by the Apostles or in their time yea and give us reasons why it was not published at first because say Eckius Copus Salmeron It had been unseasonable and dangerous for Jew and Gentile at first to have heard it lest they might think the Christians set forth and worshipped many Gods or that the Apostles were ambitious of having such honour done them after their death It is then acknowledged not to have been so much as taught in that first Age and yet will they again when they come to maintain it make the world believe it was also written then and bring many places of the New Testament for a seeming proof of it So of Image-worship Purgatory Indulgences and most of their Sacraments the more ingenuous among them acknowledge as our Authors have gathered their Testimonies they have not ground in Scripture and indeed if they truly had why should the Romanist so earnestly contend for unwritten Traditions to hold them by yet must Scripture be alledged for them all by every Controversie-writer Which consequently as was observed does acknowledge that Doctrines of Faith and Religion should be grounded there Secondly that the necessity they have of resting upon unwritten Traditions equalized in Authority to the written Word of God is a plain confession they cannot stand by the undoubted Word of God nor have any certaine ground of their New faith which rests upon pretended unwritten Traditions and these you must take upon the word of their own Church Thirdly that the same necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions forces them to lay upon Scripture Imputations of Imperfection and Insufficiency of darknesse and obscurity very unbeseeming the Testament of God written by the dictate of Gods Spirit and left us as a signification of his will and a Rule for the direction of his Church Let us then take leave a little more largely to speake to these two points of the sufficient perfection of this written Rule then of the sufficient perspicuity of it The one casts off the necessity of their unwritten Tradition the other the pretence of their Infallible Judge or Interpreter And upon these indeed rests the whole frame of the New Roman faith and therefore worthy of all other points to be a little insisted on CHAP. XXII Sufficient perfection of the Scripture as a Rule FIrst then of the sufficient perfection of Scripture which we say containes all things of themselves necessary to be believed or done to salvation All such things we say it contains not expresly and in so many words but either so or as deducible thence by evident and sufficient consequence The Romanists are forced to grant that the Scripture contains plainly the prima credibilia as some of them expresse it the first and chiefe points of belief or those that are simpliciter necessaria and omnia omnibus necessaria as Bell. expresses it lib. 4. cap. 1. but they also say that there are many other things necessary in belief and practise to salvation not there contained or thence deduced therefore they adde Traditions to make a supply CHAP. XXIII Of Traditions which we allow FOr Tradition We allow 1. That Universal Tradition which brings down Scripture unto us through the consent of all Ages for that Tradition is supposed in the reception of the Scripture But we say the Scripture contains all material objects of Faith necessary to Salvation i.e. all things that had been necessary for Christians to believe and doe for Salvation though there had been no Scripture Secondly we allow that kind of Tradition which brings down the sense of Scripture to us through all Ages of the Church So the Creed may be called a Tradition and other Catholike Declarations of the Church bringing downe the sense of Scripture in any point of Faith Now as the Scripture does suppose the former Tradition so this kind supposes the Scriptures for its ground delivering nothing but what is contained in them and neither of these sorts derogatory to the sufficiency of them Thirdly we allow some Traditions that bring down matters of practise touching Order Ceremony Usages in the Church as of Fasts or Festivals or Rites about Sacraments and the like But such if they be not contained in the Scripture so neither are they within the limits of the question which concerns necessaries to salvation such we deny those to be and such things as are necessary to believe to salvation we deny to come down to us by unwritten Tradition and what Traditions the Romanists pretend for the controverted points we deny that they contain such things necessary or to have been delivered down in all Ages and therefore can be no ground for necessary faith whether we consider the matter of them or the uncertainty of them Our Arguments briefly are I. Such as shew the Scriptures sufficient for Salvation as Joh. 5. ver 39. for in them ye think ye have salvation Where our Saviour supposes they thought true in it or else his reason had not been good for because they might have Salvation by them i. e. know all things necessary to it therefore he bids them search the Scriptures and they should find they testified of him So 2 Tim. 3.15 expresly they are able to make wise unto salvation c. They have two shifts here 1. That Scripture is profitable to that end for that word Profitable the Romanists lay hold on because the Apostle saith there All Scripture is profitable for doctrine c. and so say they is every book profitable to that end though not sufficient and so they will have the whole Scripture but partially profitable But we answer Sufficiencie belongs to the whole Scripture though in proportion also to every Book And the other expressions of the Apostle there shew this to be onely a shift For he said before that Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose and onely to doe it in part and imperfectly teaching him onely some knowledges to that purpose Also he saith after ver 17. by the Scripture The man of God is throughly furnished or perfected to every good work i.e. to Doctrine Instruction c. such as he spoke of before which must needs imply a sufficiencie to that end 2. Their other shift is That the Scripture is said to doe this because it contains many things plainly in it self and shews from whence we may have the rest i.e. from their Church We answer Had it shewn us that which it does not yet could not this shift be reasonable here For so the Law might have been said to make us perfect because it shews us Christ and was a School-master to him Gal. 3. and John Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples by shewing them Christ II. Such Arguments as forbid and exclude all Additions to the Scripture and so imply the perfection and sufficiency of it and condemne their super-added Traditions as Deut. 4.2 and
doctrines were of the multa which Christ had to say and Tert. de praescript c. 5. tels us Hereticks alledged the Apostles delivered some things openly to all some things secretly to a few the very thing the Papists say and they proved it suth he by St. Pauls saying to Timothy Custodi depositum St. Iraen l 3. c. 2. shews Hereticks alledged the scriptures were obscure not to be understood by those that know not Tradition alledging for it that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. we speak wisdome c. Terp in his Book de resur tels us Hereticks cannot stand if you binde them de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas sistere to be judged by the Scriptures alone and in the same book calls all Hereticks Lucifugas scripturarum such as fly the light of the scripture And now we must say in the last place their usual objection of Hereticks alwaies alledging Scriptures and shunning Tradition is most vain as appeares by the former Testimonies As for their alledging scripture it made for the dignity and sufficiency of scripture Hereticks well knowing the Authority Scripture had in the Church and therefore that it was in vain to use other proofs without it and so the Romanists are necessitated as was said above Chap. 21. to pretend it for the proving of those points which they know and sometimes confesse are not grounded on scripture As for Hereticks shunning Tradition it is most true they carefully shunned that Tradition which delivered down the sense of scripture in the points of Faith through all Ages of the Church for to shun that was to shun the evidence and light of scripture But as for unwritten Traditions such as we and the Romanists contend about they shelter themselves under the darknesse of them made great advantage as we saw by pretence of them alledging the very same reasons and places of scripture for them as the Romanists do and so we leave them both well agreed in this point CHAP. XXV The evidence of Antiquitie in the point NOw for the evidence of Antiquity Though we are to speake more generally to that trial by the Fathers afterward yet here in brief to this particular point There is scarce one Father but we bring him expresly witnessing as we affirm the fulnesse and sufficiency of scripture in all things necessary Bell. in l. 4. c. 11. sets down very many of them and admits them for the sayings of those Fathers how then does hee decline them 1. One of his General answers and it is what others answer to that the Fathers speake of omnia omnibus necessaria to be contained in scripture This the expresse testimonies of those Fathers have extorted from him which is no little prejudice to their cause who equal tradition to the written Word and plead the necessity of what is conveyed to us thereby for if all things necessary for all be contained in Scripture then surely the doctrines and faith delivered in unwritten Traditions are not necessary for all They indeed that have given up their belief to all the dictates of that Church are consequently necessitated to believe them but we may be good Christians and yet not believe them because not written and not necessary it seemeth to all That which they can pretend to say here is that such unwritten Traditions become necessary to be believed upon the proposall of the Church and to be by all believed to whom they are sufficiently propounded or made known Indeed of Scripture we grant All things there revealed become upon sufficient proposal of them necessary to be believed as true yet not all to be believed as necessary in themselves to salvation But of unwritten Traditions we cannot say Men are bound to believe them as true upon the proposall of their Church unlesse they can demonstrate the testimony of their Church to be Infallible or that she propounds them upon full Catholike or Universal Tradition and consent of all Ages which they cannot doe Much lesse can we say Men are bound upon the proposal of their Church to believe them as containing things necessary in themselves to salvation unlesse they can prove the contents of those Traditions to be so which is impossible or that their Church can make new Articles of Faith or those things necessary to be believed to salvation which were not so in themselves before This the sober and moderate Romanist must and will deny 2. He shifteth off their Testimonies by restraining them to the particular thing there spoken of as if they onely meant the scripture was full to that point onely When as indeed upon occasion of some particular point which they were proving they speak in general of the sufficiency of Scripture saying it contains all things necessary Therefore to take away these and all such shifts which they bring to restraine what the Fathers spoke generally We shew they spoke so generally of the sufficiency of Scripture that they left no room for unwritten Traditions to come into the rule of Faith This we shew unanswerably by the Fathers alledged above chap. 23. arguing negatively as Tertul. sometimes Non est scriâ—tum therefore not to be received and speaking exclusively to all things not written as that we must not say or teach any thing of faith praeterquam quod scriptum est saith Saint Augustine lib. 3. contra Lit Petil. Sine his Testibus saith St. Chrysost and citra Scipturam in Psal 95. