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 [Page 5]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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page 6]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, [Page 7]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 [Page 8]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, [Page 9]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 [Page 10]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 15]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 Thyati [...]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 [Page 16]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 to be a Judge in the cause. Indeed a lawful and free General Councel of the whole Church, setting scri­pture before them as their Rule, had been the only and competent Judge; but seeing such a Councel was not to be had, or ex­pected, (not a General one, because of the division of the Eastern Church from the West, nor a lawful and free one, because of the exorbitant power of the Pope and his Dependants) it remained we should [Page 18]use the means left us, and doe it by Pro­vincial and National Synods, keeping the same Rule, the Word of God, Which Ger­son with other wise learned men allows, and calls it reformari per parte [...]; when the Church reforms it self by parts; and to this, provincial Councels doe suffice, Gers: de Concil: Ʋnius obed:

And so we reade, the Emperour with other Kings and Princes, who called for a General Councel to compose differences in Religion, thought it reasonable up­on the tergiversation of the Pope, to doe it by Provincial Synods in their several Dominions, and so they threatned the Pope they would do, if he would not con­sent to a Councel. A Councel, and the rame of Reformation were alwaies for­midable to the Court of Rome, and be­tween the dread of a General Councel, and the fear of such Provincial Synods, Pope after Pope hung tormented for di­vers yeares, using all the artifices as might be, to satisfie the Princes, and yet to keep off both General and Provincial Synods; till Pope Paul the third arose, a man of Spirit, and cunning, who turned the fear of a Councel into the hope and expectation of advantage by it; And so [Page 19]indeed he and his dependants ordered the businesse at Trent, that nothing could there be determined without his privity and direction; that in the end both Prin­ces and People, instead of relief, they expected by a Free Councel, found them­selves more hampered and enslaved by the pretended General Courcel of Trent. Where divers points, which before were more free to opine in, or have freedome of opinion in, were defined Articles of Faith, and all hope excluded of gaining what divers Princes made no question to carry at the beginning, viz: Communion in both kindes, Priests marriage, Service in a known tongue, and some other.

The Princes and the People were very ill satisfied with this dealing; the French did not of many years receive that Coun­cel, yet did not proceed to make use of a national Synod (happily because of the troubles in that Kingdome) but the En­glish Nation would not be so fooled; for seeing aforehand what could be expected from the Court of Rome, they made use of that Power, which God has left in eve­ry Church of judging for it self according to his word: especially when the Catho­lick Church stands so divided and oppres­sed [Page 20]with faction, that the chief remedy of all, a Free General Councel, cannot be had.

What God spake to his people by the Prophet Hos. 4.15. Though Israel trans­gresse, yet let not Judab sin, tells us, a par­ticular Church may and ought to reform, though others will not; and the examples of many Provincial Councels in this point of declaring, and casting out errors, cree­ping upon them, warrant what we have done. For if Saint Augustine and the other Bishops in a Provincial Synod de­clared against, and rejected the usurped claim of the Pope in point of Appeal, why might not the English Church under Henry the VIII^th. cast out his usurped power here? And if the Provincial Sy­nod of Laodicea declared against, and condemned the worshipping of Angels then on foot, why might not we also de­clare against worship of Saints and Ima­ges prevailing here?

If it be said, it was not done here by a just Provincial Synod, but the most of the former Bishops were against the Refor­mation, and displaced. Answ. We need not tell them how the businesse was car­ried at Trent, how some were sent away, [Page 21]some kept back, others, and they but Ti­tular Bishops, sent in; and all to make up a major part; which the Histories of that Councel witness. And Dudithius an Hun­garian Bishop, and one of the Orators for that King, complained of it, as it is to be seen in his advices and Letters from thence. But we say, that in that Re­formation under Henry the VIII^th. and Queen Elizabeth is more largely pursued in my I^st Part, Chap: 2. there was no displacing of Bishops, but all passed with a general consent. And upon that Refor­mation or Ejection of the Popes usurped power, arose the first division of the En­glish and Romish Church. In that which followed under Queen Elizabeth, the businesse of the Synod was regularly car­ried by the Major part; the displacing of the Bishops, that were put out, being before, and that upon the denyal of the Oath of Supremacy, and their conspiring together to refuse to Crown the Queen. I will conclude this point of our Reforming with the saying of Saint Cyprian, lib. 2. Ep: 3. Si quis de Antecessorib: &c. If any of those that went before us did through ig­norance, or simplicity not observe and hold this, which the Lord by his example and [Page 22]doctrine hath taught, it may be pardoned them through the Indulgence of God; No­bis non poterit ignosci, &c. but to us it cannot be pardoned, who are now admonished and instructed of the Lord. So say we, If any went before us in the Communion and Errors of the Roman Church, through simplicity of heart, we deny him not mer­cy with God; but we could not expect it, if being better instructed of God we had not amended our known errors.

