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
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.
OF THE DIVISION BETVVEEN The ENGLISH AND ROMISH Church VPON THE REFORMATION By way of Answer to the seeming plausible Pretences of the ROMISH Party Much enlarged in this Edition By H. FERNE D. D. ACT. 24.14 After the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers c. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1655. To the READER GOod Reader This Treatise was intended for private Satisfaction but falling under the View of some that were able to judge and liked well of it better than it deserved it was thought not unfit for more publick use And the Author then farre off in the North was importuned not onely to give his consent to the putting it forth but to help it forward himself by prefacing something to it for the fairer bringing it forth into Open light Know therefore Good Reader and well consider it that these are such times as the Apostle foretold 2 Tim. Perilous difficult and troublesome times 2 Tim. 3.1 Times in which it would be hard for good Christians to know how to behave themselves with safety the dangers of these daies threatning not onely the outward estate or worldly concernments but attempting Conscience and Religion it self and that on the one hand and on the other They of the old Romish Superstition pretending Antiquity and a present flourishing condition of a Church They of the new perswasion boasting successe and holding forth New lights to carry aside As in the day of Jerusalem both the Children of Edom and of Babylon cried Down with it down with it Psal 137. They saw the trouble of Jerusalem and were glad that the Lord had done it Lam. 1.21 So it is with the true Protestant Church in this Land now troubled and distressed The Enemies on either side rejoicing that the Lord hath done it to us A pitifull thing it is and one argument more for Lamentation than Jeremiah had for his that the enemies of a Christian Church should be such on both sides as professe themselves Christians acknowledge One Saviour look for one Hope and though agreeing all in the main yet because of different perswasions in Religion can be content yea and rejoice to see a Christian Church to fall and to be if they might have their will thrown quite off from the Foundation on which they professe themselves to be built rather than see it stand there otherwise than just as they doe and according to their frame How much were it to be wished and to be prayed for that the Lord would roll away this reproach of Aegypt Jos 5.9 from off the name of Christians this uncircumcision this hardnesse of heart that he would take away this perverse Spirit he has mingled among us as Isa 19.14 from whence arise such Debates and contentions not onely about the things of Earth but of Heaven too the Affairs and businesse of the State and of the Church too As for those of the Romish perswasion when I look at those points of Religion controverted between us which concern not the special and politick concernments of that Church such as Universal Jurisdiction and that which follows on it Universal Subjection and that which must maintain the former Infallibility and the like I cannot but think there might be a possibility of some peaceable and fair Christian agreement Yea and were there Reason and Equity in men instead of that pretended Infallibility to agree and stay upon the due Authority of free General Councels and instead of the now exorbitant power of the Bishop of Rome to be content he should have onely the Antient Patriarchal Primacy allowed him in the first Generall Councels I should not despair of agreement as to these points But when I consider how neerly the Guides of that Church take themselves to be concerned in these Politick Interesses and what a numerous society there is of Jesuites devoted to maintain them I must needs say that hope seems vain and conclude them engaged to hold where they are and to condemn all other Christians and Churches to the Gates of Hell that will not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the onely Church against which the Gates of Hell have not nor can prevail by any errour in Faith or Worship He that will look into the businesse of Religion before and at the beginning of the Councel of Trent will easily see by the several Colloquies held between Protestants and Romanists what agreement some points were brought to and what further condescension might have been had not the Interesses of the Court of Rome disturbed all Or if he look into those Relations and Histories we have of the Councel of Trent it self he will see by the several discourses had upon the points controverted what moderation there was in many learned men but rendred ineffectual by reason that the Arcana Imperii those forementioned politick concernments of that Church as they might not be once disputed so they wholly over-ruled the other points of Religion and excluded all Moderation in the Definitions of that Councel All the Christian World sees how long the poor distressed Eastern Church has lain under that