in providing for that which seems to have been too long neglected a more regular Church-way of Communion and worship that which the Apostle calls for and mindes the scattered Hebrews of Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is Heb. 10. ver 25. as the manner of too many among us is who are either carelesse of meeting at all for divine worship or indifferent where or with whom they meet nothing scrupling that promiscuous Communion which is yet seen in too many places and should I confesse be provided against If any ask how how but by the power of the Keyes which the Sword of violence cannot cut in sunder nor the Church loose unlesse they that hold them cast them away The use of that power is to separate or take forth the pretious from the vile Jer. 15.19 the tender Sheep from the violent Goats the peaceable Christian from the factious Schismatick And he that is filthy let him be filthy still Revel 22. and he that will contemn let him mock on still but God is not mocked And were this done as it might be done according to the present distress of these Times there would be no occasion for the Adversaries to mock or for other to complain as the Prophet Isa in the behalf of Jerusalem ch 31.18 There is none to guide her of all the Sons whom she hath brought forth neither is there any that taketh her by the hand of all the Sons that she hath brought up But the Adversaries that have afflicted her and said to her Bow down that we may go over would for their mocking have cause to fear what the Lord threatens at the 23 ver I will put the cup of trembling into their hand And now Good Reader if thou beest or wouldst shew thy self a good Church-man that is a good Christian abhorring Idols and hating to commit Sacrilege desiring to keep thy self pure from Superstition in divine worship and from Faction and Schism in Church-Communion Beware then of false Teachers Beware of the Concision Phil. 3.2 both New and Old Suffer not thy self to be cut off from thy former Communion either by any new Sect or by the cunning of any Romish perswasion Let not these troublesome Times which are for thy tryall and manifesting of what is approved in thee be unto thee an occasion of falling God whom thou servest in the spirit is able to make thee stand To his grace I commend thee HEN FERNA Of the Division between the English Church and Romish upon the Reformation IT cannot be denied that every Christian is bound to learn and know upon the best Evidence he can what it is that God will have him believe to Salvation and how he will be worshipped by him To this he stands obliged both by the end of his hope Salvation if he will attain to that and by his Vow at his entrance into Christianity the promise he made to Believe and Doe all c. Now when differences are among Christians about Faith and Worship we are more concerned to use care and diligence in seeking after the Truth not to follow all Guides or take all on Trust but as S. Jude bids us Earnestly to contend for the Faith once delivered Jude ver 3. Many years have we contended with the Church of Rome about the Faith once delivered impleading her of innovating in Belief and Worship to the introducing of grosse Errors and Superstitions And still we have more cause to contend with them of that Church because more busie now in working upon the distempers of the Times and in drawing away some unwary and unstable Protestants by plausible pretences of seeming advantage to the Romish Church in comparison of the now disturbed condition of the Church of England Our work is therefore to strive with them not out of the spirit of contention to the multiplying of Controversies or enlarging the Rout which God knows is too wide already but only to the necessary defence of our selves our Faith and Worship of which we are alwaies ready to give an account And as to the charging of them however they deal with us we are willing to excuse in them what is excusable Yet so as to make appear what is deceitfull in their general plausible pretences and what is hurtful or destructive to the Catholick Faith in their particular Doctrines This is certain and not to be denied that a Doctrine of Faith was delivered the true Profession of which makes or constitutes a Church also that there is and will be to the Worlds End must not be taken as the Romanists doe as if one and the same Church of one denomination as Roman or Ephesian or English should doe it or as if those Pastors which are chief in place should doe it but that it shall be done in some part or other of the Catholick Church and by such of the Pastors in the Catholick Church as it pleases God to use for the preservation of his Truth a Church in which and by which as the Pillar of Truth that doctrine shall be preserved and upheld and in that Church a succession of Pastors and Teachers to deliver down that Doctrine of Faith once delivered by our Lord and his Apostles The Romanist when he is to contend for his faith is not willing to come to the Trial of particular Doctrines but rather staies in the Generalls of a Church a visible succession and the like seeking by these which make a plausible noise to the Unwarie to prove the continuation of the Doctrine rather than to defend his Church by the Doctrine she delivers and to make a clamour of Division and Schisme odious Names rather than to examine upon due consideration of that purity of Faith and Worship which every Church ought to hold where the cause is and whose the fault that we now stand divided Wee begin with the Generalls Where upon the seeming advantage of the former pretences they charge us with setting up a New Church when we reformed and as consequent to that with Schisme or breach of Communion We deny that we set up a New Church or made a Schisme or that we stand guilty of this breach of Communion CHAP. I. We set not up a new Church but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation IN order to the first they usually put the question Where was your Church before Luther A Question that carries a charge very plausible to the unlearned who cannot distinguish between the face and the body or rather soul of a Church between that which makes a Church and that which makes it such a Church We answer therefore our Church was there where now it is and where it alwaies was the same Christian Church as before the Reformation having lost nothing that made it so But say they The Church in England before the Reformation was their Church holding and practising what they did Be it so that the Church of England generally
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
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
clearing the Scriptures such as definitions of Councels the judgment and practice of Primitive Ages the skill and labour of the present Guides of the Church which make for the clearing and evidencing of that which is contained in Scripture but upon the evidence of that or manifestation of the truth out of that is the stay or last resolution of our Faith Waldensis a learned writer in the Church of Rome many years agoe with divers others doe well apply that of the Samaritans to the Wowan Now we believe for we have heard him our selves Joh. 4.42 unto this last resolution of Faith beginning in the Testimony of the Church as the first motive but ending and staying upon Scripture As they were first moved and brought to Christ upon the Womans saying but believed indeed when they heard him themselves So the saying and judgment of the Church at our first coming and after is a great motive and light to us but then indeed we believe when we hear him our selves when we hear him speak thus and thus to us in Scripture Now he that upon carefull and impartiall using the means God has appointed does search for the Truth shall finde what he seeks or not erre inpardonably whereas the Romanist receiving all upon a supposed infallible Testimony seeks no further comes not to audivimus ipsi we have heard him our selves blindly casts his faith upon a false ground and so is led to believe as I said many things as revealed of God which are not and sometimes the contrary to what is revealed Their third Reason is from pretence of Unity which they say is preserved amongst them by this means but lost among the Protestants for want of it and they instance in the breaches and confusions of these our Times Answ We had the same means for Unity which the Antient Church had as was said above ch 13. and so long as we could freely use them