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
been said against knowing the Church by these markes is not spoken to deny the Roman which challenges them to be a Church but that they mark her out for such a Church as the Cardinal would have us take her for such a Church as Saint Augustine speaks of viz. the Catholike Church the Church in which onely the Pastors voice is to be heard for what she pretends to by these marks alone she must allow to the Greek Church also It is not these barely without consideration of doctrine that could marke her out for a true Church but that she still together with these holds the foundation And in regard of that we acknowledge the Pastors voice was still heard in her yet so that the voice of false Shepheards have often out-cryed him yea cryed him down in many points of high concernment to his sheep Yet by Gods providence his voice was still heard and his Word or Scripture still preserved whereby the voice of false Shepheards might be discerned from the true one the Errors and Superstitions prevailing known from the Truth and faith once delivered When the voice of the great Pastor except ye eat the flesh c. Joh. 6. was generally mistaken in the Church and misapplyed to the communicating of Infants there was enough of his voice and word still heard in the Church to discover the Error and restore the Truth When Image-worship was cryed up by the second Nicene Council and advanced in the West by the Romish Bishops yet was there enough in the word and voice of the Shepheard known in the Church to condemn it in the Council of Frankford and elswhere When Pope John 22. defined the place of faithfull Souls to be out of Heaven till the Resurrection and enjoyned it to be professed by those that took degrees in the Universities yet was there enough still in that Church to condemn it in the Council of Florence When the voice of the Shepheard in those places Feed my sheep Joh. 21.16 Thou art Peter and upon this Rock Mat. 16.18 I have prayed for thee Luk. 22.32 was mistaken and mis-applyed for some Ages to advance the Popes Infallibility and power over all there was enough seen by the Council of Basil and Constance to define the contrary and conclude a Council to be above him And however the noyse again is greater in the Church of Rome for the Pope than a Council yet is there enough still heard in that Church by the French generally and all moderate Romanists to know the untruth of it So we say whatever becomes of the Cardinals marks Eminencie Antiquitie c. by which he would have her marked out for the onely Church in which the Pastors voice is to be heard the Romish Church hath failed in her doctrine cryed up Errours and Superstitions yet so that the Pastors voice hath been heard and his word so preserved there that enough to discover them And now to some applying of what hdth been said touching use of Reason and Judgement to our Case of Reforming We examined the Church of Rome by the Marks Eminencie Antiquity Succession We see they agree not to that alone nor that in Saint Augustines purpose as he applyed the like Marks to the Catholike Church Nor doe they imply that Church where barely found to be a Church designed by God to remaine uncorrupt much lesse to be the Infallible Interpreter of his Testament Also we examined that Church by that maine mark of Sanctity of Doctrine using our Reason and Judgement which they allow in this point and that the judgement of a National Church and found her so far from being Infallible that she was grosly corrupted in her Belief and Worship Of which we had apparent conviction from the evidence abovesaid to wit Scripture and Primitive practise either of which excels the judgement and authority of the present Church of Rome CHAP. XIII Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries NOw to the last part of the Objection The opening hereby of a Gap to all Heresie and Schism Answ Due use of Reason and Judgement does it not Sectaries that are gone out from us cannot 1. Pretend to such a way of Reforming the Church or to such a Judgement as our Reformation was brought about by they wanting the Authority which is needfull to it in every National Church They as Members of this Church owed obedience and subjection to the Government and Governours thereof by divine precept and could doe nothing as to a Reformation more than private men whereas the Church of England if under the Patriarchate of Rome according to Ecclesiastical Canon which would not have been contended about yet stood not bound to the usurped power thereof but being a National Church might justly eject that Usurpation and make Reformation within it self of all Errors maintained by that pretended Power and Authority 2. As for that wherein they dissent from this Church they cannot pretend to such Evidence we spoke of they doe not at all pretend to the practise and consent of the first Ages nor have they plain and evident Scripture but places unlearnedly wrested The Evidence required in dissenting from Authority is such as by expresse words or direct consequence is apparent to all that can use their Reason without prejudice of self-interest or faction But we must note a different evidence in regard of things propounded by the Church as matters of Faith and Worship and things enjoyned as circumstantials of Worship or pertaining to Order Discipline In the first sort the Church indeed stands bound to shew them evidently out of Gods Word to be such before they can be received by faith and full assent for such because it is the office of the Church or Governours thereof not to make such but to declare and propound them But they that will charge the Church in those Proposals with Heresie Superstition or Idolatry must have the full and apparent evidence aforesaid In the second sort Things Circumstantial and of Order and propounded only for such by the Church they that dissent and refuse to yeeld obedience must have most cleare evidence that such things are unlawfull and forbidden by Gods Word because that Word of God most evidently gives power to the Church to make constitute and ordaine such things and expresly commands obedience to Superiours Now for the things which the Church of Rome propounded and imposed as matters of Faith and Worship as she had not evidence for them out of Gods Word which was enough for our refusing them as matters of Faith and Worship so we had sufficient evidence of Scripture and Antiquity against them Whereas all that this Church of England propounds as matter of Faith and Worship is most clear by Scripture and consent of Antiquity So that it is most unreasonable for our Sectaries to deny it and impossible for them to have evidence against it Much lesse is it possible for them to be convinced out of Gods Word of the unlawfulnesse of
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
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
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.
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
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