as easie and reasonable for vs to refuse his argument grounded vpon that which we deny as for him to affirme that he cannot proue Yet that we may deale more kindly with him then he doth with vs wee will giue him a reason of our answer which is that None of the Apostles did euer vse any other kind of teaching then reuealing If they deny this let them shew that any Apostle did euer informe the Church that This or that booke was scripture that this or that tradition was by diuine authority that this or that place had this or that sense And that this information of theirs was not by way of reuelation that is of immediate inspiration and motion from God wherby they were freed from all errour If they cannot doe this as I am out of doubt they cannot it must needs be granted that they taught onely by reuelation not otherwise They will perhaps obiect Act. 15. 7. but in vaine For the Apostles doe not there expound any place of Scripture formerly written or propound matters already reuealed by God but by the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost resolue and enioyne what was to be done in that case So that their determination was a law then first giuen by way of reuelation from God not by way of interpreting and propounding what the Lord had formerly deliuered For it is manifest that the Lord hath no where taught in the old Testament the new was not then written that the Gentiles conuerted to the faith were to abstain from strangled things and from blood to the forbidding wherof the holy Ghost directed them immediately vpon that occasion for that time From which after a time he freed them by the like direction and reuelation giuen to the Apostle S. Paul and by him to the Church Rom. 14. And that this decree of the Apostles was made by reuelation and inspiration of the holy Ghost * De Rom. Pons lib. 4. cap. 25. Sect. Respondeâ— ad primum Bellarmine himselfe grants Yea the Apostles in that same place seeme to take a contrary course to that which if they had expounded the former Scriptures or propounded things formerly deliuered they must haue followed For as it appeareth by debating of the point by Iames and Peter the old testament absolutely Act. 15. freed the Gentiles conuerted from the ceremoniall law Why tempt ye God saith Peter Vers 10. to lay a yoake on the Disciples neckes which neither our fathers nor wee were able to beare Yet the Apostles by this decree of theirs bind them to part of that law by enioyning them Vers 20. 29. To obstaine from blood and that that is strangled Which they might not haue done if they had propounded matters already resolued of and not followed the immediate reuelation and direction of the holy Ghost To this I may adde the manner of this charge giuen by the Apostles which is by inspiration from the holy Ghost whose authority in this case they alledge It seemed good to the holy Ghost not thus saith Moses Dauid or the Lord by this or that Prophet Therfore in that Councel the Apostles did reueale what was to be done not propound what formerly had beene reuealed And yet this is the onely place in all the new Testament wherein there is any shew of Feeding by expounding and propounding otherwise then by reuelation CHAP. VII Of the two latter points in Bellarmines Propositions HAuing found the two former points to be light and false I come now to weigh the third which is set downe as plainly as either of the former that Feeding Christs sheepe Ioh. 21. 15. is teaching the whole Church There hath beene enough said already to discredit and disable the proposition yet I will goe forward that it may appeare what truth there is in it Bellarmine laboureth De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 16. much to proue that by Christs Sheepe in this place all Christians whatsoeuer are signified But what needeth all this adoe Wee neuer meant to deny it neither doth our granting or his prouing of it any thing at all helpe them or hinder vs. For there is nothing meant in this place by teaching but reuealing as I shewed in the former chap. numb 10 11 12. But this the church of Rome claimes not but striueth tooth and naile for such a teaching as consisteth in expounding and propounding things reuealed yea I will grant him both proposition and assumption in the tearmes wherein they are deliuered Because the whole Church was to bee instructed by the feeding here spoken of and no man had or hath liberty either to refuse as vntrue or not to obey as needlesse any thing that should be deliuered according to this commandement Feed my sheepe The more doth Bellarmin wrong vs in saying that we denie that the whole Church is meant by the name of sheepe in this place For whereas our Diuines say that Peter was made a particular not an vniuersall Bishop they meane not thereby to deny his authority to teach all Nations whatsoeuer and all congregations in all nations as occasion was offered but onely to signifie that hee had no commission giuen by those or any other words to be soueraigne Bishop of the whole Church as they speake in the words going a little Sect. Primum before As for that of Iohn 21. 15. they shew that those words can argue no such authority because then Paul might not haue had the same office among the Gentiles which Peter had among the Iewes so that the vniuersality denied in that and other places by our Diuines is an authority of feeding those who were ioyned with him in the same commission of feeding and had equall authority with him to reueale the truth of God to all the sheepe of Christ without exception which Caluin expresseth thus If the Caluin Institut lib. 4. c. 6. n. 4. same authority be granted to all which was promised to one wherin shall he be aboue his fellowes in office As for n. 7. which Bellarmine quoteth Caluin doth neither mention nor signifie that place Iohn 21. 15. therein There remaineth the fourth poynt to be considered that seeding Christs sheepe Iohn 21. 15. is teaching by way of iudging or determining what is to be beleeued of all men This also is expressed in plaine termes and is of as much importance as any of the other three His proofe is that wee cannot better vnderstand it then in that sense I see not why I may not grant him this without any inconuenience For indeed the Apostles feeding either by word of mouâ—h or writing was by way of sentence so that no man might deny or doubt of any thing which they deliuered Neither was there any higher court to which there might be any appeale from their sentence but all men were absolutely bound to beleeue and obey whatsoeuer they taught and commanded This wee grant and herein we would agree with Bellarmine if this were all he meaneth But he
not be without an head at Peters death and after Therefore some must succeed Peter in his pastorall office Here Bellarmine perceiued that we were like enough to deny the proposition because the disiunction in it is naught for that Christ the head of the church continued to be the head thereof at Peters death and shall do so for euer Therfore he telleth vs it is not sufficient for the Church to haue Christ for head but that the Scripture maketh mention of another head of the Church his reason lyeth thus The head 1 Cor. 12. 12. is not Christ for that head 1 Cor. 12. 12. hath need of the members which is not true of Christ The head 1 Cor. 12. 12. is the head of the Church Therefore there is some head of the Church which is not Christ Wee easily yeeld the proposition is true and therfore Bellarmine needed not haue troubled himselfe to proue it especially since his proofe is no better For our Sauiour considered as the Mediatour the head of the Church cannot say to the Members which make the body I haue no neede of you although as he is God he hath absolutely no need of any of them The assumption that the head 1 Cor. 12. 