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
preservation of Truth and purity in doctrine in such a degree was necessary for the continuance and propagation of the Church Else what could Eliah have said if he had been challenged to shew Professors at that time within the Kingdome of Israel or after if they that held the true worship in King Ahaz his time had been challenged to shew them in the Church of Israel or Judah for as to his point of preservation of necessary Truth and due worship there is no difference betwixt Jewish and Christian Church the continuance of Gods Church being as necessary before Christ as after But we may see how the Romanists are fain to plead for their Faith and Religion by the uncertain Records of History rather than by the known and confessed Writings of the Prophets and Apostles yea to hang all upon a negative Argument from the Records of History rather than to rest upon that which is positively affirmed in Scripture For thus runs their Argument We doe not see this or that doctrine professed in all Ages therefore it cannot be Apostolical whereas it is farre more safe to argue This Doctrine or Religion we see is Apostolical plainly delivered in Scripture therefore it was professed in all Ages professed I say though not alwaies so numerously and openly as they expect nor so fully as is by Protestants in all points asserted yet at least so professed as was necessary to the preservation of saving Tr 〈…〉 and continuance of the Church Their negative Argument is farre more forcible against themselves their Doctrines being Affirmatives and they bound to shew them professed in all Ages Whereas our difference from them being in the Negative of what they erroneously affirm must needs suppose the Errors in being before there could be any Protestors against them and render it a vain challenge to shew Protestants as Protestants in all Ages when as many Ages passed before the Errors got head against which they protested And for those Ages in which the Errors prevailed what if Histories have not recorded what if Historians that wrote then did not so much as know those who were free from such Errors which is very possible when Eliah knew not of any in his time and yet there were 7000 what then becomes of their Faith that make this their chief plea against Protestants But if by Professors in all Ages they mean such as dissented complained of the prevailing Errors though it be impossible there should be such in all Ages simply because those errors were not at all for many Ages yet such are found as we said in all Ages after the Error appeared and how many more suppose we to have been which are not recorded or to have written against arising Errors in that Church whose Writings are not come down to us The Church of England when it pleased God more openly to discover the Errors and to touch the spirits and consciences of Men did accordingly cast them off only the Church of Rome would neither acknowledge them to be such nor amend any thing but having for many Ages challenged Universall Jurisdiction over all other Churches and prided her self as the only Catholick Church and Infallible Guide she did withall render her self altogether incorrigible without hope of reformation and amendment CHAP. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials SOme Exceptions they make against this that hath been said 1. From the expression used by some Protestants that we and the Church of Rome differ in Essentials thence I have heard some of them make this fallacious argument If differ in Essentials then have the Protestants made a new Church essentially differing from that which was Answ The fallacy is in the word Essentials which is taken either properly for Doctrines of Faith belonging to the constitution of the Essence or beeing of a Church or improperly for such as endanger it working to the dissolution of it tending to the corruption destruction of the Essence and beeing of a Church In this latter sense the Doctrines of Error and Superstition wherein they differ from us are termed Essentials being no light matters as those of Rites and Ceremony but such as concern the Essence or being of a Church not constitutivè indeed and in the affirmative i. e. not such as are to be held and asserted by every Church but destructivè rather and in the negative that is such as are to be denied and avoided by every Church as it tenders its own beeing and preservation Even as a man that is in company with infected persons is concerned as he tenders his life to avoid the contagion or to free himself from it if tainted So still the difference of this Church from what it was under the Papacy is as of the same body once infected now sound once diseased now recovered The Church of the Galatians was farre gone in the way of the Mosaical Law to the endangering of the Gospel insomuch that Saint Paul saith in a manner they were removed to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and that he was afraid of them cap. 4.11 The Churches of Pergamus and Thyatiâ—a were so far corrupted that Satan is said to have his seat there Rev. 2.13 and those that taught the doctrine of Balaam and those that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans v. 14 15. And Jezabel was suffered to teach in Thyatira and to seduce the servants of God ver 20. Now when these Churches were reformed the seducing Teachers and false doctrines cast out were they New Churches set up or could those that still adhered to the Law or new Gospel in Galatia or to the false doctrines in Pergamus and Thyatira challenge the reformed party of Novelty so was it with this Church before and after the Reformation having parted with nothing that belonged to the beeing of a Church or to the Faith once delivered but onely cast out those false doctrines that had so generally prevailed in it while it was in communion with the Roman Church 2. They object We cast not off Errors or Superstitions but the true Catholick Faith Answ Indeed it concerns them to make the World believe if they can that their New Faith was alwaies Catholick and that we for denying it are Hereticks But the clearing of this belongs to the examination of the particular doctrines CHAP. IV. Particular Churches may reform Especially when a General Councel cannot be expected 3. THey ask what Authority we had to reform the Church and tell us we should have expected the determination of a General Councel and not been Judges in our own Cause Ans We took not upon us to reform the Church but had a necessity and duty upon us to reform our selves Neither did we undertake to impose upon other Churches but purge our own And as we were a party in the cause so was the Pope and his faction and as we would not have been Judges in this cause could we had a competent Judge so was not he with his faction fit