CHAP. V. We not guilty of Schism. The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists.

THus farre of our Reforming, Now of that which followed upon it, breach of Communion. And here they charge us with Schisme. When I say breach of Communion followed upon our Refor­ming, I doe not take the charge and guilt of it upon us, or imply that it followed as the proper effect does upon the imme­diate cause; but followed accidentally, oc­casionally, and is to be imputed to some cause else; not our reforming, but their default. They gave us cause by Errours [Page 23]and Superstitions thrust upon us, to re­form; They, when We and all Nations called for Reformation, remained incor­rigible; We did our duty, they would not doe theirs; Division of Communion ne­cessarily followes (by reason those Er­rours were not only in belief, but in pra­ctice and worship too) not upon our leaving the Errours, but upon their not leaving them; not upon our going for­ward, but because they would not come on: As when communicating of Infants, was believed as necessary, and accord­ingly practised through the Catholick Church, we must understand it, as gene­rally believed and practised, or more ge­nerally, than was any Romish Errour be­fore the Reformation for many ages, that National Church, which first reformed it self in that belief and practice, did it justly without expecting a General Coun­cel, and as to that belief and practice stood divided from other National Chur­ches or parts of the Catholick, till they should reform too; indeed there followed no breach or division upon it, because they all reformed.

That saying of S. Augustine so much in the Mouthes of Papists, Nulla necessi­tas, [Page 23]&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 [Page 23]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 [Page 26]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 [Page 27]their known Errours and sins; but we knew them, and were truly convinced of them, therefore in forsaking them we did what we ought.

The first proposition in both these forms stands as undeniable, or else it must be granted, that we may be bound to con­tinue under a necessity of sinning, and that knowingly. So the whole businesse rests upon the second proposition, that such was our Case, and such the Cause that the Church of Rome gave; which must appear by examination of the parti­cular doctrines of Belief and Practise, en­joyned all the members of that Church.

Now that they containe such Errours and Superstitions, as before mentioned, we are ready to demonstrate both by Scripture and the best Antiquity. But it is our purpose and work in present, to discover and take away the general pre­tences and plausible allegations they make for themselves, or against us in this Cause.

CHAP. VII. Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we doe.

AGainst our Defence so stated, they usually reply; If Protestants upon Apprehension, or conviction of Errours and Superstitions in the Church of Rome had just cause to forsake her Communion, then may Sectaries justly forsake the Communion of the Protestants Church. For they also say, and are many times perswaded and convinced, that that Church imposes on them such Errours.

Answer. Set the Termes aright, and the fallacy, or ambiguity of this captious reasoning will appear. If by our appre­hension or conviction of Errours in the Church of Rome, they mean onely our saying, pretending or thinking to be so: then the consequence is good (for Secta­ries doe pretend they are convinced, and many times verily think so) but the as­sumption then is false; for we did not upon such bare apprehension or decei­ving perswasion forsake the Communion of that Church; but upon a true and evi­dent conviction of known Errours and [Page 29]Sins (which we were bound to commit in that Communion) demonstrable by Scrip­ture and Antiquity. Which conviction Sectaries have not; nor doe they at all pretend to confirme, what they say, by the practice of Antiquity. Make the Case like, and it will follow alike in both; If we had given them the like cause, as the Church of Rome gave us, they might also forsake our Communion: If they had the like conviction as we had, they might as justly doe the like. But seeing the case is unlike, both in regard of our giving them cause, and of their apprehension or con­viction, it will not follow they can have just cause of Division or Revolt. See of this more below, Chap. 13.

It is not then their saying or thinking, that we imposed sinfull conditions of Communion, and that they are convinced of it, which will justifie them, or prejudice us. For some mens mistaking of Errour for Truth, must not make other men give over to stand to truth, and plead it a­gainst Errour; or perswade them, they are also mistaken, and cannot know the Truth when they doe know it evidently.

