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
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