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae saith St. Hier. in 1. cap. Hag. and Quicquid extra Scripturam est cùm non sit ex fide peccatum est Basil in Regulis Eth. Such exclusive words praeterquà m sinè citrà absque extrà they use against admitting of unwritten Tradition for a Rule of Faith which words and speeches are not any way to be eluded That they bring many sayings out of the Fathers for Tradition it is true and Bellarmine boasts in the number but to what purpose when they do but beat the aire strike us not For they either meane the Scripture it self or Evangelical Doctrine contained in and delivered to the Church by the written Word to which the name of Tradition is often given by the more ancient Fathers Iraen Tertul. Cyprian or else they mean the forme of Doctrine and Belief delivered downe in the Church which though they often call Tradition yet is it written and contained in Scripture and is but the explication of it or the Traditive sense nothing to the unwritten Traditions we speak of or else by unwritten Tradition as they often mention that too they imply things of Practise and Rites and Festivals or Fasts and the like not matters of Faith necessary to Salvation And among these some Fathers avouch such for Apostolical Traditions which the Romanists will not allow as standing at Prayer between Easter and Whitsontide and every Lords day and the Trine immersion in Baptism In a word where the Fathers say the Apostles left some things to us unwritten let the
sounds propter convenientiorem institutionem seu principium That Church being from Saint Peter and Saint Paul and therefore the most convenient example to shew the succession of Pastors and Doctrine For from thence he fetches his argument to confute those Hereticks that being pressed with Scripture did accuse it as he saith of obscurity as not to be understood of them who were ignorant of Tradition therefore he confutes them by the undeniable succession of the Churches and because Longum est saith he omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones therefore he singles out the Roman as that which was maxima omnibus cognita à gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo fundata instituta there is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more convenient beginning of succession in that than in other lesse famous Churches and by the doctrine received from the Apostles and delivered down in that Church he confounds the Hereticks Now saith he with this Church because of such a beginning and succession every Church ought to agree and so they did then and therefore it was needlesse for him to instance in any other Church Thus are we also willing to deal with the Romanists at this day They being pressed with Scripture accuse it of obscurity and say as those Hereticks that Irenaeus had to deal with It is not to be understood by them that are ignorant of Tradition We therefore tell them of the Doctrine of Faith delivered down in all Churches and bring them to the Antient Roman Church which was glorious then for its foundation and preservation of true doctrine and tell them because of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to agree with it now which they doe not in the main points between us and them controverted as abovesaid and in this particular of an Infallible Universal Judge for the whole Church ¶ Thus farre we have proceeded upon the first and chief Rule of Triall Scripture the Sufficiency and Evidence of it Now to the other CHAP. XXIX Of Consent of Antiquity OUr second Rule of Triall is Consent of Antiquity We say the Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by that as they ought to doe if they will have them passe for Catholick for then according to Vincentius his Rule semper ubique they must be alwaies and generally held in the Church Yet is there a pretence made to it and great confidence and boasting among them of the Fathers not that they know they have indeed advantage by them as to the due proving of their cause but because the Protestants have freely and ingenuously spoken their Judgment of the Fathers and their authority Therefore the Romanists make advantage of it with their own Proselytes as if the Protestants declined all Triall that way Now should we speak with that liberty of the Fathers writings as they doe of the Scripture loading it with imputations of obscurity imperfection corruptions c. it might I hope be so much more justifiable in us as the divine authority of Scripture surpasses all humane writings But this we professe however they are obliged to disparage the written Word of God and a miserable cause it must be which obliges men to such a plea yet are not we obliged to detract any thing from the due worth of the Antient Fathers for take their Writings as they are we averre that the Popish faith cannot prove it self to be Catholick by them Yet if we say the Fathers were men and subject to error which the Scripture is not we doe but say what they ost acknowledge themselves If we say they have erred in several Ages and that many of them together with a general consent as in the Millenary belief the Infant communion and the place of faithfull Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment we doe but say what the Romanist cannot deny who doe acknowledge the Fathers erred in these If therefore we say they are no Rule of Faith to us we doe but say what they of the Ages following thought that they were not bound to follow them in these errors after they were once detected and what the Romanists must acknowledge for they also have forsaken them in these If again we say the Writings of the Fathers have come through ill hands unto us which have corrupted or maimed the true and patched false and supposititious writings to them the Romanists cannot but acknowledge we have great cause to think there was more providence of God in the preserving of Scripture entire than the Writings of the Fathers Onely here is the mischief again they are obliged to speak any casualty that happens to Scripture and to make a noise of corruptions obscurity c. because they finde it too plain against them and are afraid the people should see it too but of the Fathers writings more rarely doe they acknowledge any such thing not because they have cause to joy of them as plain and full for the Romish faith but because their advantage is by their forged writings and the corruptions of the true ones also because those writings came through their hands for several Ages and so the false dealing that has been used becomes chargeable upon the professors of their cause False dealing I say what by the cunning of Monks that had those Writings in Manuscript what by their several editions of the Fathers what by their expurgatory Indexes In all which it is easie to see what labouring there has been to make the Antients speake the Language of their present Church Hence have they advantage not truly by the Writings of the Antients but such as serves to their purpose especially when to deal with those that are lesse learned whom they can turn to this or that place in such or such a Father knowing they are not able to judge whether the writing be supposititious or the place corrupted or whether the same Father elswhere expresses himself otherwise or be contradicted by other Fathers and there speaks onely his private opinion This caution Vincentius gives us in his Rules for Catholick doctrine cap. 39. Whatever any quamvis sanctus doctus Episcopus Martyr praeter vel contra though holy learned though a Bishop or Martyr holds beside or against the rest of the Fathers id inter proprias privatas opiniunculas it must be severed from the Publick doctrine and placed among private opinions Well though all this makes for the disadvantage of the Protestants that they have not the Fathers writings as they came from their own hands and pens but as through the hands of many Adversaries yet take them as they are with all the difficulties of finding what is truly theirs and what is the sense of it the Protestants never doubted to enter this kinde of triall by Antiquity not standing or falling by every thing we meet with in one or moe Fathers for the Romanists will not so but maintaining 1. That the Romanist cannot prove his Affirmative by a full and sufficient consent or
been said against knowing the Church by these markes is not spoken to deny the Roman which challenges them to be a Church but that they mark her out for such a Church as the Cardinal would have us take her for such a Church as Saint Augustine speaks of viz. the Catholike Church the Church in which onely the Pastors voice is to be heard for what she pretends to by these marks alone she must allow to the Greek Church also It is not these barely without consideration of doctrine that could marke her out for a true Church but that she still together with these holds the foundation And in regard of that we acknowledge the Pastors voice was still heard in her yet so that the voice of false Shepheards have often out-cryed him yea cryed him down in many points of high concernment to his sheep Yet by Gods providence his voice was still heard and his Word or Scripture still preserved whereby the voice of false Shepheards might be discerned from the true one the Errors and Superstitions prevailing known from the Truth and faith once delivered When the voice of the great Pastor except ye eat the flesh c. Joh. 6. was generally mistaken in the Church and misapplyed to the communicating of Infants there was enough of his voice and word still heard in the Church to discover the Error and restore the Truth When Image-worship was cryed up by the second Nicene Council and advanced in the West by the Romish Bishops yet was there enough in the word and voice of the Shepheard known in the Church to condemn it in the Council of Frankford and elswhere When Pope John 22. defined the place of faithfull Souls to be out of Heaven till the Resurrection and enjoyned it to be professed by those that took degrees in the Universities yet was there enough still in that Church to condemn it in the Council of Florence When the voice of the Shepheard in those places Feed my sheep Joh. 21.16 Thou art Peter and upon this Rock Mat. 16.18 I have prayed for thee Luk. 22.32 was mistaken and mis-applyed for some Ages to advance the Popes Infallibility and power over all there was enough seen by the Council of Basil and Constance to define the contrary and conclude a Council to be above him And however the noyse again is greater in the Church of Rome for the Pope than a Council yet is there enough still heard in that Church by the French generally and all moderate Romanists to know the untruth of it So we say whatever becomes of the Cardinals marks Eminencie Antiquitie c. by which he would have her marked out for the onely Church in which the Pastors voice is to be heard the Romish Church hath failed in her doctrine cryed up Errours and Superstitions yet so that the Pastors voice hath been heard and his word so preserved there that enough to discover them And now to some applying of what hdth been said touching use of Reason and Judgement to our Case of Reforming We examined the Church of Rome by the Marks Eminencie Antiquity Succession We see they agree not to that alone nor that in Saint Augustines purpose as he applyed the like Marks to the Catholike Church Nor doe they imply that Church where barely found to be a Church designed by God to remaine uncorrupt much lesse