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
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
an Act or Virtue in Peter or not rather taken for that Catholike truth believed and confessed by Peter Peters confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time but that on which Christ sayes there He will build his Church was Peters Confession i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him and so its plaine the Fathers tooke it for they opposed this Faith or Confession as the Cardinal acknowledges against the Arrians That Christ was the Sonne of the living God Bell. applyes the promise following I will give thee the Keys c. to this busines of the One visible Interpreter or Judge and will have whatsoever thou loosest to signifie not onely the relaxation of sins and their censures but nodos omnes legum dogmatum the dispensing with the tyes of Laws and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversie lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him without further proof Now when this promise of the Keyes is applyed to judgement about sinnes and offences we know what binding is as well as loosing but when it is thus stretched to universall judgement in the interpretation of Scripture defining points of faith dispensing with Lawes we cannot tell unlesse we thus inferre that as loosing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it if loosing be againe the power of dispensing with Lawes which binde men as in point of marriage or the like then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawfull as for Clergy to marry or what he has commanded as people to receive the Sacrament in both kindes And the Pope it seems by vertue of this promise or power of Keyes may thus loose and binde and not erre yet these are their chiefe places of Scripture Now let us come to their Reasons First is from Gods providence who was not ignorant how many difficulties and controversies would arise about the faith and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge Answ This is to measure the wisdome of God by the modell of our Reason but the same reason may also tell us it would have been more convenient for the Church to have had such an Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation than one for the whole Church which was to be spread over all the Earth yea reason may further tell us it had been suitable to his providence expresly to have told us who that Infallible Judge was and where we should finde him And it cannot be imagined in reason but he would have done it had he appointed any such for he was not ignorant that many the greatest controversies would be about this Judge He tells us plainly There must be Heresies and the end wherefore that they which are approved may be manifest 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withall this remedy of an Infallible Judge we must think it is that approved faith may be of more price and worth gained with more earnest enquirie and diligence in searching the Scripture using the like means so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulnesse all which would have faln and grown remisse in the hearts of men if to trust all their belief upon an Infallible Guide without any further enquitie CHAP. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it THe Second reason is from certainty of belief which they say the Protestants cannot have for want of such Infallibility but we are certain saith Bell in his Proposition of Faith above-mentioned § 27. that this or that is revealed in Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church Councel or Pope which cannot erre Now would I ask first whether they believe that Christ is the Son of God Saviour of the world that He suffered and now sits at the right hand of God or the like because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture or because they see it evidently there themselves If they say because the Church testifies it then it seems they cannot which is false or may not which is worse believe God immediately when he speaks as plain as the Church can If they say because they see it evidently there then have they two formall reasons of their belief One the immediate evidence of Scripture The other the Testimony of the Church And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture then so may we also And so we doe not excluding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture where it needs which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture and make it more evident to us Again I would ask how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture that the Church is Infallible because of the Testimony of the Church No that they cannot say here but must alledge for it plain Scripture apert as promissiones clear promises as Bellar called them and must allow men the use of their reason judgment upon the evidence of them Well if they may believe that great point of the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture why may not we believe other points so too or why doe they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground on which they themselves lay all their faith at once for they believe the Churches Infallibility revealed in Scripture because they see it as they say plainly promised there Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture can have certainty of belief why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence if they cannot have certainty in that particular then can they not have any certainty in any thing else which they believe upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church Onely this they get by it and must answer for it one day that believing all things else upon the supposed Infallibility of their Church they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture and to be the will of God which are not yea to believe contrary to that which is revealed as the half communion for the people Again they that understood and believed what the Apostles preached and wrote to them did it without the externall means of an Infallible Interpreter upon the evidence of what was spoken or written and therefore so may we Now to say They that spoke and wrote were Infallible and the other knew it to be so is no more than what we say Scripture is Infallible that speaks to us the same which they spoke and wrote and therefore we way as well understand and believe it upon the same evidence We doe not here as I insinuated before exclude the exterior helps means which God has appointed for interpreting and