having the secular power to friend heresie and schisme was prevented and Unity preserved but when the sword of violence prevailed no marvail if Licentiousnesse grew bold and cast off the cords of obedience Ecclesiastical as well as Civil And we see this pretended Infallibility could not keep Burbon and his Army in order but that they sacked Rome made the Pope their prisoner and forced him to unworthy conditions And we read that Hereticks of old as Arrians and others when they had the Emperours favour bore down all before them so that this means of Infallibility either could not keep them from breaking out and prevailing or else which indeed is the truth there was no such belief of an Infallibility in the Church of Rome in those better Ages nor was it ever made use of or alledged against Hereticks to repress them The judgment indeed of the Bishops of Rome was often alledged as was also the judgment of other Churches and famous Bishops but this without implying an Infallibity in judging Nay this pretence of Infallibility is so farre from being cause of Unity in the Catholick Church that it has been the chief cause of division and of losing more than they retain by it The Greek Church stands dis-joyned from the Roman because of her challenging Universal subjection and Infallibility and therefore no more to be dealt with And this has lost all those that in these later Ages have been divided from the Communion of the Roman Church because the pretense of Infallibility made her incorrigible and cut off all hopes of her amending the errors they complained of and desired to have reformed So that let them cast up what they have lost and they will have no cause to boast of what they hold by it Nay did the Romanists truly confesse what belief they have of this Infallible Judge it would in all probability be found that not the faith of such Infallibility but the fear of Inquisition fire and faggot keeps those they have in obedience at least external But some of them have said This Rule or way if followed does produce Unity but the Protestants Rule of belief is not apt to doe it but rather begets division Answ It is true that their Infallibility though not Real but pretended where it is followed i. e. indeed believed will produce according to the strength of erroncous perswasions an answerable effect in those that are drawn to believe it for such must needs submit to all things else But being onely pretended not reall it cannot be apt to produce the effect or hold men to them but as we said has lost many Our Rule of believing upon evidence of Scripture gained by due use of the means appointed thereunto as above mentioned in this Chap. if conscionably followed will produce the effect of Unity and peaceable submission and is more apt to do it For therfore was Scripture given that there might be one Faith and certainly not given with such obscurity as to make men quarrel but with such evidence as men not wanting to themselves may therby come to know that one faith without such a visible Infallible Judge And when any will deceive themselves and prove obstinate the Church proceeds to restrain them by Ecclesiastical censure even to excommunication for preserving Unity in the rest And other means the Antient Church had not nor can the Roman goe farther in the way of the Church for as for fire and faggot it was the way of the Adversaries of the Churcith The Testimonies they cite out of Fathers are all not concluding They are such as send Hereticks to the Church in general as S. Augustine doth the Donatists often but this does not argue that we shall finde any where in the Church a Visible Infallible Guide Otherwise we say in every Church there are Guides and Pastors of publik judgment to whom inferiours must submit and the consent of the Catholick Church is above that Or else they are such Testimonies as report the judgment of the Bishop of Rome given in such or such causes and required by other Bishops or Churches But this comes not home neither For we finde the judgment of other Bishops and learned Fathers alledged and required and that by Popes themselves So was Athaâ—asius his judgment desired by Liberius and Hieromes often by Pope Damasus and that in matter of doctrinal points and with a great deal of submission to their judgment as to be guided by it as appears in Pope Liberius Letter to Athanasius and Damasus to Hierome One place of Irenaeus is much cited by them Ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem c. lib. 3. cap. 2. which â—ndeed makes against them For this â—mplies neither Universal jurisdiction nor Infallibility in the Romish Church Neither did Irenaeus mean so much as the words by reason of the ill Latine Translation may seem to imply For the Greek had it as I have met with it and as the whole Context avouches it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is ill translated potentiorem principalitatem but rather
of the persons interessed such we alledge As for example against those many Eulogies and high expressions which the Father 's used to the magnifying of the Church of Rome and S. Peters Chair abused now to prove that this Infallibility Vniversal Jurisdiction and exorbitant power challenged by the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by Antiquity we bring deeds and those upon contestation as the standing out of Polycrates and all the Asian Bishops against the sentence of Pope Victor also in the contestation between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen it is easily seen that Cyprian by all those speeches he had used to the magnifying of the Roman See and many they alledge out of him meant nothing lesse than to ascribe to that See what of late Ages they have challenged So in the contestation between the Roman See and the African Bishops among whom S. Augustine was one and one that used to speak sometimes very high of the Roman Church in the business of Appeals we see their judgement by their deeds We see also by this how that which is spoken by the Fathers may prove but uncertainly and unwarily spoken when it comes to the Trial and farre short of that the Church of Rome would have us believe they meant For it cannot be denied but the Fathers often speak with a Latitude and apply things to the present advantage As when they had to doe with Heresies newly sprung up they usually opposed the eminency of the Church of Rome as then indeed it was eminent both for succession and doctrine setting it out with glorious Titles or when the Fastern Bishops needed relief for the West enjoyed peace for the most part of the four first Centuries when the East was much troubled and applied themselves to Rome for help as Athanasius Chrysostome and others that their cause might be judged in the West by the Pope and his Councel when they could have no justice in the East no mervail if by such applications the Church and Bishop of Rome gained many high Titles and acknowledgments from such distressed persons and their Wel-wishers But when it came to a contestation with Rome it self as in the cases above-mentioned wherein Cyprian Augustine and others were engaged at several times it is plainly seen that those Testimonies which Cyprian Augustine and others had given in so high a strain meant not what they seemed at first sight to attest or what the Cardinal and other Romish writers bring them for Now they must acknowledge this used sometimes by the Fathers to apply their speech to the present advantage not indeed contradicting what they meant but moderating what before they spake more unwarily for the Cardinal observes the like of them l. 4. c. 3. That before the Arrians arose the Interpretation of that place of the Rock Mat. 16. run upon the person of Peter but afterwards the Fathers finding the advantage of the place against the Arrians interpreted it of the Confession which Peter made that Christ was the Son of the living God to this purpose he there And it comes all to this The Fathers before spake unwarily but afterward spake as they saw they had reason Yet thus it fared in this great point of Romes greatness for which they pretend the Fathers Therefore to conclude the second point the Romanists have the shadow the shell the name the phrase many times but we carry the substance shew the thing the sense the judgement the deeds of Antiquity 3. Sometimes we meet with beginnings of opinions and practises in the compasse of the first four Ages which the Church of Rome did after form into a fixt belief