expresly or thence deducible and deducible not all by every one that reads but it is enough if done by the Pastors and Guides which God appointed in his Church to that purpose using the means that are needfull to that purpose such as is Attention and Diligence in search of the Scripture collation of places and observing the connexions also sincerity and impartiality in the collection or deduction they make also prayer and devotion for assistance in the Work Now Bellarmine propounded the question very carelesly or enviously as if we denying their visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter left the Scripture to be interpreted according to every mans pleasure There was enough said above concerning the use of Reason and Judgement which we leave to private men in order to their own assent or believing a private Judgement of discerning what is propounded to them and manifested out of Gods Word Which Judgement of theirs as it supposes the help of so it stands subordinate to the publike Judgement of the Guides and Pastors God has set in his Church to judge for others deducing out of Scripture and manifesting the truth to every mans conscience as 2 Cor. 4.2 CHAP. XXVII Of a visible Infallible Iudge or Interpreter NOw the question is Whether besides the forementioned Guides and Pastors there be One visible Judge or Interpreter for all the Church to whose sentence all mens Judgements must subscribe and every mans conscience must acquiesce without further enquiry i. e. a Judge or Interpreter Infallible Indeed such a Judge or Umpire of Christendome would if to be had be a ready meanes to compose all differences and restore truth and peace But seeing it is onely a pretence and not a reality we have no such remedy left us Nay seeing it is pretended to by a Church which may erre as well as other particular Churches and has erred as grosly or more than any other it is the greatest hinderance now of restoring truth and peace among Christians For that Church which pretends to the Infallibility cannot amend any Errour and must uncharitably condemn all others which doe not acknowledge her for such as she pretends to be So that which the Romanists would make the stay of Christianity the Infallibility and unerring priviledge of that Church is the very bane of Christendom But to come to the examination and decision of this Controversie We say the Catholike Church of Christ is and will be Infallible in Fundamentals and saving Truth necessary to the being and continuing of a Church of Christ and that is no more than to say The Church shall not faile in being or in saving Truth but that in one part or other that saving Truth or Faith will be preserved and professed But that there is or shall be a Church of one denomination as the Roman Infallible in all her definitions which she proposes de fide is that we deny and they cannot prove We are next to observe that although the Romanists would usually shroud themselves in this point of Infallibility under the name of the Church Catholike yet when brought to the tryal they must and doe fasten the Infallibility upon the Roman Church endeavouring to shew by generall markes that the Catholike Church is not to be found but in the Roman Communion which was observed above chap. 12. to be the drift of Cardinal Perron and here they would willingly stay and hold forth their Infallibility under the name and priviledge of the Church being loath to be put upon the Contestation 'twixt the Pope and a Generall Councill But seeing their Church cannot speak or doe the office of a Judge or Interpreter but by a Council or the Pope therefore their Infallibility must rest upon the one or other And here we must observe how they stand d vided and disagree about the very foundation of their Faith where to state that Infallibility upon which they profess to believe all they doe believe and for want of which they usually reproach us Protestants that we cannot have any certainty of belief or means of agreement when as they that pretend to such unity and certainty in their belief differ in the ground-worke of it one side destroying and confuting the reasons and motives of the other Now to say as they usually reply that they are certaine of the Definitions of their Church being from Councils confirmed by the Pope and so they have both agreeing This does not salve the businesse For it is not certain they shall alwaies agree nor have they alwaies agreed Where then must the Infallibility rest What certainty of such definitions as the Council makes without the Pope so did the Councils of Basil and Constance or that the Pope makes without a Council The Romanists stand divided about the Definitions of those two Councils Againe if they doe agree what certainty is there of an Infallibility For still that must accrew to the definitions either upon the unerring judgement of the Council making them or of the Pope confirming them and so it returns to the former difference and thereupon to the former uncertainty one side destroying the reasons of the other The Sorbonists and moderate Papists on the one part asserting a Council is above the Pope may judge and depose him on the other part the Jesuits and more rigid Papists maintaining the contrary And this opinion of stating the Infallibility upon the Pope is the more general among them But that we may come to a nearer triall of this Infallibility of Judgement in the Church of Rome and see what the certainty of their belief which by reason of that pretended Infallibility they boast of and deny to us will come to Suppose then they are all agreed that in their Church there is such a priviledge of Infall bility or not erring Let us consider what is brought against it what pretended for it Their part being the Affirmative ours the Negative we challenge them that they cannot prove it either by Scripture or any convincing demonstrative reason Notwithstanding they are bound to shew us it according to their own concessions expresly contained in Scripture For they grant all things necessary for all to believe and such they hold this point of Infallibility are so contained in Scripture it being one of their prima credibilia and necessary for all to be believe vid. c. 22. We as Negatives are proved shew it is not imaginable that a belief of that consequence the ground-worke of all Faith the stay of the Church as they will have it should be so ill provided for That First the four Evangelists writing the Gospel of Christ for the use of the Church and all Believers should if they knew it be so silent of it and yet record many things of far smaller importance Secondly that Saint Paul when he had occasion to speak it as when he wrote to the Romans should not give the least hint of this priviledge no not when he told them the priviledge of the Jews cap.
3. that to them were committed the Oracles of God How convenient had it been to have spoken this priviledge of the Romans that to them were entrusted the Oracles of Christ and the interpretation of them Again when writing to the Corinthians he had occasion to tell them of some saying I am of Paul I of Cephas I of Apollo in stead of telling them All must hold of Cephas as the Roman Church has defined it of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop the successor of Cephas he chides them for such faction and division Or when he and Saint Peter agreed upon a distribution of their Ministry that one should apply himselfe to the Jews the other to the Gentiles nothing should be acknowledged of Saint Peters Universal Jurisdiction Gal. 2. Or when he reckoned up the severall Orders as God had set them in his Church Ephes 4.11 it should not been said First Peter then the Apostles but First Apostles Secondarily Prophets and after for ordering Ministers of the Church it should be added some Pastors and Teachers without any insinuation that the Lord had given the Bishop of Rome to be supream Pastor and Doctor of the Church Thirdly that St. Peter himselfe giving all diligence as he saith Epist 2. cap. 1. to minde them of what was needfull before his departure should not tell them whom they were to follow after he was gone Fourthly that we should have so often warning of false Teachers both in the Gospels and Epistles and nothing of this Remedy So much of Antichrists and nothing of the Vicar of Christ Fifthly that the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor or that Cyprian and the African Bishops in their opposition to Pope Stephen should not know this priviledge of the Church of Rome or not acknowledge it If it be said Both Victor and Stephen judged right Be it so and let Cardinal Perron cry Oh Providence that after-Councils judged the same as he lib. 3. against the Kings Letter yet does it not follow that they were infallible or had Univerfall Jurisdiction to judge for the whole Church Nor yet did they judge altogether right for Victor did not judge aright when he concluded excommunication against so many famous Bishops and Churches upon a different time of observing Easter For albeit Irenaeus and other famous Bishops and after-Councils acknowledged the truth of the thing it self viz. The observing of the Time of Easter yet did they not approve his judgement in proceeding to an Excommunication of or rather a pronouncing of Non-communion with those Churches And if Stephen did generally without exception as it seemes he did conclude all Heretikes to be received without rebaptization after-Councils did not judge the same but concluded the contrary upon some Heretikes for some there were that did not observe but destroyed what was essential to the Form of Baptism and could not therefore be received without being baptized at their admission Furthermore that Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know or acknowledge this but to hold so long a contestation with the Bishop of Rome in the businesse of Appeales or that the then Romish Bishops and their Proctors in that Cause should be so ignorant of this point that in the former businesse they should neither alledge Infallibility of judgement belonging to the Pope of Church of Rome nor produce any Scripture for what they pleaded for but onely pretend a Canon of the Council of Nice which upon strict examination could not appeare for the true Canon of that Councell which concerned the Pope did not come home to the business But the wits of later ages especially of this last which hath produced Jesuties have found out Scripture and reason for this Pretended Visible Universall Infallible Judge We shall examine them but I must tell them which I hinted above that they are bound to shew us it expresly in Scripture For in the former controversie of the sufficiency of Scripture they grant and must needs doe it that the Prima Credibilia or the Omnibus Necessaria are contained expresly there Now this of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome being the first thing to be believed by them the ground and formal reason upon which they believe all things else they are bound to shew it expresly set downe in Scripture And doubtlesse had there been such a thing intended by our Saviour he would have left