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
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
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
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
indeed there followed no breach or division upon it because they all reformed That saying of S. Augustine so much in the Mouthes of Papists Nulla necessitas c. there is no necessity of dividing from the Church was true many waies but no way against us 1. True in regard of the occasion upon which it was spoken viz the ill lives of many in the Church no necessity of dividing or leaving Communion for that 2. In regard of the Persons against whom it was spoken viz the Donatists they had no necessity or just cause of leaving the Church 3. In regard of the Catholick Church there is no necessity of dividing from that for they that divide from the Catholick Church doe break with it either upon the point of Faith or Charity i. e. they either depart from that one Faith held in the Catholick Church or holding that Faith doe break with it for some cause or matter externall to that one Faith and for it uncharitably condemn all others as not belonging to the Catholick Church So did the Donatists We did neither For our ceasing to communicate with the Roman Church which yet is but a particular not the Catholick Church was upon the preserving and keeping entire that Catholick Faith once delivered which being the chief bond of Uniay of the Catholick Church and being by us preserved together with the bond of Charity in not condemning them as no part of the Catholick Church we cannot be therefore said to divide from the Communion of the Catholick Church or to be cause of that Division which followed upon our endevouring to preserve that Faith entire but they are the cause of it that would not and yet would condemn us Our defence then in generall stands thus We had just cause to reform and so had they We in Reforming did what we ought if they had done what they ought and had cause to doe no breach or division had followed And further We in doing what we ought preserved the Faith entire together with Charity They would neither cast off their Errors which clogged and corrupted the Faith nor retain Charity but cut us off as much as in them from the Catholick Church It is clear then to whom the Cause of this Division must be imputed CHAP. VI. How necessity of dividing Communion arises BUt that it may more particularly be understood what we did and what cause or necessity we had of so doing We must consider that the necessity of abstaining from the Communion of this or that Church does not presently arise upon Errours or Superstitions suffered or taught in that Church and held or practised by many in it No though they be grosse Errours and may be damnable to them that carelesly suffer themselves to be seduced into them Such were the seducing doctrines suffered and taught in the Churches of Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira Chap. 3. as abovesaid yet was not any therefore necessitated to divide from their Communion But then the necessity arises 1. When the Errour is directly Fundamental as in the Arian heresie for which all true Catholicks held themselves obliged to abstain from their Communion We doe not charge the Roman Church upon that score in the cause of this division 2. When the Errour and Superstition is in the practise that concerns the administration of the Sacraments the publick service the Form and Worship in all which stands the exercise of the external Communion so that men truly informed and convinced of those Errours and Superstitions cannot communicate with good conscience there arises a necessity of abstaining from such practise and consequently from Communion with that Church so far as to such practises yet so as holding it a part of the Catholike Church This I say is a dividing from such a Church in the external Communion by ceasing to practise and hold some things which it doth but a joyning with it in the Catholike of which we hold it still a part as we also are And this may give sense to that distinction of forsaking the Errors but not the Church i.e. not forsaking or casting off that which makes a true Member of the Church or not breaking with the Church upon the point of true Faith or Charity 3. When such Superstitious practises together with Errours in belief in themselves gross and palpable and to the carelesse or wilfull damnable are not onely taught and permitted in a Church but imposed also and required as a condition of Communion so that they which shall not so professe or practise are sentenced as Hereticks and excommunicated there is just cause and necessity of dividing from the Communion of such a Church Now in both these respects we charge the Church of Rome with the cause of our Division and that we were thereupon necessitated to abstain from her Communion yet so as holding her then and still a Church and being then and still ready to hold Communion with her Saving the duty of true Members of the Catholike Church in case she would provide for the security thereof by a tolerable Reformation So our defence stands upon these two Assertions That such a cause is just and necessary and that the Church of Rome gave it and we had it which two make up the two Propositions of this Argument It is lawfull to abstain from the Communion of that Church which requires unlawfull and sinfull conditions of her Communion but the Church of Rome requires such Or thus All men ought upon true conviction to forsake their known Errours and sins but we knew them and were truly convinced of them therefore in forsaking them we did what we ought The first proposition in both these forms stands as undeniable or else it must be granted that we may be bound to continue under a necessity of sinning and that knowingly So the whole businesse rests upon the second proposition that such was our Case and such the Cause that the Church of Rome gave which must appear by examination of the particular doctrines of Belief and Practise enjoyned all the members of that Church Now that they containe such Errours and Superstitions as before mentioned we are ready to demonstrate both by Scripture and the best Antiquity But it is our purpose and work in present to discover and take away the general pretences and plausible allegations they make for themselves or against us in this Cause CHAP. VII Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we doe AGainst our Defence so stated they usually reply If Protestants upon Apprehension or conviction of Errours and Superstitions in the Church of Rome had just cause to forsake her Communion then may Sectaries justly forsake the Communion of the Protestants Church For they also say and are many times perswaded and convinced that that Church imposes on them such Errours Answer Set the Termes aright and the fallacy or ambiguity of this captious reasoning will appear If by our apprehension or conviction of Errours in the Church of Rome they mean onely our
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
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