saying pretending or thinking to be so then the consequence is good for Sectaries doe pretend they are convinced and many times verily think so but the assumption then is false for we did not upon such bare apprehension or deceiving perswasion forsake the Communion of that Church but upon a true and evident conviction of known Errours and Sins which we were bound to commit in that Communion demonstrable by Scripture and Antiquity Which conviction Sectaries have not nor doe they at all pretend to confirme what they say by the practice of Antiquity Make the Case like and it will follow alike in both If we had given them the like cause as the Church of Rome gave us they might also forsake our Communion If they had the like conviction as we had they might as justly doe the like But seeing the case is unlike both in regard of our giving them cause and of their apprehension or conviction it will not follow they can have just cause of Division or Revolt See of this more below Chap. 13. It is not then their saying or thinking that we imposed sinfull conditions of Communion and that they are convinced of it which will justifie them or prejudice us For some mens mistaking of Errour for Truth must not make other men give over to stand to truth and plead it against Errour or perswade them they are also mistaken and cannot know the Truth when they doe know it evidently Heretikes of old as * Vide cap. 23. prope finem appears by Saint Iren. Tertul. and August sheltered themselves against Scripture by plea of Traditions Now does the Church of Rome think it unreasonable to defend it self by unwritten Traditions because Heretikes pretended them And yet I hope its more possible for us to make appear the truth of what we say by that which is written in Scripture and Fathers than for the Church of Rome to make the truth of what she saies to appear by unwritten Traditions the truth of which Traditions it is not possible for her to make appear It is not therefore saying or thinking that must carry it on any side but the evidencing and proving of what is said That we undertake to doe from point to point as the clear demonstration that we had just cause and were truly convinced of it and had rebelled against Light and grievously sinned had we still continued in known Errour and wilfull Sin the inseparable condition of Roman Communion to them that have means to know the Errour and Sin But they object also That the way of our Reforming and Dividing from the Church of Rome and the plea we make for it leaves men to their own reason and judgement to make use of it against the Church and so opens a gap to Heresie and Schism Answer It is not any thing we have done or yet hold that gives them just cause to object this to us but the challenging of Infallibility to their Church necessitates them to lay such a charg upon all that will not blindly resign up reason judgement and faith to the dictates of their Church We will first speak of the use of Reason and Judgement permitted to them that can use it then of the using it against or dissenting from the Church CHAP. VIII Of the use of Reason and Judgement in private men REason and Understanding is that Light which he that lightens every man that comes into the World Ioh. 1.9 puts into the mind of man to see and judge thereby what to believe and what to doe Now though we leave not men wholly to their own Reason yet must we leave them the use of it so far as is necessary to the assent which Faith requires and we leave it them not in opposition to the publick Judgement of the Church but to the blind obedience of an implicite Faith that sees no other ground or motive of believing and practising than because the Church so commands If the Church of Rome impose the hard condition on them that come over to her as Nahash the Ammonite on them of Iabesh Gilead that would come out to him 1 Sa. 11.2 to thrust out their right Eye the Eye of their spiritual understanding by which they discern and judge of Spiritual things revealed of God 1 Cor. 2.13.15 and onely leave them the eye of common sense to discerne what it is the Church doth practise or what it defines without further enquiring about the will of God how consonant that practise or definition that worship or belief is to it If I say she can impose this hard condition we cannot but must say 1. That no man can believe any thing truly with such a free and full assent as faith requires nor doe any thing in worship or practise of life with that faith or due perswasion of the lawfulnesse of it which the Apostle requires Rom. 14. ult unlesse he be convinced of it in his judgement as in the same chap. v. 5. Let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind concluding by the due use of his reason that its Gods revealed will he should so doe and believe For the Apostle speaking that of perswasion in and about things indifferent shews it is much more necessary in matters of Faith and Worship Nor can this be eluded by saying It is sufficient for such a perswasion that a man knows the Church saith so thereupon concludes that God saith so for there is more in the Apostles saying The Spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2.15 For that judging is not a receiving of things propounded by the Church without examination but implies a discerning of them to be the things of God before he receives them for such by true faith and the last resolution or stay of Faith is not upon the Churches saying so 2. Gods people are not left to themselves to seeke out that revealed Will of God but he has appointed Guides and Pastors in his Church in every National Church to propound and demonstrate that Will of God out of his Word To this end were Pastors and Teachers given Eph. 4. that we should not be carried away with every wind of doctrine ver 14. These have publike judgement to determine and judge for others for they must give account for others but private Christians have their private judgement or judgement of Discretion for themselves onely which is in the discerning and receiving to themselves as the will of God what is delivered and propounded to them for they must answer also for themselves and live by their own faith which cannot be without allowing them due use of their reason and judgement to see the evidence of that to which they must assent Therefore we say also the Guides and Pastors of the Church doe guide and teach not Infallibly but Morally by way of doctrine and perswasion by manifestation of the Truth commending themselves to every mans conscience as Paul saith 2 Cor. 4.2 3. When that is done They doe