it distinctly set down that all might be directed to that Infallible Guide or Judge Bellar. to shew the certainty of their belief above the Protestants delivers the Proposition of Faith as he calls it l. 3. c. 10. de verbo Dei in such a syllogisme That which is revealed in Scripture is true But this is revealed in Scripture The first proposition is granted on both sides of the second that this or that is revealed in Scripture We saith he are certain Why because of the testimony of the Church Council or Pope of which we have apertas promissiones plain and clear promises in Scripture that they cannot erre But the Protestants know this or that to be revealed in Scripture by conjectures onely or the judgement of a private Spirit So he This proposition of Faith we shall speak to bleow chap. 28. Here I mention it that to shew according to the Argument above they hold themselves bound to produce cleare Scripture for this ground-work of their Faith therefore he is forced to call them apert as promissiones He names two in that place the First is from Acts 15.28 Visu est Spiritui sancto nobis Answer This if it concerns any thing belongs to a Council therefore Bellar. put them all in together Church Council or Pope for as I noted above they are not agreed where to fix but what promise is here to Church or Councel It is but a relation of what the Apostles said and might say it in their priviledge of Infallibility and I hope none of the after-Councils presumed to say it as they said it Bellarmine was ill advised to give us this for a cleare promise which is neither promise nor yet cleare for how does it appeare by any thing in the Text how after-Councils might speak so Nay it is cleare they could not speak it upon a priviledge of infallibility For Councels as Bel. ackdowledges l. 2 de Concil nec habent nec scribunt revelationes sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones Neither have nor propound revelations but draw their Conclusions out of the word of God by discourse Now no men ever undertook to deliver Truth infallibly which they beat out by reasoning and concluding upon discursise meanes Indeed if Bellarmine instead or this Visum est spiritui sancto nobis had givien us that of Mat. 28. I am with you to the end or that of John 16. The spirit of truth will gvide you into all truth he had
an Act or Virtue in Peter or not rather taken for that Catholike truth believed and confessed by Peter Peters confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time but that on which Christ sayes there He will build his Church was Peters Confession i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him and so its plaine the Fathers tooke it for they opposed this Faith or Confession as the Cardinal acknowledges against the Arrians That Christ was the Sonne of the living God Bell. applyes the promise following I will give thee the Keys c. to this busines of the One visible Interpreter or Judge and will have whatsoever thou loosest to signifie not onely the relaxation of sins and their censures but nodos omnes legum dogmatum the dispensing with the tyes of Laws and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversie lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him without further proof Now when this promise of the Keyes is applyed to judgement about sinnes and offences we know what binding is as well as loosing but when it is thus stretched to universall judgement in the interpretation of Scripture defining points of faith dispensing with Lawes we cannot tell unlesse we thus inferre that as loosing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it if loosing be againe the power of dispensing with Lawes which binde men as in point of marriage or the like then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawfull as for Clergy to marry or what he has commanded as people to receive the Sacrament in both kindes And the Pope it seems by vertue of this promise or power of Keyes may thus loose and binde and not erre yet these are their chiefe places of Scripture Now let us come to their Reasons First is from Gods providence who was not ignorant how many difficulties and controversies would arise about the faith and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge Answ This is to measure the wisdome of God by the modell of our Reason but the same reason may also tell us it would have been more convenient for the Church to have had such an Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation than one for the whole Church which was to be spread over all the Earth yea reason may further tell us it had been suitable to his providence expresly to have told us who that Infallible Judge was and where we should finde him And it cannot be imagined in reason but he would have done it had he appointed any such for he was not ignorant that many the greatest controversies would be about this Judge He tells us plainly There must be Heresies and the end wherefore that they which are approved may be manifest 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withall this remedy of an Infallible Judge we must think it is that approved faith may be of more price and worth gained with more earnest enquirie and diligence in searching the Scripture using the like means so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulnesse all which would have faln and grown remisse in the hearts of men if to trust all their belief upon an Infallible Guide without any further enquitie CHAP. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it THe Second reason is from certainty of belief which they say the Protestants cannot have for want of such Infallibility but we are certain saith Bell in his Proposition of Faith above-mentioned § 27. that this or that is revealed in Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church Councel or Pope which cannot erre Now would I ask first whether they believe that Christ is the Son of God Saviour of the world that He suffered and now sits at the right hand of God or the like because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture or because they see it evidently there themselves If they say because the Church testifies it then it seems they cannot which is false or may not which is worse believe God immediately when he speaks as plain as the Church can If they say because they see it evidently there then have they two formall reasons of their belief One the immediate evidence of Scripture The other the Testimony of the Church And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture then so may we also And so we doe not excluding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture where it needs which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture and make it more evident to us Again I would ask how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture that the Church is Infallible because of the Testimony of the Church No that they cannot say here but must alledge for it plain Scripture apert as promissiones clear promises as Bellar called them and must allow men the use of their reason judgment upon the evidence of them Well if they may believe that great point of the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture why may not we believe other points so too or why doe they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground on which they themselves lay all their faith at once for they believe the Churches Infallibility revealed in Scripture because they see it as they say plainly promised there Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture can have certainty of belief why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence if they cannot have certainty in that particular then can they not have any certainty in any thing else which they believe upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church Onely this they get by it and must answer for it one day that believing all things else upon the supposed Infallibility of their Church they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture and to be the will of God which are not yea to believe contrary to that which is revealed as the half communion for the people Again they that understood and believed what the Apostles preached and wrote to them did it without the externall means of an Infallible Interpreter upon the evidence of what was spoken or written and therefore so may we Now to say They that spoke and wrote were Infallible and the other knew it to be so is no more than what we say Scripture is Infallible that speaks to us the same which they spoke and wrote and therefore we way as well understand and believe it upon the same evidence We doe not here as I insinuated before exclude the exterior helps means which God has appointed for interpreting and
clearing the Scriptures such as definitions of Councels the judgment and practice of Primitive Ages the skill and labour of the present Guides of the Church which make for the clearing and evidencing of that which is contained in Scripture but upon the evidence of that or manifestation of the truth out of that is the stay or last resolution of our Faith Waldensis a learned writer in the Church of Rome many years agoe with divers others doe well apply that of the Samaritans to the Wowan Now we believe for we have heard him our selves Joh. 4.42 unto this last resolution of Faith beginning in the Testimony of the Church as the first motive but ending and staying upon Scripture As they were first moved and brought to Christ upon the Womans saying but believed indeed when they heard him themselves So the saying and judgment of the Church at our first coming and after is a great motive and light to us but then indeed we believe when we hear him our selves when we hear him speak thus and thus to us in Scripture Now he that upon carefull and impartiall using the means God has appointed does search for the Truth shall finde what he seeks or not erre inpardonably whereas the Romanist receiving all upon a supposed infallible Testimony seeks no further comes not to audivimus ipsi we have heard him our selves blindly casts his faith upon a false ground and so is led to believe as I said many things as revealed of God which are not and sometimes the contrary to what is revealed Their third Reason is from pretence of Unity which they say is preserved amongst them by this means but lost among the Protestants for want of it and they instance in the breaches and confusions of these our Times Answ We had the same means for Unity which the Antient Church had as was said above ch 13. and so long as we could freely use them having the secular power to friend heresie and schisme was prevented and Unity preserved but when the sword of violence prevailed no marvail if Licentiousnesse grew bold and cast off the cords of obedience Ecclesiastical as well as Civil And we see this pretended Infallibility could not keep Burbon and his Army in order but that they sacked Rome made the Pope their prisoner and forced him to unworthy conditions And we read that Hereticks of old as Arrians and others when they had the Emperours favour bore down all before