to be the Infallible Interpreter of his Testament Also we examined that Church by that maine mark of Sanctity of Doctrine using our Reason and Judgement which they allow in this point and that the judgement of a National Church and found her so far from being Infallible that she was grosly corrupted in her Belief and Worship Of which we had apparent conviction from the evidence abovesaid to wit Scripture and Primitive practise either of which excels the judgement and authority of the present Church of Rome CHAP. XIII Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries NOw to the last part of the Objection The opening hereby of a Gap to all Heresie and Schism Answ Due use of Reason and Judgement does it not Sectaries that are gone out from us cannot 1. Pretend to such a way of Reforming the Church or to such a Judgement as our Reformation was brought about by they wanting the Authority which is needfull to it in every National Church They as Members of this Church owed obedience and subjection to the Government and Governours thereof by divine precept and could doe nothing as to a Reformation more than private men whereas the Church of England if under the Patriarchate of Rome according to Ecclesiastical Canon which would not have been contended about yet stood not bound to the usurped power thereof but being a National Church might justly eject that Usurpation and make Reformation within it self of all Errors maintained by that pretended Power and Authority 2. As for that wherein they dissent from this Church they cannot pretend to such Evidence we spoke of they doe not at all pretend to the practise and consent of the first Ages nor have they plain and evident Scripture but places unlearnedly wrested The Evidence required in dissenting from Authority is such as by expresse words or direct consequence is apparent to all that can use their Reason without prejudice of self-interest or faction But we must note a different evidence in regard of things propounded by the Church as matters of Faith and Worship and things enjoyned as circumstantials of Worship or pertaining to Order Discipline In the first sort the Church indeed stands bound to shew them evidently out of Gods Word to be such before they can be received by faith and full assent for such because it is the office of the Church or Governours thereof not to make such but to declare and propound them But they that will charge the Church in those Proposals with Heresie Superstition or Idolatry must have the full and apparent evidence aforesaid In the second sort Things Circumstantial and of Order and propounded only for such by the Church they that dissent and refuse to yeeld obedience must have most cleare evidence that such things are unlawfull and forbidden by Gods Word because that Word of God most evidently gives power to the Church to make constitute and ordaine such things and expresly commands obedience to Superiours Now for the things which the Church of Rome propounded and imposed as matters of Faith and Worship as she had not evidence for them out of Gods Word which was enough for our refusing them as matters of Faith and Worship so we had sufficient evidence of Scripture and Antiquity against them Whereas all that this Church of England propounds as matter of Faith and Worship is most clear by Scripture and consent of Antiquity So that it is most unreasonable for our Sectaries to deny it and impossible for them to have evidence against it Much lesse is it possible for them to be convinced out of Gods Word of the unlawfulnesse of
he denyes in the same Chapter that it was the proper and chief end of Scripture to be a Rule but to be utile quoddam commonitorium ad conservaudam doctrinam ex praedicatione acceptam A profitable means to admonish and remember them of the doctrine they had heard preached That profit indeed the Scripture did afford but the end of that remembrance and conserving of the Doctrine preached was that the Scripture should be as a standing Rule or Guide to them and so to us that did not heare what the Apostles preached To us it is not properly a Remembrancer but a Guide and Rule and that must be the chief end wherefore it was written But this to note how this engagement for unwritten Tradition in hâ—s fourth Book would not let him be constant to what he had fairly spoken of Scripture in his first So it fares with most of them Truth forces much from them till they come to be confronted with an adversary in defence of some point of their New Faith Their second sort of Reasoning against the sufficiency of Scripture is by enumeration of some things necessary to be believed which are not contained say they in Scripture As first That Scripture is the Word of God is necessary to be believed but not contained or shewn by Scripture This is in every of their mouthes Among the rest Bell. thus lib. 4. Scripture cannot shew it self to be the Word of God for the Alcoran affirms also of it self the same that it is the Word of God We answer First to the Impertinency of this Cavil That as it was said above in the stating of the Question to believe Scripture to be the Word of God is not of those material objects of Faith which we say are contained in Scripture and are such as had been necessary for Christians to believe though there had been no Scripture also that the Scripture being received upon Universal Tradition as we said does not derogate from the sufficiency of Scripture for that is a Tradition which Scripture supposes does not exclude in this question For had the Scripture been never so full and sufficient according to the Papists mind i. e. had it plainly confirmed if we may suppose such a thing all that they say is necessary to be learnt by unwritten Tradition yet would it not have contained this that it is the Word of God otherwise then it doth but must suppose that universall Tradition still to bring it down to us But we also say that although Scripture is so brought down to us yet being received upon such Tradition it discovers it selfe to be divine by it own light or those internal arguments as they are called which appear in it to those that are versed in it And now see what Bellarmine does here acknowledge lib. 1. cap. â— he makes the title of the Chapter Libriâ— canâ—niâ—is verbum Dei contineri among other argâ—ments he proves it excellently well by some reasons drawne from Scripture it selfe as by the conspiration of the parts the event of Prophecies and the like and there saith Sacris-Scripturis nihil notius nihil certius Now when he comes to contend for unwritten Tradition against Scripture Scripture cannot shew it selfe to be the Word of God more than the Alcoran It had been well if Bell. had sate down with his own dishonour in contradicting himselfe and not used this odious instance of the Alcoran to Gods dishonour But as I noted at the beginning their Necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions forces them to cast many aspersions upon the undoubted Word of Almighty God Heare what others say upon the same score the Jesuite Bailius in his Catechisme Without the Testimony of the Church I would believe the Scripture no more than my Livy no more than Aesops Fables saith another And how can it prove it selfe to be no Fable saith another Romanist more than any other writing that is mixed with Fables To this purpose are those other reproaches that sall from them The Scripture a mute letter as if no sense in it but as the Church gives it a nose of wax as if applyable of it self any way This the language their Disciples must learne to speake reproachfully of that Word which was written by the Holy spirit of God given them to salvation and must judge them at the last day Another of their Instances of things necessary but not contained in Scripture is Baptism of Infants This generally objected by them all And amongst them I single out Bell. to answer himselfe or as I may say contradict himself in it For lib. 1. de baptis c. 8. he proves it by places of Scripture and saith the argument is strong and effectual and cannot be avoyded and that the thing is evident in Scripture Now when he contends for Tradition against Scripture This thing of Childrens Baptisme must be one of them that is necessary and not contained in Scripture This is not ingenuous nor conscionable but enough to answer the objection We say further that Baptism of Children as to the practise of it is not contained expresly in Scripture i. e. it is no where commanded to be done or said that they did doe it But the grounds and necessity of it are sufficiently delivered in Scripture and that 's enough for the doing of it and that the Arguments from Scripture by Bel. and others alledged doe sufficiently shew And these are their chief Instances Their third and last sort of reasoning is from places of Scripture expresly naming Traditions as 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 Answ The whole Gospel was Tradition till it was written Now if they will have these places make for them they must shew those Traditions mentioned did contain things necessary to salvation and no where written It is plain they did not The first concerns Rites and Orders in their Assemblies and the other if unwritten concerned the coming of Antichrist the falling away before it the things spoken of in that Chapter and not of necessity to know unto salvation and that Tradition if any more then was written touching those points being lost it appeares how well the Church of Rome is to be trusted in this businesse of unwritten Tradition that cannot shew those which were nor prove those she has to be delivered by the Apostles Also from places of Scripture which they will have to imply Tradition as Ioh. 16 1â— I have yet many things to say to you c. 1 Cor. 2.6 We speak wisdome among the perfect and that to Timothy Custodi depositum That good thing committed to thee keep 2 Tim 1.14 Answ These prove no more than the former place unlesse they can also prove and demonstrate to us that they concerned things not written and yet necessary to salvation 2. We must tell them that Hereticks of old did usually pretend these very places for their unwritten doctrines and made the like Inferences as the Papists do St. Aug. upon John shews they would say their
