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
would make of our disturbed condition to the abusing of unwary Protestants into a perswasion that we have no Government no Communion no Church Something is said to it in the Body of this Treatise upon the point of Schisme and Division But to give the Reader farther satisfaction it must be considered First It is no new thing to see a Church under the power of the Sword oppressed by the hand of violence persecuted scattered and so deprived of the peace order and comlinesse it had Nor ought any Man to think that he is not therefore in the Bosome of the Church because he cannot lie in it quietly and at ease as formerly or that it is best for him to stay no longer in the Ship as they thought Act. 27.30 31. because it is tossed to and fro with a heavy and tedious storm The Romanist that judges much of things spiritual by the eye of sense cannot well like of Christian worship but when it is pompous and highly Ceremonious nor of a Christian Church unlesse it be gloriously conspicuous for outward splendour and undisturbed order But then is Truth of most price when it is bought at a dear rate and not sold upon any terms when it is sought out with great difficulty and held upon as great disadvantages and then is Faith most pretious when it is most tried and stands under the greatest prejudious Secondly Consider what has hapned to us is faln upon us for Trial and Humiliation to the end that they which are approved might be made manifest among us 1 Cor. 11.19 for the Truth they hold to and the Faith they professe and that All might be humbled and corrected the Sons of Levi especially refined and purified Mal. 3.3 Our troubled condition therefore does not justifie the Church of Rome nor ought to confirm any in the errour of that perswasion but it condemns onely our iniquities in being unanswerable to that Pea e and Truth we enjoyed and calls for not a forsaking of that way of Worship and Religion we were in but of those sinnes by which wee provoked this wrath Thirdly Consider what has hapned to us has to the same end and purpose often befaln the Church of God without a dissolution of it If the Lord has now covered this Church with a cloud in his anger it is but what he did to Zion Lam 2.1 If in the indignation of his wrath he has despised both the King and the Priest it is that which Jeremiah lamented in the sad condition of Jerusalem Lam. 2.9 If destroyed his places of Assembly as there complained of it is not the destruction of a Church but the want of that freedome it had of more publick Worship and Communion Looke we into the Christian Church how it was trained up for some hundreds of yeares in such a low and distressed condition under perilous and dissicult times for the most part which seldome afforded them a secure liberty of due and orderly assembling together We see the Church at first falling under persecutions and all of them scattered abroad but some few that held together privately at Jerusalem Act. 8.1 and cap. 11.19 and in the next Chap. we see their meetings were very close and secret cap. 12.12 13. And so was it often with the Church during the persecutions of the first 300 years often put to have their meetings before day and in caves or secret places yet so they maintained the Communion and being of the Church Why then should any think it strange to see the like disturbance of peace and order happen to a National Church But to come yet nearer our Case When the Church under the violence of Arrian Emperours was persecuted scattered Bishops driven from their Sees and all good Christian people that would not communicate with Heresie and Schism driven from the publick places of Worship put to meet as they could and where they could yet so they continued the Cōmunion of the Church Now during those perilous times there was nothing done in the Way of the Church for Worship or Discipline but t is or may be done in this Church And if any can say t is not so done he does but speak the necessity of Times or at worst but the fault failings of men not the want of any thing necessary in the Constitution of this Church For notwithstanding the attempts of violence there is the same Doctrine and power of Discipline remaining the same Liturgie and form of worship the same Government by Bishops and other inferiour Pastors and were there the same Zeal as was in the Christians of the Antient Church under the Heathen or Arrian violence there would be no cause of complaint no occasion of reproach as there is now with some by reason of Communion and Discipline not yet so regularly provided for in the present disturbed condition of this Church Indeed this may be said towards an excuse that such has been the Conjuncture of Affairs for these last years such the uncertainty of Occurrences in relation to Church and State that it made the Times very difficult for those that had lawfull power to know or resolve how to use it lawfully and to the best advantage The Windes in this storm have blown so contrary and from such several quarters and the Waves which beat upon the Ship have been so broken and uncertain that it was hard for those that were at the Helm to stear or bear up against them And if our Pilots tired out with the storm did think it best as they did Act. 27.25 to let the Ship drive a while out of hope the Winde would cease of it self or some other more favourable blast arise from some other quarter This indeed might be prudence for the then pressing Exigency yet must not they or any else because the storm lies still upon us think as they did Act. 27.30 of flying out of the Ship But rather take courage after long abstinence and provide for safety as well as the difficulty and distresse of the Times will permit There laid a heavy storm upon the Church when it was under the Heathen or Arrian violence yet if compared with the condition of our Times it will appear to have been in better capacity of holding the Communion more regular and distinct by reason the opposition was more regular certain and apparent The Civil power was the same no alteration of State to trouble them but only the will of the Prince changed and for the time bent against them the businesse also of Religion was clear and easie to resolve for whether we consider the Heathen Superstition or the Arrian Heresie both so apparent that the temptations of compliance were lesse forcible and so the means of holding Christians together in a distinct Communion more ready and easie The condition of our Times hath indeed been more difficult which though it might perswade forbearance a while and excuse it yet now it calls for the more courage and zeal