them so that this means of Infallibility either could not keep them from breaking out and prevailing or else which indeed is the truth there was no such belief of an Infallibility in the Church of Rome in those better Ages nor was it ever made use of or alledged against Hereticks to repress them The judgment indeed of the Bishops of Rome was often alledged as was also the judgment of other Churches and famous Bishops but this without implying an Infallibity in judging Nay this pretence of Infallibility is so farre from being cause of Unity in the Catholick Church that it has been the chief cause of division and of losing more than they retain by it The Greek Church stands dis-joyned from the Roman because of her challenging Universal subjection and Infallibility and therefore no more to be dealt with And this has lost all those that in these later Ages have been divided from the Communion of the Roman Church because the pretense of Infallibility made her incorrigible and cut off all hopes of her amending the errors they complained of and desired to have reformed So that let them cast up what they have lost and they will have no cause to boast of what they hold by it Nay did the Romanists truly confesse what belief they have of this Infallible Judge it would in all probability be found that not the faith of such Infallibility but the fear of Inquisition fire and faggot keeps those they have in obedience at least external But some of them have said This Rule or way if followed does produce Unity but the Protestants Rule of belief is not apt to doe it but rather begets division Answ It is true that their Infallibility though not Real but pretended where it is followed i. e. indeed believed will produce according to the strength of erroncous perswasions an answerable effect in those that are drawn to believe it for such must needs submit to all things else But being onely pretended not reall it cannot be apt to produce the effect or hold men to them but as we said has lost many Our Rule of believing upon evidence of Scripture gained by due use of the means appointed thereunto as above mentioned in this Chap. if conscionably followed will produce the effect of Unity and peaceable submission and is more apt to do it For therfore was Scripture given that there might be one Faith and certainly not given with such obscurity as to make men quarrel but with such evidence as men not wanting to themselves may therby come to know that one faith without such a visible Infallible Judge And when any will deceive themselves and prove obstinate the Church proceeds to restrain them by Ecclesiastical censure even to excommunication for preserving Unity in the rest And other means the Antient Church had not nor can the Roman goe farther in the way of the Church for as for fire and faggot it was the way of the Adversaries of the Churcith The Testimonies they cite out of Fathers are all not concluding They are such as send Hereticks to the Church in general as S. Augustine doth the Donatists often but this does not argue that we shall finde any where in the Church a Visible Infallible Guide Otherwise we say in every Church there are Guides and Pastors of publik judgment to whom inferiours must submit and the consent of the Catholick Church is above that Or else they are such Testimonies as report the judgment of the Bishop of Rome given in such or such causes and required by other Bishops or Churches But this comes not home neither For we finde the judgment of other Bishops and learned Fathers alledged and required and that by Popes themselves So was Athaâ—asius his judgment desired by Liberius and Hieromes often by Pope Damasus and that in matter of doctrinal points and with a great deal of submission to their judgment as to be guided by it as appears in Pope Liberius Letter to Athanasius and Damasus to Hierome One place of Irenaeus is much cited by them Ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem c. lib. 3. cap. 2. which â—ndeed makes against them For this â—mplies neither Universal jurisdiction nor Infallibility in the Romish Church Neither did Irenaeus mean so much as the words by reason of the ill Latine Translation may seem to imply For the Greek had it as I have met with it and as the whole Context avouches it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is ill translated potentiorem principalitatem but rather
Romanists shew us if they can among all the particulars the Fathers speak of as so left us any point of Faith necessary to salvation Indeed some of the more antient Fathers mention one which with some consent they held a point of Faith and received by Tradition viz. the Millenary belief but that was not a meer unwritten Tradition but rather a Traditive sense of Scripture Rev. 20. and that a mistaken one and by the Romanists rejected who know the Fathers were deceived in that Tradition by Papias and we know the Romanists are deceived or may very well in theirs But let them shew as I said in all the Testimonies of the Fathers one of their necessary points of Faith among those particulars which the Fathers have mentioned with any consent as delivered by unwritten Tradition which seeing they cannot doe all their boasting of Antiquity in this point is vaine they meet onely with the Name of unwritten Tradition not the Thing CHAP. XXVI Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture THus much of the Sufficiency of Scripture Now of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of it Scripture being the Rule of Faith must in all reason be both sufficiently perfect as wee have heard and also sufficiently clear and perspicuous as we shall see Their pretence of obscurity and difficulty in Scripture such as they fasten on it serves them to two purposes To keep people from Reading it and to set up an Infallible Interpreter of the sense of it or visible Judge of all controversies arising Bellar. handles this businesse in lib. 3. de verbo dei and proposes two questions neither of them stated aright His first Sintne Scripturae sacrae per se facillimae apertissimae an verò interpretatione indigeant cap. 1. His second An ab uno visibili communi judice Scripturae interpretatio petenda sit an uniuscujusque Arbitrio relinquenda Whereas we neither say the Scripture needs no Interpretation nor do we leave it to every mans pleasure or judgement But we acknowledge there are many hard places and obscure passages which need Interpretation yet is there not such a general obscurity in Scripture but that private persons may read it with profit which both Scripture it self and all the Fathers exhort the people to because what is necessary to life and faith is for the most part plainly set down therefore it is called A light to our feet and paths Psal 119. and to make wise the simple Psal 19.7 and Saint Peter bids Christians attend to the word of Prophecie as a light shining in a dark place 2 Epist. 1.19 Bell. answers to such places that the Scripture is a light when it is understood And this is as much as if he had said a light is a light if it be seen For a light if it be not put in a dark Lanthorn or under a Bushel as the Church of Rome serves the Scripture to hide it from the people will shew it self so will the Scripture being a light and a light shining as S. Peter said Certainly it was the intent and duty of all the Apostles so to speak and so to write as to be understood And St. Peter notes but some places in Saint Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest 2 Epist c. 3. Sure then those that are not so but come with minds and endeavours answerable may read with profit seeing his Epistles are for the most part not hard to be understood That which they reply here comes to this that those Churches to which the Apostle wrote were instructed aforehand by word of mouth and so might more easily understand what was written after We grant they were praeinstructed and that it made them more fit to understand what was written but as they had it so Christian people want it not now and albeit their praeinstruction might prepare them to a more easie understanding of passages relating to some particulars concerning things not necessary to salvation as was that of Antichrist 2 Thes 2. Of which we may be ignorant and of which the Church of Rome is ignorant notwithstanding all her Traditions yet fâ—r things necessary delivered in the Apostles writings of which the question proceeds our people have as fitting and sufficient means to understand as they had For seeing their praeinstruction was the first preaching of the Gospel to them the laying of the foundation the delivering chiefly of things necessary for them to know unto salvation I hope we are not destitute of such fore-instruction to fit us for profitable reading of the scriptures we are taught the principles of Christian Religion the Catholike Faith into which we and all Christians are baptized besides we have the help of the Gospels and all other writings of Gods Word and therefore why may not our Christian people so premstructed understand Saint Pauls Epistles in all necessary points as well and profitably as the people to whom they were written Againe take the Scripture as a Rule of direction it argues that it must be cleare and plaine in what it is to direct us in All men give such Rules as neere as they can evident and cleare and shall we deny it to the best of Rules the Rule of Gods making and giving the Rule of greatest concernment to us Bell. could say when he meant to give Scripture its due lib. 1. cap. 2. that it was Regula credendi tutissima certissima And againe because it was a Rule therefore it must be nota certa which indeed is very good reason both for the knowing of it to be our Rule and for the evidence of it in those things it is to direct us in In regard of which things it was necessary a Christian should have sufficient evidence as in the harder places of Scripture he has his exercise to set an edge upon his endeavours and keep him humble And these very reasons we finde given by the Fathers for the obscurity we meet with in Scripture that it is not such as to deter any from reading for the Fathers frequently exhort all unto it but to stirre up the more diligence in searching the Scriptures and to keep down Pride and selfe-conceit that people should not trust too much to their own understanding but have cause to repair upon all occasions to their Guides and Pastors whose mouthes preserve knowledge now as the Priests did under the Law As therefore we said Scripture was a sufficiently perfect rule of all things necessary to salvation containing them expresly or deducibly so we say it is a sufficiently cleare Rule not onely in regard of what it delivers expresly but in regard of all necessary truths deducible because they may sufficiently by evident and cleare consequence be deduced thence This clearnesse then which we attribute to Scripture does not exclude Interpretation or the skill and industry of the Guides of the Church for the deducing of many necessary divine Truths All things necessary we say are there contained
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.