12. is the head of the Church we refuse as false And how doth Bellarmine proue it As he doth many other points by saying so But this will not serue our turne in a matter of faith Belike he looketh we should disproue it Though it be no orderly course of disputation yet I say in a word the head in that 21 verse in which the words quoted by Bellarmine signifies the naturall head to which the principall members in the church are resembled which as principall as they are cannot be without the feet that is the meanest members And this interpretation is warranted by Chrysostome and Theophilact who by head vnderstand those which had receiued greater gifts So that indeed the place containeth a comparison wherein the coniunction of the parts of the mysticall body is declared by the like in the naturall body There are two other arguments in the same chapter Sect. Sexto and Sect. Denique the one is drawne from the succession of the high Priests in the old Testament the other from the necessity of monarchicall gouernment in the church But they are so sleight and idle that I should but wast time labour and paper to meddle with them where-I thus end this third point and this Chapter CHAP. X. Of Feeding committed to Peters Successours THe fourth and last point to be considered in Bellarmines 1 Chapt. 5 num 5. chap. 8. num assumption is this Feeding Ioh. 21. is committed to Peters Successors also This we say is vntrue and will make it appeare to bee 1. Ioh. 21. 25. so by answering the arguments he bringeth to proue it Bellarm. leverbo De il b. 3 cap 5. Sect. Quartum The first whereof is in this manner Either our Sauiour when he required Peter to feed his sheepe Ioh. 21. spake also to his successors or else he prouided for his church for twenty fiue yeares onely and not to the end of the world But when he required Peter to feed his sheepe Iohn 21. he prouided for his Church not for fiue and twenty years onely but to the end of the world Therefore Ioh. 21. he spake also to Peters successors Concerning the assumption we say that wee are out of doubt our Sauiour by those words prouided for his church to the end of the world For hee thereby required Peter to publish the Gospell by reuealing it Now this reuealing or preaching of the Gospell by reuelation is and shall be of great vse to the Church in all ages and times so long as the world shall enduâ—e And in this sensâ— I grant the assumption but in Bellermines sense that our Sauiour prouided for his Church by instituting such an Office as hee fancieth which the whole argument presumeth I deny the assumption and proposition too Indeed the proposition is vtterly false our Lord prouided for the Church to the end of the world though hee spake not at all in that place to Peters successors For in those words hee tooke order for the reuealing of the Gospell which reuelation of Peters containeth prouision for the Church to the end of the world There is a second argument of Bellarmines to the same Bellarm. do Pont. Rom. l. 2 cap. 12. Sect. quinto purpose In which words Christ committed all his sheepe both for place and time to Peter in those he spoke to Peters successors also for Peter was not to liue alwaies in the flesh But in those words Ioh. 21. Christ committed all his sheepe both for place and time to Peter For it behoued our Sauiour to haue no lesse care of vs then of our Predecessors Therefore in those words Iohn 21. Christ spake to Peters successors also Of the assumption which speaketh of our Lords committing his sheepe to Peter by those words there hath beene enough said already in the former chapter which needeth no repetition The proposition I reiect as false For our Sauiour might well by those words commit all his sheepe for place and time to Peters Feeding by the doctrine of the Gospell to be reuealed which was to continue as by Gods blessing it hath done and shall doe no lesse to vs and our posterity then to our predecessors from time to time whereby hee sheweth his care of vs as well as of them Now for a conclusion of this fourth point and a full satisfaction to this whole argument drawn from those words Iohn 21. 15. I will propound a reason or two out of the text it selfe by which it shall appeare if not necessarily yet with as great likelihood as any thing Bellarmine hath brought in this question that our Lord spake to Peter onely and not to his successors also Of them to whom those words were spoken our Sauiour demanded whether they loued him or no. Of Peterâ— successors Christ did not demand whether they loued him or no for they neither were there in presence nor at all in being in the world Therefore to Peters successours those words were not spoken He to whom those words were spoken had giuen occasion that our Sauiour should repeat this question thrice For it is not likely that our Lord would haue repeated them so often if there had not beene occasion giuen and wee finde iust occasion of repeating them thrice in Peters denying him thrice But Peters successors had giuen no occasion of the threefold repetition for they neither were at that time nor had beene before in the world Therefore to Peters successors those words were not spoken Thus haue I at the last examined this argument of Bellarmines with all the proofes of euery seuerall part thereof whereby it hath appeared I doubt not to euery iudicious and vnpartiall Reader that there is no force in it to proue that the Church or Pope hath a
Concil Trident. Sess 4. decret de canon script Sauiour by word of mouth or by the holy Ghost and kept in the Church by continuall succession We may content our selues with this description without seeking any explication out of Bellarmine or any other because Bellarmines definition that A tradition is a doctrine not written by the first author thereof is so far from making the meaning of the Councell of Trent plaine that indeed it doth rather more obscure Bellarm. de verb. Deâ—l 4. c. 2. Sect. Vocatur it The Councell setteth downe no distribution of traditions but this that some of them concerne faith some manners But Bellarmine wearieth himselfe and his Reader with a number of distribâ—â—ions which as I said of his description are of no vse but to darken the question Tradition being thus vnderstood I say that third proposition is false and the contradictory thereof true No sauing truth taught by Christ or his Apostles is contained in vnwritten traditions which may thus appeare If no part of the Scripture refer vs to tradition for some part of Gods word not contained in the said Scriptures then haue we no reason to seeke for any part thereof in tradition For the Scriptures doe send vs to the scriptures for the knowledge of sauing truth Ioh. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life And the Apostle Paul 2 Tim. 3. 15. saith that The 2 Tim. 3. 15. Scripture is able to make vs wise to saluatioÌ„ And wold not the scripture trow we haue sent vs to tradition for supply of that which was wanting in it if there had beene any supply to be had therein For it was as easie and as orderly for the Scripture to referre vs to tradition as to it selfe and as well beseeming the wisdome and prouidence of God to haue sent vs to both parts of his word by the Scriptures as to the one of them yea it was a great deale more needfull For no man could doubt but he was to haue recourse to the Scriptures because they were knowne to be the word of God But who could haue imagined that the Lord God teaching vs so plentifully in the Scriptures would leaue out some part of the sauing truth and not so much as giue vs any inkling thereof nor direct vs where we might finde it But they tell vs the Scripture doth put vs ouer for some of the diuine truth to vnwritten traditions Let vs see and examine the places that are brought to this purpose by Bellarmine Bellarm. de verb. Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 5. Sect. Ac primum who made choise of the best places that had beene or could be alledged in this matter The first wherof is thus to be concluded Those things which our Sauiour spake of Ioh. 16. 12. and Ioh. 16. 12. and 21. 25. 21. 25. Act. 1. 