heavy condition unpitied by Them of the Romish Communion and how They have stood affected to us since our Reformation has sufficiently appeared by their several practices against us What hand they had in our present troubles is not unknown to some what joy they now take in them let their own heart tell them but what advantage they make of them for perverting of many that is it we are to take notice of and to withstand I have opposed this Defence such as it is against their generall plausible pretences framed indeed both for Matter and Form most-what according to the scruples of Those that occasioned it but may generally serve to give some stay in these tottering Times to those that have not a more able hand to hold and keep them steady As for the Particular Doctrines of the Romish Church some of the chief of them as Traditions Infallibility Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatory are spoken to as concerning the Trial of Antiquity towards the End of this Treatise Where it is by divers instances shewn that they could not be doctrines of the Antient Church I may happily finde time with Gods help to make a fuller enquiry upon these and other their novel Articles that it may appear what is justly and necessarily controverted between us either in matter of Faith or Worship What may be waved as needlesly quarrelled at or agreed as needlesly contended about And of the controverted Points which Doctrine Theirs or Ours will upon the triall of direct Scripture prove more Apostolical which upon principles confessed by us both will appear more safe and reasonable and also more agreeable to true Christian humility and piety But of this hereafter as it shall please God to give opportunity and ability It remains I should speak to that seeming advantage they
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
complaines and Baronius cryes out Quae facies Rom. Ecclesiae when infamous Strumpets disposed of Bishopricks yea thrust their Paramours Amasios suos into Peters Chaire What Cardinals then made what Bishops then ordained by such Monsters and stertentibus omnibus all in a manner being asleep So he Experience also tels us how grosse Errours have prevailed over the Church as for example The Millenary belief so generally that Iustine Martyr contra Tryph. saith All that were in all points or throughly Orthodox Christians held it So also the giving of the Communion to Infants after Baptism as necessary to their salvation generally held and practised in the whole Church for many Ages I mean more generally than the Romish errors have been Now if there were not place for dissenting by the use of private judgment for some one person must speake first in the discovering such Errours there would be a necessity of the Churches continuing in Errour But both those Errours were reformed and he that spake first in discovering the untruth of them did it upon the use of his private judgement examining the beliefe and practise of the Church shewing the error of it It may be they will say those two Doctrines were not defined by the Church i. e. by any General Council So indeed they often excuse their own Doctors when they set their private judgement against the generall streame of Antiquity and by the like equity they might receive our plea That the beliefe and practises we forsooke were not Doctrines defined by the Church i. e. by any lawfull General Council But what if those two had been defined then no man will they say ought to have questioned them or used his private judgement against them But then must we say if any thing be defined amiss the Church must continue in errour and an after General Council cannot amend it But if things before defined may be corrected or reversed by the like Authority how can it come about but by the discovering of the former errour and that upon the use of private Judgement examing the definitions and shewing the error to the Church And that which Bellarmine grants as I said a little before Nisi manifestissimè constet errorem ïntolerabilem committi supposes such error may be committed and discovered But how can this later come about but upon the use of private Judgement in Inferiours and while the Council of Trent was not received in France was it not upon the use of their Judgement against that Council which with the Romanists passeth for General or how can Moderate Papists think the reception of the Catholick Church to be the best confirmation of the Decrees of a Council if not allow private Judgement in the examining and receiving them And seeing a General Council hath its power from the diffusive Catholick Church of which it is the representation however the Definitions of it may have more form of Law yet not more weight to presse the judgement or conscience than what is generally believed and practised through the whole Church as that of Infant Communion was We therefore leave men no otherwise to their reason and judgement than reason and necessity enforceth no otherwise than Christ and his Apostles left them Reason enforceth it as we heard both in regard of the Church which cannot else