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
not leave men to themselves but as Governours of the Church doe by power of the Keyes judge and bind the Gainsayers and cast the Refractory out of their Communion So then the Guides of the Church have the power of Publike Judgement to judge and define for others in matters of faith and worship and power of Iurisdiction to judge censure and cast out the disobedient and to private men is lest onely the Iudgement of discretion without which they cannot come to beleeve or serve God as they ought with reasonable service Rom. 12.1 CHAP. IX Of dissenting from the publike Judgement NOw for the using their reason and judgement against the Church or their dissenting from the definitions and practise of it we give no encouragement to that We 1. teach all Inferiours whether People or Priests when they finde cause of doubt or question against such definitions or practise to mistrust their owne reason and rather relye upon the publick Judgment than their own in every doubtfull case 2. That they which doubt still seek refolution and satisfaction from their Superiours modestly propounding their doubts and reasons and conscionably using all means to rectifie their judgment and satisfie their Conscience 3. If they cannot find satisfaction so as inwardly to acquiesce yet to yeeld external obedience peaceable subjection according as the condition of the matter questioned will bear In a word we require all that submission of judgement and outward compliance that may be due to an Authority not infallible yet guiding others by an infallible Rule and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly as being answerable for their Soules 4. We tell them the danger of gainsaying that they are to answer it to God and his Church That if they cannot approve the reason of their dissenting to the judgement of the Church they must expect to undergoe the Censures of it For the Church standing so obliged to answer for Souls and to preserve Peace and Unity and having therefore the advantage of Authority and publick judgement above all private persons it is also most reasonable it should have the advantage in the contestation with private persons and in the issue of such a businesse to proceed according to its own judgement and use the power it has against those that stand out And then is there a further answering it to God Thus it stands between every Particular Church and the Members of it betweene Superiours and Inferiours in it and in some proportion between every particular or National Church and the Catholick Church in receiving and holding the Definitions of Generall Councils and the Generall Practise of the Church Tough here a Nationall Church hath the advantage above private persons in the point of Judgement and dissenting Yet where it does dissent from other Churches generally erring it arises first from the use of reason and judgement in private persons discovering the errours for some in all Reformations must speak first and propounding them which being approved by the Judgement of that Church the Reformation follows as an Act of publick Judgement or as an Act of a National Church which though inferiour to the Catholick yet hath it judgement within it selfe for the receiving and holding the Definitions and Practises of the Church-Generall and may have possibly just cause of dissenting and reforming and can doe it regularly according to the way of the Church by Provinciall Synods which private persons dissenting from her cannot doe And this is considerable in the English Reformation which as it was upon publick Judgement of a Nationall Church in Provinciall Synods so will it not prove a dissenting from the Catholike Church or definit ons of true Generall Councils but of that more below when we come to triall by Antiquity And of this respect or submission due from every Particular Church to the General as it concernes the Act of this Nationall Church in the Reformation more largely in the first Chapter of my later Book For the present we are to speak of the possibility of dissent of Inferiours from Superiours and the use of reason and judgement necessary to it CHAP. X. Possibility of just dissenting THe submission and obedience spoken of as due to Superiours and their Judgement ought to take place in all cases where there is not something clearly against them that confessedly excels the Authority and Judgement of the present Governours as evidence of Scripture demonstration of reason and a conformable consent of Primitive Times the pure Ages of the Church Now that such a case or such a cause of using private judgement even to a dissenting from the publike may happen Reason and Experience tells us Because it is possible that such as have chief place in the publike Judgement National or General may neglect their duty at least the greater number of them to the overbearing of the lesse and through prejudice of Faction or other wordly respects may faile in determining and propounding the Truth For the promise of guiding them is conditional upon performing duty and that is not alwaies certaine in the greater part to the imposing of false Belief and false Worship So that it comes to be Error manifestus appearing so to be both by the Word of God and the conformable beliefe and practise of the firster Ages of the Church Here is place for Reason and Judgement of Inferiours to dissent upon such Evidence after modest proposall and demonstration of the Errour And to this in part accords the concession of Bell. lib. 2. de Concil Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours have lawfully proceeded nisi manifestissimè constet intolerabilem errorem committi Now when I speak of private Judgement dissenting from the publick Judgement or generall practises of the Church and of the preservation of Truth and the Faith thereby I