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
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
held and practised so yet may it remain the same Christian Church when it ceased to hold and practice so For we may likewise put the Question to them Where was your Church for divers Ages of the Primitive and first Times They will answer where it is now at Rome and elsewhere But we say that was our Church holding and practising for the main as we For where was there for those firster Ages a Romish Church holding and delivering the Canon of the Scripture as they doe now or pretending to an Infallibility as now or challenging Vniversal subjection as now where was there a Romish Church for 500 years that held Purgatory a point of Faith that taught Invocation of Saints for Catholick doctrine or that practised it in the publick Liturgie for about that time or that taught or practised Image-worship for a longer time or where was a Roman Church that taught and enjoyned Communion under one kinde for a 1000 years This is most notorious to them that are but reasonably acquainted with Antiquity Nor is Cardinal Peron's 18 cap. lib. 1. against the King touching the Agreement of the Antient and Modern Church any proof against it but a flourish only Now if they notwithstanding these and many other errors and corruptions by degrees crept in upon that Church will say Their Church is still the same with the antient Roman Church they must give us leave to say with more reason We notwithstanding we have cast off those corruptions are the same Christian Church yea and say it with more truth and advantage in as much as that which made the Romish or English Church before the Reformation to be a Church we have retained without the accrewing corruptions and so much more like the Church which was at Rome and in England in the first and purer Ages We say therefore we are the same Christian Church having lost nothing that made us so but only cast off many things that endangered our being so viz those many errors superstitions that tended to the destruction of that Christian faith which made us a Church As a man recovered from some pestilential or dangerous disease is the same man that before has lost nothing that made him so only now freed from the corruption that endangered his being so We set up then no new Church but reformed that which was freeing it from former corruptions And this makes a different Church but not a New Church a different Church I say according to accidental differences by which the same body may differ from it self at several times and the parts of the same body from one another at the same time so one Church may differ from it self at several times from other Churches yet they and it be parts of the Catholick Church but not according to Essential differences which constitute a Church as part of the Catholick and make it differ from another that is not so The English Church differed from it self as before and after Reformation yet the same Christian Church only before it had a Romish face and garb and apparel suitable and a body full of spots and sores After it appeared otherwise yet still the same body the same Church not lost any thing of that which made it so but only cast off accessory accidental corruptions For thus it stood between the Church of Rome and the Church of England before the Reformation They were both parts of the Catholick Church both built upon the same foundation that Catholick Faith which had been delivered down in all Ages that into which they and we are Baptized into they not yet daring to baptize into any points of their new faith that which they and we yet agree in which makes them a Church and part of the Catholick because they retaine that Faith still though clogged with many dangerous errors and superstitions in belief and practice While the Church of England was in Communion with them it also admitted of many superstructures Hay stubble and worse Errors superstitions which by degrees crept upon the Foundation and passe at this day in the Church of Rome to the great abuse of poor Christian Souls as Catholick Faith The work of Reformation was to retain the foundation and whatever was Christian and Catholick only to throw off the superstructures that burdened and shaked it These errors and superstructures after they appeared were complained of in all Ages by many that still held Communion with the Romish Church and History also assures us of many in several Ages that did actually cast them off and suffered themselves to be put out of the Romish Communion rather than admit of them and how many thousands more must we suppose to have been not recorded when 7000 were in Israel not so much as known to Eliah This we note not as if wee were bound to seek the Church only in those Reformers which were of a divided communion from Rome or to deny the Church to be in those of the Romish Communion but to shew that however those errors were for some Ages delivered as Catholick Doctrine by the greater and more prevailing party in that Church yet were they not held for such by many that continued in that communion and rejected actually by many thousands besides CHAP. II. The demand of Professors in all Ages We can shew it better than they WHen therefore they call upon us to name Professors of the Protestant faith in all Ages though it belongs to them rather to shew the Professors of their faith in all Ages their part being the affirmative asserting what we deny and it be a thing they are not able to doe for the five first and best ages as was above insinuated yet we answer them If by such Professors they mean those that held a distinct communion from the Roman Church it is not necessary to name such because the faith was preserved still in that Communion though with a great mixture of errors yet after those errors