1. Is Personall and that is Christ I. Cor. 3. 11. Isai 28. 16. 2. Is doctrinall and that is the Scriptures see Ephes 2. 20. 3. Is Ministeriall and that is Pastors Fathers Councel-determinations and all their right Superstructures that is so farre as they are conforme to the scriptures I. Cor. 3. 10. Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon As for the second I answere this question negatively Whether II. Can the church mak or creat grounds 1 Reason the Church can make Fundamentals that is if it can produce and procreat that to be a fundamentall now which before was never received as such Now the Reasons of my deniall are these 1. I ground on the judgement of these WRITTERS wherof the first is Vincentius Lyrin who in his book anent profane Novelties chap. 3. hath these words The Church addes nothing diminishes nothing changeth nothing cuts not off necessars proposes not superfluous things losses not her own usurpes not that which belongs to others but every way cares to polish what was informed of old to cōfirme what is expressed and revealed and to keep what is defined and confirmed yea this the Church still intends that whatever was simply beleeved before should afterwards be more carefully beleeved And after him G. Occam in his Dialogues Neither sayes he the whole Church nor a Generall Councell nor the Pope can make an Article of faith Bellar. also lib. 2. de Concil cap. 12. The Councells when they define do not make any point defined to be of infallible trueth but they onely declare it to be so To all which three worthy sentences we subscribe If the Church could make fundamentalls then it could unmak 2 Reason them but the more moderate of the Papists deny this upon this ground that it belongs to the same power both to creat and annihilate And so they reject that non obstante of the Councel of Constance grounding on that of Scotus 1. dist 11. q. 1. Trueth was of faith before heresie had a beeing so that the determination of the 3 Reason Kirk doth not make a trueth though it define against an heresie 3. That which the Kirk declares is either extra or intus If it be without the nature of the thing declared then its declaration of the thing is false and so it cannot be fundamentall if it be within the compasse and nature of the thing declared then it is yet onely in that kinde fundamentall seing the declaration whatever it be is posterior to the nature of the thing That is but a sillie Evasion of some to wit that the declaration of the Church maketh a point fundamentall quoad nos nay it doth not that as the same F. White well proves ibid. p. 9. For no respect to us can varie the foundation if the thing be not fundamentall in the nature of it the Kirks declaration doth not make it so to us Since then the Kirk hath no reall detracting power no more as said is can it have any reall 4 Reason adding power since both are alike forbidden Deut. 4. 2. 4. All credible points are at last resolved into Scripture therfore it is it that makes fundamentalls CYPRIAN speaks appositly to this purpose lib. de Bapt. All Ecclesiasticall discipline hath its rule frō the Scripture here it is bred and borne and hither it must returne Camerarius lib. 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. Theologicall principles are the very trueths of the sacred Canons because the last resolution of Theologicall discourse is made unto them and out of these trueths firstly each Theologicall Proposition is deduced
7. see also psal 40. 11. I have not hid thy trueth from the great Congregation As there are two sorts of Builders which made Paul to say Let each take heed how hee builds I. Cor. 3. 10. so there are of Dividers of the word of truth Which made our Lord to say what we reade Luk. 12. 42. 43. as for Builders some their building is the superstructure of sound trueths consisting well with and decoring the foundation others are of errours deforming defacing and destroying the foundation as straw upon marble whose worke shall be burnt As for Dividers some overslipping mangling and renting and by wresting of it do it to their own perdition So others againe they purely plainly powerfully impartially apply the word to the Conscience of every man in the sight of Iesus Well is it amplified and enlarged by Gregory of Rome how diverse wayes a faithfull Pastor is bound to divide the word of trueth and that to persons diversly affected I shall but touch onely some few of his directions 1. Looke how a Pastor is to carry towards a Beleever and how towards an Vnbeleever 2. How towards the Young and how towards the old within the Kirk 3. How towards Superiours how towards equall and inferiours 4. How towards Humble spirits and how towards the Proud 5. How towards Weak and how towards Malitious sinners 6. How towards the Penitents and how towards impenitents 7. How toward Turbulent spirits and how towards peaceable 8. How towards Proficients in Christs school how towards deficients 9. How towards orderly Walkers and how towards the scandalous 10. How towards Faithfull Pastors how towards idle Belly-gods See these and