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
of rebaptizing Heretiques leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in errour for admitting Heretiques without baptizing them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholike Church saving the practises wherein they differed whether then had they been guilty of Schisme If he say Yea then must he condemne Saint Cyprian and all the African Bishops For they went so far yea farther to an undervaluing of Pope Stephens heat against them who had sent out the sentence of Excommunication against the Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia who were in the same cause with Saint Cyprian and forbade Communion with Saint Cyprian and the Africans and all that held rebaptization What ever the Cardinal judges of them as to the point of Schisme for though in his third Book third Chapter he treats of the oppositions of Saint Cyprian against Pope Stephen and speakes of the Popes condemning him yet sayes nothing directly as to the judging of him in Schism or out of the Communion of the Church Saint Augustine did not judge them so no not when often pressed by the Donatists with St. Cyprians example he might with a ready answer have turned off the weight of Authority by leaving the person under guilt of Schisme as one out of Communion of the Church but this he did not alwaies speaking honourably of him as of a worthy Martyr and onely disproving his reasons for Rebaptization Nor did after-Ages judge him and the African Bishops though out of Communion with Rome to be therefore guilty of Schisme condemning notwithstanding the Donatists as notorious Schismaticks because in the one there was a bare want of external Communion with Rome without an uncharitable breaking with or condemning of either the Roman or the rest of the Churches thaâ—â—id not rebaptize but â—n the other viz. the Donatists there was a wil 〈◊〉 breâ—king with and uncharitable condemning of the Church By all which may appear our case is different from the Donatists is like that of St. Cyprian and his African Bishops wanting communion with the Roman but not therefore out of communion with the Catholike And we have so much more advantage in the case that the occasion of their non Communion was the maintaining of an Errour though tolerable the occasion of ours the casting off intolerable Errours CHAP. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church ANother generall Objection they make against our dividing from them If say they it was for such damnable Errours and Superstitions as the Protestants charge the Roman Church with then had the Gates of Hell contrary to our Saviours promise prevailed against the Church We answer by denying the consequence For from the charging of the Church of Rome which is but a part of the Catholike Church with such errours it does not follow that Hell-gates have prevailed contrary to our Saviours promise for they might have totally prevailed against the Roman Church to an utter subversion of it as of other particular Churches and yet our Saviours promise stood firm How far they have prevailed against that Church the examination of her doctrines for beliefe and practice makes appear We acknowledge indeed that Hel-Gates did not prevail against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it or to a totall infection of the members of it with all the errours and superstitions that prevailed in it and were advanced from time to time chiefly by those that had chiefe place in that Church But as to the Catholike Church we acknowledge that the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile to a subversion either of all the parts of it or of saving Faith in it There shall alwaies be a Church and that a Church wherein saving Faith shall be preserved and may be had And so Saint Augustine de Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. c. 5. seemes to render the sense of that promise when he repeats it thus The Gates of Hell shall not overthrow or conquer it And the Council of Trent seems plainly to acknowledge what Faith it is against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Not the now Roman Faith for by that the Gates of hel have far prevail'd upon the Church of Rome but the antient Apostolike Faith once delivered in all Ages professed and by us Protestants retained For being met at Trent to establish their new Faith they beginne their meeting as the Antient Councils did with the confession of the Christian faith repeating onely that Antient Apostolike Faith or Creed and then adding This is the firme and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile Sess secund Concil Trid. Unto this passage I had in private this Reply or cavil rather returned If the words of the Council import so much then may the Church of Christ cast off Baptism and return to Circumcision and yet hold the foundation because professing that Faith But this cavill or infereâ—ce is First inconsequent as to the particular Instances Baptism and Circumcision For the one the Nicene Creed tels us what a necessary conjunction it hath with the belief of Remission of sins in rendring the Articles thus I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sinnes and for the other the Apostle tels us how inconsistent it is with the Faith of Christ Gal. 5.2.3 Secondly it is impertinent as to my application of that Confession at Trent for I alledged it not to ground any such Inferences upon it against the whole Catholike Church as if the Gates of Hell could prevail against it wholly in all sorts of Errours saving the Verities and profession of those Articles of the Creed but seeing they made that Creed the confession of their Faith at Trent according to the manner of Antient Councils and acknowledged it in plaine words to be the onely foundation c. I inferre first That a Church holding that Foundation may grosly erre in other things not so immediate to it and yet be a Church And indeed the Romish Church for these many Ages has had no tolerable Plea to the title and being of a Church but so far forth as has held that foundation however clogged with many Errours Secondly that according to this their confession their New and additional Faith of Trent is not that Catholike Faith against which as pretended the Gates of Hell cannot prevail And lastly it shews the intolerable boldnesse of the Romish Church or Court which after the Tridentine meeting feared not to adde their new Articles to that former Creed which they had confessed to be the onely foundation as making up one entire Catholike Faith and to subjoyn Athanasius his Clause to it all Haec est fides Catholica extra quam c. This is the Catholike Faith without which no salvation as appeares by Pius quartus his Bul and the Oath which every Bishop in that Church takes But that the Catholike Church has a promise in that large sense Cardinal Perron speakes it lib. 1. cap. 18. to continue perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine we cannot say We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine he meanes it of such a priviledge and freedome from Errour as the Church of
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
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