and corruptions grew to a height we can give examples in all Ages after of such Protestors against them divided from the Romish Communion and persecuted because of them and more abundant examples happily of such we might have had but that little is come down to us of those poor Christians beside what hath come from or through the hands of their professed Enemies Now in those examples we have so many instances not of new Churches set up but of the former reformed and representations of the Catholick Church in some part more pure in some part and that generally the greater more unsound First it is not necessary there should be such so professing in all points as we doe For here is a latitude of Truth and several degrees of Purity within which God is pleased to preserve his Church as both Reason and Experience demonstrate 2. There might be such so professing though not so visible and known as to be recorded 3. There were such so farre as the
unto them use Motives and Arguments to perswade their Religion and the Authority of the Church of Rome But if they suffer themselves to be perswaded to embrace that Authority upon such Reasons and Motives they must then resigne up their Reason and Judgement wholly Thus have they leave to use their sight in finding out that Church but when they have found it then they must follow it blindfold or looke but one way that way onely that that she directs and take all upon trust of her Infallible guidance They will say they commend the Definitions of the Church to the judgement and consciences of the people alleadging Reasons and Testimonies from the Scriptures and Fathers and this in order to better perswasion so far it is well But then their Reason and Judgement is absolutely bound to look that way onely and to see nothing against the definition of the Church No though she defines it is not against Chirsts institution to allow the people the Sacrament but in one kind or that it is lawfull to adore Images as she has done in her Council of Trent A man had as good spare his labour in using his Reason and Judgement to examine their proofs as having done all to be absolutely concluded and bound up Which no question goes very hard with many of their more learned Men who see more reason and evidence against than for what they are bound by the Church to believe and practice and so are ground between the Definition of their Church and the Judgement of their Conscience as between the upper and nether Milstone Hence that conscionable cunning of the Belgick Inquisitours who in their Index Expurgatorius 1571. confesse when they meet with the Antients speaking otherwise than their Church quovis commente they use any shift to remedy it We read how it fared with some Divines in the Council of Trent Who while their Articles were under deliberation undefined honestly proposing their doubts and arguments against the coÌ„mon sense of the prevailing party were cryed out on as Lutherans and some of them not suffered to speak more were sent away so free was that Council What shall we think now after the definitions are made but that mens Consciences judgements tongues are bound up not to doubt think or modestly propound any thing against them without the note of Heresie and danger of the Inquisition But see we what follows upon their Concessions To finde out the Church they allow as we heard the use of Reason and Judgement Now that must be by examining her marks and seeing a chief marke of the Church is Sanctitas doctrinae as Bellar. and others doe truly acknowledge it implyes a judging of all her Doctrines before a Man can truly know by the purity of them that this is the Church Again when the Church is found out yet still the question remains whether it be Infallible there also must the use of Reason and Judgment be allowed for no reason it should be taken upon her own word that she is the onely Infallible guide Therefore Bellarmine was enforced to say though untruly that the Infallibility of the Romish Church Councils and Popes stands upon apertas promissiones Of this at large below Chap. 27. naming Act. 15. Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis and Luk. 22. Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 14. Now if these places and all other they bring to that purpose be acknowledged so plain that it is easie for any man using his Reason and Judgment to see this priviledge of the Roman Church in them when as indeed no reasonable consequence can draw it out of them who cannot but justly say the places of Scripture we bring against their Errours are more open and plain to him that will duly use his Reason and Judgement CHAP. XII Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminencie Perpetuity c. CArdinal Perron in his first book cap. 5. and 6. against the Kings Letter seems to cut the businesse shorter and to leave men the use of Reason and Judgement in knowing the Church not by examining her Doctrines but by considering her external and more sensible marks such as are easie and proportionable to every mans capacity viz. Eminencie Amplitude Perpetuity or Succession and the like And when the Church is known by these then a man is to know by her the sense of places of Scripture which need interpretation But what he saith for this easie discovery of the out of Scripture A City on an Hill cannot be hid Mat. 5. was spoken by our Saviour of the Apostles and their preaching of the Gospel and if applyed to the Church it does not prove she can alwaies be known by these marks Nor does St. Austin's application of that Scripture to the knowing of the Church in his time imply the Church shall alwaies be so Not so now when it stands divided by East and West the Eastern Church challenging these marks as well as the Western Unlesse it come short of the Romish Church in Eminencie of outward splendor when as