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
to be a Judge in the cause Indeed a lawful and free General Councel of the whole Church setting scripture before them as their Rule had been the only and competent Judge but seeing such a Councel was not to be had or expected not a General one because of the division of the Eastern Church from the West nor a lawful and free one because of the exorbitant power of the Pope and his Dependants it remained we should use the means left us and doe it by Provincial and National Synods keeping the same Rule the Word of God Which Gerson with other wise learned men allows and calls it reformari per parteâ— when the Church reforms it self by parts and to this provincial Councels doe suffice Gers de Concil Vnius obed And so we reade the Emperour with other Kings and Princes who called for a General Councel to compose differences in Religion thought it reasonable upon the tergiversation of the Pope to doe it by Provincial Synods in their several Dominions and so they threatned the Pope they would do if he would not consent to a Councel A Councel and the rame of Reformation were alwaies formidable to the Court of Rome and between the dread of a General Councel and the fear of such Provincial Synods Pope after Pope hung tormented for divers yeares using all the artifices as might be to satisfie the Princes and yet to keep off both General and Provincial Synods till Pope Paul the third arose a man of Spirit and cunning who turned the fear of a Councel into the hope and expectation of advantage by it And so indeed he and his dependants ordered the businesse at Trent that nothing could there be determined without his privity and direction that in the end both Princes and People instead of relief they expected by a Free Councel found themselves more hampered and enslaved by the pretended General Courcel of Trent Where divers points which before were more free to opine in or have freedome of opinion in were defined Articles of Faith and all hope excluded of gaining what divers Princes made no question to carry at the beginning viz Communion in both kindes Priests marriage Service in a known tongue and some other The Princes and the People were very ill satisfied with this dealing the French did not of many years receive that Councel yet did not proceed to make use of a national Synod happily because of the troubles in that Kingdome but the English Nation would not be so fooled for seeing aforehand what could be expected from the Court of Rome they made use of that Power which God has left in every Church of judging for it self according to his word especially when the Catholick Church stands so divided and oppressed with faction that the chief remedy of all a Free General Councel cannot be had What God spake to his people by the Prophet Hos 4.15 Though Israel transgresse yet let not Judab sin tells us a particular Church may and ought to reform though others will not and the examples of many Provincial Councels in this point of declaring and casting out errors creeping upon them warrant what we have done For if Saint Augustine and the other Bishops in a Provincial Synod declared against and rejected the usurped claim of the Pope in point of Appeal why might not the English Church under Henry the VIIIth cast out his usurped power here And if the Provincial Synod of Laodicea declared against and condemned the worshipping of Angels then on foot why might not we also declare against worship of Saints and Images prevailing here If it be said it was not done here by a just Provincial Synod but the most of the former Bishops were against the Reformation and displaced Answ We need not tell them how the businesse was carried at Trent how some were sent away some kept back others and they but Titular Bishops sent in and all to make up a major part which the Histories of that Councel witness And Dudithius an Hungarian Bishop and one of the Orators for that King complained of it as it is to be seen in his advices and Letters from thence But we say that in that Reformation under Henry the VIIIth and Queen Elizabeth is more largely pursued in my I st Part Chap 2. there was no displacing of Bishops but all passed with a general consent And upon that Reformation or Ejection of the Popes usurped power arose the first division of the English and Romish Church In that which followed under Queen Elizabeth the businesse of the Synod was regularly carried by the Major part the displacing of the Bishops that were put out being before and that upon the denyal of the Oath of Supremacy and their conspiring together to refuse to Crown the Queen I will conclude this point of our Reforming with the saying of Saint Cyprian lib. 2. Ep 3. Si quis de Antecessorib c. If any of those that went before us did through ignorance or simplicity not observe and hold this which the Lord by his example and doctrine hath taught it may be pardoned them through the Indulgence of God Nobis non poterit ignosci c. but to us it cannot be pardoned who are now admonished and instructed of the Lord. So say we If any went before us in the Communion and Errors of the Roman Church through simplicity of heart we deny him not mercy with God but we could not expect it if being better instructed of God we had not amended our known errors CHAP. V. We not guilty of Schism The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists THus farre of our Reforming Now of that which followed upon it breach of Communion And here they charge us with Schisme When I say breach of Communion followed upon our Reforming I doe not take the charge and guilt of it upon us or imply that it followed as the proper effect does upon the immediate cause but followed accidentally occasionally and is to be imputed to some cause else not our reforming but their default They gave us cause by Errours and Superstitions thrust upon us to reform They when We and all Nations called for Reformation remained incorrigible We did our duty they would not doe theirs Division of Communion necessarily followes by reason those Errours were not only in belief but in practice and worship too not upon our leaving the Errours but upon their not leaving them not upon our going forward but because they would not come on As when communicating of Infants was believed as necessary and accordingly practised through the Catholick Church we must understand it as generally believed and practised or more generally than was any Romish Errour before the Reformation for many ages that National Church which first reformed it self in that belief and practice did it justly without expecting a General Councel and as to that belief and practice stood divided from other National Churches or parts of the Catholick till they should reform too
indeed there followed no breach or division upon it because they all reformed That saying of S. Augustine so much in the Mouthes of Papists Nulla necessitas c. there is no necessity of dividing from the Church was true many waies but no way against us 1. True in regard of the occasion upon which it was spoken viz the ill lives of many in the Church no necessity of dividing or leaving Communion for that 2. In regard of the Persons against whom it was spoken viz the Donatists they had no necessity or just cause of leaving the Church 3. In regard of the Catholick Church there is no necessity of dividing from that for they that divide from the Catholick Church doe break with it either upon the point of Faith or Charity i. e. they either depart from that one Faith held in the Catholick Church or holding that Faith doe break with it for some cause or matter externall to that one Faith and for it uncharitably condemn all others as not belonging to the Catholick Church So did the Donatists We did neither For our ceasing to communicate with the Roman Church which yet is but a particular not the Catholick Church was upon the preserving and keeping entire that Catholick Faith once delivered which being the chief bond of Uniay of the Catholick Church and being by us preserved together with the bond of Charity in not condemning them as no part of the Catholick Church we cannot be therefore said to divide from the Communion of the Catholick Church or to be cause of that Division which followed upon our endevouring to preserve that Faith entire but they are the cause of it that would not and yet would condemn us Our defence then in generall stands thus We had just cause to reform and so had they We in Reforming did what we ought if they had done what they ought and had cause to doe no breach or division had followed And further We in doing what we ought preserved the Faith entire together with Charity They would neither cast off their Errors which clogged and corrupted the Faith nor retain Charity but cut us off as much as in them from the Catholick Church It is clear then to whom the Cause of this Division must be imputed CHAP. VI. How necessity of dividing Communion arises BUt that it may more particularly be understood what we did and what cause or necessity we had of so doing We must consider that the necessity of abstaining from the Communion of this or that Church does not presently arise upon Errours or Superstitions suffered or taught in that Church and held or practised by many in it No though they be grosse Errours and may be damnable to them that carelesly suffer themselves to be seduced into them Such were the seducing doctrines suffered and taught in the Churches of Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira Chap. 3. as abovesaid yet was not any therefore necessitated to divide from their Communion But then the necessity arises 1. When the Errour is directly Fundamental as in the Arian heresie for which all true Catholicks held themselves obliged to abstain from their Communion We doe not charge the Roman Church upon that score in the cause of this division 2. When the Errour and Superstition is in the practise that concerns the administration of the Sacraments the publick service the Form and Worship in all which stands the exercise of the external Communion so that men truly informed and convinced of those Errours and Superstitions cannot communicate with good conscience there arises a necessity of abstaining from such practise and consequently from Communion with that Church so far as to such practises yet so as holding it a part of the Catholike Church This I say is a dividing from such a Church in the external Communion by ceasing to practise and hold some things which it doth but a joyning with it in the Catholike of which we hold it still a part as we also are And this may give sense to that distinction of forsaking the Errors but not the Church i.e. not forsaking or casting off that which makes a true Member of the Church or not breaking with the Church upon the point of true Faith or Charity 3. When such Superstitious practises together with Errours in belief in themselves gross and palpable and to the carelesse or wilfull damnable are not onely taught and permitted in a Church but imposed also and required as a condition of Communion so that they which shall not so professe or practise are sentenced as Hereticks and excommunicated there is just cause and necessity of dividing from the Communion of such a Church Now in both these respects we charge the Church of Rome with the cause of our Division and that we were thereupon necessitated to abstain from her Communion yet so as holding her then and still a Church and being then and still ready to hold Communion with her Saving the duty of true Members of the Catholike Church in case she would provide for the security thereof by a tolerable Reformation So our defence stands upon these two Assertions That such a cause is just and necessary and that the Church of Rome gave it and we had it which two make up the two Propositions of this Argument It is lawfull to abstain from the Communion of that Church which requires unlawfull and sinfull conditions of her Communion but the Church of Rome requires such Or thus All men ought upon true conviction to forsake their known Errours and sins but we knew them and were truly convinced of them therefore in forsaking them we did what we ought The first proposition in both these forms stands as undeniable or else it must be granted that we may be bound to continue under a necessity of sinning and that knowingly So the whole businesse rests upon the second proposition that such was our Case and such the Cause that the Church of Rome gave which must appear by examination of the particular doctrines of Belief and Practise enjoyned all the members of that Church Now that they containe such Errours and Superstitions as before mentioned we are ready to demonstrate both by Scripture and the best Antiquity But it is our purpose and work in present to discover and take away the general pretences and plausible allegations they make for themselves or against us in this Cause CHAP. VII Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we doe AGainst our Defence so stated they usually reply If Protestants upon Apprehension or conviction of Errours and Superstitions in the Church of Rome had just cause to forsake her Communion then may Sectaries justly forsake the Communion of the Protestants Church For they also say and are many times perswaded and convinced that that Church imposes on them such Errours Answer Set the Termes aright and the fallacy or ambiguity of this captious reasoning will appear If by our apprehension or conviction of Errours in the Church of Rome they mean onely our
saying pretending or thinking to be so then the consequence is good for Sectaries doe pretend they are convinced and many times verily think so but the assumption then is false for we did not upon such bare apprehension or deceiving perswasion forsake the Communion of that Church but upon a true and evident conviction of known Errours and Sins which we were bound to commit in that Communion demonstrable by Scripture and Antiquity Which conviction Sectaries have not nor doe they at all pretend to confirme what they say by the practice of Antiquity Make the Case like and it will follow alike in both If we had given them the like cause as the Church of Rome gave us they might also forsake our Communion If they had the like conviction as we had they might as justly doe the like But seeing the case is unlike both in regard of our giving them cause and of their apprehension or conviction it will not follow they can have just cause of Division or Revolt See of this more below Chap. 13. It is not then their saying or thinking that we imposed sinfull conditions of Communion and that they are convinced of it which will justifie them or prejudice us For some mens mistaking of Errour for Truth must not make other men give over to stand to truth and plead it against Errour or perswade them they are also mistaken and cannot know the Truth when they doe know it evidently Heretikes of old as * Vide cap. 23. prope finem appears by Saint Iren. Tertul. and August sheltered themselves against Scripture by plea of Traditions Now does the Church of Rome think it unreasonable to defend it self by unwritten Traditions because Heretikes pretended them And yet I hope its more possible for us to make appear the truth of what we say by that which is written in Scripture and Fathers than for the Church of Rome to make the truth of what she saies to appear by unwritten Traditions the truth of which Traditions it is not possible for her to make appear It is not therefore saying or thinking that must carry it on any side but the evidencing and proving of what is said That we undertake to doe from point to point as the clear demonstration that we had just cause and were truly convinced of it and had rebelled against Light and grievously sinned had we still continued in known Errour and wilfull Sin the inseparable condition of Roman Communion to them that have means to know the Errour and Sin But they object also That the way of our Reforming and Dividing from the Church of Rome and the plea we make for it leaves men to their own reason and judgement to make use of it against the Church and so opens a gap to Heresie and Schism Answer It is not any thing we have done or yet hold that gives them just cause to object this to us but the challenging of Infallibility to their Church necessitates them to lay such a charg upon all that will not blindly resign up reason judgement and faith to the dictates of their Church We will first speak of the use of Reason and Judgement permitted to them that can use it then of the using it against or dissenting from the Church CHAP. VIII Of the use of Reason and Judgement in private men REason and Understanding is that Light which he that lightens every man that comes into the World Ioh. 1.9 puts into the mind of man to see and judge thereby what to believe and what to doe Now though we leave not men wholly to their own Reason yet must we leave them the use of it so far as is necessary to the assent which Faith requires and we leave it them not in opposition to the publick Judgement of the Church but to the blind obedience of an implicite Faith that sees no other ground or motive of believing and practising than because the Church so commands If the Church of Rome impose the hard condition on them that come over to her as Nahash the Ammonite on them of Iabesh Gilead that would come out to him 1 Sa. 11.2 to thrust out their right Eye the Eye of their spiritual understanding by which they discern and judge of Spiritual things revealed of God 1 Cor. 2.13.15 and onely leave them the eye of common sense to discerne what it is the Church doth practise or what it defines without further enquiring about the will of God how consonant that practise or definition that worship or belief is to it If I say she can impose this hard condition we cannot but must say 1. That no man can believe any thing truly with such a free and full assent as faith requires nor doe any thing in worship or practise of life with that faith or due perswasion of the lawfulnesse of it which the Apostle requires Rom. 14. ult unlesse he be convinced of it in his judgement as in the same chap. v. 5. Let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind concluding by the due use of his reason that its Gods revealed will he should so doe and believe For the Apostle speaking that of perswasion in and about things indifferent shews it is much more necessary in matters of Faith and Worship Nor can this be eluded by saying It is sufficient for such a perswasion that a man knows the Church saith so thereupon concludes that God saith so for there is more in the Apostles saying The Spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2.15 For that judging is not a receiving of things propounded by the Church without examination but implies a discerning of them to be the things of God before he receives them for such by true faith and the last resolution or stay of Faith is not upon the Churches saying so 2. Gods people are not left to themselves to seeke out that revealed Will of God but he has appointed Guides and Pastors in his Church in every National Church to propound and demonstrate that Will of God out of his Word To this end were Pastors and Teachers given Eph. 4. that we should not be carried away with every wind of doctrine ver 14. These have publike judgement to determine and judge for others for they must give account for others but private Christians have their private judgement or judgement of Discretion for themselves onely which is in the discerning and receiving to themselves as the will of God what is delivered and propounded to them for they must answer also for themselves and live by their own faith which cannot be without allowing them due use of their reason and judgement to see the evidence of that to which they must assent Therefore we say also the Guides and Pastors of the Church doe guide and teach not Infallibly but Morally by way of doctrine and perswasion by manifestation of the Truth commending themselves to every mans conscience as Paul saith 2 Cor. 4.2 3. When that is done They doe
