Run from Rome, Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI.
An anſwer to thoſe things which the Church of Rome bringeth againſt the neceſsitie of ſeparating from it.
ALthough the point propounded by me to be diſputed, is ſufficiently proued by that which hath paſt: and all men may ſee a neceſſitie of ſeparating from the Church of Rome: yet that the truth may be the more cleere, and all mens conſciences the better ſatiſfied, and fortified againſt the deuiſes of the Romiſh ſeducers: I hauehave thought good to examine two principall motiues of theirs, by which they miſ-lead many that are ſimple or careleſſe; and in handling of them, I will take the ſame courſe that hetherto I hauehave followed, for the more plainneſſe and certaintie in iudging what is true, what falſe.
The former of the two is this:
EueryEvery man muſt receiue his faith by the teaching of the Romiſh Church
That it may appeare what force there is in this to conclud any thing for the Church of Rome againſt the queſtion hetherto diſputed, I will apply it to the matter in queſtion, and anſwer to it accordingly.
They that muſt receiue their faith by the teaching of the Church of Rome, muſt ioyne in faith with that Church.
EueryEvery man muſt receiue his faith by the teaching of the Church of Rome.
Therefore eueryevery man muſt ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome.
The propoſition or firſt part of this reaſon I acknowledge for true: becauſe the teaching of the Church of Rome giueth being to the faith of that Church.
The aſſumption is falſe, being grounded vponupon that falſe foundation, that The Pope of Rome is to feede the whole Church as Peters ſucceſſour, by determining what is matter of faith, what is not. But this appeared to be manifeſtly falſe, chap. 8. and 10. wherein I propounded and handled the queſtion.
The ſecond deuiſe is commonly deliuered by way of queſtion. Where was your Church before Luther? Now this queſtion implyeth a negation; as if they ſhould ſay: The Proteſtants Church was not before Luther. This muſt be applied to the point in queſtion, after this ſort.
EueryEvery man muſt ioyne in faith either with the Church of Rome, or with the Proteſtant Church.
But no man may ioyne in faith with the Proteſtants Church.
Therefore eueryevery man muſt ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome.
Let the propoſition paſſe for true: to which we may iuſtly adde an aſſumption contrary to theirs; No man may ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome: and this aſſumption is alreadie made good by the foregoing diſputation, through this whole treatiſe: which hath ſhewed that the faith of the Church of Rome is falſe and erroneous.
But to anſwer directly to their aſſumption, we ſay it is vtterly falſe, and the contrary to it euidently true, that EueryEvery man is bound to ioyne in faith with the Proteſtants Church. For our faith is nothing elſe but EueryEvery article or propoſition to be aſſented to, or beleeued as true vponupon the authoritie of God the reuealer of them by his holy ſeruants the Prophets, and Apoſtles. The Articles which we aſſent to or beleeue in this ſort, are either expreſſely ſet downe in the Scriptures in direct words, ſo that the ſenſe of them cannot reaſonably be doubted of: or elſe gathered, and concluded from ſuch places by neceſſarie conſequence: ſo that if the one be true, the other muſt needs be true alſo. Whatſoeuer propoſition is not of this nature, we allow not for an article of faith, how likely ſoeuer it ſeeme to be. Now in this faith of ours there can be no danger: ſeeing whatſoeuer propoſition is plainely expreſſed in the Scripture, or neceſſarily concluded from it, is vndoubtedly the diuine reuelation, which is the onelyonly foundation of true faith.
More particularly I ſay touching the ſaid aſſumption, that it muſt be vnderſtood of the Proteſtants faith, ſo far forth as it differeth from the faith of the Church of Rome, elſe by it they ſhould diſſwade men from the faith of their owne Church.