it is more Christian like to continue under pressures so many yeares the Romish Church may be eminent for pomp and have more of the world in it but the Greek Church is eminent for sufferings and has had more of the Crosse Now seeing the Greek Church which has these marks is in the Roman account heretical and the Roman Church likewise condemned by the Greek how shall a man know which of these to joyn to but by examining their Doctrine and judging of it The Cardinals similitude of a Testator â—ordaining one to be the Interpreter of his Testament that has a name common to others and therefore assigning marks to know him by so clear that they need no Interpreter cleares not the businesse For did ever any hear of an Executor or Interpreter of a Testament markt out by his gray head or antiquity by tallnesse of stature amplitude or eminencie of person or estate when his proper name and habitation would readily and sufficiently distinguish him from all others So had God markt out unto us in his Testament that Church which should in all Ages be the infallible Interpreter of his Will by the name Roman and place of habitation and in stead of a City built on a Hill the Scripture so oft repeated by the Cardinal said a City built on seven Hills there needed no more to doe but submit Reason and Judgement to all which that Church commanded But seeing he has not done it no not when occasion of mentioning such a priviledge had any such belonged to that Church I meane when St. Paul wrote to the Romans it is plain he has left us to know his Church by her Doctrine agreeable to his Word for so must we hear the voice of the Sheepherd especially when Churches of several Communions may challenge the former markes the Greek as well as the Roman Now what hath
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
perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine we cannot say We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine he meanes it of such a priviledge and freedome from Errour as the Church of Rome challenges which is not necessary to the preservation of the Catholike Church and Faith or if we speak of the Catholick Church he takes it as most visibly appearing in the chief Pastors and their adherents binding that priviledge and freedom to that succession or those that are chief in it Whereas we grant the Catholike Church wholly according to all the Pastors and Members of it shall not be infected with any destructive or dangerous Errours but that purity of saving Doctrine shall be preserved in it Yet not bound as a Priviledge to any one Church as to the Roman or to those that are for Number most and for Place chief in the Church but that in some part or other of the Catholike Church and by some Pastors it shall be preserved and propagated They that dreame of a Church alwayes so gloriously visible and so apparently holding out Purity of Doctrine and Saving Truth as the Romanists doe to the end all men may readily finde out the true Church and easily come to the knowledge of that Truth do not consider that God doth somtimes for the sins of Christians turning his grace into wantonnesse make his Word precious as 1 Sam. 3. and his saving Truth not to be found without difficulty and diligent search after it We see the Fathers interpreted that promise the Gates of Hell shall not of the not failing of the Church never of the not erring of it and we see by experience the contrary As for example the Millenary belief and the excommunicating of Infants both which the Church of Rome acknowledge errours did as generally prevail in the Catholike Church as any error of their New Faith can be said which they boast often to be the general belief and doctrine of the whole Church We say then The Gates of Hell cannot prevaile to the overthrowing of the Fundamental saving Faith or to the corrupting and extinguishing of the Purity of saving Doctrine absolutely through the Catholike Church but may prevaile very farre and generally over the visible face of the Church Catholike viz. as it shews it self in the parts of it all particular Churches holding the Foundation For these considered as above according to their more visible and conspicuous appearance in those that are chiefest in them for place and most for number 〈◊〉 lose the purity of Saving Do 〈…〉 though holding the Foundation admit of the Superstructions of hay stubble and worse Errors in belief and practice And though Hell-Gates may prevaile very farre and generally by Superstructures yet are they such at least in some particular Churches as the foundation may bear Such as may still be convinced by the Doctrine of Saving Truth preserved still in the Church For the Pastors voice as was said above cap. 12. will be so heard alwaies in the Church that the strange voice of false Teachers and false Doctrines may be discerned and will by them that have eares to hear and their senses exercised to put a difference between good and evill true and false Now the Romish Church with which we had to doe had not preserved the Faith entire without mixture of many Errours and Superstitions had not kept the foundation clear from such burthensome and dangerous Superstructures yet has the fundamentall Faith in expresse termes been delivered downe in that Church and such saving knowledge as was sufficient to discern the Foundation from the Superstructures the true and ancient Faith from the new erroneous Belief the true Pastors voice from the strange Doctrines of unwritten Traditions To follow that voice to cast off those Superstructures to contend for the Faith once delivered and clear it from adventitiall errours that was our duty and the work of our Reformation And thus far against their generall plausible Pretences Now to some Triall of their particular Doctrines of Belief and Practice which we have cast off as