not leave men to themselves but as Governours of the Church doe by power of the Keyes judge and bind the Gainsayers and cast the Refractory out of their Communion So then the Guides of the Church have the power of Publike Judgement to judge and define for others in matters of faith and worship and power of Iurisdiction to judge censure and cast out the disobedient and to private men is lest onely the Iudgement of discretion without which they cannot come to beleeve or serve God as they ought with reasonable service Rom. 12.1 CHAP. IX Of dissenting from the publike Judgement NOw for the using their reason and judgement against the Church or their dissenting from the definitions and practise of it we give no encouragement to that We 1. teach all Inferiours whether People or Priests when they finde cause of doubt or question against such definitions or practise to mistrust their owne reason and rather relye upon the publick Judgment than their own in every doubtfull case 2. That they which doubt still seek refolution and satisfaction from their Superiours modestly propounding their doubts and reasons and conscionably using all means to rectifie their judgment and satisfie their Conscience 3. If they cannot find satisfaction so as inwardly to acquiesce yet to yeeld external obedience peaceable subjection according as the condition of the matter questioned will bear In a word we require all that submission of judgement and outward compliance that may be due to an Authority not infallible yet guiding others by an infallible Rule and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly as being answerable for their Soules 4. We tell them the danger of gainsaying that they are to answer it to God and his Church That if they cannot approve the reason of their dissenting to the judgement of the Church they must expect to undergoe the Censures of it For the Church standing so obliged to answer for Souls and to preserve Peace and Unity and having therefore the advantage of Authority and publick judgement above all private persons it is also most reasonable it should have the advantage in the contestation with private persons and in the issue of such a businesse to proceed according to its own judgement and use the power it has against those that stand out And then is there a further answering it to God Thus it stands between every Particular Church and the Members of it betweene Superiours and Inferiours in it and in some proportion between every particular or National Church and the Catholick Church in receiving and holding the Definitions of Generall Councils and the Generall Practise of the Church Tough here a Nationall Church hath the advantage above private persons in the point of Judgement and dissenting Yet where it does dissent from other Churches generally erring it arises first from the use of reason and judgement in private persons discovering the errours for some in all Reformations must speak first and propounding them which being approved by the Judgement of that Church the Reformation follows as an Act of publick Judgement or as an Act of a National Church which though inferiour to the Catholick yet hath it judgement within it selfe for the receiving and holding the Definitions and Practises of the Church-Generall and may have possibly just cause of dissenting and reforming and can doe it regularly according to the way of the Church by Provinciall Synods which private persons dissenting from her cannot doe And this is considerable in the English Reformation which as it was upon publick Judgement of a Nationall Church in Provinciall Synods so will it not prove a dissenting from the Catholike Church or definit ons of true Generall Councils but of that more below when we come to triall by Antiquity And of this respect or submission due from every Particular Church to the General as it concernes the Act of this Nationall Church in the Reformation more largely in the first Chapter of my later Book For the present we are to speak of the possibility of dissent of Inferiours from Superiours and the use of reason and judgement necessary to it CHAP. X. Possibility of just dissenting THe submission and obedience spoken of as due to Superiours and their Judgement ought to take place in all cases where there is not something clearly against them that confessedly excels the Authority and Judgement of the present Governours as evidence of Scripture demonstration of reason and a conformable consent of Primitive Times the pure Ages of the Church Now that such a case or such a cause of using private judgement even to a dissenting from the publike may happen Reason and Experience tells us Because it is possible that such as have chief place in the publike Judgement National or General may neglect their duty at least the greater number of them to the overbearing of the lesse and through prejudice of Faction or other wordly respects may faile in determining and propounding the Truth For the promise of guiding them is conditional upon performing duty and that is not alwaies certaine in the greater part to the imposing of false Belief and false Worship So that it comes to be Error manifestus appearing so to be both by the Word of God and the conformable beliefe and practise of the firster Ages of the Church Here is place for Reason and Judgement of Inferiours to dissent upon such Evidence after modest proposall and demonstration of the Errour And to this in part accords the concession of Bell. lib. 2. de Concil Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours have lawfully proceeded nisi manifestissimè constet intolerabilem errorem committi Now when I speak of private Judgement dissenting from the publick Judgement or generall practises of the Church and of the preservation of Truth and the Faith thereby I doe not speak of the Reason or Judgement of the People or Laity divided from all their Guides and Pastors but I include these who of what ranke soever dissenting from the publick either definition or practise are as men of private judgement in such a case These I say I alwayes include in such a just dissenting or falling off from any erroneous belief or practise prevailing in the Church For it cannot be imagined that God who promised to be with them and guide them should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church and preserve it by the Judgement and Conscience of Lay people but that still however they which have chiefe place in the Church prove corrupt some Guides and Pastors though of lesse number and place shall be they that shall detect the prevailing Errours and preserve the Truth and this by due use of Reason and private Judgement Experience also tels us what they have proved that have been in chiefe place that have sate in Moses Chair and in St. Peters how many Hereticks at severall times among the Popes how a whole succession of Monsters through the tenth Age of which Bellarmine
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
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
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
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