Heretikes of old (as Vide cap. 23. prope finem. appears by Saint Iren. Tertul. and August.) [Page 30]sheltered themselves against Scripture by plea of Traditions: Now does the Church of Rome think it unreasonable to defend it self by unwritten Traditions, because Heretikes pretended them? And yet I hope its more possible for us to make ap­pear the truth of what we say, by that which is written in Scripture and Fathers, than for the Church of Rome to make the truth of what she saies to appear by un­written Traditions: the truth of which Traditions it is not possible for her to make appear.

It is not therefore saying or thinking, that must carry it on any side, but the e­videncing and proving of what is said. That we undertake to doe from point to point: as the clear demonstration, that we had just cause, and were truly con­vinced of it, and had rebelled against Light, and grievously sinned, had we still continued in known Errour, and wilfull Sin: the inseparable condition of Roman Communion, to them that have means to know the Errour and Sin.

But they object also, That the way of our Reforming, and Dividing from the Church of Rome, and the plea we make for it, leaves men to their own reason and [Page 31]judgement to make use of it against the Church, and so opens a gap to Heresie and Schism.

Answer. It is not any thing we have done, or yet hold, that gives them just cause to object this to us; but the chal­lenging of Infallibility to their Church, necessitates them to lay such a charg upon all that will not blindly resign up reason, judgement and faith to the dictates of their Church. We will first speak of the use of Reason and Judgement permitted to them that can use it; then of the using it against, or dissenting from the Church.

CHAP. VIII. Of the use of Reason and Judgement in private men.

REason and Understanding is that Light, which he, that lightens every man that comes into the World, Ioh. 1.9. puts into the mind of man to see, and judge thereby, what to believe, and what to doe. Now though we leave not men wholly to their own Reason, yet must we leave them the use of it, so far as is ne­cessary [Page 32]to the assent, which Faith re­quires; and we leave it them, not in op­position to the publick Judgement of the Church, but to the blind obedience of an implicite Faith, that sees no other ground or motive of believing and practising, than because the Church so commands. If the Church of Rome impose the hard con­dition on them that come over to her (as Nahash the Ammonite on them of Iabesh Gilead, that would come out to him, 1 Sa. 11.2.) to thrust out their right Eye, the Eye of their spiritual understanding (by which they discern and judge of Spiritual things revealed of God, 1 Cor. 2.13.15.) and onely leave them the eye of common sense to discerne what it is the Church doth practise, or what it defines, with­out further enquiring about the will of God, how consonant that practise or de­finition, that worship or belief is to it. If, I say, she can impose this hard condition, we cannot; but must say:

1. That no man can believe any thing truly with such a free and full assent as faith requires, nor doe any thing in wor­ship or practise of life, with that faith or due perswasion of the lawfulnesse of it, which the Apostle requires Rom. 14. ult. [Page 33]unlesse he be convinced of it in his judge­ment, as in the same chap. v. 5. Let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind: concluding by the due use of his reason, that its Gods revealed will he should so doe and believe. For the Apostle speak­ing that of perswasion in and about things indifferent shews it is much more necessary in matters of Faith and Wor­ship. Nor can this be eluded by saying, It is sufficient for such a perswasion, that a man knows the Church saith so, & there­upon concludes that God saith so; for there is more in the Apostles saying, The Spiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2.15. For that judging is not a receiving of things propounded by the Church, with­out examination, but implies a discerning of them to be the things of God, before he receives them for such by true faith; and the last resolution or stay of Faith is not upon the Churches saying so.

2. Gods people are not left to them­selves to seeke out that revealed Will of God; but he has appointed Guides and Pastors in his Church, in every National Church to propound and demonstrate that Will of God out of his Word. To this end were Pastors and Teachers given, [Page 34] Eph. 4. that we should not be carried away with every wind of doctrine, ver. 14.

These have publike judgement to deter­mine and judge for others, for they must give account for others; but private Christians have their private judgement, or, judgement of Discretion for themselves onely, which is in the discerning and re­ceiving to themselves, as the will of God, what is delivered, and propounded to them for they must answer also for them­selves, and live by their own faith; which cannot be without allowing them due use of their reason and judgement, to see the evidence of that to which they must as­sent. Therefore we say also, the Guides and Pastors of the Church doe guide and teach not Infallibly, but Morally, by way of doctrine and perswasion, by manifesta­tion of the Truth, commending themselves to every mans conscience, as Paul saith, 2 Cor. 4.2.