and practice but it was not so then Then indeed the seeds were scattered out of the which by degrees sprang some of this forbidden fruit which the Roman Church now holds forth As for Example The opinion of a purging fire was then but in the wandring conceits of some few as above insinuated in this Chap. and which is to be further noted those few into whose conceits it first entred were of the Greek Fathers yet so little did it prevail in that Church that to this day it is not improved into a doctrine or belief of the Church among the Greeks Which shews it rested but in the conceit of some particular men So for the point of Invocation we finde beginning given to that practice in the fourth Century by Rhetorical Apostrophe's used in their Orations for the Dead by the excesse of devotion and honour that some were carried with towards the blessed Martyrs breaking out sometimes into compellations of them and uttering their desires to them as if they had been present Here we have a private practice begun by some few not grounded upon any doctrine of the Church And long time after it was ere it crept into the Letanies or publick offices of the Church So in the point of the half-Communion we meet with some private practice some receiving the bread only in a case of necessity but publickly it was ever administred in both kindes and also privately where and when it could And many express declarations we meet with against receiving it in one kinde and when it was received so it was held an imperfect and not full Communion This is most plain in Antiquity for above 1000 years And now whoever will examine well the flourish of Card Perroun in his first book cap. 18. where running through all the points of Romish faith and practice he affirms the antient Church to have held and practised so will no question finde that what is there alledged falls short of proving the doctrine or practise of the ancient Church and that the Card. often gives us the Name without the Thing or the Phrase without the Romish sense or some private opinion for the doctrine of the Church or some beginning practise for an established one or a private practice for the practice of the Church Besides there is no consent of Fathers given in that Chapter upon any point CHAP. XXXI Card Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholick according to Antiquity ANd here it will not be amisse to take a view of two of his Rules or Observations which in his Letter to Mr. Casaubon he gives us to shew what is required to make a man or Church Catholick now according to the doctrines and practises of the antient Church By which I cannot see how himself or his Church can stand or challenge the name of Cathelick He there saith in his second observation That any should passe for Catholick it is needful they be conformable to the integrity of the belief of the Fathers i.e. to believe all things they believed according to that degree they believed them in viz to believe as necessary to salvation the things they believed to be so and as profitable to salvation the things they believed to be so and as not repugnant to salvation what they held so This is one of his Rules Here are strict
would make of our disturbed condition to the abusing of unwary Protestants into a perswasion that we have no Government no Communion no Church Something is said to it in the Body of this Treatise upon the point of Schisme and Division But to give the Reader farther satisfaction it must be considered First It is no new thing to see a Church under the power of the Sword oppressed by the hand of violence persecuted scattered and so deprived of the peace order and comlinesse it had Nor ought any Man to think that he is not therefore in the Bosome of the Church because he cannot lie in it quietly and at ease as formerly or that it is best for him to stay no longer in the Ship as they thought Act. 27.30 31. because it is tossed to and fro with a heavy and tedious storm The Romanist that judges much of things spiritual by the eye of sense cannot well like of Christian worship but when it is pompous and highly Ceremonious nor of a Christian Church unlesse it be gloriously conspicuous for outward splendour and undisturbed order But then is Truth of most price when it is bought at a dear rate and not sold upon any terms when it is sought out with great difficulty and held upon as great disadvantages and then is Faith most pretious when it is most tried and stands under the greatest prejudious Secondly Consider what has hapned to us is faln upon us for Trial and Humiliation to the end that they which are approved might be made manifest among us 1 Cor. 11.19 for the Truth they hold to and the Faith they professe and that All might be humbled and corrected the Sons of Levi especially refined and purified Mal. 3.3 Our troubled condition therefore does not justifie the Church of Rome nor ought to confirm any in the errour of that perswasion but it condemns onely our iniquities in being unanswerable to that Pea e and Truth we enjoyed and calls for not a forsaking of that way of Worship and Religion we were in but of those sinnes by which wee provoked this wrath Thirdly Consider what has hapned to us has to the same end and purpose often befaln the Church of God without a dissolution of it If the Lord has now covered this Church with a cloud in his anger it is but what he did to Zion Lam 2.1 If in the indignation of his wrath he has despised both the King and the Priest it is that which Jeremiah lamented in the sad condition of Jerusalem Lam. 2.9 If destroyed his places of Assembly as there complained of it is not the destruction of a Church but the want of that freedome it had of more publick Worship and Communion Looke we into the Christian Church how it was trained up for some hundreds of yeares in such a low and distressed condition under perilous and dissicult times for the most part which seldome afforded them a secure liberty of due and orderly assembling together We see the Church at first falling under persecutions and all of them scattered abroad but some few that held together privately at Jerusalem Act. 8.1 and cap. 11.19 and in the next Chap. we see their meetings were very close and secret cap. 12.12 13. And so was it often with the Church during the persecutions of the first 300 years often put to have their meetings before day and in caves or secret places yet so they maintained the Communion and being of the Church Why then should any think it strange to see the like disturbance of peace and order happen to a National Church But to come yet nearer our Case When the Church under the violence of Arrian Emperours was persecuted scattered Bishops driven from their Sees and all good Christian people that would not communicate with Heresie and Schism driven from the publick places of Worship put to meet as they could and where they could yet so they continued the Cōmunion of the Church Now during those perilous times there was nothing done in the Way of the Church for Worship or Discipline but t is or may be done in this Church And if any can say t is not so done he does but speak the necessity of Times or at worst but the fault failings of men not the want of any thing necessary in the Constitution of this Church For notwithstanding the attempts of violence there is the same Doctrine and power of Discipline remaining the same Liturgie and form of worship the same Government by Bishops and other inferiour Pastors and were there the same Zeal as was in the Christians of the Antient Church under the Heathen or Arrian violence there would be no cause of complaint no occasion of reproach as there is now with some by reason of Communion and Discipline not yet so regularly provided for in the present disturbed condition of this Church Indeed this may be said towards an excuse that such has been the Conjuncture of Affairs for these last years such the uncertainty of Occurrences in relation to Church and State that it made the Times very difficult for those that had lawfull power to know or resolve how to use it lawfully and to the best advantage The Windes in this storm have blown so contrary and from such several quarters and the Waves which beat upon the Ship have been so broken and uncertain that it was hard for those that were at the Helm to stear or bear up against them And if our Pilots tired out with the storm did think it best as they did Act. 27.25 to let the Ship drive a while out of hope the Winde would