be reformed from prevailing errours and in regard of every particular Man who is to give account of himself is to be saved by his own Faith and perishes upon his own score They were not excused if seduced by their Prophets and Teachers as Isa 9.14 15 16. The Leaders of this people cause them to erre and they that are led are destroyed Also Head and Tail rush and branch both cut off and Ezek. 33.6 and 8 Those that perish through the Prophets default their blood notwithstanding is on their own head Answerably Mat. 15.14 They are not excused that blindly follow their Leaders both fall into the ditch The Romanists reject this as not applicable to the Guides of their Church answering in effect as the Pharisees who also had chief place in the Church are we also blind Joh. 9. and we may reply as our Saviour did You say We see therefore your sin remaineth therefore your blindnesse is more incureable Again our Saviour and his Apostles left men the use of their reason and judgment in discerning what is taught them in and by the Church For they enjoyn the use of it as a duty as when our Saviour bids Search the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 And take heed how you hear Luk. 8.18 Beware of false Prophets and by their fruits ye shall know them Mat. 7.15 And beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees Mat. 16. v. 11. that is their Doctrine ver 12. Now set against this last place that which our Saviour saith Mat. 23.2 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they bid you observe that observe and doe How can these be reconciled observe whatsoever they teach and yet beware of the Leaven of their Doctrine without allowing the Judgement of discretion in the hearer So the Apostle Gal. 1. forbids the receiving of any other Gospel though preacht from Heaven by an Angel How should the Galatians know a difference 'twixt the Gospel and Faith once delivered and any other new one but by using Reason and Judgement To the same purpose he bids Prove all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes 5.21 Try the Spirit 1 Joh 4.1 The Romanists answer that these Precepts of Proving and Trying are spoken to the Guides of the People We say that is true to them chiefly spoken and yet to the People too to the Guides and Pastors in order to reforming and casting out Errors prevailing in which respect we plead for use of Reason and Judgement to be allowed not to the people so much but to their guides also in order to the keeping out Errours which false Teachers would bring in to the seducing of the people for their Guides are to judge for them But still that Proving and Trying that taking heed belongs also to the People and implyes their use of Reason and Judgement not in order to Resorming or Judging for others but in order to their own believing or receiving what is taught propounded to them The Apostle calls to them Iudge what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 And â—udge in your selves 1 Cor. 11. And the spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2.15 He speakes of things taught in the Church and of the Spiritual mans judging them in order to his own beleeving to which purpose Saint Ioh. 1. Ep. 2.27 The Anointing shall teach you all things viz. so as to understand all things necessary to their Salvation CHAP. XI How far the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement SEE we now what use of Reason and Judgement the Romanists allow to Men. They speake to the Reason and Judgement of Men whom they would bring in
doctrines were of the multa which Christ had to say and Tert. de praescript c. 5. tels us Hereticks alledged the Apostles delivered some things openly to all some things secretly to a few the very thing the Papists say and they proved it suth he by St. Pauls saying to Timothy Custodi depositum St. Iraen l 3. c. 2. shews Hereticks alledged the scriptures were obscure not to be understood by those that know not Tradition alledging for it that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. we speak wisdome c. Terp in his Book de resur tels us Hereticks cannot stand if you binde them de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas sistere to be judged by the Scriptures alone and in the same book calls all Hereticks Lucifugas scripturarum such as fly the light of the scripture And now we must say in the last place their usual objection of Hereticks alwaies alledging Scriptures and shunning Tradition is most vain as appeares by the former Testimonies As for their alledging scripture it made for the dignity and sufficiency of scripture Hereticks well knowing the Authority Scripture had in the Church and therefore that it was in vain to use other proofs without it and so the Romanists are necessitated as was said above Chap. 21. to pretend it for the proving of those points which they know and sometimes confesse are not grounded on scripture As for Hereticks shunning Tradition it is most true they carefully shunned that Tradition which delivered down the sense of scripture in the points of Faith through all Ages of the Church for to