erroneous and superstitious For the way of Triall The Affirmative in those Doctrines being theirs it lies upon them to prove the Doctrines affirmed by them to be true and Catholike by such Rules as are allowable The Rules admitted by both sides though not in equal rank are Scripture and consent of Antiquity gathered by the Writings of the Fathers and the Acts of ancient Councils We say they cannot by these make good what they affirm but shew that both make against them CHAP. XXI Of the Tryall of Doctrines by Scripture FIrst for Scripture Whatsoever is revealed in that Scripture which both sides admit as Canonical is likewise admitted by both sides as of divine Authority But such Scripture is not acknowledged by them as a sufficient Rule for the triall and judging of the controverted points therefore they are necessitated to fly to Tradition not that which delivers down to us the sense of any Scripture by the consent of all Ages of the Church but to unwritten Traditions which deliver Doctrines of Beliefe and Practise that have not footing in Scriptures This I note because they are ready to abuse the unwary by urging sometimes the former sort to make them swallow unwritten Traditions upon the same pretence For the former sort we grant as appears by the points of Christianity not controverted between us because these points as they are grounded on Scripture so are they brought down to us by the profession and tradition of all Ages as the confessed sense of those Scriptures on which they are grounded and this not derogatory to the sufficiency of Scripture But to their other sort of Traditions viz. unwritten on which they generally ground their Doctrines rejected by us we cannot admit as any ground of Faith or Worship such Traditions being uncertain not possibly to be proved Apostolical but received upon the Testimony of their present Church and indeed generally inconsistent with Scripture Yet are we to note that in all the controverted points they pretend Scripture and alledge several places in every point yea in those points which they themselves confess as most of the controverted points are by the most ingenuous Romanists confessed to have no ground or footing in Scripture To let passe the want of candor and plain dealing in this we must observe First that their labouring to pretend Scripture for every Doctrine is a tacite acknowledgement that doctrines of Faith and Religion should have their ground there For instance Invocation of Saints they acknowledge not used in the Old Testament yea and give us reason for it because the souls of the Patriarchs were not then in heaven and so not to be Invocated yet doe they alledge very many places for it out of the Old Testament to make a shew of Scripture So for the New Testament They acknowledge Invocation of Saints departed was not commanded or taught
expresly or thence deducible and deducible not all by every one that reads but it is enough if done by the Pastors and Guides which God appointed in his Church to that purpose using the means that are needfull to that purpose such as is Attention and Diligence in search of the Scripture collation of places and observing the connexions also sincerity and impartiality in the collection or deduction they make also prayer and devotion for assistance in the Work Now Bellarmine propounded the question very carelesly or enviously as if we denying their visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter left the Scripture to be interpreted according to every mans pleasure There was enough said above concerning the use of Reason and Judgement which we leave to private men in order to their own assent or believing a private Judgement of discerning what is propounded to them and manifested out of Gods Word Which Judgement of theirs as it supposes the help of so it stands subordinate to the publike Judgement of the Guides and Pastors God has set in his Church to judge for others deducing out of Scripture and manifesting the truth to every mans conscience as 2 Cor. 4.2 CHAP. XXVII Of a visible Infallible Iudge or Interpreter NOw the question is Whether besides the forementioned Guides and Pastors there be One visible Judge or Interpreter for all the Church to whose sentence all mens Judgements must subscribe and every mans conscience must acquiesce without further enquiry i. e. a Judge or Interpreter Infallible Indeed such a Judge or Umpire of Christendome would if to be had be a ready meanes to compose all differences and restore truth and peace But seeing it is onely a pretence and not a reality we have no such remedy left us Nay seeing it is pretended to by a Church which may erre as well as other particular Churches and has erred as grosly or more than any other it is the greatest hinderance now of restoring truth and peace among Christians For that Church which pretends to the Infallibility cannot amend any Errour and must uncharitably condemn all others which doe not acknowledge her for such as she pretends to be So that which the Romanists would make the stay of Christianity the Infallibility and unerring priviledge of that Church is the very bane of Christendom But to come to the examination and decision of this Controversie We say the Catholike Church of Christ is and will be Infallible in Fundamentals and saving Truth necessary to the being and continuing of a Church of Christ and that is no more than to say The Church shall not faile in being or in saving Truth but that in one part or other that saving Truth or Faith will be preserved and professed But that there is or shall be a Church of one denomination as the Roman Infallible in all her definitions which she proposes de fide is that we deny and they cannot prove We are next to observe that although the Romanists would usually shroud themselves in this point of Infallibility under the