3. are comprehended in tradition For they are not written and it is not credible that the Apostles which heard them did not deliuer them to the Church Surely they were neither so enuious that they would not nor so forgetfull that they could not But those things which he spake in those places were sauing truths Therefore some sauing truths taught by Christ or his Apostles are contained in tradition Ere I answer to this argument particularly I must note in general that euery proposition of euery argument brought in this question must be certainly and euidently true because the point concluded is an article of faith which must be either expresly set downe by the holy Ghost or collected from the word of God by manifest and necessary consequence Therefore if we finde any proposition in any argument that is not in such sort true the conclusion cannot be an Article of faith because of those premises but is only at the most probable as they are Particularly I say of this argument that no Article of faith can bee concluded by it because the proposition or Maior with the proofe of it are at the most but probable as the examining of the reason will shew Either our Sauiors speeches theâ—e mentioned are contained in tradition or else they remaine not at all to posterity But they remaine to posterity for the Apostles did not omit the recording of them since they were neither enuious nor forgetfull Therefore our Sauiours speeches there mentioned are contained in tradition First this argument presumeth that whatsoeuer our Sauiour spake was some way or other committed to posterity And this was the first proposition in this doctrine of the Council denied by vs n. 5. 7. therfore Bellar. doth but play the sophister by begging the question proueth nothing Secondly I answer that if I should grant him that he beggeth yet his pâ—oposition would be false For the disiunction is nought What if I say those speeches of our Sauiour neither perished nor remaine in tradition but are recorded in some part of the Apostles writings in the new TestimeÌ„â— For since our Sauior promised Ioh. 16. 13. to send them his spirit which should lead them into all truth and Ioh. 14. 26 bring to their remembrance all things which he had told theÌ„ and performed what he promised Acts 2. 3. It is more then likely that they did coÌ„mend the things to posterity which he caused theÌ„ to remember for why else were they brought to their remembrance But wee find no other course that euâ—r they tooke to deliuer the Gospell to posterity but writing Why then should these points be kept vnwritten Suâ—ely they are neither greater mysteries nor smaller matters then some that are written The proposition then is either false or doubtfull and the assumption little better For how can Bellarmine tell whether those matters be recorded in any of the Apostles writings or no vnlesse he know what they were as he will not for very shame say he doth But If we doubt of it he would make vs beleeue wee accuse the Apostles of envie or negligence God forbid We will grant him any thing almost rather then lay such an imputation upon those glorious instruments of our salvation We haue a better way to answer then so namely that Bellarmine commeth short of his reckonig either of negligence or enuy What needeth that It may well be that they did not record every one of our Saviour speeches because they had no commission to leaue them on record and they were to doe according to their comission being to deliver the word of God as they were inspired by the holy Ghost not to set downe every thing they could remember as men doe that follow their owne naturall discretion Neither can Bellarmine any way make good the assumption of the principall Syllogisme negatiue that Those things which our Lord spake of in those places were saving truths except he can certainely tell what they were CHAP. XIII Of Bellarmines second and third Arguments to proue vnwritten traditions BEllarmines second argument in the place aboue named
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
baptisme May we not iustly ranke them with those luke-warme Revel 3. 15. 16. Laodiceans that were neither hot nor cold fish nor flesh And may not they certainely looke for the euent which our Lord Iesus threatneth that he will spue them out of his mouth It is high time therefore for all men 1. Reg. 18. 21. to resolue themselues whether they will follow God or Baal Christ or Antichrist and not to continue halting betwixt two opinions I cannot reasonably conceiue whence this want of resolution should proceed in them that are not desperately carelesse or profainely politicke but onely from ignorance of the necessity of being separated from the church of Rome The clouds of this ignorance I desire and purpose to scatter by the light of truth that all men which will not shut their eyes against the beames thereof may see both the way wherein they are and the place it leades them too Now to the end I may the bettor vnderstand my selfe and be vnderstood by them that seeke for resolution if they doubt or confirmation if they be resolued I will labour to speak as plaine as the matter will giue me leaue to doe desiring to haue that I deliuer rather iudged of thèn wondered at And because we are accused by the Church of Rome sometimes of heresie sometimes of schisme I will apply my disputation and discourse to the iustifying of our forefathers in separating from the popish religion and our selues in continuing that separation Wherefore that we may proceed orderly and plainely I propound the matter to be disputed in these termes Euery man is bound vpon paine of damnation to refuse the faith of the Church of Rome This proposition or sentence hath two things in it to be proued That 1. The faith of the Church of Rome is to be refused That 2. It is to be refused vpon paine of damnation These two I will handle seuerally First by shewing the necessitie of that refusall Secondly by setting out the penaltie if that faith be not refused And that nothing may be wanting which may helpe the simplest to conceiue and iudge aright of that which shall be spoken before I come to debate the point I will declare the meaning of the termes in which I haue deliuered it as shortly as I can with plainenesse By the faith of the Church of Rome I meane the Doctrine of the said Church deliuered by it in certaine Articles propositions or sentences to be beleeued by all men that desire to be saued as matters reuealed by God to that end This their faith I consider as one individuall or singular thing For although it may indeed be devided into many seuerall Articles of which it consists and is as it were compacted or framed yet it is conceiued by themselues as one intire body because they are all knit together by the same bond namely by being assented to or beleeued vpon one and the same ground or reason which is the spirit of that body and are all to be receiued a like vnder paine of the same Auathema or curse if they be not receiued and this is especially to be obserued as the maine point in this iuquir That the faith of the Church of Rome is so to be conceiued of it appeareth manifestly by Mr. Fisher the Iesuites Mr. Fisher Trealise of saith vnder the name of AD. treatise of Faith vnder the name of A. D. wherein the whole fourth chapter is spent to shew that Faith must be intire Faith saith he must be intire whole and sound in all points and it is not sufficient to beleeue stedfastly some points mis-beleeuing or not beleeuing obstinately other some or any one The reason thereof followes a little after where he saith that Not to beleeue any one point whatsoeuer which God by reualing it doth testisie to bo true and which by his Church he hath commanded vs to beleeue must needs be damnable as being a not able iniury to Gods verity and a great disobedience to his will To the same purpose writes the titular Archbishop of Spalato that All Articles of faith determined by Spalato Consil 〈◊〉 pag 20. the Church are fundamentall and that none of them may be denied without heresie By this it comes to passe that whosoeuer is a true member of the Church of Rome must as stedfastly and resolutely beleeue the least point of reliques and Images deliuered by the Councell of Trent as the greatest mysteries of the God-head the Trinitie the Redomption of the world by the Lord Iesus and that if he denie any of the former he is no lesse an hereticke then if he did refuse to beleeue any of the latter yea though he beleeue all they propound to be beleeued saue some one small matter he is for want of beleeuing that one if he know the Church propounds it to be beleeued a miscreant and mis-beleeuer the reason of this is that if the Church may erre in one thing it may erre in an other and so can be no sure foundation of faith But what is it to refuse the faith of the Church of Rome surely nothing else but not to acknowledge the doctrine deliuered by the Church of Rome to be true but to abhoire it as false I speake not of euery particuler point but of all ioyntly together according to my former exposition