A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 36
CHAP. XXXVI.
Detect. 27. ANother of their Deceits is this: To charge us with introducing New Articles of faith or points of Religion, becauſe we contradict the New Articles which they introduce; and then they require us to prove our doctrines which are but the Negatives of theirs.
We receive no Doctrines of faith or worſhip but what was delivered by the Apoſtles to the Church: Theſe men bring in abundance of New ones, and ſay without proof, that they received them from the Apoſtles. And becauſe we refuſe to receive their Novelties, they call our Rejections of them [the Doctrines of our Religion;] and feign us to be the Innovators. And by this device, it is in the Power of any Heretick to force the Church to take up ſuch as theſe men call New points of faith. If a Papiſt ſhall ſay, that beſides the Lords Prayer Chriſt gave his Diſciples another Form, or two, or three, or many; or that he gave them ten New Commandments not mentioned in the Bible, or that he oft deſcended after his Aſcenſion and converſed with them, or that there are many more worlds of men beſides this earth; or that Chriſt inſtituted twenty Sacraments, how ſhould we deal with theſe men, but hy denying their fictions as ſinfull Novelty, and rejecting them as corrupt additions to the Faith? And were this any Novelty in us? And ſhould they bid us prove in the expreſs words of Scripture or antiquity, our Negative Propoſitions, [that Chriſt gave but one form of prayer, that he did not oft deſcend, that he gave no more Decalogues, Sacraments, &c.] Is it not a ſufficient proof of any of theſe, that they are not written: and that no Tradition of them from the Apoſtles is proved; and that they that hold the Affirmative, and introduce the Novelty, muſt prove, and not we? Our Articles of faith are the ſame, and not increaſed, nor any new ones added: But the Papiſts come in with a new faith as large as all the Novelties in the Decretals and the Councils, and theſe innovations of theirs we reject Now our Rejections do not increaſe the Articles of our faith, no more then my beating a dog out of my houſe, or keeping out an enemy, or ſweeping out the filth, doth enlarge my houſe, or increaſe my family They do not take all the Anathema and Rejections in their own Councils, to be Canons or Articles of faith.
For example, The Pope hath made it an Article of faith, that no Scripture is to be interpreted but according to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers. This wereject, and make it no Article of our faith, but an erroneous Novelty. Do we hereby make a new Article? becauſe we reject a new one of theirs, (yea a part of the Oath of their Church made by Pope Pius after the Council of Trent) 1. If this be an Article, prove it if you can. 2. If it be a Truth, and no Novelty, I pray you tell us which be Fathers, and which not? and help us to know certainly when we have all, or the unanimous Conſent. And then tell us whether every man is not forſworn with you that interprets any text of Scripture before he have read all the Fathers. or any text which ſix of them never expounded; or any text which they do not unanimouſly agree on? And yet (though it be not our neceſſary task) we can eaſily prove to you, that this is a New Article of your deviſing. 1. Becauſe elſe no man muſt expound any Scripture at all before theſe Fathers were born. For how could the Church before them have their unanimous conſent? And 2. Becauſe that otherwiſe theſe Fathers themſelves wanted an Article of faith, unleſs it was an Article to them, that they muſt expound no Scripture but by their own Conſent. 3. Becauſe theſe Fathers do few of them expound all, or half, or the twentieth part of the Scripture. 4. Becauſe they took liberty to diſagree among themſelves, and therefore do not unanimouſly conſent in abundance of particular texts. 5. Becauſe they tell us that they are fallible, and bid us not take it on their truſt. 6. Becauſe the Apoſtles have left us no ſuch rule or precept, but much to the contrary. 7. Your own Doctors (for all their Oath) do commonly charge the Fathers with error and miſexpounding Scripture, as I ſhewed before, Canus and many others charge Cajetan (a Cardinal and pillar in your Church) with making it his practiſe to differ from the Fathers, and chooſing expoſitions purpoſely for the Novelty; pro more ſuo, as his cuſtom: And when he hath highly extolled Cajetan: (Loc. Theol. lib. 7. pag. 223.) he adds, that [yet his doctrine was defiled with a Leproſie of errors, by an affection and luſt of Curioſity, or confidence on his wit, expounding Scripture as he liſt, happily indeed for the moſt part, but in ſome few places more acutely then happily, becauſe he regarded not antient Tradition, and was not verſt in the reading of the Fathers; and would not learn from them the Myſteries of the ſealed book] And in another place he blames him, that he alway followed the Hebrew and Greek text: And many other Papiſts by him and others are blamed for the ſame faults: Andradius, and more of the later plead for it. And yet theſe men are counted members of your Church, that go againſt an Article of your new faith and Oath.
So Tranſubſtantiation is one of your New Articles in that Oath. Do we make a New one now if we reject it? Or need we be put to prove the Negative? And yet we can eaſily do it: And Edm. Albertinus (among many others) hath done it unanſwerably.
Another of your Articles is, that [it belongeth to your Holy Mother the Church to judge of the true ſence of Scripture] And you mean the Roman Church; and that they muſt judge of it for all the Chriſtian world. Prove this to be the Antient doctrine if you can. If we reject this Novelty, are we Innovators? or need we prove the Negative? And yet we can do it, and have oft done it at large. Did Athanaſius, Baſil, Nazianzen, Nyſſen, Auguſtine, Hierom, Chryſoſtome, Epiphanius, and the reſt of the Fathers, ſend to Rome for the ſence of the Scriptures which they expound, or did they procure the Popes Approbation before any of them publiſhed their Commentaries? You know ſure that they did not.
The like may be ſaid of all the reſt of your New Articles, and Practiſes: We ſtand our ground. Some of your Novelties we reject as trifles, ſome as ſmaller errors, and ſome as greater: but ſtill we keep to our antient faith, of which the Scripture is a full and ſufficient Rule (as Vincentius Lirinenſ. ubi ſupra) though we are glad of all helps to underſtand it, we ſay with Tertullian de carne Chriſti, cap. 6. Nihil de eo conſtat, quia Scriptura non exhibet.—Non probant, quia non Scriptum eſt—His qui inſuper argumentantur nos reſiſtemus.