name of the Church Catholike yet when brought to the tryal they must and doe fasten the Infallibility upon the Roman Church endeavouring to shew by generall markes that the Catholike Church is not to be found but in the Roman Communion which was observed above chap. 12. to be the drift of Cardinal Perron and here they would willingly stay and hold forth their Infallibility under the name and priviledge of the Church being loath to be put upon the Contestation 'twixt the Pope and a Generall Councill But seeing their Church cannot speak or doe the office of a Judge or Interpreter but by a Council or the Pope therefore their Infallibility must rest upon the one or other And here we must observe how they stand d vided and disagree about the very foundation of their Faith where to state that Infallibility upon which they profess to believe all they doe believe and for want of which they usually reproach us Protestants that we cannot have any certainty of belief or means of agreement when as they that pretend to such unity and certainty in their belief differ in the ground-worke of it one side destroying and confuting the reasons and motives of the other Now to say as they usually reply that they are certaine of the Definitions of their Church being from Councils confirmed by the Pope and so they have both agreeing This does not salve the businesse For it is not certain they shall alwaies agree nor have they alwaies agreed Where then must the Infallibility rest What certainty of such definitions as the Council makes without the Pope so did the Councils of Basil and Constance or that the Pope makes without a Council The Romanists stand divided about the Definitions of those two Councils Againe if they doe agree what certainty is there of an Infallibility For still that must accrew to the definitions either upon the unerring judgement of the Council making them or of the Pope confirming them and so it returns to the former difference and thereupon to the former uncertainty one side destroying the reasons of the other The Sorbonists and moderate Papists on the one part asserting a Council is above the Pope may judge and depose him on the other part the Jesuits and more rigid Papists maintaining the contrary And this opinion of stating the Infallibility upon the Pope is the more general among them But that we may come to a nearer triall of this Infallibility of Judgement in the Church of Rome and see what the certainty of their belief which by reason of that pretended Infallibility they boast of and deny to us will come to Suppose then they are all agreed that in their Church there is such a priviledge of Infall bility or not erring Let us consider what is brought against it what pretended for it Their part being the Affirmative ours the Negative we challenge them that they cannot prove it either by Scripture or any convincing demonstrative reason Notwithstanding they are bound to shew us it according to their own concessions expresly contained in Scripture For they grant all things necessary for all to believe and such they hold this point of Infallibility are so contained in Scripture it being one of their prima credibilia and necessary for all to be believe vid. c. 22. We as Negatives are proved shew it is not imaginable that a belief of that consequence the ground-worke of all Faith the stay of the Church as they will have it should be so ill provided for That First the four Evangelists writing the Gospel of Christ for the use of the Church and all Believers should if they knew it be so silent of it and yet record many things of far smaller importance Secondly that Saint Paul when he had occasion to speak it as when he wrote to the Romans should not give the least hint of this priviledge no not when he told them the priviledge of the Jews cap.
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
conditions yet let us see how they or we stand bound to them For the first Things believed necessary to salvation The Romanists cannot challenge us Protestants for not believing what they of the antient Church did so believe with a due and full consent And for the points controverted which they challenge us for not believing let them if they can give us so general a consent of Fathers for them as we finde in those former Ages agreeing in the Millenary belief in the place of faithful Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment in the Communion given to Infants as necessary for their salvation and some other and yet neither the Cardinal nor any Romanist holds himselfe bound to believe in these things put them in what rank they will as necessary or profitable as they more generally did of old for some Ages If they say the Millenary bâ—lief was rejected within the compasse of the four first Ages For that is the compasse of Time the Cardinal is pleased to allow in this tryal True But then it tells us the succeeding Ages did not hold themselves bound to believe all things as they before them did nor doe the Romanists hold themselves bound to believe either that errour or the two other of the place of Souls or Infant Communion which continued after even to the end of the Ages fixed by the Cardinal And will they have us Protestants bound to believe either what the Fathers did believe erroneously or what the Romanists please to say the Fathers did believe when we know they did not or generally did not And as for the other two points of believing things profitable to salvation and things not repugnant How will the Cardinal possibly give us a consent of Fathers in those points or if he had the confidence to have undertook it seeing so many things of opinion of Rites and of Ceremonies fall under those conditions of profitable or not repugnant to salvation shall any Church be therefore not Catholick because it does not hold or practice in