shun that was to shun the evidence and light of scripture But as for unwritten Traditions such as we and the Romanists contend about they shelter themselves under the darknesse of them made great advantage as we saw by pretence of them alledging the very same reasons and places of scripture for them as the Romanists do and so we leave them both well agreed in this point CHAP. XXV The evidence of Antiquitie in the point NOw for the evidence of Antiquity Though we are to speake more generally to that trial by the Fathers afterward yet here in brief to this particular point There is scarce one Father but we bring him expresly witnessing as we affirm the fulnesse and sufficiency of scripture in all things necessary Bell. in l. 4. c. 11. sets down very many of them and admits them for the sayings of those Fathers how then does hee decline them 1. One of his General answers and it is what others answer to that the Fathers speake of omnia omnibus necessaria to be contained in scripture This the expresse testimonies of those Fathers have extorted from him which is no little prejudice to their cause who equal tradition to the written Word and plead the necessity of what is conveyed to us thereby for if all things necessary for all be contained in Scripture then surely the doctrines and faith delivered in unwritten Traditions are not necessary for all They indeed that have given up their belief to all the dictates of that Church are consequently necessitated to believe them but we may be good Christians and yet not believe them because not written and not necessary it seemeth to all That which they can pretend to say here is that such unwritten Traditions become necessary to be believed upon the proposall of the Church and to be by all believed to whom they are sufficiently propounded or made known Indeed of Scripture we grant All things there revealed become upon sufficient proposal of them necessary to be believed as true yet not all to be believed as necessary in themselves to salvation But of unwritten Traditions we cannot say Men are bound to believe them as true upon the proposall of their Church unlesse they can demonstrate the testimony of their Church to be Infallible or that she propounds them upon full Catholike or Universal Tradition and consent of all Ages which they cannot doe Much lesse can we say Men are bound upon the proposal of their Church to believe them as containing things necessary in themselves to salvation unlesse they can prove the contents of those Traditions to be so which is impossible or that their Church can make new Articles of Faith or those things necessary to be believed to salvation which were not so in themselves before This the sober and moderate Romanist must and will deny 2. He shifteth off their Testimonies by restraining them to the particular thing there spoken of as if they onely meant the scripture was full to that point onely When as indeed upon occasion of some particular point which they were proving they speak in general of the sufficiency of Scripture saying it contains all things necessary Therefore to take away these and all such shifts which they bring to restraine what the Fathers spoke generally We shew they spoke so generally of the sufficiency of Scripture that they left no room for unwritten Traditions to come into the rule of Faith This we shew unanswerably by the Fathers alledged above chap. 23. arguing negatively as Tertul. sometimes Non est scriâ—tum therefore not to be received and speaking exclusively to all things not written as that we must not say or teach any thing of faith praeterquam quod scriptum est saith Saint Augustine lib. 3. contra Lit Petil. Sine his Testibus saith St. Chrysost and citra Scipturam in Psal 95. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae saith St. Hier. in 1. cap. Hag. and Quicquid extra Scripturam est cùm non sit ex fide peccatum est Basil in Regulis Eth. Such exclusive words praeterquà m sinè citrà absque extrà they use against admitting of unwritten Tradition for a Rule of Faith which words and speeches are not any way to be eluded That they bring many sayings out of the Fathers for Tradition it is true and Bellarmine boasts in the number but to what purpose when they do but beat the aire strike us not For they either meane the Scripture it self or Evangelical Doctrine contained in and delivered to the Church by the written Word to which the name of Tradition is often given by the more ancient Fathers Iraen Tertul. Cyprian or else they mean the forme of Doctrine and Belief delivered downe in the Church which though they often call Tradition yet is it written and contained in Scripture and is but the explication of it or the Traditive sense nothing to the unwritten Traditions we speak of or else by unwritten Tradition as they often mention that too they imply things of Practise and Rites and Festivals or Fasts and the like not matters of Faith necessary to Salvation And among these some Fathers avouch such for Apostolical Traditions which the Romanists will not allow as standing at Prayer between Easter and Whitsontide and every Lords day and the Trine immersion in Baptism In a word where the Fathers say the Apostles left some things to us unwritten let the