For I doe freely and willingly confesse that the Papists hold many great misteries of diuinitie truely and soundly wherein also we agree with them but yet I say we may not at any hand receiue their faith for true as it is deliuered by them for one intire bodie of diuinitie reuealed by God to be acknowledged by all men that will be saued So then to refuse the faith of the Church of Rome is not to beleeue that it is true or to beleeue tht it is false and this I say is required of euery man vpon paine of damnation The exposition of the second point vpon paine of damnation I referre to the place where it is to be handled after I haue dispatched that which is first to be debated CHAP. III. Of the Authors that haue formerly hold the proposition handled in this Treatise THere are not a few that looke more after the man then after the matter and inquire rather who is the writer then what is written Therefore least the meannesse of my condition and abilities should bring some preiudice to the truth I search for giue me leaue I pray you in the first place to shew that the point I intend by Gods gracious assistance to proue is no new conceit or deuise of mine but a matter aduisedly resolued of and set down by more then one of the worthies of our church and nation Amongst whom the first in time and authoritie was that rare and pretious Iewel Bishop of Salisburie They B. Iewel des apol paro ◠cap 22. divis 1. haue no cause saith he of the Papists to complaine of our departing and to call
vs againe to be fellowes and friends with them If we should content our selues to turne to the Pope and to his errours it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogge and condomne our soules for euer And in another place he speakes thus to the same purpose As for vs we haue not fallen from the Bishop of Rome cap. 20. dirts 2. vpon any matter of worldly respect but so the case stood that vnlesse we left him we could not come to Christ Dr. Reynolds another shining light of the Vniuersitie D. Renolds of Oxford shewes vs the same truth in another maner viz. in his verses vpon the third conclusion handled in the Schooles Nouemb. 3. 1579. If that ye seeke eternall life see that you Rome forsake Of the same minde was Dr. Whitaker a man for his learning whether we respect reading or iudgement knowne and approued of the Churches of Christ especially this of England We say saith he that the Church of Rome must be D. whitaker de Eccles cont qu. 6 cap. 1. forsaken of all men that desire to be saued And a little after he addes that There can be no saluation hoped for in the Church of Rome Lastlie Mr. Perkins in knowledge and zeale a worthy Scholler of so excellent a Master treading in his footsteps concludes that All those that will be saued must depart M. Pâ—rlins Reformed Chath nâ— the prolog sed Thus then and separate themselues from the faith and religion of the present Church of Rome We haue seene the iudgement of these learned and reuerend Diuines and therein the consent of both the Vniuersities Cambridge and Oxford for their bookes especially the three last were allowed for printing by the principall Doctors of the seuerall Vniuersities then resident in them neither is it to be taken for the iudgement of the Vniuersities onely but also of the whole Church as appeareth euidently by the continuance of it from time to time in the writings of these famous learned men successiuely one after another It was first propounded by that reuerend Father in defence of the Church of England to iustifie our departure from that strumpet of Babylon diuers yeares after proclaimed openly in the publike Schooles by Dr. Reynolds ratified afterwards by Dr. Whitaker in his publike lectures of Diuinitie and last of all confirmed by Mr. Perkins and by euerie one of these published in print with the approbation of our Church and State And this to say the truth hath alwayes beene the iudgement and practise of the Churches of God in all Protestant Countries euer since the last birth and infancy of reformation in this age for the space of more then an hundred yeares for what else hath beene aymed at in so many writings and disputations of Ptotestants but the iustifiing of our deparâ—ure from the Synagogue of Rome Not of a bodily departure saith Mr. Perkins in respect of cohabitation Peform chathol in Prol guâ— and presence but of a spirituÌ„all separation in respect of faith and religion It cannot then reasonly be denyed or doubted but that our Church generally holds separation from the Church of Rome to be a matter of great consequence yea of absolute necessitie especially if we remenber that euery Parish throughout the whole Land is enioyned to haue the Booke of Bishop Iewel with the rest of his workes in their seuerall Churches for all men to read and that they were all new printed to that end CHAP. IIII. wherein the necessitie of separating is proued YOu see from whom I take the point that I haue vndertaken to maintaine from the same men will I ferch the grounds of my disputation What is the reason by which these worthy learned and godly diuines did iustifie the separation of our Church and her continuing separated from the Romish faith let vs heare themselues speake We haue departed from that Church saith thereuerend Father B. Iewel whose erroâ—rs were proued and made B. Iewel Iuf. apol pag. 4. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 1. manifest to the world which Church also had alreadie departed from Gods word and yet we haue not departed so much from it selfe as from the errours thereof What errours They are generally imploÌ„yed in these words of his chap. 10. diuis 2. Ignorance errour superstition idolatâ—◠〈◊〉 inuentions and the same commonly disagreeing 〈◊〉 the holy Scriptures And againe These men haue broke â— in peeces Apolog. pâ— 5. cap 13. divis 1. all the pipes and conduites they haue stopped all the springs and choaked vp the fonntaine of liuing water with dirt and mire And againe Wee haue renounced that Church wherein vve Cap. 15. divis 2. Apol. could neither haue the word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred nor the nam of God duely called vpon and wherein was nothing able to stay any wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne sasetie To conclude vve part 6. chap. 22. divis 2. haue departed from him saith that learned B. of the Pope who hath vtterly forsaken the Catholicke faith For as Dr. Bilson Dialogue â—â—t 3. Bilson saith most truely No Article of the Church of Rome wherein we dissent from them is Catholicke D. Reynolds speakes not so plaine yet giues us sufficiently to understand that he therefore concluded the Church of RomÌ„e was to be forsaken because she was no sound member of the Catholicke Church nor held the right faith Her unsoundnes he thus sets out The Church Reynolds conclu 5. of Rome is not distempered with a little ague such as hindreth not the functions of life greatly but is sicke of a canker or rather of a leâ—prosy or rather of a pestilence in so much that she is past hope of recouery unlesse our Saviour Christ the heavenly physician doe giue her wholesome medicines to purge her of permcious humors Conclus 5. And in his presace to his sixe conclusions he writes thus Sith â—â— the fellowship of the Church of Rome it was not In Preface at the 6. â—n â—asâ—on lawfull for vs either to serue God with a holy worship or to beleeue God with a holy faith as God hath commanded sâ—â—h the Church of Rome being taken with contagious diseases and a frensie did put her Counsellers to the fire friends to the sword brethren to cruell death and stained the faith of Christ with reproaches creatures with the Lords honour Gods service with Idolatry we went away from Papists not willingly as from mâ—n not vnwillingly as from heritickes But D. Whitaker and M. 〈◊〉 deeccâ—eâ— coâ—â—o 2. quist 6. cap. 1. Perkins are most plaine Wâ— affirmâ— saith D. Whitaker that the Church of Rome is to be shuned of all men and that no salvation is to be hoped for in it yea we say it is to be condâ—mâ—ed as a deepe pitt of heresy and errour M. Perkins avoucheth our departure for the same reason Perkins in prolog Resor Catho The
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