Beſides, It is to be conſidered that this aſſumption ſuppoſeth, that the Proteſtants hauehave a faith oppoſite to the faith of the Church of Rome; Which is vtterly falſe. All the oppoſition we make to them is, by refuſing their faith, not by deliuering any of our owne, and by anſſwering to their arguments: ſo that we hold the negatiue part of the contradiction, in all points, wherein we diſſent from them, although in ſome we adde a contrarie affirmatiue, where the Scripture affirmeth that which they denie. For example, they ſay The Pope is Gods Vicar. This we oppoſe by ſaying, that The diuine reuelation doth not teach vsus, that the Pope is Gods Vicar. Againe, they deliuer this for an Article of faith: that Concupiſcence in the regenerate, is not properly ſinne. To this we anſwer by way of oppoſition as to the former: The diuine reuelation doth not ſay, that Concupiſcence in the regenerate is not properly ſin; Yea in this point we ſay further: the Scripture ſaith it is properly ſinne: but our oppoſition to them in this point ſtands in this, that the Scripture doth not ſay it is not properly ſinne, ſo that though there were no word to the contrarie of it in Scripture, yet that propoſ…on of theirs were vtterly falſe. By which it is manifeſt, that in thoſe things wherein we diſſent from them, we hauehave not articles of faith contrarie to the articles of faith which they propound: but onelyonly deny, that Thoſe they would thruſt vponupon vsus are articles of faith.
If any man obiect (as Stapleton and Wright doe,) that Our religion is negatiue; we anſwer, that if they meane we hold no articles of faith which are affirmatiue, they charge vsus vntruely; for we conſent with them in many affirmatiue articles of faith. As for thoſe points wherein we diſſent from them, it is no fault in vsus to hold the negatiue; for there is no other way for vsus to oppoſe the errours they bring for matters of faith, but by denying them to be matters of faith.
So thē this is that they auouch in the former aſſūption:
No man may ioyne in faith with the Proteſtants Churches, in thoſe points wherein they diſſent from the Faith of the Church of Rome.
The reaſon is, becauſe the faith of the Proteſtants in thoſe points is falſe; which they thus proue:
The true faith hath been profeſſed ſo publikely in all ages ſince the Apostles, that the profeſſors of it from age to age may be named.
The Proteſtants faith hath not been ſo publikely profeſſed in all ages ſince the Apoſtles, that the profeſſors of it from age to age may be named.
Therefore the Proteſtants faith is not the true faith.
Before I anſwer directly to the parts of this Syllogiſme, I hold it needfull to note a few things concerning the reaſon in generall. The firſt is, that in this queſtion wee inquire not of ſuch profeſſours onelyonly as our Sauiour Chriſt and his Apoſtles were, who deliuered the Articles of faith by way of reuelation: but of ſuch as hauehave beleeued and profeſt thoſe articles, as they hauehave beene gathered out of that which they reuealed. Secondly, it is worth the doing, to conſider a little way of geſſe, what the reaſon ſhould be why the Papiſts are ſo loath to make tryall of their faith by the Scriptures, and cry ſo loud for a catalogue or regiſter of the names of ſuch as hauehave from time to time beleeued as now we do. This may well ſeeme ſtrange to all men, who vnderſtand that the diuine reuelation is a moſt faithfull record, and moſt certaine rule in all matters of faith: ſo that whatſoeuer is agreeable thereto, is a part of true faith: whatſoeuer differeth from it either poſitiuely by affirming that which is not reuealed, or negatiuely by denying that which is reuealed, is vntrue, and may not be taken for an article of faith. As for a beadroll of names, who knoweth not that it muſt needes be made out of humaine ſtorie. Wher as Diuine and infallible faith is not built upon deduction out of humane hiſtorie, but diuene reuelation; as is well obſerued by the learned & reuerend D. Featly And how can that be any foundation of diuine faith, when it is not diuine authoritie, nor free from errour: but humane onelyonly, and ſubiect to errour: yea among all kindes of humane authoritie of leaſt credit? Our of doubt then the Papiſts would neuer hauehave purſued this courſe ſo eagerly, but for ſome eſpeciall aduantage to thei… cauſe, which in all likely hood is this; that they ſaw well enough, it was not for their religion to abide the tryall by Scripture in thoſe articles of faith. But what ſaith the Prophet Iſaiah? If they refuſe the Law Iſa. 8. 20. 8and the teſtimonie, it is becauſe there is no light in them.