with them alwaies and simply necessary and that our Case and the Donatists is different as St. Cyprian's and their case was Now to clear these more fully We say first It was neither our intent when we reformed to divide from the Catholike Church or any part of it neither did we We onely sought to reforme our selves leaving them to themselves We had indeed to doe only with the Roman Church which being a particular Church as it may utterly faile without failing of the Catholike Church so may it surely be in such a measure corrupted that it deserves to be divided from Yet our aime and intent was only to leave the Errours and Superstitions we practised with her and so to leave her no farther than her Communion was mixed with those Superstitious practises i. e to leave her no farther than she had left her self as we can prove or receded from what she was for belief and practise in the more antient and purer Times Now here 's the usual mistake and upon the Romanists part the common prejudice against us that they still take the Roman Church and her Communion for the Catholike and what they meet with in the Fathers touching the Catholike Church to this or like purpose that Communion with it is necessary that there is no salvation out of it they apply to the Roman or touching Communion with the Roman Church or Bishop to the proving any man Catholike thereby They appropriate it to that Church as a special prerogative when as the Fathers did also prove the like by communion with other Churches and Bishops confessedly Catholike although not so frequently because Roman Church and Bishop of it was then of all other most eminent Upon this double misapplication those many Testimonies which Cardinal Perron in his Epistle and Answer has heaped up out of St. Augustine and others come to no purpose For to be Extra Ecelesiam Romanam is not presently to be Extra Catholicam For though it was a good argument of old when that Church was eminently and confessedly sound to conclude affirmatively as the Fathers often did such were good Catholiques because in Communinion with that Church yet now since Rome is notoriously corrupt and unsound the argument will not hold to conclude Affirmatively Much lesse will it hold Negatively to argue such are no Catholiques because not in Communion with Rome Nay when Rome of old was sound in Belief and Doctrine it did not alwaies conclude the Negative as will appear by the Instances below of the Asian and Afriean Churches out of Communion with the Roman much lesse can it conclude Negatively now CHAP. XVI The Greek Church a Church and part of the Catholick FUrthermore besides the Roman we acknowledge other Christian Churches parts of the Catholique and we say wee are not out of Communion with them as the Church of Rome is by an actuall declaring of Non-communion to each other For though wee agree not with those Churches in all doctrines and practises which is not De facto necessary to the holding of Communion 'twixt parts of the Catholick yet we holding them still parts of the Catholick Church and they us and not pronouncing Non-communion to each other we both remain in the Unity or Matrice as Cyprian phrases it of the Catholike Church Now as to our opinion of the Greek Church we conceive their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost to be from the Son but yeelding it to be by the Son to be onely a difference in form of speech not of any Heretical meaning as they are acquitted by some learned Romanists And for their opinion and judgement of us we say that Censure of Jeremias one of their Patriarchs which the Romanists object against us as condemning the Protestant Doctrine in many points is not found to be warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church and to it we may oppose the judgement of Cyril their late Patriarch who approves our Church and doctrine But they ask seeing we left the Roman why did we not joyne to the Greek or some other Church or part of the Catholick Resp We were joyned with them in the Catholick Church as said before but if by joyning our selves to some other Church they meane holding and practising as that Church doth we say againe as above such agreement between the parts of the Catholick is not necessary to Catholick Communion 2. We say it was not necessary for us First because we were a National Church and therefore not bound to joyn so as to put our selves under any particular Church of one denomination Private persons indeed are bound so to be joyned to one Church or other which are parts of the Catholick Secondly because our worke was Reformation and casting off the Romish Errours and wee saw no particular Church but needed Reformation very much and therefore we could not joyne to any so as to agree with them in all doctrines and practises These considerations shew the many Testimonies brought out of the Fathers by the Romanists for necessity of Communion come not home to our case For as they are abused when applyed to the Communion of the Roman Church as above noted so are they not altogether applicable to the Catholick Church now as it stands in a condition far different from what it was in St. Augustines time At the time of the Reformation it was found divided in two parts accusing each other of Errour and Schism It was our part then to consider what Errours we had received by communion with the Romish Church and finding them to be many and great it was not for us to make any other part of the Catholike Church a rule or pattern of Reformation but to look to Gods Word and the Primitive practise when the Catholike Church was in such an intire estate that the above mentioned Testimonies were truly appliable to her Which Church is by both sides confessed and acknowledged to have been so right and sound that none could have cause to leave the Communion of any part of her Which Church also must be acknowledged to be of more Authority than the present Romish or Greeke Church From that Word of God was our Rule from that Primitive Church was our pattern and by holding to that rule and pattern as neare as we could if we cease to believe and practise many things as the Church of Rome doth or not agree in all doctrines and practises with other parts of the Catholique Church we cannot be said for that to have no Communion with the Catholike Church CHAP. XVII Of agreement and external Communion twixt the parts of the Catholike Church BUt further to cleare this point of actual communion and agreement betweene the parts of the Catholique Church by some Instances In the points of keeping Easter and Rebaptization it is evident First that the Asian and Roman in the one and the African and Roman in the other did not agree for doctrine and practise Secondly that they could not