cease of it self or some other more favourable blast arise from some other quarter This indeed might be prudence for the then pressing Exigency yet must not they or any else because the storm lies still upon us think as they did Act. 27.30 of flying out of the Ship But rather take courage after long abstinence and provide for safety as well as the difficulty and distresse of the Times will permit There laid a heavy storm upon the Church when it was under the Heathen or Arrian violence yet if compared with the condition of our Times it will appear to have been in better capacity of holding the Communion more regular and distinct by reason the opposition was more regular certain and apparent The Civil power was the same no alteration of State to trouble them but only the will of the Prince changed and for the time bent against them the businesse also of Religion was clear and easie to resolve for whether we consider the Heathen Superstition or the Arrian Heresie both so apparent that the temptations of compliance were lesse forcible and so the means of holding Christians together in a distinct Communion more ready and easie The condition of our Times hath indeed been more difficult which though it might perswade forbearance a while and excuse it yet now it calls for the more courage and zeal
preservation of Truth and purity in doctrine in such a degree was necessary for the continuance and propagation of the Church Else what could Eliah have said if he had been challenged to shew Professors at that time within the Kingdome of Israel or after if they that held the true worship in King Ahaz his time had been challenged to shew them in the Church of Israel or Judah for as to his point of preservation of necessary Truth and due worship there is no difference betwixt Jewish and Christian Church the continuance of Gods Church being as necessary before Christ as after But we may see how the Romanists are fain to plead for their Faith and Religion by the uncertain Records of History rather than by the known and confessed Writings of the Prophets and Apostles yea to hang all upon a negative Argument from the Records of History rather than to rest upon that which is positively affirmed in Scripture For thus runs their Argument We doe not see this or that doctrine professed in all Ages therefore it cannot be Apostolical whereas it is farre more safe to argue This Doctrine or Religion we see is Apostolical plainly delivered in Scripture therefore it was professed in all Ages professed I say though not alwaies so numerously and openly as they expect nor so fully as is by Protestants in all points asserted yet at least so professed as was necessary to the preservation of saving Tr 〈…〉 and continuance of the Church Their negative Argument is farre more forcible against themselves their Doctrines being Affirmatives and they bound to shew them professed in all Ages Whereas our difference from them being in the Negative of what they erroneously affirm must needs suppose the Errors in being before there could be any Protestors against them and render it a vain challenge to shew Protestants as Protestants in all Ages when as many Ages passed before the Errors got head against which they protested And for those Ages in which the Errors prevailed what if Histories have not recorded what if Historians that wrote then did not so much as know those who were free from such Errors which is very possible when Eliah knew not of any in his time and yet there were 7000 what then becomes of their Faith that make this their chief plea against Protestants But if by Professors in all Ages they mean such as dissented complained of the prevailing Errors though it be impossible there should be such in all Ages simply because those errors were not at all for many Ages yet such are found as we said in all Ages after the Error appeared and how many more suppose we to have been which are not recorded or to have written against arising Errors in that Church whose Writings are not come down to us The Church of England when it pleased God more openly to discover the Errors and to touch the spirits and consciences of Men did accordingly cast them off only the Church of Rome would neither acknowledge them to be such nor amend any thing but having for many Ages challenged Universall Jurisdiction over all other Churches and prided her self as the only Catholick Church and Infallible Guide she did withall render her self altogether incorrigible without hope of reformation and amendment CHAP. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials SOme Exceptions they make against this that hath been said 1. From the expression used by some Protestants that we and the Church of Rome differ in Essentials thence I have heard some of them make this fallacious argument If differ in Essentials then have the Protestants made a new Church essentially differing from that which was Answ The fallacy is in the word Essentials which is taken either properly for Doctrines of Faith belonging to the constitution of the Essence or beeing of a Church or improperly for such as endanger it working to the dissolution of it tending to the corruption destruction of the Essence and beeing of a Church In this latter sense the Doctrines of Error and Superstition wherein they differ from us are termed Essentials being no light matters as those of Rites and Ceremony but such as concern the Essence or being of a Church not constitutivè indeed and in the affirmative i. e. not such as are to be held and asserted by every Church but destructivè rather and in the negative that is such as are to be denied and avoided by every Church as it tenders its own beeing and preservation Even as a man that is in company with infected persons is concerned as he tenders his life to avoid the contagion or to free himself from it if tainted So still the difference of this Church from what it was under the Papacy is as of the same body once infected now sound once diseased now recovered The Church of the Galatians was farre gone in the way of the Mosaical Law to the endangering of the Gospel insomuch that Saint Paul saith in a manner they were removed to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and that he was afraid of them cap. 4.11 The Churches of Pergamus and Thyatiâ—a were so far corrupted that Satan is said to have his seat there Rev. 2.13 and those that taught the doctrine of Balaam and those that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans v. 14 15. And Jezabel was suffered to teach in Thyatira and to seduce the servants of God ver 20. Now when these Churches were reformed the seducing Teachers and false doctrines cast out were they New Churches set up or could those that still adhered to the Law or new Gospel in Galatia or to the false doctrines in Pergamus and Thyatira challenge the reformed party of Novelty so was it with this Church before and after the Reformation having parted with nothing that belonged to the beeing of a Church or to the Faith once delivered but onely cast out those false doctrines that had so generally prevailed in it while it was in communion with the Roman Church 2. They object We cast not off Errors or Superstitions but the true Catholick Faith Answ Indeed it concerns them to make the World believe if they can that their New Faith was alwaies Catholick and that we for denying it are Hereticks But the clearing of this belongs to the examination of the particular doctrines CHAP. IV. Particular Churches may reform Especially when a General Councel cannot be expected 3. THey ask what Authority we had to reform the Church and tell us we should have expected the determination of a General Councel and not been Judges in our own Cause Ans We took not upon us to reform the Church but had a necessity and duty upon us to reform our selves Neither did we undertake to impose upon other Churches but purge our own And as we were a party in the cause so was the Pope and his faction and as we would not have been Judges in this cause could we had a competent Judge so was not he with his faction fit