OF THE DIVISION BETVVEEN The ENGLISH AND ROMISH Church VPON THE REFORMATION By way of Answer to the seeming plausible Pretences of the ROMISH Party Much enlarged in this Edition By H. FERNE D. D. ACT. 24.14 After the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers c. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1655. To the READER GOod Reader This Treatise was intended for private Satisfaction but falling under the View of some that were able to judge and liked well of it better than it deserved it was thought not unfit for more publick use And the Author then farre off in the North was importuned not onely to give his consent to the putting it forth but to help it forward himself by prefacing something to it for the fairer bringing it forth into Open light Know therefore Good Reader and well consider it that these are such times as the Apostle foretold 2 Tim. Perilous difficult and troublesome times 2 Tim. 3.1 Times in which it would be hard for good Christians to know how to behave themselves with safety the dangers of these daies threatning not onely the outward estate or worldly concernments but attempting Conscience and Religion it self and that on the one hand and on the other They of the old Romish Superstition pretending Antiquity and a present flourishing condition of a Church They of the new perswasion boasting successe and holding forth New lights to carry aside As in the day of Jerusalem both the Children of Edom and of Babylon cried Down with it down with it Psal 137. They saw the trouble of Jerusalem and were glad that the Lord had done it Lam. 1.21 So it is with the true Protestant Church in this Land now troubled and distressed The Enemies on either side rejoicing that the Lord hath done it to us A pitifull thing it is and one argument more for Lamentation than Jeremiah had for his that the enemies of a Christian Church should be such on both sides as professe themselves Christians acknowledge One Saviour look for one Hope and though agreeing all in the main yet because of different perswasions in Religion can be content yea and rejoice to see a Christian Church to fall and to be if they might have their will thrown quite off from the Foundation on which they professe themselves to be built rather than see it stand there otherwise than just as they doe and according to their frame How much were it to be wished and to be prayed for that the Lord would roll away this reproach of Aegypt Jos 5.9 from off the name of Christians this uncircumcision this hardnesse of heart that he would take away this perverse Spirit he has mingled among us as Isa 19.14 from whence arise such Debates and contentions not onely about the things of Earth but of Heaven too the Affairs and businesse of the State and of the Church too As for those of the Romish perswasion when I look at those points of Religion controverted between us which concern not the special and politick concernments of that Church such as Universal Jurisdiction and that which follows on it Universal Subjection and that which must maintain the former Infallibility and the like I cannot but think there might be a possibility of some peaceable and fair Christian agreement Yea and were there Reason and Equity in men instead of that pretended Infallibility to agree and stay upon the due Authority of free General Councels and instead of the now exorbitant power of the Bishop of Rome to be content he should have onely the Antient Patriarchal Primacy allowed him in the first Generall Councels I should not despair of agreement as to these points But when I consider how neerly the Guides of that Church take themselves to be concerned in these Politick Interesses and what a numerous society there is of Jesuites devoted to maintain them I must needs say that hope seems vain and conclude them engaged to hold where they are and to condemn all other Christians and Churches to the Gates of Hell that will not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the onely Church against which the Gates of Hell have not nor can prevail by any errour in Faith or Worship He that will look into the businesse of Religion before and at the beginning of the Councel of Trent will easily see by the several Colloquies held between Protestants and Romanists what agreement some points were brought to and what further condescension might have been had not the Interesses of the Court of Rome disturbed all Or if he look into those Relations and Histories we have of the Councel of Trent it self he will see by the several discourses had upon the points controverted what moderation there was in many learned men but rendred ineffectual by reason that the Arcana Imperii those forementioned politick concernments of that Church as they might not be once disputed so they wholly over-ruled the other points of Religion and excluded all Moderation in the Definitions of that Councel All the Christian World sees how long the poor distressed Eastern Church has lain under that heavy condition unpitied by Them of the Romish Communion and how They have stood affected to us since our Reformation has sufficiently appeared by their several practices against us What hand they had in our present troubles is not unknown to some what joy they now take in them let their own heart tell them but what advantage they make of them for perverting of many that is it we are to take notice of and to withstand I have opposed this Defence such as it is against their generall plausible pretences framed indeed both for Matter and Form most-what according to the scruples of Those that occasioned it but may generally serve to give some stay in these tottering Times to those that have not a more able hand to hold and keep them steady As for the Particular Doctrines of the Romish Church some of the chief of them as Traditions Infallibility Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatory are spoken to as concerning the Trial of Antiquity towards the End of this Treatise Where it is by divers instances shewn that they could not be doctrines of the Antient Church I may happily finde time with Gods help to make a fuller enquiry upon these and other their novel Articles that it may appear what is justly and necessarily controverted between us either in matter of Faith or Worship What may be waved as needlesly quarrelled at or agreed as needlesly contended about And of the controverted Points which Doctrine Theirs or Ours will upon the triall of direct Scripture prove more Apostolical which upon principles confessed by us both will appear more safe and reasonable and also more agreeable to true Christian humility and piety But of this hereafter as it shall please God to give opportunity and ability It remains I should speak to that seeming advantage they
preservation of Truth and purity in doctrine in such a degree was necessary for the continuance and propagation of the Church Else what could Eliah have said if he had been challenged to shew Professors at that time within the Kingdome of Israel or after if they that held the true worship in King Ahaz his time had been challenged to shew them in the Church of Israel or Judah for as to his point of preservation of necessary Truth and due worship there is no difference betwixt Jewish and Christian Church the continuance of Gods Church being as necessary before Christ as after But we may see how the Romanists are fain to plead for their Faith and Religion by the uncertain Records of History rather than by the known and confessed Writings of the Prophets and Apostles yea to hang all upon a negative Argument from the Records of History rather than to rest upon that which is positively affirmed in Scripture For thus runs their Argument We doe not see this or that doctrine professed in all Ages therefore it cannot be Apostolical whereas it is farre more safe to argue This Doctrine or Religion we see is Apostolical plainly delivered in Scripture therefore it was professed in all Ages professed I say though not alwaies so numerously and openly as they expect nor so fully as is by Protestants in all points asserted yet at least so professed as was necessary to the preservation of saving Tr 〈…〉 and continuance of the Church Their negative Argument is farre more forcible against themselves their Doctrines being Affirmatives and they bound to shew them professed in all Ages Whereas our difference from them being in the Negative of what they erroneously affirm must needs suppose the Errors in being before there could be any Protestors against them and render it a vain challenge to shew Protestants as Protestants in all Ages when as many Ages passed before the Errors got head against which they protested And for those Ages in which the Errors prevailed what if Histories have not recorded what if Historians that wrote then did not so much as know those who were free from such Errors which is very possible when Eliah knew not of any in his time and yet there were 7000 what then becomes of their Faith that make this their chief plea against Protestants But if by Professors in all Ages they mean such as dissented complained of the prevailing Errors though it be impossible there should be such in all Ages simply because those errors were not at all for many Ages yet such are found as we said in all Ages after the Error appeared and how many more suppose we to have been which are not recorded or to have written against arising Errors in that Church whose Writings are not come down to us The Church of England when it pleased God more openly to discover the Errors and to touch the spirits and consciences of Men did accordingly cast them off only the Church of Rome would neither acknowledge them to be such nor amend any thing but having for many Ages challenged Universall Jurisdiction over all other Churches and prided her self as the only Catholick Church and Infallible Guide she did withall render her self altogether incorrigible without hope of reformation and amendment CHAP. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials SOme Exceptions they make against this that hath been said 1. From the expression used by some Protestants that we and the Church of Rome differ in Essentials thence I have heard some of them make this fallacious argument If differ in Essentials then have the Protestants made a new Church essentially differing from that which was Answ The fallacy is in the word Essentials which is taken either properly for Doctrines of Faith belonging to the constitution of the Essence or beeing of a Church or improperly for such as endanger it working to the dissolution of it tending to the corruption destruction of the Essence and beeing of a Church In this latter sense the Doctrines of Error and Superstition wherein they differ from us are termed Essentials being no light matters as those of Rites and Ceremony but such as concern the Essence or being of a Church not constitutivè indeed and in the affirmative i. e. not such as are to be held and asserted by every Church but destructivè rather and in the negative that is such as are to be denied and avoided by every Church as it tenders its own beeing and preservation Even as a man that is in company with infected persons is concerned as he tenders his life to avoid the contagion or to free himself from it if tainted So still the difference of this Church from what it was under the Papacy is as of the same body once infected now sound once diseased now recovered The Church of the Galatians was farre gone in the way of the Mosaical Law to the endangering of the Gospel insomuch that Saint Paul saith in a manner they were removed to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and that he was afraid of them cap. 4.11 The Churches of Pergamus and Thyatiâ—a were so far corrupted that Satan is said to have his seat there Rev. 2.13 and those that taught the doctrine of Balaam and those that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans v. 14 15. And Jezabel was suffered to teach in Thyatira and to seduce the servants of God ver 20. Now when these Churches were reformed the seducing Teachers and false doctrines cast out were they New Churches set up or could those that still adhered to the Law or new Gospel in Galatia or to the false doctrines in Pergamus and Thyatira challenge the reformed party of Novelty so was it with this Church before and after the Reformation having parted with nothing that belonged to the beeing of a Church or to the Faith once delivered but onely cast out those false doctrines that had so generally prevailed in it while it was in communion with the Roman Church 2. They object We cast not off Errors or Superstitions but the true Catholick Faith Answ Indeed it concerns them to make the World believe if they can that their New Faith was alwaies Catholick and that we for denying it are Hereticks But the clearing of this belongs to the examination of the particular doctrines CHAP. IV. Particular Churches may reform Especially when a General Councel cannot be expected 3. THey ask what Authority we had to reform the Church and tell us we should have expected the determination of a General Councel and not been Judges in our own Cause Ans We took not upon us to reform the Church but had a necessity and duty upon us to reform our selves Neither did we undertake to impose upon other Churches but purge our own And as we were a party in the cause so was the Pope and his faction and as we would not have been Judges in this cause could we had a competent Judge so was not he with his faction fit
perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine we cannot say We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine he meanes it of such a priviledge and freedome from Errour as the Church of Rome challenges which is not necessary to the preservation of the Catholike Church and Faith or if we speak of the Catholick Church he takes it as most visibly appearing in the chief Pastors and their adherents binding that priviledge and freedom to that succession or those that are chief in it Whereas we grant the Catholike Church wholly according to all the Pastors and Members of it shall not be infected with any destructive or dangerous Errours but that purity of saving Doctrine shall be preserved in it Yet not bound as a Priviledge to any one Church as to the Roman or to those that are for Number most and for Place chief in the Church but that in some part or other of the Catholike Church and by some Pastors it shall be preserved and propagated They that dreame of a Church alwayes so gloriously visible and so apparently holding out Purity of Doctrine and Saving Truth as the Romanists doe to the end all men may readily finde out the true Church and easily come to the knowledge of that Truth do not consider that God doth somtimes for the sins of Christians turning his grace into wantonnesse make his Word precious as 1 Sam. 3. and his saving Truth not to be found without difficulty and diligent search after it We see the Fathers interpreted that promise the Gates of Hell shall not of the not failing of the Church never of the not erring of it and we see by experience the contrary As for example the Millenary belief and the excommunicating of Infants both which the Church of Rome acknowledge errours did as generally prevail in the Catholike Church as any error of their New Faith can be said which they boast often to be the general belief and doctrine of the whole Church We say then The Gates of Hell cannot prevaile to the overthrowing of the Fundamental saving Faith or to the corrupting and extinguishing of the Purity of saving Doctrine absolutely through the Catholike Church but may prevaile very farre and generally over the visible face of the Church Catholike viz. as it shews it self in the parts of it all particular Churches holding the Foundation For these considered as above according to their more visible and conspicuous appearance in those that are chiefest in them for place and most for number 〈◊〉 lose the purity of Saving Do 〈…〉 though holding the Foundation admit of the Superstructions of hay stubble and worse Errors in belief and practice And though Hell-Gates may prevaile very farre and generally by Superstructures yet are they such at least in some particular Churches as the foundation may bear Such as may still be convinced by the Doctrine of Saving Truth preserved still in the Church For the Pastors voice as was said above cap. 12. will be so heard alwaies in the Church that the strange voice of false Teachers and false Doctrines may be discerned and will by them that have eares to hear and their senses exercised to put a difference between good and evill true and false Now the Romish Church with which we had to doe had not preserved the Faith entire without mixture of many Errours and Superstitions had not kept the foundation clear from such burthensome and dangerous Superstructures yet has the fundamentall Faith in expresse termes been delivered downe in that Church and such saving knowledge as was sufficient to discern the Foundation from the Superstructures the true and ancient Faith from the new erroneous Belief the true Pastors voice from the strange Doctrines of unwritten Traditions To follow that voice to cast off those Superstructures to contend for the Faith once delivered and clear it from adventitiall errours that was our duty and the work of our Reformation And thus far against their generall plausible Pretences Now to some Triall of their particular Doctrines of Belief and Practice which we have cast off as erroneous and superstitious For the way of Triall The Affirmative in those Doctrines being theirs it lies upon them to prove the Doctrines affirmed by them to be true and Catholike by such Rules as are allowable The Rules admitted by both sides though not in equal rank are Scripture and consent of Antiquity gathered by the Writings of the Fathers and the Acts of ancient Councils We say they cannot by these make good what they affirm but shew that both make against them CHAP. XXI Of the Tryall of Doctrines by Scripture FIrst for Scripture Whatsoever is revealed in that Scripture which both sides admit as Canonical is likewise admitted by both sides as of divine Authority But such Scripture is not acknowledged by them as a sufficient Rule for the triall and judging of the controverted points therefore they are necessitated to fly to Tradition not that which delivers down to us the sense of any Scripture by the consent of all Ages of the Church but to unwritten Traditions which deliver Doctrines of Beliefe and Practise that have not footing in Scriptures This I note because they are ready to abuse the unwary by urging sometimes the former sort to make them swallow unwritten Traditions upon the same pretence For the former sort we grant as appears by the points of Christianity not controverted between us because these points as they are grounded on Scripture so are they brought down to us by the profession and tradition of all Ages as the confessed sense of those Scriptures on which they are grounded and this not derogatory to the sufficiency of Scripture But to their other sort of Traditions viz. unwritten on which they generally ground their Doctrines rejected by us we cannot admit as any ground of Faith or Worship such Traditions being uncertain not possibly to be proved Apostolical but received upon the Testimony of their present Church and indeed generally inconsistent with Scripture Yet are we to note that in all the controverted points they pretend Scripture and alledge several places in every point yea in those points which they themselves confess as most of the controverted points are by the most ingenuous Romanists confessed to have no ground or footing in Scripture To let passe the want of candor and plain dealing in this we must observe First that their labouring to pretend Scripture for every Doctrine is a tacite acknowledgement that doctrines of Faith and Religion should have their ground there For instance Invocation of Saints they acknowledge not used in the Old Testament yea and give us reason for it because the souls of the Patriarchs were not then in heaven and so not to be Invocated yet doe they alledge very many places for it out of the Old Testament to make a shew of Scripture So for the New Testament They acknowledge Invocation of Saints departed was not commanded or taught
cap 12.32 against adding to his precepts And Rev. 22.18 a Woe pronounced to him that addes And Gal. 1.6 an Anathema to them that bring in another Gospel beside what they had received And Gal. 3.15 to a mans Testament none addes much lesse to Gods And Mat. 15. our Saviour expresly condemnes the Pharisees that taught for Doctrines of Worship the Traditions and Commandements of men Now see what shift they make with these places One is that the prohibition of adding concernes the whole Word of God written and unwritten no man may adde to that We answer that the places of Deut. and of Rev. are expresly of the written Word Also that of Gal. 1. and Gal. 3. must be meant of the written for that which is written beares the name of the Gespel and of the Testament of God and can we thinke it beares it partially Saint Aug. lib. 3. contra Lit. Petil. and elswhere expresly applies that of Gal. 1. to the Scripture thereby excluding all doctrines of Faith not received from Scripture And Saint Hier. upon 1. of Hag. relating to that place saith Percutit Dei gladius that sword of God or Anathema strikes through all those doctrines which absque authoritate testimonio scripturae quasi traditione Apostolicâ confingunt without the authority and testimony of Scripture they hold forth under pretence of Apostolical Tradition And for that other of Gods Testament The Romanists must suppose that God Almighty has done as it fares with many men who intending to write their Will and having begun and prefixed the Title This is my Will and Testament and proceeded far in it being prevented by hastening death leave the rest by word of mouth so will they have God to make a Will partly Written partly Nuncupatory Now how derogatory this is to the providence of God who sees not Another shift That those Traditions are onely forbid which are contrary to what is written and so no man may adde We answer The Apostle saith Gal. 1. praeter beside that which ye have received and Bell. expresly interprets that praeter by contra but in the judgement of Saint Aug. and St. Hier. in the places above cited it is enough to incurre the Anathema if they teach any thing of faith which is besides that which is received from Scripture saith St. Aug. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae the authority and testimony of the Scripture saith St. Hier. to which adde Tertul. against Hermogenes Non est scriptum timeat vae illud adâ—icientibus It is not written Let him fear that curse which is denounced against them that adde It was then enough to bring a man under the woe pronounced against them that added if the thing they added was not written and not onely because it was contrary to what was written But our Saviours speech Mat. 15. taken from Is 29.13 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men shews that all Traditions though not contrary to what is written yet if they teach for Worship or Faith necessary to salvation that which is not commanded or written they are to be condemned For though the Pharisees Corban was directly against the written command yet their superstitious washing was not And upon that occasion our Saviour condemnes them as to this point To this very purpose is one of St. Basil's Ethick Rules Quicquid extra Scripturam est cum non sit ex side peccatum est He saies not contrà against but extra besides or without Scripture and being so it cannot be of Faith and therefore sinfull if so propounded and imposed And this excludes the Romish Traditions from being rules of Faith or Worship besides that they are to be challenged of contrariety and repugnancy to Scripture for the most part CHAP. XXIV Their Arguments against Scriptures sufficiencie and for Traditions THeir Arguments for their Traditions and against the sufficiency of Scripture are so many aspersions cast upon the undoubted Word of God not without derogation to the Providence and Wisdome of God nor for the most part without some contradiction to themselves Their first concerns the purpose of God in it That he did not purpose it to contain a perfect Rule because the Pen-men of holy Scripture had no command to write but did it upon occasion or as Bel. necessitate quadam coacti upon occasions ministred and urging them to write We answer 1. If the necessity of the Churches call'd for Scripture and urged them to write it shews of what concernment it is to the Church But 2. though the necessity of the Church ministred the outward occasion to some bookes it supposes the purpose and special providence of God in applying them to the work Hear Bell. himself acknowledging lib. 4. c. 3. Deo volente inspirante Aposelos