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
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
by the Apostles or in their time yea and give us reasons why it was not published at first because say Eckius Copus Salmeron It had been unseasonable and dangerous for Jew and Gentile at first to have heard it lest they might think the Christians set forth and worshipped many Gods or that the Apostles were ambitious of having such honour done them after their death It is then acknowledged not to have been so much as taught in that first Age and yet will they again when they come to maintain it make the world believe it was also written then and bring many places of the New Testament for a seeming proof of it So of Image-worship Purgatory Indulgences and most of their Sacraments the more ingenuous among them acknowledge as our Authors have gathered their Testimonies they have not ground in Scripture and indeed if they truly had why should the Romanist so earnestly contend for unwritten Traditions to hold them by yet must Scripture be alledged for them all by every Controversie-writer Which consequently as was observed does acknowledge that Doctrines of Faith and Religion should be grounded there Secondly that the necessity they have of resting upon unwritten Traditions equalized in Authority to the written Word of God is a plain confession they cannot stand by the undoubted Word of God nor have any certaine ground of their New faith which rests upon pretended unwritten Traditions and these you must take upon the word of their own Church Thirdly that the same necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions forces them to lay upon Scripture Imputations of Imperfection and Insufficiency of darknesse and obscurity very unbeseeming the Testament of God written by the dictate of Gods Spirit and left us as a signification of his will and a Rule for the direction of his Church Let us then take leave a little more largely to speake to these two points of the sufficient perfection of this written Rule then of the sufficient perspicuity of it The one casts off the necessity of their unwritten Tradition the other the pretence of their Infallible Judge or Interpreter And upon these indeed rests the whole frame of the New Roman faith and therefore worthy of all other points to be a little insisted on CHAP. XXII Sufficient perfection of the Scripture as a Rule FIrst then of the sufficient perfection of Scripture which we say containes all things of themselves necessary to be believed or done to salvation All such things we say it contains not expresly and in so many words but either so or as deducible thence by evident and sufficient consequence The Romanists are forced to grant that the Scripture contains plainly the prima credibilia as some of them expresse it the first and chiefe points of belief or those that are simpliciter necessaria and omnia omnibus necessaria as Bell. expresses it lib. 4. cap. 1. but they also say that there are many other things necessary in belief and practise to salvation not there contained or thence deduced therefore they adde Traditions to make a supply CHAP. XXIII Of Traditions which we allow FOr Tradition We allow 1. That Universal Tradition which brings down Scripture unto us through the consent of all Ages for that Tradition is supposed in the reception of the Scripture But we say the Scripture contains all material objects of Faith necessary to Salvation i.e. all things that had been necessary for Christians to believe and doe for Salvation though there had been no Scripture Secondly we allow that kind of Tradition which brings down the sense of Scripture to us through all Ages of the Church So the Creed may be called a Tradition and other Catholike Declarations of the Church bringing downe the sense of Scripture in any point of Faith Now as the Scripture does suppose the former Tradition so this kind supposes the Scriptures for its ground delivering nothing but what is contained in them and neither of these sorts derogatory to the sufficiency of them Thirdly we allow some Traditions that bring down matters of practise touching Order Ceremony Usages in the Church as of Fasts or Festivals or Rites about Sacraments and the like But such if they be not contained in the Scripture so neither are they within the limits of the question which concerns necessaries to salvation such we deny those to be and such things as are necessary to believe to salvation we deny to come down to us by unwritten Tradition and what Traditions the Romanists pretend for the controverted points we deny that they contain such things necessary or to have been delivered down in all Ages and therefore can be no ground for necessary faith whether we consider the matter of them or the uncertainty of them Our Arguments briefly are I. Such as shew the Scriptures sufficient for Salvation as Joh. 5. ver 39. for in them ye think ye have salvation Where our Saviour supposes