not leave men to themselves but as Governours of the Church doe by power of the Keyes judge and bind the Gainsayers and cast the Refractory out of their Communion So then the Guides of the Church have the power of Publike Judgement to judge and define for others in matters of faith and worship and power of Iurisdiction to judge censure and cast out the disobedient and to private men is lest onely the Iudgement of discretion without which they cannot come to beleeve or serve God as they ought with reasonable service Rom. 12.1 CHAP. IX Of dissenting from the publike Judgement NOw for the using their reason and judgement against the Church or their dissenting from the definitions and practise of it we give no encouragement to that We 1. teach all Inferiours whether People or Priests when they finde cause of doubt or question against such definitions or practise to mistrust their owne reason and rather relye upon the publick Judgment than their own in every doubtfull case 2. That they which doubt still seek refolution and satisfaction from their Superiours modestly propounding their doubts and reasons and conscionably using all means to rectifie their judgment and satisfie their Conscience 3. If they cannot find satisfaction so as inwardly to acquiesce yet to yeeld external obedience peaceable subjection according as the condition of the matter questioned will bear In a word we require all that submission of judgement and outward compliance that may be due to an Authority not infallible yet guiding others by an infallible Rule and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly as being answerable for their Soules 4. We tell them the danger of gainsaying that they are to answer it to God and his Church That if they cannot approve the reason of their dissenting to the judgement of the Church they must expect to undergoe the Censures of it For the Church standing so obliged to answer for Souls and to preserve Peace and Unity and having therefore the advantage of Authority and publick judgement above all private persons it is also most reasonable it should have the advantage in the contestation with private persons and in the issue of such a businesse to proceed according to its own judgement and use the power it has against those that stand out And then is there a further answering it to God Thus it stands between every Particular Church and the Members of it betweene Superiours and Inferiours in it and in some proportion between every particular or National Church and the Catholick Church in receiving and holding the Definitions of Generall Councils and the Generall Practise of the Church Tough here a Nationall Church hath the advantage above private persons in the point of Judgement and dissenting Yet where it does dissent from other Churches generally erring it arises first from the use of reason and judgement in private persons discovering the errours for some in all Reformations must speak first and propounding them which being approved by the Judgement of that Church the Reformation follows as an Act of publick Judgement or as an Act of a National Church which though inferiour to the Catholick yet hath it judgement within it selfe for the receiving and holding the Definitions and Practises of the Church-Generall and may have possibly just cause of dissenting and reforming and can doe it regularly according to the way of the Church by Provinciall Synods which private persons dissenting from her cannot doe And this is considerable in the English Reformation which as it was upon publick Judgement of a Nationall Church in Provinciall Synods so will it not prove a dissenting from the Catholike Church or definit ons of true Generall Councils but of that more below when we come to triall by Antiquity And of this respect or submission due from every Particular Church to the General as it concernes the Act of this Nationall Church in the Reformation more largely in the first Chapter of my later Book For the present we are to speak of the possibility of dissent of Inferiours from Superiours and the use of reason and judgement necessary to it CHAP. X. Possibility of just dissenting THe submission and obedience spoken of as due to Superiours and their Judgement ought to take place in all cases where there is not something clearly against them that confessedly excels the Authority and Judgement of the present Governours as evidence of Scripture demonstration of reason and a conformable consent of Primitive Times the pure Ages of the Church Now that such a case or such a cause of using private judgement even to a dissenting from the publike may happen Reason and Experience tells us Because it is possible that such as have chief place in the publike Judgement National or General may neglect their duty at least the greater number of them to the overbearing of the lesse and through prejudice of Faction or other wordly respects may faile in determining and propounding the Truth For the promise of guiding them is conditional upon performing duty and that is not alwaies certaine in the greater part to the imposing of false Belief and false Worship So that it comes to be Error manifestus appearing so to be both by the Word of God and the conformable beliefe and practise of the firster Ages of the Church Here is place for Reason and Judgement of Inferiours to dissent upon such Evidence after modest proposall and demonstration of the Errour And to this in part accords the concession of Bell. lib. 2. de Concil Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours have lawfully proceeded nisi manifestissimè constet intolerabilem errorem committi Now when I speak of private Judgement dissenting from the publick Judgement or generall practises of the Church and of the preservation of Truth and the Faith thereby I doe not speak of the Reason or Judgement of the People or Laity divided from all their Guides and Pastors but I include these who of what ranke soever dissenting from the publick either definition or practise are as men of private judgement in such a case These I say I alwayes include in such a just dissenting or falling off from any erroneous belief or practise prevailing in the Church For it cannot be imagined that God who promised to be with them and guide them should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church and preserve it by the Judgement and Conscience of Lay people but that still however they which have chiefe place in the Church prove corrupt some Guides and Pastors though of lesse number and place shall be they that shall detect the prevailing Errours and preserve the Truth and this by due use of Reason and private Judgement Experience also tels us what they have proved that have been in chiefe place that have sate in Moses Chair and in St. Peters how many Hereticks at severall times among the Popes how a whole succession of Monsters through the tenth Age of which Bellarmine
circumstantials and matters enjoyned as of Order and to have as apparent evidence for that conviction as Gods Word gives them for obedience to their lawfull Governours 3. Their pretending to be convinced in their judgement hinders not the Church of which they were members to use her own judgement and accordingly to proceed by censure and excommunication as iâ— said above cap. 9. And hereby was this Church held together in Unity no Sect or Heresie breaking forth which was not presently crushed till force of Arms bore down the free use of Ecclesiastick Authority and emboldened men to contemn it If therefore Sectaries shall say to us you allow us to use our Reason and Judgment in what you teach us True say we for your own satisfaction but not to abuse it against the Church But we doe not say they abuse it but have consulted our Guides and used all meanes we can for satisfaction We tell them you must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against publick Authority of the Church having modestly propounded it attend the judgement thereof to which if you cannot assent inwardly yet yeild an exâ—erhal peaceable subjection so far as the matter questioned is capable of it which I adde because the matter questioned may be not so much in belief and opinion as in worship and external practise For that must necessarily discover it self and if it be such in any Church that a man cannot in conscience comply with and therefore cannot yeild external subjection so far as to doe or perform the same worship or practice yet ought he still to yeild a peaceable subjection in not resisting or reviling but quietly suffering if need be for the same under Authority But you that dissent from the Church of England have no such cause for any thing belonging to the substance of Worship And as for Circumstantials and matters of Order ye ought to shew as direct Scripture against the particulars as that which commands you to obey them which are over you