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
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
communicate one with the other not onely in the keeping Easter or in the very practise of Rebaptization but those that held Rebaptization necessary could not at all communicate with any of those members of the Catholike Church which had been received from heresie without being baptized again Thirdly that upon the heat of the Romish Bishops Victor and Stephen in these two businesses it came to an actuall denying of Communion with the Asian and African Churches What Cardinall Perron concludes upon those Churches so standing out as to the point of Schism he has not expresly declared notwithstanding he treates of both their oppositions against the Bishops of Rome then being lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. Hee seemes indeed to leave the Asians under Schisme but that is to take the Crown of Martyrdome from many of those godly Asian Bishops And we read that as Irenaeus and others reproved Victors Excommunicating of them so they held them not cut off from the Catholick Church and professed they would not deny to communicate with them as Eusebius witnesseth Lib. 5. Hist Eccles After-ages also have excused them And the like charity if the Romanists had it for us might excuse us or rather commend what we have done CHAP. XVIII The want of that does not alwaies make guilty of Schism YEt hence appears that which the Cardinal often presseth that all the Members of the Catholike Church must communicate one with another is onely true of duty so they ought to doe and keep themselves not of fact or under necessity of being guilty of Schisme or cut off from the Communion of the Catholike Church For we see that neither want of agreement in all doctrines and practises does it nor yet all want of actuall or external Communion does it as when Communion is forborn or denyed by one Church to another without uncharitable denying of one the other to be parts of the Catholike And the Testimonies of Fathers speaking of Communion upon occasion of the case between the Donatists and the Catholike Church are not to be extended to all actual Non-communion which often happened between eminent persons denying it to each other and between several Churches doing the like yet both remaining in the Catholike To these two Instances out of History let me adde two other upon supposall The errour in the beliefe and practise of Communicating Infants prevailed in the Catholike Church generally and for many Ages and was reformed without a General Council It must be supposed some one National Church did reforme it self in that belief and practise and it must be acknowledged justly done for the whole Catholike Church did accordingly reforme Now suppose it had not but still persisted in that beliefe and practise that National Church which first reformed must either have returned to the errour it had justly left or stood divided in Communion to the rest of the Catholike Church at least from those parts of the Catholike Church that held Infant communion necessary upon the like place of Scripture Joh. 6.53 answerable as they thought to that other Joh. 3 3 concerning Baptism which persisting in the belief that one Sacrament was necessary to children as well as the other could not have admitted those that reformed as good Christians no more than those that should have deâ—yed Baptism to their children Now there did not follow a division because the rest of the Church followed in the Reformation But suppose they had not I would then learn of the Cardinal whether he would have accounted that Nationall Church guilty of Schisme oâ— of the division of Commuon which had followed upon their doing that which they did justly through the default of other Churches in not doing that which they saw good cause to doe He that will apply this to the Reformation of this National Church and the default of the Roman Church in not doing the like will see that want of external Communion does not alwaies cut off from the Catholike Church and will see cause also of excusing us My second Instance upon supposall is from that which was intended in France The League had divided the Roman Catholikes there but that being broken the King and his party endeavoured reconciliation with the Pope and finding him averse and ill to be dealt with it was determined to set up in France a Patriarch and to have no more to doe with the Court of Rome and the Person was designed for it as the History of those Times assures us I would now learne of the Cardinal who was at length the Kings Proxy in his reconcilement to Rome and its like was privy to his designe had this been executed with what part of the Catholike Church had they communicated or had they been guilty of Schisme If it be said it was not done yet it was resolv'd on and so near to the execution that a Cardinal told the Pope As Clement the seveth had lost England so Clement the eighth would lose France And as it was resolv'd on so it was thought reasonable and just by the more considerable part of Roman Catholikes in France viz. those that adhered to the King and to be maintained if done So here 's the difference they in France had approved it we in England did it CHAP. XIX Our case and that of the Donatists not alike ANd now that which was objected above by the Cardinal that it 's not enough for Catholikes to hold the same faith with the Catholike Church but must hold Communion with it too we grant most true but then is that rule broken when men hold not the Communion or forsake it as the Donatists did who as they had no cause in regard of the faith by reason of any dangerous doctrines or practises imposed on them to cease from communicating with any part of the Catholike Church so they divided from the whole through the breach of charity condemning it for no Church and drawing the communion wholly to themselves And in some of those sentences the Cardinal alledges out of Saint Augustine the breach or want of charity is exprest as the reason of condemâ—ing the Donatists Now as for us we had just cause in regard of the faith once delivered to free it and our selves from errours and superstitions not confining the Church within our Communion or condemning other Churches as no parts of the Catholike Therefore the case of the Donatists cannot concern us who offended not either by breach of the Faith or of Charity But the cause of Division or breach of Communion must rest upon the Roman Church which had neither will to reform as she ought nor yet charity to beare with them that did and the case of the Donatists does most fit that Church which uncharitably condemnes all other and confines the Communion to her self For as to the Cardinals making the case of the Donatists and ours the same I would learn of him Whether if the Donatists had onely used their liberty and judgement in that practise
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
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