in providing for that which seems to have been too long neglected a more regular Church-way of Communion and worship that which the Apostle calls for and mindes the scattered Hebrews of Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is Heb. 10. ver 25. as the manner of too many among us is who are either carelesse of meeting at all for divine worship or indifferent where or with whom they meet nothing scrupling that promiscuous Communion which is yet seen in too many places and should I confesse be provided against If any ask how how but by the power of the Keyes which the Sword of violence cannot cut in sunder nor the Church loose unlesse they that hold them cast them away The use of that power is to separate or take forth the pretious from the vile Jer. 15.19 the tender Sheep from the violent Goats the peaceable Christian from the factious Schismatick And he that is filthy let him be filthy still Revel 22. and he that will contemn let him mock on still but God is not mocked And were this done as it might be done according to the present distress of these Times there would be no occasion for the Adversaries to mock or for other to complain as the Prophet Isa in the behalf of Jerusalem ch 31.18 There is none to guide her of all the Sons whom she hath brought forth neither is there any that taketh her by the hand of all the Sons that she hath brought up But the Adversaries that have afflicted her and said to her Bow down that we may go over would for their mocking have cause to fear what the Lord threatens at the 23 ver I will put the cup of trembling into their hand And now Good Reader if thou beest or wouldst shew thy self a good Church-man that is a good Christian abhorring Idols and hating to commit Sacrilege desiring to keep thy self pure from Superstition in divine worship and from Faction and Schism in Church-Communion Beware then of false Teachers Beware of the Concision Phil. 3.2 both New and Old Suffer not thy self to be cut off from thy former Communion either by any new Sect or by the cunning of any Romish perswasion Let not these troublesome Times which are for thy tryall and manifesting of what is approved in thee be unto thee an occasion of falling God whom thou servest in the spirit is able to make thee stand To his grace I commend thee HEN FERNA Of the Division between the English Church and Romish upon the Reformation IT cannot be denied that every Christian is bound to learn and know upon the best Evidence he can what it is that God will have him believe to Salvation and how he will be worshipped by him To this he stands obliged both by the end of his hope Salvation if he will attain to that and by his Vow at his entrance into Christianity the promise he made to Believe and Doe all c. Now when differences are among Christians about Faith and Worship we are more concerned to use care and diligence in seeking after the Truth not to follow all Guides or take all on Trust but as S. Jude bids us Earnestly to contend for the Faith once delivered Jude ver 3. Many years have we contended with the Church of Rome about the Faith once delivered impleading her of innovating in Belief and Worship to the introducing of grosse Errors and Superstitions And still we have more cause to contend with them of that Church because more busie now in working upon the distempers of the Times and in drawing away some unwary and unstable Protestants by plausible pretences of seeming advantage to the Romish Church in comparison of the now disturbed condition of the Church of England Our work is therefore to strive with them not out of the spirit of contention to the multiplying of Controversies or enlarging the Rout which God knows is too wide already but only to the necessary defence of our selves our Faith and Worship of which we are alwaies ready to give an account And as to the charging of them however they deal with us we are willing to excuse in them what is excusable Yet so as to make appear what is deceitfull in their general plausible pretences and what is hurtful or destructive to the Catholick Faith in their particular Doctrines This is certain and not to be denied that a Doctrine of Faith was delivered the true Profession of which makes or constitutes a Church also that there is and will be to the Worlds End must not be taken as the Romanists doe as if one and the same Church of one denomination as Roman or Ephesian or English should doe it or as if those Pastors which are chief in place should doe it but that it shall be done in some part or other of the Catholick Church and by such of the Pastors in the Catholick Church as it pleases God to use for the preservation of his Truth a Church in which and by which as the Pillar of Truth that doctrine shall be preserved and upheld and in that Church a succession of Pastors and Teachers to deliver down that Doctrine of Faith once delivered by our Lord and his Apostles The Romanist when he is to contend for his faith is not willing to come to the Trial of particular Doctrines but rather staies in the Generalls of a Church a visible succession and the like seeking by these which make a plausible noise to the Unwarie to prove the continuation of the Doctrine rather than to defend his Church by the Doctrine she delivers and to make a clamour of Division and Schisme odious Names rather than to examine upon due consideration of that purity of Faith and Worship which every Church ought to hold where the cause is and whose the fault that we now stand divided Wee begin with the Generalls Where upon the seeming advantage of the former pretences they charge us with setting up a New Church when we reformed and as consequent to that with Schisme or breach of Communion We deny that we set up a New Church or made a Schisme or that we stand guilty of this breach of Communion CHAP. I. We set not up a new Church but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation IN order to the first they usually put the question Where was your Church before Luther A Question that carries a charge very plausible to the unlearned who cannot distinguish between the face and the body or rather soul of a Church between that which makes a Church and that which makes it such a Church We answer therefore our Church was there where now it is and where it alwaies was the same Christian Church as before the Reformation having lost nothing that made it so But say they The Church in England before the Reformation was their Church holding and practising what they did Be it so that the Church of England generally
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
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
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
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
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.