doe not speak of the Reason or Judgement of the People or Laity divided from all their Guides and Pastors but I include these who of what ranke soever dissenting from the publick either definition or practise are as men of private judgement in such a case These I say I alwayes include in such a just dissenting or falling off from any erroneous belief or practise prevailing in the Church For it cannot be imagined that God who promised to be with them and guide them should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church and preserve it by the Judgement and Conscience of Lay people but that still however they which have chiefe place in the Church prove corrupt some Guides and Pastors though of lesse number and place shall be they that shall detect the prevailing Errours and preserve the Truth and this by due use of Reason and private Judgement Experience also tels us what they have proved that have been in chiefe place that have sate in Moses Chair and in St. Peters how many Hereticks at severall times among the Popes how a whole succession of Monsters through the tenth Age of which Bellarmine
circumstantials and matters enjoyned as of Order and to have as apparent evidence for that conviction as Gods Word gives them for obedience to their lawfull Governours 3. Their pretending to be convinced in their judgement hinders not the Church of which they were members to use her own judgement and accordingly to proceed by censure and excommunication as iâ— said above cap. 9. And hereby was this Church held together in Unity no Sect or Heresie breaking forth which was not presently crushed till force of Arms bore down the free use of Ecclesiastick Authority and emboldened men to contemn it If therefore Sectaries shall say to us you allow us to use our Reason and Judgment in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction but not to abuse it against the Church But we doe not say they abuse it but have consulted our Guides and used all meanes we can for satisfaction We tell them you must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church having modestly propounded it attend the judgement thereof to which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yeild an exâ—erhal peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it which I adde because the matter questioned may be not so much in belief and opinion as in worship and external practise For that must necessarily discover it self and if it be such in any Church that a man cannot in conscience comply with and therefore cannot yeild external subjection so far as to doe or perform the same worship or practice yet ought he still to yeild a peaceable subjection in not resisting or reviling but quietly suffering if need be for the same under Authority But you that dissent from the Church of England have no such cause for any thing belonging to the substance of Worship And as for Circumstantials and matters of Order ye ought to shew as direct Scripture against the particulars as that which commands you to obey them which are over you And if your mis-informed conscience bade you forbear to submit to the doing of things enjoyned yet should you have had so much conscience of the expresse precept commanding obedience to Superiours as to forbear resistance and force and to have rather quietly and peaceably suffered under the censures of the Church and power of Authority set over you and you cannot but think it reasonable that the Church which is entrusted with others as well as you and hath the advantage of Authority and publick judgement should upon the not-appearing of your pretended evidence maintaine her Judgement and Authority and proceed against you as the preservation of Peace and Unity requires And thinke not because you are allowed to use your Reason and Understanding in order to your beleeving and reasonable serving of God you are therefore allowed to use force in order to the maintaining of your dissent from and disobedience to Authority For that God whose Truth and Service ye so much pretend is the God of Order and Peace 1 Cor. 14.33 not the Author of Confusion such as your violence has wrought in this Church and Land No other meanes or remedy has the Church to preserve Unity than by demonstrating the Truth to every mans conscience and censuring or casting out the Refractory Nor other feare can she cast upon her children to keep them in obedience than the losse of her Communion and their Answering it to God Nor was there any other Remedy in the Antient Church while destitute of help from the Secular power I meane no other Remedy proper to the society of the Church to keep men in her Communion CHAP. XIV Their vain pretence of Infallibility HEre the Romanists lay hold on a seeming advantage by pretence of an Infallible guidance in their Church telling their Proselytes that the Protestants acknowledge their Church fallible in her Proposals and therefore must leave men to their own reason and judgement but our Church is infallible in her Definitions How we Protestants leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement rather than leave them to their Reason Judgement has been shewn already and to the Romish pretence of Infallible guidance we say still could it be made good there would be no more to doe but every man upon understanding the terms and sense of her Definitions to submit his Reason and Judgement without farther enquiry how consonant they are to Gods revealed will and what warrant he has from thence to assent and believe them But here 's the weaknesse and vanity of that pretence This Infallibility which is pretended as the ground of all their belief has no ground it selfe to be believed * See below Chap. 27. c. as we shew by many most evident arguments and that which is alledged to take away mens Reason and Judgement must allow every man his Reason and Judgment