of Christs sheepe CHAP. V. Of the course that is to be followed in this disputation I Haue shewed that the foundation of the saith of the Church of Rome is the authority and testimony of the church and haue refused that foundation as vnsound and erroneous It will now perhaps be looked for that I should proceed by prouing that it is false and counterfeit But I see no necessary or sufficient reason for this course and therefore haue rather chosen to follow thaâ— way in this disputation which the matter it selfe leads me to and in which it leads me The question betwixt the church of Rome and vs is this Whether the articles or propositions to which they require our assent as to certaine truths reuealed by God and commanded of him to be beleeued vpon perill of damnation if we do not assent and beleeue be reuealed and commanded by God or no as Bellarmine himselfe putteth it in the assumption of his Syllâ—gisme set down by me Chap. 3. num 9. The church of Rome saith they are and call for obedience thereto accordingly We deny that they are reuealed and enioynâ—d by God and therefore refuse to giue assent to them Who seeth not that the very nature of this difference betwixt vs layeth vpon them a necessity of prouing that those points or articles are propounded by God to be beleeued as matters of faith reuealed by him This made the reuerend and learned B. Iewell in his Apology 3 B. Iewell Apol. part 1. chap. 10. diuis 1. tell the Doctors of the Romish church that It was their part to prooue clearly and truly that the Romish Church is the true and right instructed Church of God And in his second answer to Dr. Cole lett D D. E E. to affirme that It was vnreasonable for that Dr to call for the proofes of our doctrine And therefore as it appeares in that answer lett O. he stands vpon the negatiue as he speakes and putteth the Papists to their proofes because they presse vs to receiue those points for articles of faith This course I haue holden in those bookes that I haue formerly published in this kind of writing this I meane to hold now and hereafter if it please God to afford me opportunity to goe forward in the defence of his truth Yet for their better satisfaction and clearer manifesting of the truth I will alwaies giue some reason of my denying the propositions I refuse howsoeuer it were enough for an answer to deny that which of it selfe is not apparantly true And thus much of the course of this disputation I returne now to the disputation it selfe The maine ground for the proofe of the authority of the church in this kind is taken by Bellarmine out of Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Ioh. 21. 15 16. De verbo dei lib. 3. cap. 5. Sect. quartum testimonium seqq Iesus said to Simon Peter Simon the sonne of Ionas louest thou mee more then these He said yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee He said vnto him Feed my sheepe c. From these words Bellarmine disputeth thus Feeding of Christs sheepe Ioh. 21. 15. is a singular office of teaching the whole Church by determining and iudging what is to bee beleeued of all men To Peter and his successours the feeding of Christs sheepe is committed Ioh. 21. Therefore to Peter and his successors a singular office of teaching the whole Church by iudging and determining what is to be beleeued of all men is committed Vpon this conclusion Bellarmine inferreth that he that will not be thus taught by Peter is none of Christs sheepe Many weighty points are hudled vp together in this Syllogisme worthy of serious consideration and debating In the Proposition or first part these foure things are comprised 1. In those words Ioh. 21. 15. a singular Office is contained 2 Feeding there signifieth teaching 3 Feeding Christs sheepe is teaching the whole Church 4 Teaching the whole church is by way of determining what is to be beleeued of all men All these are contained in the Proposition and euery one of them so necessarily required to the truth thereof that if any one of them bee vntrue the Proposition of necessity must be false How then shall the conclusion be an article of faith as the Papists will haue it I will therfore examine euery one of them seuerally and then goe forward to consider of the Assumption CHAP. 6. Of the two former points of the foure THE first of the foure points to be discussed is this In the words rehearsed Ioh. 21. 15. a singular office is appointed That Bellarmine speakes of a singular Office the words themselues shew that hee must needs bee vnderstood of appointing such an office not of disposing of one already appointed it is manifest as well because there was no office yet ordained but that which was common to Peter with the rest of the Apostles and therefore not singular as also for that it will not serue Bellarmines turne to speake of an office common to all the Apostles since hee endeauors to settle such an office vpon Peter as was proper and peculiar to him and such as no other Apostle euer had This may farther appeare by another place in Bellarmine where he saith that that very thing is really giuen Iohn 21. 15. which was promised Mat 16. 19. I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen and as he there saith giuen to the same Simon to whom Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 14. Sect. Ac primum cap. 12. Sect Et propterea before it was promised hee saith that the keyes were promised Math. 16. 19. and â—eliuered Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Thus haue we the first point in Bellarmines proposition now let vs try the truth of it For our parts we vtterly reiect it as false because wee are out of doubt it cannot any way bee soundly proued And we are the rather so perswaded because Bellarmine hath not once attempted to proue it although hee could not chose but see that there was necessity of prouing it for it is not so plaine and manifest in it selfe that it needs no proofe and the conclusion drawne out of it is an Article of their faith yea such an article as like Atlas beareth the waight of the whole body of their faith Besides Bellarmine knew well enough that we deny it to be true For hee brings Luthers words to that purpose Martin Luther saith Bellarmine in his booke de potestate Papae affirmes that by the word Feed Iohn 21. there is no new power giuen but only the duty of louing Bellar. de Rom. Pont. la. ca. 15. Sect. Iam vero and teaching enioyned Peter who was made an Apostle before Neither doth the text it selfe nor any other place of Scripture for ought they say or we see afford vs any proofe thereof If there bee any thing in the text for their reliefe it is in that Peter is commanded to feed But
this charge doth not so much as imply the appointing of an office because feeding is many times enioyned where there is no singular office ordained but the executing of an office commanded which had before been appointed So the Apostle Peter 1. Peter 5. 2. chargeth th 〈…〉 were already 1 Pet. 5. 2. Ministers to feed the flicke of God And the Apostle Paul Acts 20. 28. giues the like charge to the Elders or Ministers of Act. 10. 28. Ephesus Take heed to your selues and to all the flocke to feed the Church of God And this Dr. Reynolds well obserued Dr. Reynolds against â—art Chap. 3. diuis 2. and vrged against Hart You say true wee might therefore with good reason refuse this proposition till it be proued But I will deale more kindly with Bellarmine and shew that Luther truely affirmed there was no new office erected by those words but the execution of one formerly appointed enioyned If this feeding be the teaching for which all the Apostles had commission Mark 16 15. Goe ye into all the world and Mark 16. 15. preach the Gospell to euery creature Iohn 20. 23. Whose sinnes soeuer ye remit they are remitted to them then is it not the erecting of a new office for this was at our Sauiours third appearing to his Disciples Iohn 20. 13. that at his first Ioh. 20. Ioh. 20. 19. Bellarm. de pont Rom. lib. 1. cap. 12. Sect. Dices c. 19. 20. when as Bellarmine affirmeth they had power giuen them both of iudisdiction to gouerne and of order to execute their sacrificing Priesthood And it had beene a thing not beseeming our Sauiours wisdome to giue a new Commission when there was no need nor occasion of so doing Yea to say the truth it had beene altogether in vaine because the former being as sufficient and in force there could be no place for this later But this feeding Ioh. 21. 