Run from Rome, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Of the courſe that is to be followed in this diſputation.
I HaueHave ſhewed that the foundation of the ſaith of the Church of Rome, is the authority and teſtimony of the church; and hauehave refuſed that foundation as vnſound and erroneous. It will now perhaps be looked for, that I ſhould proceed by prouing that it is falſe and counterfeit. But I ſee no neceſſary or ſufficient reaſon for this courſe, and therefore hauehave rather choſen to follow tha… way in this diſputation, which the matter it ſelfe leads me to, and in which it leads me.
The queſtion betwixt the church of Rome and vsus is this: Whether the articles or propoſitions to which they require our aſſent, as to certaine truths, reuealed by God, and commanded of him to be beleeued vponupon perill of damnation if we do not aſſent and beleeue, be reuealed and commanded by God, or no, as Bellarmine himſelfe putteth it in the aſſumption of his Syll…giſme, ſet down by me Chap. 3. num. 9. The church of Rome ſaith they are, and call for obedience thereto accordingly. We deny that they are reuealed and enioyn…d by God, and therefore refuſe to giuegive aſſent to them. Who ſeeth not that the very nature of this difference betwixt vsus, layeth vponupon them a neceſſity of prouing, that thoſe points or articles are propounded by God, to be beleeued as matters of faith reuealed by him?
This made the reuerend and learned B. Iewell, in his Apology, 3 B. Iewell Apol. part. 1. chap. 10. diuiſ. 1.tell the Doctors of the Romiſh church: that, It was their part to prooue clearly and truly, that the Romiſh Church is the true and right inſtructed Church of God. And in his ſecond anſwer to Dr. Cole, lett. D D. E E. to affirme: that, It was vnreaſonable for that Dr, to call for the proofes of our doctrine. And therefore as it appeares in that anſwer, lett. O. he ſtands vponupon the negatiue (as he ſpeakes) and putteth the Papiſts to their proofes, becauſe they preſſe vsus to receiue thoſe points for articles of faith.
This courſe I hauehave holden in thoſe bookes that I hauehave formerly publiſhed in this kind of writing, this I meane to hold now and hereafter, if it pleaſe God to afford me opportunity to goe forward in the defence of his truth. Yet for their better ſatisfaction, and clearer manifeſting of the truth, I will alwaies giuegive ſome reaſon of my denying the propoſitions I refuſe: howſoeuer, it were enough for an anſwer, to deny that which of it ſelfe is not apparantly true. And thus much of the courſe of this diſputation.
I returne now to the diſputation it ſelfe. The maine ground for the proofe of the authority of the church in this kind, is taken by Bellarmine, out of Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17. Ioh. 21. 15, 16. De verbo dei. lib. 3. cap. 5. Sect. quartum teſtimonium, & ſeqq.Ieſus ſaid to Simon Peter, Simon the ſonne of Ionas, loueſt thou mee more then theſe? He ſaid, yea Lord, thou knoweſt that I louelove thee. He ſaid vntounto him, Feed my ſheepe, &c.
From theſe words Bellarmine diſputeth thus:
Feeding of Chriſts ſheepe, Ioh. 21. 15. is a ſingular office of teaching the whole Church, by determining and iudging what is to bee beleeued of all men.
To Peter and his ſucceſſours the feeding of Chriſts ſheepe is committed. Ioh. 21.
Therefore to Peter and his ſucceſſors, a ſingular office of teaching the whole Church, by iudging and determining what is to be beleeued of all men, is committed.
VponUpon this concluſion Bellarmine inferreth: that, he that will not be thus taught by Peter, is none of Christs ſheepe.
Many weighty points are hudled vp together in this Syllogiſme, worthy of ſerious conſideration and debating. In the Propoſition, or firſt part, theſe foure things are compriſed:
1. In thoſe words, Ioh. 21. 15. a ſingular Office is contained.
2 Feeding there, ſignifieth teaching.
3 Feeding Chriſts ſheepe is, teaching the whole Church.
4 Teaching the whole church is, by way of determining what is to be beleeued of all men.
All theſe are contained in the Propoſition, and eueryevery one of them ſo neceſſarily required to the truth thereof, that if any one of them bee vntrue, the Propoſition of neceſſity muſt be falſe. How then ſhall the concluſion be an article of faith, as the Papiſts will hauehave it? I will therfore examine eueryevery one of them ſeuerally, and then goe forward to conſider of the Aſſumption.