in the examining of what is brought to prove it as was shewn above Chap. 11. c. Whereupon it will be harder to make men believe that pretence of Infallibility than to believe the proposals of Truth from Guides that pretend not to it but onely to the demonstration of that Truth by an Infallible Rule Hence it is easie to see which is more reasonable and likely to keep men in obedience to the Church Open and plaine dealing with them in the businesse of their salvation or false pretences The demonstration of Truth to every mans conscience or the Imperious dominion over other mens faith and consciences under pretence of Infallibility We say to men If you will be with us you shall see what you doe we require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods will for you to believe and doe yet know your salvation is concerned in such obedience and be it at your utmost peril to gainsay The Church of Rome saith to men If you will come to me you must put out your Eyes resign up your Reason and Understanding and with implicite Faith give absolute submission and obedience to my Definitions CHAP. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholike ANother of their maine Objections upon our division from them is That whatever the Doctrine or Faith be which we retained we divided from the whole Catholike Church holding Communion with no part of it To the same purpose is that which Cardinal Perron in his Letter to M. Casaubon and in his first book against the Kings Letter alledgeth That to be Catholike and avoid the note of Schism is not sufficient to hold the same Faith with the Catholike Church for so did the Donatists but to hold Communion also with it which the Donatists not doing were Schismaticks And in like manner he would conclude us to be Our Answer in generall is briefly this That we did not divide from the Catholike Church and that to a Communion with it is not required a full agreement in belief and practise with other parts of it No nor an actual Communion
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
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
of the persons interessed such we alledge As for example against those many Eulogies and high expressions which the Father 's used to the magnifying of the Church of Rome and S. Peters Chair abused now to prove that this Infallibility Vniversal Jurisdiction and exorbitant power challenged by the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by Antiquity we bring deeds and those upon contestation as the standing out of Polycrates and all the Asian Bishops against the sentence of Pope Victor also in the contestation between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen it is easily seen that Cyprian by all those speeches he had used to the magnifying of the Roman See and many they alledge out of him meant nothing lesse than to ascribe to that See what of late Ages they have challenged So in the contestation between the Roman See and the African Bishops among whom S. Augustine was one and one that used to speak sometimes very high of the Roman Church in the business of Appeals we see their judgement by their deeds We see also by this how that which is spoken by the Fathers may prove but uncertainly and unwarily spoken when it comes to the Trial and farre short of that the Church of Rome would have us believe they meant For it cannot be denied but the Fathers often speak with a Latitude and apply things to the present advantage As when they had to doe with Heresies newly sprung up they usually opposed the eminency of the Church of Rome as then indeed it was eminent both for succession and doctrine setting it out with glorious Titles or when the Fastern Bishops needed relief for the West enjoyed peace for the most part of the four first Centuries when the East was much troubled and applied themselves to Rome for help as Athanasius Chrysostome and others that their cause might be judged in the West by the Pope and his Councel when they could have no justice in the East no mervail if by such applications the Church and Bishop of Rome gained many high Titles and acknowledgments from such distressed persons and their Wel-wishers But when it came to a contestation with Rome it self as in the cases above-mentioned wherein Cyprian Augustine and others were engaged at several times it is plainly seen that those Testimonies which Cyprian Augustine and others had given in so high a strain meant not what they seemed at first sight to attest or what the Cardinal and other Romish writers bring them for Now they must acknowledge this used sometimes by the Fathers to apply their speech to the present advantage not indeed contradicting what they meant but moderating what before they spake more unwarily for the Cardinal observes the like of them l. 4. c. 3. That before the Arrians arose the Interpretation of that place of the Rock Mat. 16. run upon the person of Peter but afterwards the Fathers finding the advantage of the place against the Arrians interpreted it of the Confession which Peter made that Christ was the Son of the living God to this purpose he there And it comes all to this The Fathers before spake unwarily but afterward spake as they saw they had reason Yet thus it fared in this great point of Romes greatness for which they pretend the Fathers Therefore to conclude the second point the Romanists have the shadow the shell the name the phrase many times but we carry the substance shew the thing the sense the judgement the deeds of Antiquity 3. Sometimes we meet with beginnings of opinions and practises in the compasse of the first four Ages which the Church of Rome did after form into a fixt belief and practice but it was not so then Then indeed the seeds were scattered out of the which by degrees sprang some of this forbidden fruit which the Roman Church now holds forth As for