15. is the teaching for which they had commission Mark. 16. 15. Ioh. 20. 23. For wee finde no other kinde of feeding but this one practised by the Apostles in the new Testament namely feeding by way of reuealing This appeareth touching the Scriptures Bellarm. de Coâ—cil authorit lib 2. cap. 12. Sect. Obseruandum c. and Sect. Diâ—untur Counc Trent Sess 4 decretde Canon scripturatum 2. Tim. 4. 15. The Scriptures were giuen by inspiration 2. Pet. 1. 21. Holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost as Bellarmine also confesseth The Scripture is the word of God immediatly reuealed The holy writers had immediate reuelation and writ the words of God As for traditions which the church of Rome makes a second part of the diuine testimony or word of God by their owne confession they are also by reuelation for so saith the Councell of Trent Traditions were either receiued by the Apostles from the mouth of our Sauiour or deliuered by themselues the holy Ghost enditing them Indeed this feeding Ioh. 21. 15. is nothing else but an exhortation or charge for the performance of that duty which was enioyned in that Commission Mark 16. 15. That it was such an exhortation the manner of deliuering the words sheweth which is by repeating the same thing three seuerall times For this course is very fit to make an impression of a duty commanded no way beseeming the giuing of a Commission Besides it answereth to Peters denying of his Master thrice as Cyril noteth in Ioh. Because Cyril supra Ioh. lib. 12. cap. 64. he denied him thrice at his passion therefore there is a threefold confession of loue required of him A threefold confession saith S. Austin answereth to a threefold negation that the tongue may Aug. Tract in Ioh. 123. expresse as much loue as it did feare Adde hereunto that our Lord calls for the performance of this duty as a proofe of Peters loue to him wherein hee had failed more then the rest because he had made more protestation of it then the rest For thus lies the reason If thou loue me as thou hast professed thou doest shew thy loue by the performing of the duty of feeding But what proofe had it beene of Peters loue to our Sauiour to become the visible Monarch of the whole Church Well might the giuing of such an office argue our Sauiours loue to Peter but the taking it vpon him could not testifie any great loue of his to our Sauiour For who would haue refused such an offer The burthen of teaching was laid vpon the other Apostles as well as vpon him the honour of the Supremacy if this were true was appropriated to him yea the rest of the Apostles who before were equall to him were now made inferiour and subiect to him Lastly in giuing a commission the authority of him that giues is ordinarily expressed alwaies implyed Mat. 28. 18 19. All power is giuen to me in heauen and earth Goe therefore and teach all nations Ioh. 20. 21 22 23. As my father sent me so send I you receiue the holy Ghost whose sins c. But here although as they say it is the onely place that speaks of this commission there is no authority either expressed or implyed onely as Cyrill saith It was a duty of loue to feed as it had beene formerly a proofe of feare to deny What else then can this Feeding be but the teaching which was enioyned all the Apostles at our Sauiours first appearing to them Whereupon I may safely conclude that the word neither necessarily nor in any likelihood of reason importeth the erection of any new office in the Church Let vs now proceed to debate the second point yet with this memorandum that although it be neuer so plainly proued yet Bellarmines proposition of a new office appointed Ioh. 21. 15. is false because the first point contained in it of a singular office here ordained is neither true nor likely The thing now to be discussed is this Feeding Christs sheepe Ioh. 21. 15. is teaching This sentence is plainly deliuered by Bellarmine in that proposition as he that looks vpon it cannot choose but see and proued also by two reasons the former that Reasonable sheepe are fed by teaching the latter that The Lord saith by Ieremy I will giue you Pastors according to my heart which Ier. 3. 15. shall feed you with knowledge and vnderstanding But these proofes might haue been spared for we acknowledge that Feeding is Teaching But for the fuller discussing of this matter wee must remember that Bellarmine as we saw chap. 4. numb 9. telleth vs Teaching is double by reuealing or propounding things reuealed Wee say that the teaching here spoken of is by reuelation not by propounding matters already reuealed as they would haue it But if they will haue vs yeeld to it they must proue it and not take it for granted as Bellarmine doth For without it be proued as I signified chap. 6. numb 6. his proposition cannot be true It is therfore
contenteth not himself with this kind of teaching but will haue the teaching here spoken of to be a difiâ—itiue sentence declaring and determining what is reuealed and what the sense and meaning of it is as I shewed chapter 4. numb 7. To this must his proofes be applyed which lie thus If feeding Iohn 21. 15. be not teaching by way of determing what is reueâ—led and what the meaning of it is Then we must vnderstand it of preaching or writing commentaries How shall the consequence of this proposition bee made good since this feeding may at the least as reasonably be vnderstood of reuealing the sacred mysteries yea this interpretatioÌ„ is more reasonable because the words were spoken to him whose office it was to reueale those mysteries by vertue of his Apostolicall commission as I shewed numb 4. yea they are the very same in sense and meaning with those that are vsed in the commission Goe teach all Nations Mark 16. 16. and Iohn 20. 23. as was declared c. 4. n. 4. But admit a man should say it is meant of preaching or writing how doth Bellarmine refute him By telling vs that if we so take it wee must condemne many Popes that haue written nothing at all As if that were any inconuenience to vs although to say the truth most of the Popes that haue written might haue had as much thanke to spare their labors as to write as they haue done Well say we vnderstand it of preaching That may not be neither saith Bellarmine Why so because the Pope cannot preach to all no not diuers Popes to any at all For as their owne Histories confesse some of them did not so much as vnderstand their Grammar But what if the Pope cannot no more could any of the Apostles nor Peter preach to all yet had they authority to preach to all as occasion might happen and were not restrained to this or that congregation diocesse prouince nation or Country and in that respect were vniuersall Pastors of the whole Church yea euery one of them CHAP. VIII Of the Assumption of Bellarmines syllâ—gisme c. 3. n. 5. HItherto I haue shewed what little shew of reason there is for that interpretation of Iohn 21. 15. whereon the strength of Bellarmines conclusion principally dependeth I will now set my selfe to the sifting of the assumption or second part of his syllogisme which is To Peter and his successors that feeding Iohn 21. 15. is committed As the proposition so the assumption also containeth foure seuerall points distinctly to be considered that 1 Those words Iohn 21. are spoken to Peter 2 The office of seeding is committed to Peter 3 Peter hath his successours 4 The office of seeding is committed to Peters successors The first of these foure â—entences or points is rather supposed then expressed in the assumption but it is plainly deliuered by Bellarmin It is said to Peter only Feed my sheepe Bel de Rom. Poâ— l c. 14. Sect. Hactenâ— Who denyeth this if it be â—ightly vnder The speech was directed immediately to Peter with whom our Lord then talked but not so to Peter as if the duty to which he is exhorted belonged to none but to Institut lib. 4. cap. 6. n. 4. him Therefore Calvin truely saith that as Peter receiued mandemâ—m of 〈◊〉 Iohn 21. 15. so all other ministers are exhorted to feed the sheepe 1. Pet. 5. 