given us a promise but not cleare a promise of guiding into all truth infallibly so to them that received it then but not clear for infallibility to after Councels or Guides of the Church a promise indeed of assistance to them for all necessary Truth but yet conditionall upon their doing their duty in using the meanes which that all or the major part in every Council will do is not certaine His other clear promise is our Saviours praying for Peter Luk. 22. ver 32. Rogavi pro te nè deficiat fides tua This may seem to concerne the Pope or Church of Rome yet is there nothing in it of a cleare promise to them whether we consider the thing prayed for or the person The thing prayed for is the persevering or not failing of the saving faith by which Peter was rooted and built upon CHRIST which cannot agree to all the Bishops of Rome for they may want that Faith or faile in it as they acknowledge Bellarmine grants this perseverance was personall as to Peter but saith hee there is another thing promised which belongs to his Successors viz. That none in his Chair should teach against the Faith So lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. or that the Bishop of Rome docens è cathedra cannot erre So lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. But how is this a clear promise now or how can this be wrested out of that our Saviour prayed for to Peter by any force of reason For thus the one must follow on the other Peter had assurance to persevere in Faith therefore all his Successours Bishops of Rome have assurance infallibly to teach nothing against the Catholike Faith which is most incohaerent For if that which was directly prayed for Peters perseverance does not descend to his Successors how shall the consequent of it Nay how shall that which is altogether inconsequent to it therefore descend unto them For were it granted that they should persevere in saving-faith the thing assured to Peter yet would it by no meanes follow they could not erre No more than it is true of every regenerate man perservering that he is infallible but now it is granted they have no assurance of such perseverance in the faith yet must it follow they have assurance of teaching nothing against it Thus far then it is so clear a promise that nothing seems more unreasonable Againe if they would make it any way agree to the Bishops of Rome it must be thus Our Saviour prayed for Peter that his Faith should not faile though he denyed him thrice therefore Peters successors though they deny the Faith in mouth yet it shall not faile in heart as they say it was with Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arrians But then this is clean contrary to what they would have out of it which is an outward Professing or declaring of the Faith by definitive sentence whatever the perswasion of the heart be this they contend not for yet this is that which was promised to Peter this he had the other viz. outward profession he failed in So clear yet is this promise But now looke at the person were there any thing here prayed for which might fit the Infallibility which the Bishops of Rome would have yet what cleare consequence can make that belong to them which St. Peter had can they give us one place of Scripture to assure us infallibly that Peter was at Rome and governed that Church as the Bishop of it and dyed in that Sea Is it not admirable that this ground-work of all their faith should no where appeare in all Scripture The Ecclesiastical Writers indeed took him to be as Bishop in that Sea and so the Fathers generally speake of him But this amounts onely to a humane Testimony and besides they ascribe the foundation and Government of that Church to Saint Paul together with Peter and Saint Paul we finde in Scripture to have written to the Church of Rome to preach to them and dwell among them yet must the pretensions made from S. Peter be cleare notwithstanding Well were this cleare by Divine Testimony that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters peculiar successors yet still there is no ground for their beliefe of Infallibility unlesse they can shew it clearly that what belonged to Saint Peter as to this point is derived to all his successors and that the successors of other Apostles in the Churches they founded and govern'd must not enjoy what belonged to those Apostles So much of these two cleare promises of Bell. had he had clearer we should doubtlesse have heard of them One place there is which is often in their mouths and serves for all purposes for the Headship and universall Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Infallibility of Pope Councils and Church of Rome and that is Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock here the Church must be built upon Saint Peter that 's it they contend for Cardinal Perron is much upon it lib. 4. cap. 3. and though that which he would there work out of it is not expresly Infallibility but universall Jurisdiction or Headship yet because they both have the like foundation upon this place it will be worthy to observe how he raises his worke upon it by a witty indeed but mistaken phansie Thus it is The Fathers at first did for the most part speake of the Church here as built upon Saint Peter afterward they did generally interpret it of the Confession of Peter that the Church was built on that Now the Cardinall will have these interpretations not to exclude but inferre one the other thus The Church was built causally on the Confession of Peter formally on Peter himselfe or the Ministery of his person i. e. Peters Confession was the cause why our Saviour chose him to lay the Foundation of the Ministry of his Church upon him Now judge of the mistake in running upon Peters confessing instead of Peters confession i.e. the Faith which Peter confessed and uttered For Peters confession as the Card. takes it in the notion of a meritorious cause was a single and transient act of that Faith which was in Peter a Grace or Virtue it was a confessing but Peters Confession as the Fathers take it when they say the Church was built on it is understood materially for the thing or truth confessed by Peter viz. Christ the Son of God the Confession or Faith required of the Eunuch at his Baptisme Act. 9. That he thus mistakes it appears also by his illustrating of it by the saying of St. Hierome that Peter walked not upon the waters but Faith which saith the Cardinal is not to deny that Peter did formally in person walk but to shew the cause of his walking viz. Faith which he gave to the word of Christ where plainly Faith is taken for a Grace Virtue or Act of Peters Now if we say the Church is built upon Peters Faith will he say that Faith there is
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
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
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