Example The opinion of a purging fire was then but in the wandring conceits of some few as above insinuated in this Chap. and which is to be further noted those few into whose conceits it first entred were of the Greek Fathers yet so little did it prevail in that Church that to this day it is not improved into a doctrine or belief of the Church among the Greeks Which shews it rested but in the conceit of some particular men So for the point of Invocation we finde beginning given to that practice in the fourth Century by Rhetorical Apostrophe's used in their Orations for the Dead by the excesse of devotion and honour that some were carried with towards the blessed Martyrs breaking out sometimes into compellations of them and uttering their desires to them as if they had been present Here we have a private practice begun by some few not grounded upon any doctrine of the Church And long time after it was ere it crept into the Letanies or publick offices of the Church So in the point of the half-Communion we meet with some private practice some receiving the bread only in a case of necessity but publickly it was ever administred in both kindes and also privately where and when it could And many express declarations we meet with against receiving it in one kinde and when it was received so it was held an imperfect and not full Communion This is most plain in Antiquity for above 1000 years And now whoever will examine well the flourish of Card Perroun in his first book cap. 18. where running through all the points of Romish faith and practice he affirms the antient Church to have held and practised so will no question finde that what is there alledged falls short of proving the doctrine or practise of the ancient Church and that the Card. often gives us the Name without the Thing or the Phrase without the Romish sense or some private opinion for the doctrine of the Church or some beginning practise for an established one or a private practice for the practice of the Church Besides there is no consent of Fathers given in that Chapter upon any point CHAP. XXXI Card Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholick according to Antiquity ANd here it will not be amisse to take a view of two of his Rules or Observations which in his Letter to Mr. Casaubon he gives us to shew what is required to make a man or Church Catholick now according to the doctrines and practises of the antient Church By which I cannot see how himself or his Church can stand or challenge the name of Cathelick He there saith in his second observation That any should passe for Catholick it is needful they be conformable to the integrity of the belief of the Fathers i.e. to believe all things they believed according to that degree they believed them in viz to believe as necessary to salvation the things they believed to be so and as profitable to salvation the things they believed to be so and as not repugnant to salvation what they held so This is one of his Rules Here are strict
to be a Judge in the cause Indeed a lawful and free General Councel of the whole Church setting scripture before them as their Rule had been the only and competent Judge but seeing such a Councel was not to be had or expected not a General one because of the division of the Eastern Church from the West nor a lawful and free one because of the exorbitant power of the Pope and his Dependants it remained we should use the means left us and doe it by Provincial and National Synods keeping the same Rule the Word of God Which Gerson with other wise learned men allows and calls it reformari per parteâ— when the Church reforms it self by parts and to this provincial Councels doe suffice Gers de Concil Vnius obed And so we reade the Emperour with other Kings and Princes who called for a General Councel to compose differences in Religion thought it reasonable upon the tergiversation of the Pope to doe it by Provincial Synods in their several Dominions and so they threatned the Pope they would do if he would not consent to a Councel A Councel and the rame of Reformation were alwaies formidable to the Court of Rome and between the dread of a General Councel and the fear of such Provincial Synods Pope after Pope hung tormented for divers yeares using all the artifices as might be to satisfie the Princes and yet to keep off both General and Provincial Synods till Pope Paul the third arose a man of Spirit and cunning who turned the fear of a Councel into the hope and expectation of advantage by it And so indeed he and his dependants ordered the businesse at Trent that nothing could there be determined without his privity and direction that in the end both Princes and People instead of relief they expected by a Free Councel found themselves more hampered and enslaved by the pretended General Courcel of Trent Where divers points which before were more free to opine in or have freedome of opinion in were defined Articles of Faith and all hope excluded of gaining what divers Princes made no question to carry at the beginning viz Communion in both kindes Priests marriage Service in a known tongue and some other The Princes and the People were very ill satisfied with this dealing the French did not of many years receive that Councel yet did not proceed to make use of a national Synod happily because of the troubles in that Kingdome but the English Nation would not be so fooled for seeing aforehand what could be expected from the Court of Rome they made use of that Power which God has left in every Church of judging for it self according to his word especially when the Catholick Church stands so divided and oppressed with faction that the chief remedy of all a Free General Councel cannot be had What God spake to his people by the Prophet Hos 4.15 Though Israel transgresse yet let not Judab sin tells us a particular Church may