2. and by so saying hee granteth that those words were spoken to Peter but hee telleth the Papists withall that if they will proue that they auouch they must shew that whosoeuer are commanded â—o feed Christs sâ—eepe to them the power ouer the whole Church is committed In which words he denieth the consequence of the proposition which he doth not expresse but acknowledgeth the assumption contained in those words To Peter Bellar. de Rom. ponl lib. 1. c. 14. Sect. Sed coâ—tra onely Christ said feed my sheepe By which it is manifest that Bellarmine doth Caluin great wrong in charging him with the denying that those words Iohn 21. are spoken to Peter onely and spendeth his time and strength in vaine to proue by seuen arguments against Caluin that which Caluin neuer denyed But Bellarmines meaning is that the words are so spoken to Peter that the thing signified by them belongeth not to the rest of the Apostles And in this sense we say it is false that those words were spoken to Peter onely If Bellarmine can not proue them true in this sense as I am sure he cannot his argument is nothing worth For how shall that proue for Peter and his successors against the rest of the Apostles which was spoken to them as well as to him yet it is not to be wondred at that Bellarmin goeth not about to proue it in that sense For indeed there is no shew or colour of proofe for it because the Word of God no where maketh any distinction betwixt this feeding Iohn 21. 15. and that teaching Mat. 16. 16. Iohn 20. 21. which was enioyned Peter and the rest of the Apostles equally and alike as Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 12. Sect. â—ices confesseth The keyes were giuen Iohn 20. and 21. For when our Lord said Iohn 20. 19. Peace be vnto you as my Father sent me so send I you then hee gaue them the power or key of iurisdiction For by those words hee made them as it were Legates and Gouernors of the Church in his name But in the words following Receiue ye the holy Ghost whose sinnes yee remit c. he gaue them the power of order And thus much of the first proposition of the foure The second followeth namely The office of feeding Ioh. 21. is committed to Peter This is affirmed in plaine words and must bee vnderstood of Peter alone not of him and the other Apostles For that will not serue Bellarmines turne because it proues nothing for the Popes power or against that wee defend Besides Bellarmine striues here for an office proper to Peter because he cals it a singular office But how can that be proper to Peter which is cominon to the rest of the Apostles with him This also we deny as Caluin did long since In this word Institut lib. 4. cap. 6. n. 4. feed saith he nothing is giuen to Peter more then to the other Bellarmine should haue proued that this conueyeth a proper office to the Pope and not haue taken that for granted which he knoweth we alwayes deny But hee doth not so much as offer to make any proofe of it either de verbo Lib. 3. cap. 5. Lib. 1. cap. 14. Dei or de Roman Pontif. in both which places he professedly disputeth the point Indeed in the latter place hee proueth that the words Feed my sheepe were spoken to Peter only But what is that to proue that feeding Iohn 21. is committed to Peter onely Some man perhaps will imagine that the latter dependeth vpon the former but he wil quickly change his
mind if he doe but looke vpon them both together in one proposition If those words feed my sheepe were spoken to Peter onely then the feeding is commited to Peter onely as if it were all one To require or exhort Peter to feed and To commit the feeding to Peter onely Put case a man that hath many seruants to goe about a peece of worke reaping or the like should say to some one of them whom he might suspect of idlenesse Looke that you reape cleane and faire Will any wise man conclude hereupon that by these words hee giueth him an office to ouer-see and iudge of his other fellowes worke or maketh him the onely worke-man And yet it cannot be denyed that he speaketh to him onely But it will peraduenture bee replyed in defence of the consequence of the forme proposition that if Christ required Peter onely to feed and did not commit that feeding onely to him then there was no end or reason of his speaking to him onely but it were absurd yea blasphemous to say of our Sauiour that there was no end or reason of his speech It were certainely blasphemous for any man to say of the Lord Iesus that any action or speech of his was without reason or not to good purpose But it were also a bold and blind presumption for any man to affirme that there is no reason or end of our Sauiours speech at all because there is none knowne to men What if I know not the end or reason of it may I conclude that therefore there is none So then if wee should grant that there can no reason bee giuen by vs of our Sauiours speech vnlesse thereby such an office bee bestowed vpon Peter yet it might well bee there was some reason thereof though vnknowne to vs. But we can assigne good reason of that speech that is we can shew that there was good reason why our Sauiour Christ should direct his speech in that sort to Peter onely though he meant not to place him in any office thereby First therefore wee say that our Lord speake to Peter thus particularly that hee might giue him occasion to make profession of his loue to him which hee had brought into question by denying his Master with swearing and cursing And because there was no meanes more effectuall to proue the continuance or renuing of Peter loue to our Sauiour then the feeding of his sheepe therefore our Sauiour presseth him with this duty aboue the rest because there was more need to haue his loue shewed then the others who had not made their loue to him so doubtfull Let me adde to these two a third that it was needfull for Peter himselfe that the execution of the commission formerly giuen should bee viged on Peter because it might seeme that by so soule a fall hee had wholly beene put out of commission which doubt is fully remoued by our Sauiours charging him to goe forward in the execution thereof We shall not need then to make any such construction of the Lord Iesus words as if hee had intended by them to seale a commission to Peter for an office to bee newly erected for feare it should be suspected that those words were to no purpose or without reason Nay rather most vnreasonable is that consequence that would haue those things inferre each other betwixt which there is no kinde of agreâ—ment CHAP. IX Of Peters successours NOw in the next place the third proposition offereth it selfe to be considered although it bee but implyed not expressed that Peter hath his successours which is manifestly implyed For he that saith The office is committed to Peters successors supposeth that Peter hath successors This sentence is thus to be vnderstood Peter onely hath his successors so as none of the other Apostles haue For so Bellarmine expoundeth himselfe De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. Respondeo Pontificatum The chiefe ecclesiasticall power was giuen to Peter as to the ordinary pastour who was alwaies to haue successors to the other Apostles as to the delegates who were not to haue successors And he saith that The Bishop of Româ— succedeth Peter properly L. 4. c. 25. Sect. Respondeo magnum as the ordinary pastour of the whole Church but the Apostles were extraordinary and as it were delegated pastors and such haue no successors That Peter hath successors in the ministery of the Gospell wee confesse and professe but wee adde that this is common to him with the rest of the Apostles For the farther explication whereof wee say that to succeed the Apostles is either to succeed them properly as one King succeedeth another or in similitude or proportion as Bellarmine truely saith Wee grant that all the Apostles haue De Rom Pon. l. c. 15. Sect. Dicunâ—ur successors in a proportion namely such as preach the Gospell as they did though not by reuelation and that also haue power of ordination and iurisdiction fit for the good gouernment of the Church But we say none of the Apostles haue any successors of the second kind Therefore Bellarmine might haue saued his labor in prouing that the Apostles De Rom. Pont. l 4 c. 25. Sect. sta vero haue no such successors Let vs see how he proueth that which we deny that Peter hath successors properly This hee propoundeth in these tearmes Some must succeed Peter in the Bishopricke of the whole De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. Primum ergo Church Which he doth more plainly declare where he saith