they thought true in it or else his reason had not been good for because they might have Salvation by them i. e. know all things necessary to it therefore he bids them search the Scriptures and they should find they testified of him So 2 Tim. 3.15 expresly they are able to make wise unto salvation c. They have two shifts here 1. That Scripture is profitable to that end for that word Profitable the Romanists lay hold on because the Apostle saith there All Scripture is profitable for doctrine c. and so say they is every book profitable to that end though not sufficient and so they will have the whole Scripture but partially profitable But we answer Sufficiencie belongs to the whole Scripture though in proportion also to every Book And the other expressions of the Apostle there shew this to be onely a shift For he said before that Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose and onely to doe it in part and imperfectly teaching him onely some knowledges to that purpose Also he saith after ver 17. by the Scripture The man of God is throughly furnished or perfected to every good work i.e. to Doctrine Instruction c. such as he spoke of before which must needs imply a sufficiencie to that end 2. Their other shift is That the Scripture is said to doe this because it contains many things plainly in it self and shews from whence we may have the rest i.e. from their Church We answer Had it shewn us that which it does not yet could not this shift be reasonable here For so the Law might have been said to make us perfect because it shews us Christ and was a School-master to him Gal. 3. and John Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples by shewing them Christ II. Such Arguments as forbid and exclude all Additions to the Scripture and so imply the perfection and sufficiency of it and condemne their super-added Traditions as Deut. 4.2 and
cap 12.32 against adding to his precepts And Rev. 22.18 a Woe pronounced to him that addes And Gal. 1.6 an Anathema to them that bring in another Gospel beside what they had received And Gal. 3.15 to a mans Testament none addes much lesse to Gods And Mat. 15. our Saviour expresly condemnes the Pharisees that taught for Doctrines of Worship the Traditions and Commandements of men Now see what shift they make with these places One is that the prohibition of adding concernes the whole Word of God written and unwritten no man may adde to that We answer that the places of Deut. and of Rev. are expresly of the written Word Also that of Gal. 1. and Gal. 3. must be meant of the written for that which is written beares the name of the Gespel and of the Testament of God and can we thinke it beares it partially Saint Aug. lib. 3. contra Lit. Petil. and elswhere expresly applies that of Gal. 1. to the Scripture thereby excluding all doctrines of Faith not received from Scripture And Saint Hier. upon 1. of Hag. relating to that place saith Percutit Dei gladius that sword of God or Anathema strikes through all those doctrines which absque authoritate testimonio scripturae quasi traditione Apostolicâ confingunt without the authority and testimony of Scripture they hold forth under pretence of Apostolical Tradition And for that other of Gods Testament The Romanists must suppose that God Almighty has done as it fares with many men who intending to write their Will and having begun and prefixed the Title This is my Will and Testament and proceeded far in it being prevented by hastening death leave the rest by word of mouth so will they have God to make a Will partly Written partly Nuncupatory Now how derogatory this is to the providence of God who sees not Another shift That those Traditions are onely forbid which are contrary to what is written and so no man may adde We answer The Apostle saith Gal. 1. praeter beside that which ye have received and Bell. expresly interprets that praeter by contra but in the judgement of Saint Aug. and St. Hier. in the places above cited it is enough to incurre the Anathema if they teach any thing of faith which is besides that which is received from Scripture saith St. Aug. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae the authority and testimony of the Scripture saith St. Hier. to which adde Tertul. against Hermogenes Non est scriptum timeat vae illud adâ—icientibus It is not written Let him fear that curse which is denounced against them that adde It was then enough to bring a man under the woe pronounced against them that added if the thing they added was not written and not onely because it was contrary to what was written But our Saviours speech Mat. 15. taken from Is 29.13 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men shews that all Traditions though not contrary to what is written yet if they teach for Worship or Faith necessary to salvation that which is not commanded or written they are to be condemned For though the Pharisees Corban was directly against the written command yet their superstitious washing was not And upon that occasion our Saviour condemnes them as to this point To this very purpose is one of St. Basil's