and ought to reform though others will not and the examples of many Provincial Councels in this point of declaring and casting out errors creeping upon them warrant what we have done For if Saint Augustine and the other Bishops in a Provincial Synod declared against and rejected the usurped claim of the Pope in point of Appeal why might not the English Church under Henry the VIIIth cast out his usurped power here And if the Provincial Synod of Laodicea declared against and condemned the worshipping of Angels then on foot why might not we also declare against worship of Saints and Images prevailing here If it be said it was not done here by a just Provincial Synod but the most of the former Bishops were against the Reformation and displaced Answ We need not tell them how the businesse was carried at Trent how some were sent away some kept back others and they but Titular Bishops sent in and all to make up a major part which the Histories of that Councel witness And Dudithius an Hungarian Bishop and one of the Orators for that King complained of it as it is to be seen in his advices and Letters from thence But we say that in that Reformation under Henry the VIIIth and Queen Elizabeth is more largely pursued in my I st Part Chap 2. there was no displacing of Bishops but all passed with a general consent And upon that Reformation or Ejection of the Popes usurped power arose the first division of the English and Romish Church In that which followed under Queen Elizabeth the businesse of the Synod was regularly carried by the Major part the displacing of the Bishops that were put out being before and that upon the denyal of the Oath of Supremacy and their conspiring together to refuse to Crown the Queen I will conclude this point of our Reforming with the saying of Saint Cyprian lib. 2. Ep 3. Si quis de Antecessorib c. If any of those that went before us did through ignorance or simplicity not observe and hold this which the Lord by his example and doctrine hath taught it may be pardoned them through the Indulgence of God Nobis non poterit ignosci c. but to us it cannot be pardoned who are now admonished and instructed of the Lord. So say we If any went before us in the Communion and Errors of the Roman Church through simplicity of heart we deny him not mercy with God but we could not expect it if being better instructed of God we had not amended our known errors CHAP. V. We not guilty of Schism The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists THus farre of our Reforming Now of that which followed upon it breach of Communion And here they charge us with Schisme When I say breach of Communion followed upon our Reforming I doe not take the charge and guilt of it upon us or imply that it followed as the proper effect does upon the immediate cause but followed accidentally occasionally and is to be imputed to some cause else not our reforming but their default They gave us cause by Errours and Superstitions thrust upon us to reform They when We and all Nations called for Reformation remained incorrigible We did our duty they would not doe theirs Division of Communion necessarily followes by reason those Errours were not only in belief but in practice and worship too not upon our leaving the Errours but upon their not leaving them not upon our going forward but because they would not come on As when communicating of Infants was believed as necessary and accordingly practised through the Catholick Church we must understand it as generally believed and practised or more generally than was any Romish Errour before the Reformation for many ages that National Church which first reformed it self in that belief and practice did it justly without expecting a General Councel and as to that belief and practice stood divided from other National Churches or parts of the Catholick till they should reform too
communicate one with the other not onely in the keeping Easter or in the very practise of Rebaptization but those that held Rebaptization necessary could not at all communicate with any of those members of the Catholike Church which had been received from heresie without being baptized again Thirdly that upon the heat of the Romish Bishops Victor and Stephen in these two businesses it came to an actuall denying of Communion with the Asian and African Churches What Cardinall Perron concludes upon those Churches so standing out as to the point of Schism he has not expresly declared notwithstanding he treates of both their oppositions against the Bishops of Rome then being lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. Hee seemes indeed to leave the Asians under Schisme but that is to take the Crown of Martyrdome from many of those godly Asian Bishops And we read that as Irenaeus and others reproved Victors Excommunicating of them so they held them not cut off from the Catholick Church and professed they would not deny to communicate with them as Eusebius witnesseth Lib. 5. Hist Eccles After-ages also have excused them And the like charity if the Romanists had it for us might excuse us or rather commend what we have done CHAP. XVIII The want of that does not alwaies make guilty of Schism YEt hence appears that which the Cardinal often presseth that all the Members of the Catholike Church must communicate one with another is onely true of duty so they ought to doe and keep themselves not of fact or under necessity of being guilty of Schisme or cut off from the Communion of the Catholike Church For we see that neither want of agreement in all doctrines and practises does it nor yet all want of actuall or external Communion does it as when Communion is forborn or denyed by one Church to another without uncharitable denying of one the other to be parts of the Catholike And the Testimonies of Fathers speaking of Communion upon occasion of the case between the