And if your mis-informed conscience bade you forbear to submit to the doing of things enjoyned yet should you have had so much conscience of the expresse precept commanding obedience to Superiours as to forbear resistance and force and to have rather quietly and peaceably suffered under the censures of the Church and power of Authority set over you and you cannot but think it reasonable that the Church which is entrusted with others as well as you and hath the advantage of Authority and publick judgement should upon the not-appearing of your pretended evidence maintaine her Judgement and Authority and proceed against you as the preservation of Peace and Unity requires And thinke not because you are allowed to use your Reason and Understanding in order to your beleeving and reasonable serving of God you are therefore allowed to use force in order to the maintaining of your dissent from and disobedience to Authority For that God whose Truth and Service ye so much pretend is the God of Order and Peace 1 Cor. 14.33 not the Author of Confusion such as your violence has wrought in this Church and Land No other meanes or remedy has the Church to preserve Unity than by demonstrating the Truth to every mans conscience and censuring or casting out the Refractory Nor other feare can she cast upon her children to keep them in obedience than the losse of her Communion and their Answering it to God Nor was there any other Remedy in the Antient Church while destitute of help from the Secular power I meane no other Remedy proper to the society of the Church to keep men in her Communion CHAP. XIV Their vain pretence of Infallibility HEre the Romanists lay hold on a seeming advantage by pretence of an Infallible guidance in their Church telling their Proselytes that the Protestants acknowledge their Church fallible in her Proposals and therefore must leave men to their own reason and judgement but our Church is infallible in her Definitions How we Protestants leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement rather than leave them to their Reason Judgement has been shewn already and to the Romish pretence of Infallible guidance we say still could it be made good there would be no more to doe but every man upon understanding the terms and sense of her Definitions to submit his Reason and Judgement without farther enquiry how consonant they are to Gods revealed will and what warrant he has from thence to assent and believe them But here 's the weaknesse and vanity of that pretence This Infallibility which is pretended as the ground of all their belief has no ground it selfe to be believed * See below Chap. 27. c. as we shew by many most evident arguments and that which is alledged to take away mens Reason and Judgement must allow every man his Reason and Judgment in the examining of what is brought to prove it as was shewn above Chap. 11. c. Whereupon it will be harder to make men believe that pretence of Infallibility than to believe the proposals of Truth from Guides that pretend not to it but onely to the demonstration of that Truth by an Infallible Rule Hence it is easie to see which is more reasonable and likely to keep men in obedience to the Church Open and plaine dealing with them in the businesse of their salvation or false pretences The demonstration of Truth to every mans conscience or the Imperious dominion over other mens faith and consciences under pretence of Infallibility We say to men If you will be with us you shall see what you doe we require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods will for you to believe and doe yet know your salvation is concerned in such obedience and be it at your utmost peril to gainsay The Church of Rome saith to men If you will come to me you must put out your Eyes resign up your Reason and Understanding and with implicite Faith give absolute submission and obedience to my Definitions CHAP. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholike ANother of their maine Objections upon our division from them is That whatever the Doctrine or Faith be which we retained we divided from the whole Catholike Church holding Communion with no part of it To the same purpose is that which Cardinal Perron in his Letter to M. Casaubon and in his first book against the Kings Letter alledgeth That to be Catholike and avoid the note of Schism is not sufficient to hold the same Faith with the Catholike Church for so did the Donatists but to hold Communion also with it which the Donatists not doing were Schismaticks And in like manner he would conclude us to be Our Answer in generall is briefly this That we did not divide from the Catholike Church and that to a Communion with it is not required a full agreement in belief and practise with other parts of it No nor an actual Communion
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
communicate one with the other not onely in the keeping Easter or in the very practise of Rebaptization but those that held Rebaptization necessary could not at all communicate with any of those members of the Catholike Church which had been received from heresie without being baptized again Thirdly that upon the heat of the Romish Bishops Victor and Stephen in these two businesses it came to an actuall denying of Communion with the Asian and African Churches What Cardinall Perron concludes upon those Churches so standing out as to the point of Schism he has not expresly declared notwithstanding he treates of both their oppositions against the Bishops of Rome then being lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. Hee seemes indeed to leave the Asians under Schisme but that is to take the Crown of Martyrdome from many of those godly Asian Bishops And we read that as Irenaeus and others reproved Victors Excommunicating of them so they held them not cut off from the Catholick Church and professed they would not deny to communicate with them as Eusebius witnesseth Lib. 5. Hist Eccles After-ages also have excused them And the like charity if the Romanists had it for us might excuse us or rather commend what we have done CHAP. XVIII The want of that does not alwaies make guilty of Schism YEt hence appears that which the Cardinal often presseth that all the Members of the Catholike Church must communicate one with another is onely true of duty so they ought to doe and keep themselves not of fact or under necessity of being guilty of Schisme or cut off from the Communion of the Catholike Church For we see that neither want of agreement in all doctrines and practises does it nor yet all want of actuall or external Communion does it as when Communion is forborn or denyed by one Church to another without uncharitable denying of one the other to be parts of the Catholike And the Testimonies of Fathers speaking of Communion upon occasion of the case between the Donatists and the Catholike Church are not to be extended to all actual Non-communion which often happened between eminent persons denying it to each other and between several Churches doing the like yet both remaining in the Catholike To these two Instances out of History let me adde two other upon supposall The errour in the beliefe and practise of Communicating Infants prevailed in the Catholike Church generally and for many Ages and was reformed without a General Council It must be supposed some one National Church did reforme it self in that belief and practise and it must be acknowledged justly done for the whole Catholike Church did accordingly reforme Now suppose it had not but still persisted in that beliefe and practise that National Church which first reformed must either have returned to the errour it had justly left or stood divided in Communion to the rest of the Catholike Church at least from those parts of the Catholike Church that held Infant communion necessary upon the like place of Scripture Joh. 6.53 answerable as they thought to that other Joh. 3 3 concerning Baptism which persisting in the belief that one Sacrament was necessary to children as well as the other could not have admitted those that reformed as good Christians no more than those that should have deâ—yed Baptism to their children Now there did not follow a division because the rest of the Church followed in the Reformation But suppose they had not I would then learn of the Cardinal whether he would have accounted that Nationall Church guilty of Schisme oâ— of the division of Commuon which had followed upon their doing that