Ethick Rules Quicquid extra Scripturam est cum non sit ex side peccatum est He saies not contrà against but extra besides or without Scripture and being so it cannot be of Faith and therefore sinfull if so propounded and imposed And this excludes the Romish Traditions from being rules of Faith or Worship besides that they are to be challenged of contrariety and repugnancy to Scripture for the most part CHAP. XXIV Their Arguments against Scriptures sufficiencie and for Traditions THeir Arguments for their Traditions and against the sufficiency of Scripture are so many aspersions cast upon the undoubted Word of God not without derogation to the Providence and Wisdome of God nor for the most part without some contradiction to themselves Their first concerns the purpose of God in it That he did not purpose it to contain a perfect Rule because the Pen-men of holy Scripture had no command to write but did it upon occasion or as Bel. necessitate quadam coacti upon occasions ministred and urging them to write We answer 1. If the necessity of the Churches call'd for Scripture and urged them to write it shews of what concernment it is to the Church But 2. though the necessity of the Church ministred the outward occasion to some bookes it supposes the purpose and special providence of God in applying them to the work Hear Bell. himself acknowledging lib. 4. c. 3. Deo volente inspirante Aposelos scripsisse quae scripserunt That the Apostles wrote what they did write by the will and inspiration of God This is well but this amounts not to a command faith he Being then prest with St Aug. saying Quicquid ille Christus de suis dictis factis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus imperavit Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his sayings and deeds that he commanded them to write lib. 1. de consens evang c. ult He is forced to confesse they had mandatum internum an internal command to write And now what needs more for if they had had all of them as expresse outward command as Saint John had to write his Revelations or as Moses had to write what he had from God it would not have made it more the purpose of God than did the inward command Nor would it have made Bellarmine any whit more granted the Scripture of the Apostles to be written for such a Rule for he does not grant it of Moses Writings though he had such a command and therefore we may leave it as a vaine reasoning But see what he saith of Scripture as written for a Rule That it is a Rule and Regula fidei Catholicae the Rule of Catholike Faith and Regula credendi certissima tutissima The Rule of Belief and that most certain most safe Bell. affirms l. 1. c. 2. and this is well towards a perfect Rule and there he inferres upon it seeing it is so sunâ—â— profecto non erit qui eâ neglectâ spiritus interni semper incerti saepe fallacis judiciose commiserit He is not well advised who neglecting Scripture rests upon the judgement of a private spirit which is alwaies uncertain often deceiving How well might the inference been made so against unwritten Traditions seeing the scripture is Regula fidei Catholicae regula credendi certissima tutissima sanus profecto non erit c. He is ill advised who neglecting Scripture commits himself to unwritten Traditions which are often deceitfull alwaies uncertaine But in his fourth Book cap 12. Scripture is with him but a partial Rule unwritten Tradition is the other part Nay
Church Secondly we have Evidence against the Roman faith by that which we meet with in the Fathers appliable to some points of it 1. Sometimes we meet with the Name indeed which the Romish point bears but not the Thing as for example in some few Fathers there is mention of a purging fire after this life but neither doe they agree upon the same thing among themselves nor any of their conceits with that thing the Romanists call Purgatory So we meet with the name of Oblation and Sacrifice in the Eucharist but in senses we admit of not the Roman thing of a proper Sacrifice So we meet with prayers for the dead which indeed was the doctrine and practice of the firster Ages but it was not for relief of any Souls in a supposed purgatory to which the Romish doctrine and practice of praying for the dead is bound So for private confession we allow it in the sense and way the Antient Church did perswade and sometimes practice it not as imposed and practised by the Roman 2. Sometimes we meet with phrases in the Fathers favouring some Romish doctrine but then we shew by argument and reason from the same Fathers that those phrases doe not speak indeed the Romish sense As for Transubstantiation many hyperbolicall expressions many speeches founding the change and Transelementation of the Bread but we shew they could not mean a substantial change because we finde them use like phrases of the change of a Man in regeneration of Water in Baptism of Oyle in the Chrism after consecration in all which no substantial change or conversion Also because many of the Fathers in plain terms acknowledge This is my Body to be a figurative speech and because it is clearly evinced