he denyes in the same Chapter that it was the proper and chief end of Scripture to be a Rule but to be utile quoddam commonitorium ad conservaudam doctrinam ex praedicatione acceptam A profitable means to admonish and remember them of the doctrine they had heard preached That profit indeed the Scripture did afford but the end of that remembrance and conserving of the Doctrine preached was that the Scripture should be as a standing Rule or Guide to them and so to us that did not heare what the Apostles preached To us it is not properly a Remembrancer but a Guide and Rule and that must be the chief end wherefore it was written But this to note how this engagement for unwritten Tradition in hâ—s fourth Book would not let him be constant to what he had fairly spoken of Scripture in his first So it fares with most of them Truth forces much from them till they come to be confronted with an adversary in defence of some point of their New Faith Their second sort of Reasoning against the sufficiency of Scripture is by enumeration of some things necessary to be believed which are not contained say they in Scripture As first That Scripture is the Word of God is necessary to be believed but not contained or shewn by Scripture This is in every of their mouthes Among the rest Bell. thus lib. 4. Scripture cannot shew it self to be the Word of God for the Alcoran affirms also of it self the same that it is the Word of God We answer First to the Impertinency of this Cavil That as it was said above in the stating of the Question to believe Scripture to be the Word of God is not of those material objects of Faith which we say are contained in Scripture and are such as had been necessary for Christians to believe though there had been no Scripture also that the Scripture being received upon Universal Tradition as we said does not derogate from the sufficiency of Scripture for that is a Tradition which Scripture supposes does not exclude in this question For had the Scripture been never so full and sufficient according to the Papists mind i. e. had it plainly confirmed if we may suppose such a thing all that they say is necessary to be learnt by unwritten Tradition yet would it not have contained this that it is the Word of God otherwise then it doth but must suppose that universall Tradition still to bring it down to us But we also say that although Scripture is so brought down to us yet being received upon such Tradition it discovers it selfe to be divine by it own light or those internal arguments as they are called which appear in it to those that are versed in it And now see what Bellarmine does here acknowledge lib. 1. cap. â— he makes the title of the Chapter Libriâ— canâ—niâ—is verbum Dei contineri among other argâ—ments he proves it excellently well by some reasons drawne from Scripture it selfe as by the conspiration of the parts the event of Prophecies and the like and there saith Sacris-Scripturis nihil notius nihil certius Now when he comes to contend for unwritten Tradition against Scripture Scripture cannot shew it selfe to be the Word of God more than the Alcoran It had been well if Bell. had sate down with his own dishonour in contradicting himselfe and not used this odious instance of the Alcoran to Gods dishonour But as I noted at the beginning their Necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions forces them to cast many aspersions upon the undoubted Word of Almighty God Heare what others say upon the same score the Jesuite Bailius in his Catechisme Without the Testimony of the Church I would believe the Scripture no more than my Livy no more than Aesops Fables saith another And how can it prove it selfe to be no Fable saith another Romanist more than any other writing that is mixed with Fables To this purpose are those other reproaches that sall from them The Scripture a mute letter as if no sense in it but as the Church gives it a nose of wax as if applyable of it self any way This the language their Disciples must learne to speake reproachfully of that Word which was written by the Holy spirit of God given them to salvation and must judge them at the last day Another of their Instances of things necessary but not contained in Scripture is Baptism of Infants This generally objected by them all And amongst them I single out Bell. to answer himselfe or as I may say contradict himself in it For lib. 1. de baptis c. 8. he proves it by places of Scripture and saith the argument is strong and effectual and cannot be avoyded and that the thing is evident in Scripture Now when he contends for Tradition against Scripture This thing of Childrens Baptisme must be one of them that is necessary and not contained in Scripture This is not ingenuous nor conscionable but enough to answer the objection We say further that Baptism of Children as to the practise of it is not contained expresly in Scripture i. e. it is no where commanded to be done or said that they did doe it But the grounds and necessity of it are sufficiently delivered in Scripture and that 's enough for the doing of it and that the Arguments from Scripture by Bel. and others alledged doe sufficiently shew And these are their chief Instances Their third and last sort of reasoning is from places of Scripture expresly naming Traditions as 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 Answ The whole Gospel was Tradition till it was written Now if they will have these places make for them they must shew those Traditions mentioned did contain things necessary to salvation and no where written It is plain they did not The first concerns Rites and Orders in their Assemblies and the other if unwritten concerned the coming of Antichrist the falling away before it the things spoken of in that Chapter and not of necessity to know unto salvation and that Tradition if any more then was written touching those points being lost it appeares how well the Church of Rome is to be trusted in this businesse of unwritten Tradition that cannot shew those which were nor prove those she has to be delivered by the Apostles Also from places of Scripture which they will have to imply Tradition as Ioh. 16 1â— I have yet many things to say to you c. 1 Cor. 2.6 We speak wisdome among the perfect and that to Timothy Custodi depositum That good thing committed to thee keep 2 Tim 1.14 Answ These prove no more than the former place unlesse they can also prove and demonstrate to us that they concerned things not written and yet necessary to salvation 2. We must tell them that Hereticks of old did usually pretend these very places for their unwritten doctrines and made the like Inferences as the Papists do St. Aug. upon John shews they would say their
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
given us a promise but not cleare a promise of guiding into all truth infallibly so to them that received it then but not clear for infallibility to after Councels or Guides of the Church a promise indeed of assistance to them for all necessary Truth but yet conditionall upon their doing their duty in using the meanes which that all or the major part in every Council will do is not certaine His other clear promise is our Saviours praying for Peter Luk. 22. ver 32. Rogavi pro te nè deficiat fides tua This may seem to concerne the Pope or Church of Rome yet is there nothing in it of a cleare promise to them whether we consider the thing prayed for or the person The thing prayed for is the persevering or not failing of the saving faith by which Peter was rooted and built upon CHRIST which cannot agree to all the Bishops of Rome for they may want that Faith or faile in it as they acknowledge Bellarmine grants this perseverance was personall as to Peter but saith hee there is another thing promised which belongs to his Successors viz. That none in his Chair should teach against the Faith So lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. or that the Bishop of Rome docens è cathedra cannot erre So lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. But how is this a clear promise now or how can this be wrested out of that our Saviour prayed for to Peter by any force of reason For thus the one must follow on the other Peter had assurance to persevere in Faith therefore all his Successours Bishops of Rome have assurance infallibly to teach nothing against the Catholike Faith which is most incohaerent For if that which was directly prayed for Peters perseverance does not descend to his Successors how shall the consequent of it Nay how shall that which is altogether inconsequent to it therefore descend unto them For were it granted that they should persevere in saving-faith the thing assured to Peter yet would it by no meanes follow they could not erre No more than it is true of every regenerate man perservering that he is infallible but now it is granted they have no assurance of such perseverance in the faith yet must it follow they have assurance of teaching nothing against it Thus far then it is so clear a promise that nothing seems more unreasonable Againe if they would make it any way agree to the Bishops of Rome it must be thus Our Saviour prayed for Peter that his Faith should not faile though he denyed him thrice therefore Peters successors though they deny the Faith in mouth yet it shall not faile in heart as they say it was with Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arrians But then this is clean contrary to what they would have out of it which is an outward Professing or declaring of the Faith by definitive sentence whatever the perswasion of the heart be this they contend not for yet this is that which was promised to Peter this he had the other viz. outward profession he failed in So clear yet is this promise But now looke at the person were there any thing here prayed for which might fit the Infallibility which the Bishops of Rome would have yet what cleare consequence can make that belong to them which St. Peter had can they give us one place of Scripture to assure us infallibly that Peter was at Rome and governed that Church as the Bishop of it and dyed in that Sea Is it not admirable that this ground-work of all their faith should no where appeare in all Scripture The Ecclesiastical Writers indeed took him to be as Bishop in that Sea and so the Fathers generally speake of him But this amounts onely to a humane Testimony and besides they ascribe the foundation and Government of that Church to Saint Paul together with Peter and Saint Paul we finde in Scripture to have written to the Church of Rome to preach to them and dwell among them yet must the pretensions made from S. Peter be cleare notwithstanding Well were this cleare by Divine Testimony that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters peculiar