3. When that is done, They doe 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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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, [Page 37]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, [Page 38]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 [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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 [...]udge in your selves, 1 Cor. 11. And the spiritu­al man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2.15. He speakes of things taught in the Church, and of the Spiritual mans judging them, in order to his own beleeving; to which purpose, Saint Ioh. 1. Ep. 2.27. The Anoin­ting shall teach you all things, viz. so as to understand all things necessary to their Salvation.

CHAP. XI. How far the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement.

SEE we now what use of Reason and Judgement the Romanists allow to Men. They speake to the Reason and Judgement of Men, whom they would bring in unto them, use Motives and Ar­guments to perswade their Religion, and the Authority of the Church of Rome. But if they suffer themselves to be per­swaded [Page 48]to embrace that Authority upon such Reasons and Motives, they must then resigne up their Reason and Judge­ment wholly. Thus have they leave to use their sight in finding out that Church, but when they have found it, then they must follow it blindfold, or looke but one way, that way onely that that she directs, and take all upon trust of her Infallible guidance. They will say they commend the Definitions of the Church to the judgement and consciences of the people, alleadging Reasons, and Te­stimonies from the Scriptures and Fathers; and this in order to better perswasion; so far it is well. But then their Reason and Judgement is absolutely bound to look that way onely, and to see nothing against the definition of the Church: No, though she defines it is not against Chirsts institution to allow the people the Sacra­ment but in one kind: or that it is lawfull to adore Images, as she has done in her Council of Trent. A man had as good spare his labour in using his Reason and Judgement to examine their proofs, as having done all, to be absolutely conclu­ded and bound up. Which no question goes very hard with many of their more [Page 49]learned Men, who see more reason and e­vidence against, than for what they are bound by the Church to believe and pra­ctice; and so are ground between the De­finition of their Church, and the Judge­ment of their Conscience, as between the upper and nether Milstone. Hence that conscionable cunning of the Belgick In­quisitours, who in their Index Expurgato­rius, 1571. confesse, when they meet with the Antients speaking otherwise than their Church, quovis commente—they use any shift to remedy it.

We read how it fared with some Di­vines in the Council of Trent. Who (while their Articles were under delibe­ration undefined) honestly proposing their doubts and arguments against the cōmon sense of the prevailing party, were cryed out on as Lutherans; and some of them not suffered to speak more, were sent away: so free was that Council! What shall we think now after the defini­tions are made, but that mens Con­sciences, judgements, tongues are bound up, not to doubt, think, or modestly pro­pound any thing against them without the note of Heresie, and danger of the In­quisition?

But see we what follows upon their Concessions: To finde out the Church they allow (as we heard) the use of Rea­son and Judgement. Now that must be by examining her marks; and seeing a chief marke of the Church is Sanctitas doctrinae (as Bellar. and others doe truly acknowledge) it implyes a judging of all her Doctrines, before a Man can truly know by the purity of them, that this is the Church.

Again, when the Church is found out, yet still the question remains, whether it be Infallible? there also must the use of Reason and Judgment be allowed; for no reason it should be taken upon her own word, that she is the onely Infallible guide. Therefore Bellarmine was en­forced to say (though untruly) that the Infallibility of the Romish Church, Coun­cils and Popes, stands upon apertas pro­missiones, Of this at large below; Chap. 27. naming Act. 15. Vi­sum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, and Luk. 22. Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides, lib. 3. de verbo Dei, cap. 14. Now if these places, and all other they bring to that purpose, be acknowledged so plain, that it is easie for any man, using his Reason [Page 51]and Judgment to see this priviledge of the Roman Church in them (when as indeed no reasonable consequence can draw it out of them) who cannot but justly say, the places of Scripture we bring against their Errours are more open and plain to him that will duly use his Reason and Judgement?

CHAP. XII. Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminencie, Perpetuity, &c.