scripsisse quae scripserunt That the Apostles wrote what they did write by the will and inspiration of God This is well but this amounts not to a command faith he Being then prest with St Aug. saying Quicquid ille Christus de suis dictis factis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus imperavit Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his sayings and deeds that he commanded them to write lib. 1. de consens evang c. ult He is forced to confesse they had mandatum internum an internal command to write And now what needs more for if they had had all of them as expresse outward command as Saint John had to write his Revelations or as Moses had to write what he had from God it would not have made it more the purpose of God than did the inward command Nor would it have made Bellarmine any whit more granted the Scripture of the Apostles to be written for such a Rule for he does not grant it of Moses Writings though he had such a command and therefore we may leave it as a vaine reasoning But see what he saith of Scripture as written for a Rule That it is a Rule and Regula fidei Catholicae the Rule of Catholike Faith and Regula credendi certissima tutissima The Rule of Belief and that most certain most safe Bell. affirms l. 1. c. 2. and this is well towards a perfect Rule and there he inferres upon it seeing it is so sunâ—â— profecto non erit qui eâ neglectâ spiritus interni semper incerti saepe fallacis judiciose commiserit He is not well advised who neglecting Scripture rests upon the judgement of a private spirit which is alwaies uncertain often deceiving How well might the inference been made so against unwritten Traditions seeing the scripture is Regula fidei Catholicae regula credendi certissima tutissima sanus profecto non erit c. He is ill advised who neglecting Scripture commits himself to unwritten Traditions which are often deceitfull alwaies uncertaine But in his fourth Book cap 12. Scripture is with him but a partial Rule unwritten Tradition is the other part Nay
Romanists shew us if they can among all the particulars the Fathers speak of as so left us any point of Faith necessary to salvation Indeed some of the more antient Fathers mention one which with some consent they held a point of Faith and received by Tradition viz. the Millenary belief but that was not a meer unwritten Tradition but rather a Traditive sense of Scripture Rev. 20. and that a mistaken one and by the Romanists rejected who know the Fathers were deceived in that Tradition by Papias and we know the Romanists are deceived or may very well in theirs But let them shew as I said in all the Testimonies of the Fathers one of their necessary points of Faith among those particulars which the Fathers have mentioned with any consent as delivered by unwritten Tradition which seeing they cannot doe all their boasting of Antiquity in this point is vaine they meet onely with the Name of unwritten Tradition not the Thing CHAP. XXVI Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture THus much of the Sufficiency of Scripture Now of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of it Scripture being the Rule of Faith must in all reason be both sufficiently perfect as wee have heard and also sufficiently clear and perspicuous as we shall see Their pretence of obscurity and difficulty in Scripture such as they fasten on it serves them to two purposes To keep people from Reading it and to set up an Infallible Interpreter of the sense of it or visible Judge of all controversies arising Bellar. handles this businesse in lib. 3. de verbo dei and proposes two questions neither of them stated aright His first Sintne Scripturae sacrae per se facillimae apertissimae an verò interpretatione indigeant cap. 1. His second An ab uno visibili communi judice Scripturae interpretatio petenda sit an uniuscujusque Arbitrio relinquenda Whereas we neither say the Scripture needs no Interpretation nor do we leave it to every mans pleasure or judgement But we acknowledge there are many hard places and obscure passages which need Interpretation yet is there not such a general obscurity in Scripture but that private persons may read it with profit which both Scripture it self and all the Fathers exhort the people to because what is necessary to life and faith is for the most part plainly set down therefore it is called A light to our feet and paths Psal 119. and to make wise the simple Psal 19.7 and Saint Peter bids Christians attend to the word of Prophecie as a light shining in a dark place 2 Epist. 1.19 Bell. answers to such places that the Scripture is a light when it is understood And this is as much as if he had said a light is a light if it be seen For a light if it be not put in a dark Lanthorn or under a Bushel as the Church of Rome serves the Scripture to hide it from the people will shew it self so will the Scripture being a light and a light shining as S. Peter said Certainly it was the intent and duty of all the Apostles so to speak and so to write as to be understood And St. Peter notes but some places in Saint Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest 2 Epist c. 3. Sure then those that are not so but come with minds and endeavours answerable may read with profit seeing his Epistles are for the most part not hard to be understood That which they reply here comes to this that those Churches to which the Apostle wrote were instructed aforehand by word of mouth and so might more easily understand what was written after We grant they were praeinstructed and that it made them more fit to understand what was written but as they had it so Christian people want it not now and albeit their praeinstruction might prepare them to a more easie understanding of passages relating to some particulars concerning things not necessary to salvation as was that of Antichrist 2 Thes 2. Of which we may be ignorant and of which the Church of Rome is ignorant notwithstanding all her Traditions yet fâ—r things necessary delivered in the Apostles writings of which the question proceeds our people have as fitting and sufficient means to understand as they had For seeing their praeinstruction was the first preaching of the Gospel to them the laying of the foundation the delivering chiefly of things necessary for them to know unto salvation I hope we are not destitute of such fore-instruction to fit us for profitable reading of the scriptures we are taught the principles of Christian Religion the Catholike Faith into which we and all Christians are baptized besides we have the help of the Gospels and all other writings of Gods Word and therefore why may not our Christian people so premstructed understand Saint Pauls Epistles in all necessary points as well and profitably as the people to whom they were written Againe take the Scripture as a Rule of direction it argues that it must be cleare and plaine in what it is to direct us in All men give such Rules as neere as they can evident and cleare and shall we deny it to the best of Rules the Rule of Gods making and giving the Rule of greatest concernment to us Bell. could say when he meant to give Scripture its due lib. 1. cap. 2. that it was Regula credendi tutissima certissima And againe because it was a Rule therefore it must be nota certa which indeed is very good reason both for the knowing of it to be our Rule and for the evidence of it in those things it is to direct us in In regard of which things it was necessary a Christian should have sufficient evidence as in the harder places of Scripture he has his exercise to set an edge upon his endeavours and keep him humble And these very reasons we finde given by the Fathers for the obscurity we meet with in Scripture that it is not such as to deter any from reading for the Fathers frequently exhort all unto it but to stirre up the more diligence in searching the Scriptures and to keep down Pride and selfe-conceit that people should not trust too much to their own understanding but have cause to repair upon all occasions to their Guides and Pastors whose mouthes preserve knowledge now as the Priests did under the Law As therefore we said Scripture was a sufficiently perfect rule of all things necessary to salvation containing them expresly or deducibly so we say it is a sufficiently cleare Rule not onely in regard of what it delivers expresly but in regard of all necessary truths deducible because they may sufficiently by evident and cleare consequence be deduced thence This clearnesse then which we attribute to Scripture does not exclude Interpretation or the skill and industry of the Guides of the Church for the deducing of many necessary divine Truths All things necessary we say are there contained
3. that to them were committed the Oracles of God How convenient had it been to have spoken this priviledge of the Romans that to them were entrusted the Oracles of Christ and the interpretation of them Again when writing to the Corinthians he had occasion to tell them of some saying I am of Paul I of Cephas I of Apollo in stead of telling them All must hold of Cephas as the Roman Church has defined it of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop the successor of Cephas he chides them for such faction and division Or when he and Saint Peter agreed upon a distribution of their Ministry that one should apply himselfe to the Jews the other to the Gentiles nothing should be acknowledged of Saint Peters Universal Jurisdiction Gal. 2. Or when he reckoned up the severall Orders as God had set them in his Church Ephes 4.11 it should not been said First Peter then the Apostles but First Apostles Secondarily Prophets and after for ordering Ministers of the Church it should be added some Pastors and Teachers without any insinuation that the Lord had given the Bishop of Rome to be supream Pastor and Doctor of the Church Thirdly that St. Peter himselfe giving all diligence as he saith Epist 2. cap. 1. to minde them of what was needfull before his departure should not tell them whom they were to follow after he was gone Fourthly that we should have so often warning of false Teachers both in the Gospels and Epistles and nothing of this Remedy So much of Antichrists and nothing of the Vicar of Christ Fifthly that the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor or that Cyprian and the African Bishops in their opposition to Pope Stephen should not know this priviledge of the Church of Rome or not acknowledge it If it be said Both Victor and Stephen judged right Be it so and let Cardinal Perron cry Oh Providence that after-Councils judged the same as he lib. 3. against the Kings Letter yet does it not follow that they were infallible or had Univerfall Jurisdiction to judge for the whole Church Nor yet did they judge altogether right for Victor did not judge aright when he concluded excommunication against so many famous Bishops and Churches upon a different time of observing Easter For albeit Irenaeus and other famous Bishops and after-Councils acknowledged the truth of the thing it self viz. The observing of the Time of Easter yet did they not approve his judgement in proceeding to an Excommunication of or rather a pronouncing of Non-communion with those Churches And if Stephen did generally without exception as it seemes he did conclude all Heretikes to be received without rebaptization after-Councils did not judge the same but concluded the contrary upon some Heretikes for some there were that did not observe but destroyed what was essential to the Form of Baptism and could not therefore be received without being baptized at their admission Furthermore that Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know or acknowledge this but to hold so long a contestation with the