Donatists and the Catholike Church are not to be extended to all actual Non-communion which often happened between eminent persons denying it to each other and between several Churches doing the like yet both remaining in the Catholike To these two Instances out of History let me adde two other upon supposall The errour in the beliefe and practise of Communicating Infants prevailed in the Catholike Church generally and for many Ages and was reformed without a General Council It must be supposed some one National Church did reforme it self in that belief and practise and it must be acknowledged justly done for the whole Catholike Church did accordingly reforme Now suppose it had not but still persisted in that beliefe and practise that National Church which first reformed must either have returned to the errour it had justly left or stood divided in Communion to the rest of the Catholike Church at least from those parts of the Catholike Church that held Infant communion necessary upon the like place of Scripture Joh. 6.53 answerable as they thought to that other Joh. 3 3 concerning Baptism which persisting in the belief that one Sacrament was necessary to children as well as the other could not have admitted those that reformed as good Christians no more than those that should have deâ—yed Baptism to their children Now there did not follow a division because the rest of the Church followed in the Reformation But suppose they had not I would then learn of the Cardinal whether he would have accounted that Nationall Church guilty of Schisme oâ— of the division of Commuon which had followed upon their doing that which they did justly through the default of other Churches in not doing that which they saw good cause to doe He that will apply this to the Reformation of this National Church and the default of the Roman Church in not doing the like will see that want of external Communion does not alwaies cut off from the Catholike Church and will see cause also of excusing us My second Instance upon supposall is from that which was intended in France The League had divided the Roman Catholikes there but that being broken the King and his party endeavoured reconciliation with the Pope and finding him averse and ill to be dealt with it was determined to set up in France a Patriarch and to have no more to doe with the Court of Rome and the Person was designed for it as the History of those Times assures us I would now learne of the Cardinal who was at length the Kings Proxy in his reconcilement to Rome and its like was privy to his designe had this been executed with what part of the Catholike Church had they communicated or had they been guilty of Schisme If it be said it was not done yet it was resolv'd on and so near to the execution that a Cardinal told the Pope As Clement the seveth had lost England so Clement the eighth would lose France And as it was resolv'd on so it was thought reasonable and just by the more considerable part of Roman Catholikes in France viz. those that adhered to the King and to be maintained if done So here 's the difference they in France had approved it we in England did it CHAP. XIX Our case and that of the Donatists not alike ANd now that which was objected above by the Cardinal that it 's not enough for Catholikes to hold the same faith with the Catholike Church but must hold Communion with it too we grant most true but then is that rule broken when men hold not the Communion or forsake it as the Donatists did who as they had no cause in regard of the faith by reason of any dangerous doctrines or practises imposed on them to cease from communicating with any part of the Catholike Church so they divided from the whole through the breach of charity condemning it for no Church and drawing the communion wholly to themselves And in some of those sentences the Cardinal alledges out of Saint Augustine the breach or want of charity is exprest as the reason of condemâ—ing the Donatists Now as for us we had just cause in regard of the faith once delivered to free it and our selves from errours and superstitions not confining the Church within our Communion or condemning other Churches as no parts of the Catholike Therefore the case of the Donatists cannot concern us who offended not either by breach of the Faith or of Charity But the cause of Division or breach of Communion must rest upon the Roman Church which had neither will to reform as she ought nor yet charity to beare with them that did and the case of the Donatists does most fit that Church which uncharitably condemnes all other and confines the Communion to her self For as to the Cardinals making the case of the Donatists and ours the same I would learn of him Whether if the Donatists had onely used their liberty and judgement in that practise
of rebaptizing Heretiques leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in errour for admitting Heretiques without baptizing them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholike Church saving the practises wherein they differed whether then had they been guilty of Schisme If he say Yea then must he condemne Saint Cyprian and all the African Bishops For they went so far yea farther to an undervaluing of Pope Stephens heat against them who had sent out the sentence of Excommunication against the Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia who were in the same cause with Saint Cyprian and forbade Communion with Saint Cyprian and the Africans and all that held rebaptization What ever the Cardinal judges of them as to the point of Schisme for though in his third Book third Chapter he treats of the oppositions of Saint Cyprian against Pope Stephen and speakes of the Popes condemning him yet sayes nothing directly as to the judging of him in Schism or out of the Communion of the Church Saint Augustine did not judge