which they did justly through the default of other Churches in not doing that which they saw good cause to doe He that will apply this to the Reformation of this National Church and the default of the Roman Church in not doing the like will see that want of external Communion does not alwaies cut off from the Catholike Church and will see cause also of excusing us My second Instance upon supposall is from that which was intended in France The League had divided the Roman Catholikes there but that being broken the King and his party endeavoured reconciliation with the Pope and finding him averse and ill to be dealt with it was determined to set up in France a Patriarch and to have no more to doe with the Court of Rome and the Person was designed for it as the History of those Times assures us I would now learne of the Cardinal who was at length the Kings Proxy in his reconcilement to Rome and its like was privy to his designe had this been executed with what part of the Catholike Church had they communicated or had they been guilty of Schisme If it be said it was not done yet it was resolv'd on and so near to the execution that a Cardinal told the Pope As Clement the seveth had lost England so Clement the eighth would lose France And as it was resolv'd on so it was thought reasonable and just by the more considerable part of Roman Catholikes in France viz. those that adhered to the King and to be maintained if done So here 's the difference they in France had approved it we in England did it CHAP. XIX Our case and that of the Donatists not alike ANd now that which was objected above by the Cardinal that it 's not enough for Catholikes to hold the same faith with the Catholike Church but must hold Communion with it too we grant most true but then is that rule broken when men hold not the Communion or forsake it as the Donatists did who as they had no cause in regard of the faith by reason of any dangerous doctrines or practises imposed on them to cease from communicating with any part of the Catholike Church so they divided from the whole through the breach of charity condemning it for no Church and drawing the communion wholly to themselves And in some of those sentences the Cardinal alledges out of Saint Augustine the breach or want of charity is exprest as the reason of condemâ—ing the Donatists Now as for us we had just cause in regard of the faith once delivered to free it and our selves from errours and superstitions not confining the Church within our Communion or condemning other Churches as no parts of the Catholike Therefore the case of the Donatists cannot concern us who offended not either by breach of the Faith or of Charity But the cause of Division or breach of Communion must rest upon the Roman Church which had neither will to reform as she ought nor yet charity to beare with them that did and the case of the Donatists does most fit that Church which uncharitably condemnes all other and confines the Communion to her self For as to the Cardinals making the case of the Donatists and ours the same I would learn of him Whether if the Donatists had onely used their liberty and judgement in that practise
of rebaptizing Heretiques leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in errour for admitting Heretiques without baptizing them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholike Church saving the practises wherein they differed whether then had they been guilty of Schisme If he say Yea then must he condemne Saint Cyprian and all the African Bishops For they went so far yea farther to an undervaluing of Pope Stephens heat against them who had sent out the sentence of Excommunication against the Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia who were in the same cause with Saint Cyprian and forbade Communion with Saint Cyprian and the Africans and all that held rebaptization What ever the Cardinal judges of them as to the point of Schisme for though in his third Book third Chapter he treats of the oppositions of Saint Cyprian against Pope Stephen and speakes of the Popes condemning him yet sayes nothing directly as to the judging of him in Schism or out of the Communion of the Church Saint Augustine did not judge them so no not when often pressed by the Donatists with St. Cyprians example he might with a ready answer have turned off the weight of Authority by leaving the person under guilt of Schisme as one out of Communion of the Church but this he did not alwaies speaking honourably of him as of a worthy Martyr and onely disproving his reasons for Rebaptization Nor did after-Ages judge him and the African Bishops though out of Communion with Rome to be therefore guilty of Schisme condemning notwithstanding the Donatists as notorious Schismaticks because in the one there was a bare want of external Communion with Rome without an uncharitable breaking with or condemning of either the Roman or the rest of the Churches thaâ—â—id not rebaptize but â—n the other viz. the Donatists there was a wil 〈◊〉 breâ—king with and uncharitable condemning of the Church By all which may appear our case is different from the Donatists is like that of St. Cyprian and his African Bishops wanting communion with the Roman but not therefore out of communion with the Catholike And we have so much more advantage in the case that the occasion of their non Communion was the maintaining of an Errour though tolerable the occasion of ours the casting off intolerable Errours CHAP. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church ANother generall Objection they make against our dividing from them If say they it was for such damnable Errours and Superstitions as the Protestants charge the Roman Church with then had the Gates of Hell contrary to our Saviours promise prevailed against the Church We answer by denying the consequence For from the charging of the Church of Rome which is but a part of the Catholike Church with such errours it does not follow that Hell-gates have prevailed contrary to our Saviours promise for they might have totally prevailed against the Roman Church to an utter subversion of it as of other particular Churches and yet our Saviours promise stood firm How far they have prevailed against that Church the examination of her doctrines for beliefe and practice makes appear We acknowledge indeed that Hel-Gates did not prevail against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it or to a totall infection of the members of it with all the errours and superstitions that prevailed in it and were advanced from time to time chiefly by those that had chiefe place in that Church But as to the Catholike Church we acknowledge that the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile to a subversion either of all the parts of it or of saving Faith in it There shall alwaies be a Church and that a Church wherein saving Faith shall be preserved and may be had And so Saint Augustine de Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. c. 5. seemes to render the sense of that promise when he repeats it thus The Gates of Hell shall not overthrow or conquer it And the Council of Trent seems plainly to acknowledge what Faith it is against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Not the now Roman Faith for by that the Gates of hel have far prevail'd upon the Church of Rome but the antient Apostolike Faith once delivered in all Ages professed and by us Protestants retained For being met at Trent to establish their new Faith they beginne their meeting as the Antient Councils did with the confession of the Christian faith repeating onely that Antient Apostolike Faith or Creed and then adding This is the firme and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile Sess secund Concil Trid. Unto this passage I had in private this Reply or cavil rather returned If the words of the Council import so much then may the Church of Christ cast off Baptism and return to Circumcision and yet hold the foundation because professing that Faith But this cavill or infereâ—ce is First inconsequent as to the particular Instances Baptism and Circumcision For the one the Nicene Creed tels us what a necessary conjunction it hath with the belief of Remission of sins in rendring the Articles thus I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sinnes and for the other the Apostle tels us how inconsistent it is with the Faith of Christ Gal. 5.2.3 Secondly it is impertinent as to my application of that