successors yet still there is no ground for their beliefe of Infallibility unlesse they can shew it clearly that what belonged to Saint Peter as to this point is derived to all his successors and that the successors of other Apostles in the Churches they founded and govern'd must not enjoy what belonged to those Apostles So much of these two cleare promises of Bell. had he had clearer we should doubtlesse have heard of them One place there is which is often in their mouths and serves for all purposes for the Headship and universall Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Infallibility of Pope Councils and Church of Rome and that is Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock here the Church must be built upon Saint Peter that 's it they contend for Cardinal Perron is much upon it lib. 4. cap. 3. and though that which he would there work out of it is not expresly Infallibility but universall Jurisdiction or Headship yet because they both have the like foundation upon this place it will be worthy to observe how he raises his worke upon it by a witty indeed but mistaken phansie Thus it is The Fathers at first did for the most part speake of the Church here as built upon Saint Peter afterward they did generally interpret it of the Confession of Peter that the Church was built on that Now the Cardinall will have these interpretations not to exclude but inferre one the other thus The Church was built causally on the Confession of Peter formally on Peter himselfe or the Ministery of his person i. e. Peters Confession was the cause why our Saviour chose him to lay the Foundation of the Ministry of his Church upon him Now judge of the mistake in running upon Peters confessing instead of Peters confession i.e. the Faith which Peter confessed and uttered For Peters confession as the Card. takes it in the notion of a meritorious cause was a single and transient act of that Faith which was in Peter a Grace or Virtue it was a confessing but Peters Confession as the Fathers take it when they say the Church was built on it is understood materially for the thing or truth confessed by Peter viz. Christ the Son of God the Confession or Faith required of the Eunuch at his Baptisme Act. 9. That he thus mistakes it appears also by his illustrating of it by the saying of St. Hierome that Peter walked not upon the waters but Faith which saith the Cardinal is not to deny that Peter did formally in person walk but to shew the cause of his walking viz. Faith which he gave to the word of Christ where plainly Faith is taken for a Grace Virtue or Act of Peters Now if we say the Church is built upon Peters Faith will he say that Faith there is
sounds propter convenientiorem institutionem seu principium That Church being from Saint Peter and Saint Paul and therefore the most convenient example to shew the succession of Pastors and Doctrine For from thence he fetches his argument to confute those Hereticks that being pressed with Scripture did accuse it as he saith of obscurity as not to be understood of them who were ignorant of Tradition therefore he confutes them by the undeniable succession of the Churches and because Longum est saith he omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones therefore he singles out the Roman as that which was maxima omnibus cognita à gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo fundata instituta there is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more convenient beginning of succession in that than in other lesse famous Churches and by the doctrine received from the Apostles and delivered down in that Church he confounds the Hereticks Now saith he with this Church because of such a beginning and succession every Church ought to agree and so they did then and therefore it was needlesse for him to instance in any other Church Thus are we also willing to deal with the Romanists at this day They being pressed with Scripture accuse it of obscurity and say as those Hereticks that Irenaeus had to deal with It is not to be understood by them that are ignorant of Tradition We therefore tell them of the Doctrine of Faith delivered down in all Churches and bring them to the Antient Roman Church which was glorious then for its foundation and preservation of true doctrine and tell them because of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to agree with it now which they doe not in the main points between us and them controverted as abovesaid and in this particular of an Infallible Universal Judge for the whole Church ¶ Thus farre we have proceeded upon the first and chief Rule of Triall Scripture the Sufficiency and Evidence of it Now to the other CHAP. XXIX Of Consent of Antiquity OUr second Rule of Triall is Consent of Antiquity We say the Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by that as they ought to doe if they will have them passe for Catholick for then according to Vincentius his Rule semper ubique they must be alwaies and generally held in the Church Yet is there a pretence made to it and great confidence and boasting among them of the Fathers not that they know they have indeed advantage by them as to the due proving of their cause but because the Protestants have freely and ingenuously spoken their Judgment of the Fathers and their authority Therefore the Romanists make advantage of it with their own Proselytes as if the Protestants declined all Triall that way Now should we speak with that liberty of the Fathers writings as they doe of the Scripture loading it with imputations of obscurity imperfection corruptions c. it might I hope be so much more justifiable in us as the divine authority of Scripture surpasses all humane writings But this we professe however they are obliged to disparage the written Word of God and a miserable cause it must be which obliges men to such a plea yet are not we obliged to detract any thing from the due worth of the Antient Fathers for take their Writings as they are we averre that the Popish faith cannot prove it self to be Catholick by them Yet if we say the Fathers were men and subject to error which the Scripture is not we doe but say what they ost acknowledge themselves If we say they have erred in several Ages and that many of them together with a general consent as in the Millenary belief the Infant communion and the place of faithfull Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment we doe but say what the Romanist cannot deny who doe acknowledge the Fathers erred in these If therefore we say they are no Rule of Faith to us we doe but say what they of the Ages following thought that they were not bound to follow them in these errors after they were once detected and what the Romanists must acknowledge for they also have forsaken them in these If again we say the Writings of the Fathers have come through ill hands unto us which have corrupted or maimed the true and patched false and supposititious writings to them the Romanists cannot but acknowledge we have great cause to think there was more providence of God in the preserving of Scripture entire than the Writings of the Fathers Onely here is the mischief again they are obliged to speak any casualty that happens to Scripture and to make a noise of corruptions obscurity c. because they finde it too plain against them and are afraid the people should see it too but of the Fathers writings more rarely doe they acknowledge any such thing not because they have cause to joy of them as plain and full for the Romish faith but because their advantage is by their forged writings and the corruptions of the true ones also because those writings came through their hands for several Ages and so the false dealing that has been used becomes chargeable upon the professors of their cause False dealing I say what by the cunning of Monks that had those Writings in Manuscript what by their several editions of the Fathers what by their expurgatory Indexes In all which it is easie to see what labouring there has been to make the Antients speake the Language of their present Church Hence have they advantage not truly by the Writings of the Antients but such as serves to their purpose especially when to deal with those that are lesse learned whom they can turn to this or that place in such or such a Father knowing they are not able to judge whether the writing be supposititious or the place corrupted or whether the same Father elswhere expresses himself otherwise or be contradicted by other Fathers and there speaks onely his private opinion This caution Vincentius gives us in his Rules for Catholick doctrine cap. 39. Whatever any quamvis sanctus doctus Episcopus Martyr praeter vel contra though holy learned though a Bishop or Martyr holds beside or against the rest of the Fathers id inter proprias privatas opiniunculas it must be severed from the Publick doctrine and placed among private opinions Well though all this makes for the disadvantage of the Protestants that they have not the Fathers writings as they came from their own hands and pens but as through the hands of many Adversaries yet take them as they are with all the difficulties of finding what is truly theirs and what is the sense of it the Protestants never doubted to enter this kinde of triall by Antiquity not standing or falling by every thing we meet with in one or moe Fathers for the Romanists will not so but maintaining 1. That the Romanist cannot prove his Affirmative by a full and sufficient consent or