out of them that indeed they held the Bread remained in substance after consecration One instance whereof we had above in this Chap in their answer to the Eutychians Another we may have from their saying our bodies to be nourished by the Body of Christ and to receive increase by it Bellarmine here acknowledges an hyperbolical improper speech and that they meant our bodies ex contactu corporis Christi did receive a disposition to immortality a figurative speech indeed taking the body of Christ sacramentally and speaking of it what the sacramental element does indeed for our bodies are indeed nourished and receive increase by the Elements and this implies necessarily the substantial remaining of them But for Bellarmine his explication it is too impertinent as if receiving a disposition to immortality could satisfie their saying that our bodies are nourished and receive increase which we finde to be real upon the receiving the Elements as well as any other Bread or Wine and to say they receive that disposition ex contactu corporis Christi is to say Christs body is touched by ours when as this manner of the Romish real presence enforces them to say Christs body in the Sacrament is impalpable and cannot be touched or felt Let me adde here how Cardinal Perron in his Letter to Master Casaubon waving as it were Transubstantiation layes the whole Importance of the Sacrament on the real presence viz our Communion or substantial Union to the Body of Christ citing S. Cyrill who calls it the Knot of our Vnion with God Observe first that Transubstantiation it seems is not necessary to this importance of the Sacrament our Union with Christ see we if their real presence which divided from Transubstantiation must needs fall in with the Lutheran Consubstantiation will be necessary to it It is true that the importance of the Sacrament is our Union with Christ and for that Union we acknowledge there must be a real presence of Christs body to those it is united to in the Sacrament and so a real presence or Communication of the Body of Christ we hold and a real Union but as this Union is spiritual so is the Presence too yet real yea most real as when our Saviour said My flesh is meat indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 6. it was really so did really nourish yet spiritually Now secondly would I know how such a real presence as they contend for viz a corporal carnal or contradistinct to spiritual can be necessary to the importance of the Sacrament for that real presence being the bodily communication of Christs body as it is not the thing of the Sacrament or the importance of it viz our Union with Christ for all unworthy receivers have that bodily communication of his body into their mouthes and stomacks so cannot it be any help to or pledge and assurance of our substantial and true Union with Christ for their real presence communicates his body to our bodies without any sense and feeling nay against sense and so cannot be any pledge or sacramental confirmation to us of receiving him spiritually also it conveyes his body through the mouth without any real eating and so cannot be any representation or assurance of our spiritual eating Lastly it makes his body stay a while in the stomack without any union or incorporation and so cannot make any way to the working or assuring our reall Union with Christ our nourishing by his body and blood Of such importance is their real presence or bodily communication that it makes for nothing but to destroy the Sacrament and to take away the real eating of the Sacramental bread the real incorporation of it into our bodies the real nourishment received by it all which are necessary in the Sacrament to testifie and help our spiritual eating of Christs body our nourishing by it our Union with him which is the importance of the Sacrament And this of our spiritual eating and union is well set out by the Fathers that have written upon John 6. especially by S. Augustine yea and well expressed by the Councel of Florence Hujus Sacramenti effectus or as the Cardinal the importance of this Sacrament quem in anima operatur dignè sumentis est adunatio hominis ad Christum The effect of this Sacrament which it works upon the soul of the worthy Receiver is the uniting of a man to Christ and this I hope is a spiritual communication and then further Omnem effectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem hoc Idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Every effect which material meat and drink hath as to the bodily life the same doth this Sacrament work as to the spiritual life What Protestant could have spoken better to set out the spiritual communication of Christs body and blood our incorporation into him union with him signified and wrought by the sacramental communication incorporation and nourishment of the Elements Again we oppose in some points the deeds of the Fathers against their phrases Phrases may be carelesly at first or figuratively spoken and may in time be altered and corrupted but deeds remain in History and deeds upon controversie speak the judgment indeed