Bishop of Rome in the businesse of Appeales or that the then Romish Bishops and their Proctors in that Cause should be so ignorant of this point that in the former businesse they should neither alledge Infallibility of judgement belonging to the Pope of Church of Rome nor produce any Scripture for what they pleaded for but onely pretend a Canon of the Council of Nice which upon strict examination could not appeare for the true Canon of that Councell which concerned the Pope did not come home to the business But the wits of later ages especially of this last which hath produced Jesuties have found out Scripture and reason for this Pretended Visible Universall Infallible Judge We shall examine them but I must tell them which I hinted above that they are bound to shew us it expresly in Scripture For in the former controversie of the sufficiency of Scripture they grant and must needs doe it that the Prima Credibilia or the Omnibus Necessaria are contained expresly there Now this of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome being the first thing to be believed by them the ground and formal reason upon which they believe all things else they are bound to shew it expresly set downe in Scripture And doubtlesse had there been such a thing intended by our Saviour he would have left it distinctly set down that all might be directed to that Infallible Guide or Judge Bellar. to shew the certainty of their belief above the Protestants delivers the Proposition of Faith as he calls it l. 3. c. 10. de verbo Dei in such a syllogisme That which is revealed in Scripture is true But this is revealed in Scripture The first proposition is granted on both sides of the second that this or that is revealed in Scripture We saith he are certain Why because of the testimony of the Church Council or Pope of which we have apertas promissiones plain and clear promises in Scripture that they cannot erre But the Protestants know this or that to be revealed in Scripture by conjectures onely or the judgement of a private Spirit So he This proposition of Faith we shall speak to bleow chap. 28. Here I mention it that to shew according to the Argument above they hold themselves bound to produce cleare Scripture for this ground-work of their Faith therefore he is forced to call them apert as promissiones He names two in that place the First is from Acts 15.28 Visu est Spiritui sancto nobis Answer This if it concerns any thing belongs to a Council therefore Bellar. put them all in together Church Council or Pope for as I noted above they are not agreed where to fix but what promise is here to Church or Councel It is but a relation of what the Apostles said and might say it in their priviledge of Infallibility and I hope none of the after-Councils presumed to say it as they said it Bellarmine was ill advised to give us this for a cleare promise which is neither promise nor yet cleare for how does it appeare by any thing in the Text how after-Councils might speak so Nay it is cleare they could not speak it upon a priviledge of infallibility For Councels as Bel. ackdowledges l. 2 de Concil nec habent nec scribunt revelationes sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones Neither have nor propound revelations but draw their Conclusions out of the word of God by discourse Now no men ever undertook to deliver Truth infallibly which they beat out by reasoning and concluding upon discursise meanes Indeed if Bellarmine instead or this Visum est spiritui sancto nobis had givien us that of Mat. 28. I am with you to the end or that of John 16. The spirit of truth will gvide you into all truth he had
given us a promise but not cleare a promise of guiding into all truth infallibly so to them that received it then but not clear for infallibility to after Councels or Guides of the Church a promise indeed of assistance to them for all necessary Truth but yet conditionall upon their doing their duty in using the meanes which that all or the major part in every Council will do is not certaine His other clear promise is our Saviours praying for Peter Luk. 22. ver 32. Rogavi pro te nè deficiat fides tua This may seem to concerne the Pope or Church of Rome yet is there nothing in it of a cleare promise to them whether we consider the thing prayed for or the person The thing prayed for is the persevering or not failing of the saving faith by which Peter was rooted and built upon CHRIST which cannot agree to all the Bishops of Rome for they may want that Faith or faile in it as they acknowledge Bellarmine grants this perseverance was personall as to Peter but saith hee there is another thing promised which belongs to his Successors viz. That none in his Chair should teach against the Faith So lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. or that the Bishop of Rome docens è cathedra cannot erre So lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. But how is this a clear promise now or how can this be wrested out of that our Saviour prayed for to Peter by any force of reason For thus the one must follow on the other Peter had assurance to persevere in Faith therefore all his Successours Bishops of Rome have assurance infallibly to teach nothing against the Catholike Faith which is most incohaerent For if that which was directly prayed for Peters perseverance does not descend to his Successors how shall the consequent of it Nay how shall that which is altogether inconsequent to it therefore descend unto them For were it granted that they should persevere in saving-faith the thing assured to Peter yet would it by no meanes follow they could not erre No more than it is true of every regenerate man perservering that he is infallible but now it is granted they have no assurance of such perseverance in the faith yet must it follow they have assurance of teaching nothing against it Thus far then it is so clear a promise that nothing seems more unreasonable Againe if they would make it any way agree to the Bishops of Rome it must be thus Our Saviour prayed for Peter that his Faith should not faile though he denyed him thrice therefore Peters successors though they deny the Faith in mouth yet it shall not faile in heart as they say it was with Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arrians But then this is clean contrary to what they would have out of it which is an outward Professing or declaring of the Faith by definitive sentence whatever the perswasion of the heart be this they contend not for yet this is that which was promised to Peter this he had the other viz. outward profession he failed in So clear yet is this promise But now looke at the person were there any thing here prayed for which might fit the Infallibility which the Bishops of Rome would have yet what cleare consequence can make that belong to them which St. Peter had can they give us one place of Scripture to assure us infallibly that Peter was at Rome and governed that Church as the Bishop of it and dyed in that Sea Is it not admirable that this ground-work of all their faith should no where appeare in all Scripture The Ecclesiastical Writers indeed took him to be as Bishop in that Sea and so the Fathers generally speake of him But this amounts onely to a humane Testimony and besides they ascribe the foundation and Government of that Church to Saint Paul together with Peter and Saint Paul we finde in Scripture to have written to the Church of Rome to preach to them and dwell among them yet must the pretensions made from S. Peter be cleare notwithstanding Well were this cleare by Divine Testimony that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters peculiar successors yet still there is no ground for their beliefe of Infallibility unlesse they can shew it clearly that what belonged to Saint Peter as to this point is derived to all his successors and that the successors of other Apostles in the Churches they founded and govern'd must not enjoy what belonged to those Apostles So much of these two cleare promises of Bell. had he had clearer we should doubtlesse have heard of them One place there is which is often in their mouths and serves for all purposes for the Headship and universall Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Infallibility of Pope Councils and Church of Rome and that is Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock here the Church must be built upon Saint Peter that 's it they contend for Cardinal Perron is much upon it lib. 4. cap. 3. and though that which he would there work out of it is not expresly Infallibility but universall Jurisdiction or Headship yet because they both have the like foundation upon this place it will be worthy to observe how he raises his worke upon it by a witty indeed but mistaken phansie Thus it is The Fathers at first did for the most part speake of the Church here as built upon Saint Peter afterward they did generally interpret it of the Confession of Peter that the Church was built on that Now the Cardinall will have these interpretations not to exclude but inferre one the other thus The Church was built causally on the Confession of Peter formally on Peter himselfe or the Ministery of his person i. e. Peters Confession was the cause why our Saviour chose him to lay the Foundation of the Ministry of his Church upon him Now judge of the mistake in running upon Peters confessing instead of Peters confession i.e. the Faith which Peter confessed and uttered For Peters confession as the Card. takes it in the notion of a meritorious cause was a single and transient act of that Faith which was in Peter a Grace or Virtue it was a confessing but Peters Confession as the Fathers take it when they say the Church was built on it is understood materially for the thing or truth confessed by Peter viz. Christ the Son of God the Confession or Faith required of the Eunuch at his Baptisme Act. 9. That he thus mistakes it appears also by his illustrating of it by the saying of St. Hierome that Peter walked not upon the waters but Faith which saith the Cardinal is not to deny that Peter did formally in person walk but to shew the cause of his walking viz. Faith which he gave to the word of Christ where plainly Faith is taken for a Grace Virtue or Act of Peters Now if we say the Church is built upon Peters Faith will he say that Faith there is