them so no not when often pressed by the Donatists with St. Cyprians example he might with a ready answer have turned off the weight of Authority by leaving the person under guilt of Schisme as one out of Communion of the Church but this he did not alwaies speaking honourably of him as of a worthy Martyr and onely disproving his reasons for Rebaptization Nor did after-Ages judge him and the African Bishops though out of Communion with Rome to be therefore guilty of Schisme condemning notwithstanding the Donatists as notorious Schismaticks because in the one there was a bare want of external Communion with Rome without an uncharitable breaking with or condemning of either the Roman or the rest of the Churches thaâ—â—id not rebaptize but â—n the other viz. the Donatists there was a wil 〈◊〉 breâ—king with and uncharitable condemning of the Church By all which may appear our case is different from the Donatists is like that of St. Cyprian and his African Bishops wanting communion with the Roman but not therefore out of communion with the Catholike And we have so much more advantage in the case that the occasion of their non Communion was the maintaining of an Errour though tolerable the occasion of ours the casting off intolerable Errours CHAP. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church ANother generall Objection they make against our dividing from them If say they it was for such damnable Errours and Superstitions as the Protestants charge the Roman Church with then had the Gates of Hell contrary to our Saviours promise prevailed against the Church We answer by denying the consequence For from the charging of the Church of Rome which is but a part of the Catholike Church with such errours it does not follow that Hell-gates have prevailed contrary to our Saviours promise for they might have totally prevailed against the Roman Church to an utter subversion of it as of other particular Churches and yet our Saviours promise stood firm How far they have prevailed against that Church the examination of her doctrines for beliefe and practice makes appear We acknowledge indeed that Hel-Gates did not prevail against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it or to a totall infection of the members of it with all the errours and superstitions that prevailed in it and were advanced from time to time chiefly by those that had chiefe place in that Church But as to the Catholike Church we acknowledge that the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile to a subversion either of all the parts of it or of saving Faith in it There shall alwaies be a Church and that a Church wherein saving Faith shall be preserved and may be had And so Saint Augustine de Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. c. 5. seemes to render the sense of that promise when he repeats it thus The Gates of Hell shall not overthrow or conquer it And the Council of Trent seems plainly to acknowledge what Faith it is against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Not the now Roman Faith for by that the Gates of hel have far prevail'd upon the Church of Rome but the antient Apostolike Faith once delivered in all Ages professed and by us Protestants retained For being met at Trent to establish their new Faith they beginne their meeting as the Antient Councils did with the confession of the Christian faith repeating onely that Antient Apostolike Faith or Creed and then adding This is the firme and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile Sess secund Concil Trid. Unto this passage I had in private this Reply or cavil rather returned If the words of the Council import so much then may the Church of Christ cast off Baptism and return to Circumcision and yet hold the foundation because professing that Faith But this cavill or infereâ—ce is First inconsequent as to the particular Instances Baptism and Circumcision For the one the Nicene Creed tels us what a necessary conjunction it hath with the belief of Remission of sins in rendring the Articles thus I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sinnes and for the other the Apostle tels us how inconsistent it is with the Faith of Christ Gal. 5.2.3 Secondly it is impertinent as to my application of that Confession at Trent for I alledged it not to ground any such Inferences upon it against the whole Catholike Church as if the Gates of Hell could prevail against it wholly in all sorts of Errours saving the Verities and profession of those Articles of the Creed but seeing they made that Creed the confession of their Faith at Trent according to the manner of Antient Councils and acknowledged it in plaine words to be the onely foundation c. I inferre first That a Church holding that Foundation may grosly erre in other things not so immediate to it and yet be a Church And indeed the Romish Church for these many Ages has had no tolerable Plea to the title and being of a Church but so far forth as has held that foundation however clogged with many Errours Secondly that according to this their confession their New and additional Faith of Trent is not that Catholike Faith against which as pretended the Gates of Hell cannot prevail And lastly it shews the intolerable boldnesse of the Romish Church or Court which after the Tridentine meeting feared not to adde their new Articles to that former Creed which they had confessed to be the onely foundation as making up one entire Catholike Faith and to subjoyn Athanasius his Clause to it all Haec est fides Catholica extra quam c. This is the Catholike Faith without which no salvation as appeares by Pius quartus his Bul and the Oath which every Bishop in that Church takes But that the Catholike Church has a promise in that large sense Cardinal Perron speakes it lib. 1. cap. 18. to continue
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