that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter properly not as an Apostle lib. 4 c. 25. Sect. Respondâ—â— magnum but as an ordinary Pastor ouer the whole Church This we vtterly deny that Peter was to haue any such successor in the Bishopricke of the whole Church Our reason is that Peter himselfe had no such office But let vs see how Bellarmine would proue that he had such successors Bellarmines proofe of this point is set downe and is thus De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. Nos ergo â—tramque to be framed Either Peter hath successors in Episcopall office ouer the whole Church or that office perished at Peters death But that office perished not at Peters death for that office was ordained for the good of the Church and the Church hath had and shall alwaies haue no lesse need of it then it had while Peter liued Therefore Peter hath successors in the Episcopall office ouer the whole Church Who seeth not that in this argument Bellar. taketh that for granted which he should proue namely that Peter had such an office while he liued For he was not ignorant that all Protestants deny it What is this else according to Aristotles Topicorum l. 8. cap. 13. Philosophy but to beg the question He saith Aristotle that takes that as granted which he ought to proue manifestly beggeth the question As for the proofes hee hath formerly brought touching this office of Peter I haue
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
must be thus ordered a Bellar. de verbo Dei non script lib. 4. cap. 5. sect Secundum testâ— monâ—im The ordinances which the Apostle speaketh of 1. Cor. 11. 2 are not written for they concerne the manner of praying and receiuing the Sacraments and these we find not written any where The ordinances which the Apostle there speaketh of are sauing truths for he commendeth the Corinthians for keeping them Therefore some sauing truths are contained in vnwritten tradition The proposition taketh it for granted that whatsoeuer the Apostles taught is committed to posteritie But this we denie as I shewed cap. 12. n. 7. How then shall this argument proue that the conclusion is an article of faith Well admit it were true yet is the proposition vncertaine as the proofe sheweth For out of doubt it is noâ— manifest of it selfe The proofe lieth thus Whatsoeuer was deliuered to the Apostles and is not found written any where that is kept in vnwritten tradition The ordinances the Apostle speaketh of were deliuered by him and are not found written any where Therefore the ordinances the Apostle speaketh of are kept in vnwritten tradition The proposition of this Syllogisme is vntrue For although it be not found yet it may be written diuers things are contained in the Scriptures which are not knowne to be there contained but may in time be manifested as I signified cap. 11. n. 2. Now concerning the principall assumption n. 1. The ordinances which c. I answer that it is neither cleere in it selfe nor proued by Bellarmine For euery precept of the Apostle the keeping whereof deserueth commendation it is not therefore a sauing truth Obedience to any commandement or aduise of an Apostle touching but a rite or ceremony yea the smallest matter that can be imagined though it be no sauing truth deserueth due coÌ„mendation and Bellermin hath nothing else in this disputation that may be applied to the proofe of that point But say we grant Bellarmine that the precepts signified verse 2. are sauing truths as we may doe with great likely hood vnderstanding thereby the doctrine deliuered in the former part of the Epistle to that 11. Chapter What will it auaile him seeing the assumption then will conuince the proposition of falsehood because the precept is there written Therefore this second argument is to as small purpose as the former I come to the third argument in the same place Those things which the Apostle disposed 1. Cor. 11. 34. Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 5. sect alteram quastioâ—em are contained in tradition for we find them not written any where But the things he there disposed were sauing truth Therefore some sauing truth is contained in tradition Both the faults of the former proposition are in this also first that he taketh it for granted that whatsoeuer the Apostles taught is recorded which we alwaies denie Secondly that he saith confidently these things are not written and yet knowes not what they are so that he may find them and not know of it Let vs passe by the proposition yet will Bellarmine come short of his conclusion because the assumption is full of doubt for how will he be able to proue that the things disposed by the Apostle were sauing truth He confesseth that some of them were matters belonging to rits ceremonies but he telleh vs with all that Catholiks worthily thinke that he deliuered also some greater matters concerning the ordination of Ministers the sacrifice of the Alter and the matter and forme of other Sacraments and hee addeth that The hereticks cannot disproue them That we may the better iudge of these worthy thoughts of Bellarmins Catholickes we will set his reason in frame Whatsoeuer Catholickes worthily thinke and hereticks cannot disproue that is to be holder for true But that the Apostles disposed of those weightie matters Catholickes worthily thinke and the hereticks cannot disproue Therefore that the Apostles disposed of those weightie matters it is to be holden for truth A stout argument and well worthy such Catholickes who seeth not the absurditie of the maior Truth is not to be measured by their affirmation or conceite and our vnablenesse to disproue but by the adaequation or full agreement of the thing and our apprehension of it For a man then onely speaketh the truth of a thing when hee speaketh as the thing is indeede But the assumption presumeth we cannot disproue it That were hard Why should not our saying we thinke he did not meane those matters be as good a disproofe of it as their saying you thinke he did is a proofe Such answers are good enough for such arguments But surely me thinketh we may bring some likelyhood of reason for our opinion For who would imagine that the Apostle would spend so many lines as he doth in this chapter about matters of so small importance as long haire and bare heads which were not for the perpetuall practise of the Church as experience sheweth and put off matters of so great weight till his comming to them which might haue been neuer And that they may not say we conjecture this without any likelihood as Bellarmins Catholiks worthily doe let them heare what Chrysostome saith upon the place He Chrysost Homil. 28. ad 1. Cor. 11. meaneth either some other things or the same that he hath mentioned For seeing it was likely that they would bring other cases and he could not redresse althings by letters Let those things saith he that I haue admonished you of be obserued and if any other thing need redresse let is be referred till my comming He speaketh as I said either of the same thing or some matter not greatly urgent He speaketh saith Theophilact of some other faults of Theophilact ad 1. Cor. 11. theirs which had need of correcting or of some which he had mentioned It is likely saith he that some men are praparing to defend themselues against that which I haue said but in the meane time let thom obserue that I haue charged them to keepe ad 1. Cor 11. When he had written of those things that were more necessary he reserueth the rest for his praesence with them The Interlinear glosse expoundeth it thus Other things concerning the Sacrament I will order when I come but you might not be without direction for those things that I haue deliuered ad 1. Cor. 11. Other things saith Lombard which perteine to order in the same Sacrament I will order when I come ad 1. Cor. 11. Other things which are not of so great danger I will order â—â—resence Thomas ad 1. Cor. 11. CHAP. XIIII Of some other Arguments of Bellarmine to the same purpose LET vs see if Bellarmines fourth reason be any better then the former That which the Apostle commanded the Thessalonians to Bellar. ubi supra Sect. tertium keepe 2. Thess 2. 15. is contained in tradition for it was not written but deliuered by word of mouth
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
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