an Act or Virtue in Peter or not rather taken for that Catholike truth believed and confessed by Peter Peters confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time but that on which Christ sayes there He will build his Church was Peters Confession i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him and so its plaine the Fathers tooke it for they opposed this Faith or Confession as the Cardinal acknowledges against the Arrians That Christ was the Sonne of the living God Bell. applyes the promise following I will give thee the Keys c. to this busines of the One visible Interpreter or Judge and will have whatsoever thou loosest to signifie not onely the relaxation of sins and their censures but nodos omnes legum dogmatum the dispensing with the tyes of Laws and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversie lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him without further proof Now when this promise of the Keyes is applyed to judgement about sinnes and offences we know what binding is as well as loosing but when it is thus stretched to universall judgement in the interpretation of Scripture defining points of faith dispensing with Lawes we cannot tell unlesse we thus inferre that as loosing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it if loosing be againe the power of dispensing with Lawes which binde men as in point of marriage or the like then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawfull as for Clergy to marry or what he has commanded as people to receive the Sacrament in both kindes And the Pope it seems by vertue of this promise or power of Keyes may thus loose and binde and not erre yet these are their chiefe places of Scripture Now let us come to their Reasons First is from Gods providence who was not ignorant how many difficulties and controversies would arise about the faith and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge Answ This is to measure the wisdome of God by the modell of our Reason but the same reason may also tell us it would have been more convenient for the Church to have had such an Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation than one for the whole Church which was to be spread over all the Earth yea reason may further tell us it had been suitable to his providence expresly to have told us who that Infallible Judge was and where we should finde him And it cannot be imagined in reason but he would have done it had he appointed any such for he was not ignorant that many the greatest controversies would be about this Judge He tells us plainly There must be Heresies and the end wherefore that they which are approved may be manifest 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withall this remedy of an Infallible Judge we must think it is that approved faith may be of more price and worth gained with more earnest enquirie and diligence in searching the Scripture using the like means so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulnesse all which would have faln and grown remisse in the hearts of men if to trust all their belief upon an Infallible Guide without any further enquitie CHAP. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it THe Second reason is from certainty of belief which they say the Protestants cannot have for want of such Infallibility but we are certain saith Bell in his Proposition of Faith above-mentioned § 27. that this or that is revealed in Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church Councel or Pope which cannot erre Now would I ask first whether they believe that Christ is the Son of God Saviour of the world that He suffered and now sits at the right hand of God or the like because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture or because they see it evidently there themselves If they say because the Church testifies it then it seems they cannot which is false or may not which is worse believe God immediately when he speaks as plain as the Church can If they say because they see it evidently there then have they two formall reasons of their belief One the immediate evidence of Scripture The other the Testimony of the Church And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture then so may we also And so we doe not excluding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture where it needs which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture and make it more evident to us Again I would ask how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture that the Church is Infallible because of the Testimony of the Church No that they cannot say here but must alledge for it plain Scripture apert as promissiones clear promises as Bellar called them and must allow men the use of their reason judgment upon the evidence of them Well if they may believe that great point of the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture why may not we believe other points so too or why doe they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground on which they themselves lay all their faith at once for they believe the Churches Infallibility revealed in Scripture because they see it as they say plainly promised there Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture can have certainty of belief why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence if they cannot have certainty in that particular then can they not have any certainty in any thing else which they believe upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church Onely this they get by it and must answer for it one day that believing all things else upon the supposed Infallibility of their Church they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture and to be the will of God which are not yea to believe contrary to that which is revealed as the half communion for the people Again they that understood and believed what the Apostles preached and wrote to them did it without the externall means of an Infallible Interpreter upon the evidence of what was spoken or written and therefore so may we Now to say They that spoke and wrote were Infallible and the other knew it to be so is no more than what we say Scripture is Infallible that speaks to us the same which they spoke and wrote and therefore we way as well understand and believe it upon the same evidence We doe not here as I insinuated before exclude the exterior helps means which God has appointed for interpreting and
clearing the Scriptures such as definitions of Councels the judgment and practice of Primitive Ages the skill and labour of the present Guides of the Church which make for the clearing and evidencing of that which is contained in Scripture but upon the evidence of that or manifestation of the truth out of that is the stay or last resolution of our Faith Waldensis a learned writer in the Church of Rome many years agoe with divers others doe well apply that of the Samaritans to the Wowan Now we believe for we have heard him our selves Joh. 4.42 unto this last resolution of Faith beginning in the Testimony of the Church as the first motive but ending and staying upon Scripture As they were first moved and brought to Christ upon the Womans saying but believed indeed when they heard him themselves So the saying and judgment of the Church at our first coming and after is a great motive and light to us but then indeed we believe when we hear him our selves when we hear him speak thus and thus to us in Scripture Now he that upon carefull and impartiall using the means God has appointed does search for the Truth shall finde what he seeks or not erre inpardonably whereas the Romanist receiving all upon a supposed infallible Testimony seeks no further comes not to audivimus ipsi we have heard him our selves blindly casts his faith upon a false ground and so is led to believe as I said many things as revealed of God which are not and sometimes the contrary to what is revealed Their third Reason is from pretence of Unity which they say is preserved amongst them by this means but lost among the Protestants for want of it and they instance in the breaches and confusions of these our Times Answ We had the same means for Unity which the Antient Church had as was said above ch 13. and so long as we could freely use them having the secular power to friend heresie and schisme was prevented and Unity preserved but when the sword of violence prevailed no marvail if Licentiousnesse grew bold and cast off the cords of obedience Ecclesiastical as well as Civil And we see this pretended Infallibility could not keep Burbon and his Army in order but that they sacked Rome made the Pope their prisoner and forced him to unworthy conditions And we read that Hereticks of old as Arrians and others when they had the Emperours favour bore down all before them so that this means of Infallibility either could not keep them from breaking out and prevailing or else which indeed is the truth there was no such belief of an Infallibility in the Church of Rome in those better Ages nor was it ever made use of or alledged against Hereticks to repress them The judgment indeed of the Bishops of Rome was often alledged as was also the judgment of other Churches and famous Bishops but this without implying an Infallibity in judging Nay this pretence of Infallibility is so farre from being cause of Unity in the Catholick Church that it has been the chief cause of division and of losing more than they retain by it The Greek Church stands dis-joyned from the Roman because of her challenging Universal subjection and Infallibility and therefore no more to be dealt with And this has lost all those that in these later Ages have been divided from the Communion of the Roman Church because the pretense of Infallibility made her incorrigible and cut off all hopes of her amending the errors they complained of and desired to have reformed So that let them cast up what they have lost and they will have no cause to boast of what they hold by it Nay did the Romanists truly confesse what belief they have of this Infallible Judge it would in all probability be found that not the faith of such Infallibility but the fear of Inquisition fire and faggot keeps those they have in obedience at least external But some of them have said This Rule or way if followed does produce Unity but the Protestants Rule of belief is not apt to doe it but rather begets division Answ It is true that their Infallibility though not Real but pretended where it is followed i. e. indeed believed will produce according to the strength of erroncous perswasions an answerable effect in those that are drawn to believe it for such must needs submit to all things else But being onely pretended not reall it cannot be apt to produce the effect or hold men to them but as we said has lost many Our Rule of believing upon evidence of Scripture gained by due use of the means appointed thereunto as above mentioned in this Chap. if conscionably followed will produce the effect of Unity and peaceable submission and is more apt to do it For therfore was Scripture given that there might be one Faith and certainly not given with such obscurity as to make men quarrel but with such evidence as men not wanting to themselves may therby come to know that one faith without such a visible Infallible Judge And when any will deceive themselves and prove obstinate the Church proceeds to restrain them by Ecclesiastical censure even to excommunication for preserving Unity in the rest And other means the Antient Church had not nor can the Roman goe farther in the way of the Church for as for fire and faggot it was the way of the Adversaries of the Churcith The Testimonies they cite out of Fathers are all not concluding They are such as send Hereticks to the Church in general as S. Augustine doth the Donatists often but this does not argue that we shall finde any where in the Church a Visible Infallible Guide Otherwise we say in every Church there are Guides and Pastors of publik judgment to whom inferiours must submit and the consent of the Catholick Church is above that Or else they are such Testimonies as report the judgment of the Bishop of Rome given in such or such causes and required by other Bishops or Churches But this comes not home neither For we finde the judgment of other Bishops and learned Fathers alledged and required and that by Popes themselves So was Athaâ—asius his judgment desired by Liberius and Hieromes often by Pope Damasus and that in matter of doctrinal points and with a great deal of submission to their judgment as to be guided by it as appears in Pope Liberius Letter to Athanasius and Damasus to Hierome One place of Irenaeus is much cited by them Ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem c. lib. 3. cap. 2. which â—ndeed makes against them For this â—mplies neither Universal jurisdiction nor Infallibility in the Romish Church Neither did Irenaeus mean so much as the words by reason of the ill Latine Translation may seem to imply For the Greek had it as I have met with it and as the whole Context avouches it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is ill translated potentiorem principalitatem but rather