Now in particular, I ſay that the propoſition is faultie diuers wayes. Firſt whereas it ſuppoſeth that the true faith hath beene in all ages in the word: if they meane it hath been in the Scriptures in all ages: we grant that they ſay is true, but we adde that it is not to purpoſe; for our queſtion is not of faith as it is reuealed in the Scriptures, but as it is gathered out of them, and particularly beleeued; and in this latter ſence, we denie that the true faith hath been in all ages.
For proofe of our deniall we alleage the experience of all ages: by which it is manifeſt, that ſome articles of faith hauehave been obſerūed and concluded out of the Scriptures from time to time, and were not all known and beleeued for articles of ſaith at once. I may bring for inſtance thoſe great points debated and determined in the 4 firſt generall Councells. For certainely if The god-head of our bleſſed Sauiour, and the holy Ghoſt, the diſtinction of the diuine and humaine natures of our Lord Ieſus, the Vnitie of his perſon, had bin reſolutely holden in the Church for articles of faith: Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches, and Neſtorius would not hauehave durſt to ſpeake of them ſo wickedly and heretically as they did; neither would the Church hauehave aſſembled Councells to aduiſe of the points, but hauehave caſt out thoſe wretches as enemies of the faith. The like might be ſaid of Pelagius touching grace: and of many other points of no ſmall importance.
To come nearer to this our age, there is no Papiſt of any reading and iudgement, but will confeſſe that diu…rs propoſitions in tholate Councell of Trent, which ended ſince I was borne, were neuer receiued for articles of faith, till they were neuer receiued for articles of faith, till they were propounded for ſuch by that Councell.
Secondly, to grant them as much as they deſire; I yet except againſt their propoſition as falſe: becauſe there is no neceſſitie, that the being of true faith, and ſuch a profeſſion thereof muſt alwayes goe together; For ſuch a publike profeſſion of faith, is neither of the eſſence of true faith, as a reaſonable ſoule is of the eſſence of a man: nor proceedeth from the eſſence thereof, as the faculty of ſpeech doth from the eſſence of man: neither are they lincked inſeparably together by any ordianance of God, as faith and iuſtification are. The two former I am not out of doubt all Papiſts will grant; If they fly to the laſt, let them ſhew the record or deed, wherein that coniunction of true faith, and ſuch a publike profeſſion of it is inrolled and ingroſſed. Will they tell vsus I know not what goodly matters of the viſibilitie of the Church? what is that but to beg the queſtion? For we denie that, as no leſſe vncertaine and vntrue, then the other.
The aſſumption alſo is falſe, which auoucheth ſo confidently that:
The profeſſours of the Proteſtants faith in ſuch things As they diſſent from the Church of Rome in, cannot be ſhewed in all ages from time to time ſince our Sauiour Chriſt and his Apoſtles.
If we call for a proofe of this: they bid vsus ſhew a beadroll of their names that were profeſſours of our faith; what if we cannot? will they conclude thereupon that it cannot be done? there may be a Catalogue, though we cannot ſhew it; Which cannot ſeeme ſtrange to any man that ſhall conſider, that the Papiſts had for many yeares, yea, ages the whole ſway & command of Chriſtendome, and laboured all they could to make away (if it had been poſſible,) not onelyonly the writings, but the memorie of all ſuch as made any kind of oppoſition to their doctrine or proceedings; Yet by the gracious & mighty prouidēce of God it hath come to paſſe, that the regiſters of their own bloudy perſecutors hauehave by the worthy paines of ſom of our writers, afforded the world a view of the names, of many holy Martyrs & confeſſours, which from time to time hauehave refuſed as we do now, to acknowledge many of the points wherein we diſſent from the Church of Rome: and it cannot be looked for, that wee ſhould ſhew that all of them hauehave been denied, becauſe many of them were firſt bred and hatched in the late Councell of Trent, and were neuer articles of faith till then. Wherefore to returne to my firſt concluſion: ſince the faith of the Church of Rome is erroneous, both in the foundation of it: which is the authoritie of the Church, and in many particular articles thereof; I may boldly affirme, that it is to be ſhunned as a perilous rocke, whereon many hauehave ſuffered ſhipwrack of their eternall ſaluation.