every such thing as the Church in those Ages did as for example Trine immersion in Baptism standing in publick prayer betwixt Easter and Pentecost and some other not onely held and used by the Church of those Ages but affirmed by some Fathers of those Ages to be of Apostolical Tradition yet are they not held or practised by the Romish Church The Cardinal his other Rule is in his fourth Observation in the same Letter Let that be held saith he as truly antient and to have the mark of the primitive Church which is found to be believed and practised Vniversally by the Fathers of the Times of the four first Councels and when it appears that the things testified by them were not held for doctrines and observances sprung up in their time but as perpetually practised in the Church from the Age of the Apostles and that there is not found in the former Authors testimony against them but in all places where there is occasion to mention them agreeable and favourable So he This indeed is reasonable fair as to the tryal between them and us yet not this of it self to give a sufficient ground for belief for how will it hold in the forementioned instances of Infant-Communion and the places of mens Souls till the resurrection in which both they and we reject what was generally believed and practised in those Ages where still by Generally is meant more generally believed or practised and so the Cardinals word Universally in his Rule is to be understood But as to the points controverted How can the Church of Rome hold to this or stand by it when she is never able to shew her doctrines so attested believed practised nay when as we are able to shew the beginning of many of them but springing up in or after those Ages as Purgatory Invocation of Saints Image-worship Transubstantiation half-Communion Nay when their own Authors give us reasons why the Apostles and those of the first Age did not teach as Chap. 21. was noted above Invocation of Saints and Image-worship to the first Christians yet must these passe for Catholick doctrines universally believed and practised from the Age of the Apostles A cause this that needed the great wit of that Cardinal to make Antiquity appear for it in so fair a shew and then to perswade men so far out of their wits as to believe it did so indeed Whereas these general Hints that have been given from the beginning of the 30 Chap may suffice to let any man that hath reason know it can be no good appearance which is made of Antiquity but a cunning disguise and that the Trent Articles can be no Catholick or perpetual doctrine of the Church but Novel-points of Romish perswasion creeping at first some in one Age some in another into Opinion or practice and so by degrees gathering strength till they were asserted by the most and chiefest in that Communion and defended for the doctrine of that Church and at length coined into Articles of Faith as the Catholick doctrine of all Ages and of the whole Church The End The Contents OF the Division of the English and Romish Church upon the Reformation 1 Chap. I. We set not up a new Church but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation 4 Chap. II. The demand of Professors in all Ages We can shew it better than they 9 Chap. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials 12 Chap. IV. Particular Churckes may reform Especially when a General Councel cannot be expected 15 Chap. V. We not guilty of Schism The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists 20 Chap. VI. How necessity of dividing Communion arises 24 Chap. VII Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we doe 28 Chap. VIII Of the use of Reason and Judgment in privaâ—e men 31 Chap. IX Of dissenting from the publick Judgment 35 Chap. X. Possibility of just dissenting 39 Chap XI How farre the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgment 47 Chap. XII Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminencie Perpetuity c. 51 Chap. XIII Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries 57 Chap. XIV The Romanists vain pretence of Infallibility 63 Chap. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholick 66 Chap. XVI The Greek Church a Church and part of the Catholick 69 Chap. XVII Of agreement and external Communion betwixt the parts of the Catholick Church 73 Chap. XVIII The want of that does not alwaies make guilty of Schism 75 Chap. XIX Our case and that of the Donatists not alike 78 Chap. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church 82 Chap. XXI Of the Trial of Doctrines by Scripture 91 Chap. XXII Sufficient perfection of the Scripture as a Rule 95 Chap. XXIII Of Tradition which we allow 96 Chap. XXIV Their arguments against Scriptures sufficiency and for Traditions 103 Chap. XXV The evidence of Antiquity in the point 114 Chap. XXVI Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture 119 Chap. XXVII Of a visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter 125 Chap. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it 146 Chap. XXIX Of the other Rule of Trial by Consent of Antiquity and the Romanists vain boasting of the Fathers 157 Chap. XXX Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several pâ—ints 161 CHAP. XXXI Card Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholick according to Antiquity 179 The end of the Table ¶ A Catalogue of some Books printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane By H. Ferne D. D. Episcopacy and Presbytery considered in 4o. A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before his Majestie in 4o. Now in the Presse A Compendious Discourse upon the Case as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one side and again between the same Church of England and those Congregations which of what perswasion soever have divided from it on the other side Part I. in 12o.