many more in that Treatise of his de cura pastorali O if this should move and work us up into a Fabian-like cunctation and long pausing O that wee could view seriously and consider carefully the length the breadth the hight and depth of that mysterie of godlinesse which is the right dividing of the word of trueth O how loath should wee be without an inward Call to undertake this charge of laying foundations such a burden sayes Chrysostome that the very Angels themselves would tremble to undergo it This made Moses Exod. 3. Thrise refuse it so Ezek. chap. 14. and so Jonas chap. 1. This made AMBROSE hide himself and three times flee from Millan This made Gregory Nazianz. to flee twise to the study of Philosophy This made Augustine to weepe and to deprecat the Episcopall function put upon him by Valerian in these tearmes quidvis ut peream as if it stood him as much upon as his life and soules salvation came unto Epist 1. â—â— to Valerian Which made Chrysost againe to say Hom. 3. in act Apost I beleeve not that many Ministers of the Church are saved when I consider the greatnesse of their Charge and their negligence therin This made Paul I. Tim. 3. 6. to say Not a novice lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condeÌ„nation of the devill Let us then look well to this how we have entered into it Bernard sayes this will be one of the Lords queries at the last day quomodo intrasti Sad and strict will be one day the account that young Novices must give for rushing upon the burden of the pastorall Charge GREGORY in that same book p. 3. cap. 26. affirmes That it is as dangerous for such Novices to undergo the burden of a pastorall Charge as to lay the roofe of the house upon the wals when they are green this were to ruine and not to build And for any burden that such or the most part sustaine in the Church such Novices are well compared by the Authour of the Apology p. 12. to these little statues or Angelets that wee often see affixed to the pillars of our Churches stooping the head bending the back as if they did support the whole fabricke and yet they sustaine nothing at all but are rather themselves supported Have wee not seen the trees of the Forrest offer to rest themselves under the shadow of this brier and what was the issue a fire came out of the brier and devoured the Cedars of Lebanon What a preposterous Course is it to rush on vpon the publishing of divine trueths who were never acquainted much with either naturall or morall trueths O that Youngman aiming at this would but stay till they should finde themselves indued with power from above and furnished with gifts meete for so high a Calling Hee that is the teacher of Angels sayes the same GREGORY there would not be the teacher of men before 30 years of age O how many things at necessary to the well manageing of right superstructures such as lively preaching these trueths right administration of Sacraments confirming these trueths frequent Catechising to beare in these trueths upon people visitation of the sicke to refresh them with the Memorialls of divine trueths Spirituall conference upon all occasions in all meetings that we may mutually be edified in our holy faith The power and vse of the keyes whereby strong holds are subdued which oppose the trueth and power of godlinesse Then what a man of experience should such an one be that undertaks by these means the superstructures of a holy life upon this ground Since we ar 4 Vse to be built on this ground it is needfull both by the necessity of the meane and of the precept that we by all laudable endeavours study to know them that we may the more readily beleeve theÌ„ and practise what is practicable of them and this both for our Vnion with Christ and our more strict Communion with his body IT could not be but a great error of these Bishops who did ordaine Synesius to be the Bishop of Ptolemais when as he did not beleeve that maine foundation of the Resurrection as is reported by Photius and by Evagrius For though I willingly yeeld and grant that alike explicite and distinct knowledge of all revealed trueths is not of the same degree of necessity required for as wee distinguish betweene Fundamentalls and suprafundamentalls and Circumfundamentalls all which three are revealed trueths so also between these assents given to these as for example though a man cannot be saved without an expresse assent to prime fundamentalls when they are clearly proposed sufficiently revealed to him Yet as for others not of so needfull concerment that are not so clearly holden out a man without the expresse and distinct knowledge of these may be saved Yet this is not affirmed to maintaine or to justifie but rather to condemne that affected that grosse and vincible ignorance of the most needfull and essentiall grounds of the Christian faith yea of very necessarie superstructures O how many are ignorant of the first foundations of Christianity May not the Lord charge Pastors with this my People perish for lack of knowledge How can one say he is built on the Rock that knows it not How can any resolve a