Confession at Trent for I alledged it not to ground any such Inferences upon it against the whole Catholike Church as if the Gates of Hell could prevail against it wholly in all sorts of Errours saving the Verities and profession of those Articles of the Creed but seeing they made that Creed the confession of their Faith at Trent according to the manner of Antient Councils and acknowledged it in plaine words to be the onely foundation c. I inferre first That a Church holding that Foundation may grosly erre in other things not so immediate to it and yet be a Church And indeed the Romish Church for these many Ages has had no tolerable Plea to the title and being of a Church but so far forth as has held that foundation however clogged with many Errours Secondly that according to this their confession their New and additional Faith of Trent is not that Catholike Faith against which as pretended the Gates of Hell cannot prevail And lastly it shews the intolerable boldnesse of the Romish Church or Court which after the Tridentine meeting feared not to adde their new Articles to that former Creed which they had confessed to be the onely foundation as making up one entire Catholike Faith and to subjoyn Athanasius his Clause to it all Haec est fides Catholica extra quam c. This is the Catholike Faith without which no salvation as appeares by Pius quartus his Bul and the Oath which every Bishop in that Church takes But that the Catholike Church has a promise in that large sense Cardinal Perron speakes it lib. 1. cap. 18. to continue
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
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
Testimony of Antiquity 2. That we have enough in the writings of Antiquity to discover the novelty of the Romish doctrines which may generally appeare upon this evidence CHAP. XXX Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several points FIrst the great silence in the writings of the firster Ages touching the points of Romish faith which cannot be imagined would have been if such had been the doctrine of the Church or the faith that all Christians were to learn and hold they call to us to name Professors of the Protestant doctrine in all Ages but that is unreasonable we should be bound to it our part being the Negative of what they erroneously affirm yea and impossible too because the errors we deny were not affirmed or thought of in many Ages and how then should any expresly appear against them But it is most reasonable and just to exact of thē who affirm Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatory half Communion Image Worship c. for Catholick doctrines to shew and prove them professed in all Ages at least so profound a Silence as we finde in the first Ages is sufficient argument against them yea and Silence when there was occasion to vouch and defend them had they been the doctrines of the Christian Church As when we see so many Apologies written and declaring the faith and practice of the Church so many Books purposely written on that subject Epiphanius wrote two his Ancoratus de fide Christiana and his Compendium fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae S. Augustine wrote three one De vera Religione where he sayes at the beginning haec est nostris temporibus Christiana Religio Another De doctrina Christiana and his Enchiridion to Lanrentius of which he saith ibi diligenter mihi videor complexus quo modo colendus sit Deus in which only he has one thing sounding to the Popish doctrine that is about helping the dead by Almes or Sacrifice and that was but his private opinion grounded upon a false supposal not of Purgatory but of common receptacles of all mens souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment in the 109 Chapter of that Book For that which he saith in the 70 Chap. Per Eleëmosynas de peccatis praeteritis propitiandus est Deus he qualifies himself in the same place and excellently speaks of the free reward of Good works in the 107 Chap. Now can it be Imagined that in such Books purposely written there should be such silence and pretermission of the Romish doctrines of Faith had they been the Doctrine of the Church Again in the first 300 years when there was such occasion to urge and hold up their publick Penance and Satisfaction by it also so much written and spoken about it had they believed a Romish Purgatory after this life can we think but they would often have mentioned it also and told the people of the pains they should undergoe there if not careful to perform due Penance and Satisfaction here Also when occasion was given by Adversaries to aslert such doctrines had the Church known and professed them can it be imagined those Fathers that answered those Adversaries should be silent in the Cause As for example In the point of Transubstantiation when Marcion affirmed CHRIST had a body phantastick or in appearance onely how obvious had it been for him had Transubstantiation been the doctrine of the Church to have objected that the signe of his Body in the Eucharist was but a body in appearance the shew of bread onely and his body there under any shape figure c. how necessary had it been for the Church to have maintained that point against him it could not have escaped the disputation had it been any doctrine of faith in the Church Whereas on the contrary Tertullian takes it for granted that the bread which was the figure of his body was a true body and thence infers that Christs body of which bread was the figure was also true and real l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. So when the Eutichians affirmed the conversion of the Humane nature into the Divine and drew some phrases of the Doctors of the Church which seemed to imply a conversion of the bread after consecration to the proving or illustrating of it had the doctrine of the Church been so could they have declined the expresse maintenance of Transubstantiation against that argument whereas on the contrary we see the Eutychians confuted by Theodoret Gelasius and others by denying plainly a substantial conversion of the bread and so taking away the ground of the argument and all belief of Transubstantiation So in the point of Invocation and Worship of Saints when it was objected to Origer by Celsus in defence of the Heathen Invocating their Daemons Heroes whom they held to be Internuncios intermedios betwixt the supreme God and themselves that the Christians also allowed the ministery of Angels and that their Saints departed were Amici Dei. Had the Church then held Invocation of Angels or Saints departed Origen had been bound to assert and maintain it and not to answer as he doth that Christians invocated God only by their high Priest JESVS CHRIST and they that doe so want not the Ministery or help of Angels in his 8 Book against Celsus and elswhere The very like does S. August speak of the Heathen Daemons and Heroes in his 8 9 books de Civ Dei. Shewing the Christians did not so to the Martyrs And when it was objected to him by Faustus the Manichaean that instead of the heathen Idols they had set up the Martyrs because they resorted to their Monuments and there offered up prayers and sacrifice Had the Church then held the Romish belief and practice of Saint-Worship and Invocation could he have declined the maintenance of it whereas he there and elsewhere disclaims it in expresse terms and shews Faustus his mistake in the end and purpose of the Christians resorting to Martyrs Tombs which was to offer up the Sacrifice and worship and prayers to God onely lib. 20. contra Faust Lastly when the Invocating of Christ was used by the Church as an argument for his Godhead against the Arrians would it have been good if Invocating of Saints also had been the doctrine and practice of the Church and if that shift of the Romanists had then been allowable that they doe not invocate Saints as God or with invocation which is due to God but as friends of God and excellent instruments of his glory had not the Arrians had a pat answer to the former argument viz That Christ was to be invocated yet not as God but as the Son of God after a more excellent way than any other creature is But they that used the former argument feared no such answer because Invocation and worship of Saints was then no doctrine of the Church Thus much for the silence of the Fathers when occasion was given them to defend those points had they been doctrines of the
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