Testimony of Antiquity 2. That we have enough in the writings of Antiquity to discover the novelty of the Romish doctrines which may generally appeare upon this evidence CHAP. XXX Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several points FIrst the great silence in the writings of the firster Ages touching the points of Romish faith which cannot be imagined would have been if such had been the doctrine of the Church or the faith that all Christians were to learn and hold they call to us to name Professors of the Protestant doctrine in all Ages but that is unreasonable we should be bound to it our part being the Negative of what they erroneously affirm yea and impossible too because the errors we deny were not affirmed or thought of in many Ages and how then should any expresly appear against them But it is most reasonable and just to exact of thē who affirm Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatory half Communion Image Worship c. for Catholick doctrines to shew and prove them professed in all Ages at least so profound a Silence as we finde in the first Ages is sufficient argument against them yea and Silence when there was occasion to vouch and defend them had they been the doctrines of the Christian Church As when we see so many Apologies written and declaring the faith and practice of the Church so many Books purposely written on that subject Epiphanius wrote two his Ancoratus de fide Christiana and his Compendium fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae S. Augustine wrote three one De vera Religione where he sayes at the beginning haec est nostris temporibus Christiana Religio Another De doctrina Christiana and his Enchiridion to Lanrentius of which he saith ibi diligenter mihi videor complexus quo modo colendus sit Deus in which only he has one thing sounding to the Popish doctrine that is about helping the dead by Almes or Sacrifice and that was but his private opinion grounded upon a false supposal not of Purgatory but of common receptacles of all mens souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment in the 109 Chapter of that Book For that which he saith in the 70 Chap. Per Eleëmosynas de peccatis praeteritis propitiandus est Deus he qualifies himself in the same place and excellently speaks of the free reward of Good works in the 107 Chap. Now can it be Imagined that in such Books purposely written there should be such silence and pretermission of the Romish doctrines of Faith had they been the Doctrine of the Church Again in the first 300 years when there was such occasion to urge and hold up their publick Penance and Satisfaction by it also so much written and spoken about it had they believed a Romish Purgatory after this life can we think but they would often have mentioned it also and told the people of the pains they should undergoe there if not careful to perform due Penance and Satisfaction here Also when occasion was given by Adversaries to aslert such doctrines had the Church known and professed them can it be imagined those Fathers that answered those Adversaries should be silent in the Cause As for example In the point of Transubstantiation when Marcion affirmed CHRIST had a body phantastick or in appearance onely how obvious had it been for him had Transubstantiation been the doctrine of the Church to have objected that the signe of his Body in the Eucharist was but a body in appearance the shew of bread onely and his body there under any shape figure c. how necessary had it been for the Church to have maintained that point against him it could not have escaped the disputation had it been any doctrine of faith in the Church Whereas on the contrary Tertullian takes it for granted that the bread which was the figure of his body was a true body and thence infers that Christs body of which bread was the figure was also true and real l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. So when the Eutichians affirmed the conversion of the Humane nature into the Divine and drew some phrases of the Doctors of the Church which seemed to imply a conversion of the bread after consecration to the proving or illustrating of it had the doctrine of the Church been so could they have declined the expresse maintenance of Transubstantiation against that argument whereas on the contrary we see the Eutychians confuted by Theodoret Gelasius and others by denying plainly a substantial conversion of the bread and so taking away the ground of the argument and all belief of Transubstantiation So in the point of Invocation and Worship of Saints when it was objected to Origer by Celsus in defence of the Heathen Invocating their Daemons Heroes whom they held to be Internuncios intermedios betwixt the supreme God and themselves that the Christians also allowed the ministery of Angels and that their Saints departed were Amici Dei. Had the Church then held Invocation of Angels or Saints departed Origen had been bound to assert and maintain it and not to answer as he doth that Christians invocated God only by their high Priest JESVS CHRIST and they that doe so want not the Ministery or help of Angels in his 8 Book against Celsus and elswhere The very like does S. August speak of the Heathen Daemons and Heroes in his 8 9 books de Civ Dei. Shewing the Christians did not so to the Martyrs And when it was objected to him by Faustus the Manichaean that instead of the heathen Idols they had set up the Martyrs because they resorted to their Monuments and there offered up prayers and sacrifice Had the Church then held the Romish belief and practice of Saint-Worship and Invocation could he have declined the maintenance of it whereas he there and elsewhere disclaims it in expresse terms and shews Faustus his mistake in the end and purpose of the Christians resorting to Martyrs Tombs which was to offer up the Sacrifice and worship and prayers to God onely lib. 20. contra Faust Lastly when the Invocating of Christ was used by the Church as an argument for his Godhead against the Arrians would it have been good if Invocating of Saints also had been the doctrine and practice of the Church and if that shift of the Romanists had then been allowable that they doe not invocate Saints as God or with invocation which is due to God but as friends of God and excellent instruments of his glory had not the Arrians had a pat answer to the former argument viz That Christ was to be invocated yet not as God but as the Son of God after a more excellent way than any other creature is But they that used the former argument feared no such answer because Invocation and worship of Saints was then no doctrine of the Church Thus much for the silence of the Fathers when occasion was given them to defend those points had they been doctrines of the
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