CArdinal Perron, in his first book, cap. 5. and 6. against the Kings Let­ter, seems to cut the businesse shorter, and to leave men the use of Reason and Judgement in knowing the Church, not by examining her Doctrines, but by con­sidering her external, and more sensible marks, such as are easie and proportiona­ble to every mans capacity, viz. Eminen­cie, Amplitude, Perpetuity, or Succes­sion, and the like. And when the Church is known by these, then a man is to know by her the sense of places of Scripture, which need interpretation. But what he saith for this easie discovery of the [Page 52]out of Scripture, A City on an Hill can­not be hid, Mat. 5. was spoken by our Sa­viour of the Apostles, and their preaching of the Gospel; and if applyed to the Church, it does not prove she can alwaies be known by these marks. Nor does St. Austin's application of that Scripture, to the knowing of the Church in his time, imply the Church shall alwaies be so. Not so now, when it stands divided by East and West, the Eastern Church chal­lenging these marks as well as the We­stern; Unlesse it come short of the Ro­mish Church in Eminencie of outward splendor, when as it is more Christian— like to continue under pressures so many yeares; the Romish Church may be emi­nent for pomp, and have more of the world in it, but the Greek Church is e­minent for sufferings, and has had more of the Crosse. Now seeing the Greek Church, which has these marks, is in the Roman account heretical, and the Roman Church likewise condemned by the Greek, how shall a man know which of these to joyn to, but by examining their Doctrine, and judging of it?

The Cardinals similitude of a Testator ( [...]ordaining one to be the Interpreter of [Page 53]his Testament, that has a name common to others, and therefore assigning marks to know him by, so clear that they need no Interpreter) cleares not the businesse. For did ever any hear of an Executor, or Interpreter of a Testament markt out by his gray head or antiquity, by tallnesse of stature, amplitude, or eminencie of per­son or estate, when his proper name and habitation would readily and sufficiently distinguish him from all others? So had God markt out unto us in his Testament, that Church, which should in all Ages be the infallible Interpreter of his Will, by the name Roman, and place of habitation, and in stead of a City built on a Hill (the Scripture so oft repeated by the Cardi­nal) said, a City built on seven Hills, there needed no more to doe, but submit Reason and Judgement to all which that Church commanded.

But seeing he has not done it, no not when occasion of mentioning such a priviledge, had any such belonged to that Church, (I meane when St. Paul wrote to the Romans:) it is plain he has left us to know his Church by her Do­ctrine agreeable to his Word; for so must we hear the voice of the Sheepherd, espe­cially [Page 54]when Churches of several Commu­nions may challenge the former markes, the Greek as well as the Roman.

Now what hath been said against know­ing the Church by these markes, is not spoken, to deny the Roman (which chal­lenges them) to be a Church, but that they mark her out for such a Church as the Cardinal would have us take her for; such a Church as Saint Augustine speaks of, viz. the Catholike Church, the Church, in which onely the Pastors voice is to be heard, for what she pretends to by these marks alone, she must allow to the Greek Church also. It is not these barely with­out consideration of doctrine, that could marke her out for a true Church, but that she still together with these holds the foundation. And in regard of that we acknowledge the Pastors voice was still heard in her, yet so that the voice of false Shepheards have often out-cryed him, yea, cryed him down in many points of high concernment to his sheep. Yet by Gods providence his voice was still heard, and his Word or Scripture still pre­served, whereby the voice of false Shep­heards might be discerned from the true one, the Errors and Superstitions prevail­ing [Page 55]known from the Truth and faith once delivered.

When the voice of the great Pastor (except ye eat the flesh, &c. Joh. 6.) was generally mistaken in the Church, and mis­applyed to the communicating of Infants, there was enough of his voice and word still heard in the Church to discover the Error, and restore the Truth. When Image-worship was cryed up by the se­cond Nicene Council, and advanced in the West by the Romish Bishops, yet was there enough in the word and voice of the Shepheard (known in the Church) to condemn it in the Council of Frankford, and elswhere. When Pope John 22. defi­ned the place of faithfull Souls to be out of Heaven till the Resurrection, and en­joyned it to be professed by those that took degrees in the Universities: yet was there enough still in that Church to con­demn it in the Council of Florence. When the voice of the Shepheard in those places, Feed my sheep, Joh. 21.16. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock—Mat. 16.18. I have prayed for thee—Luk. 22.32. was mistaken, and mis-applyed for some Ages, to advance the Popes Infalli­bility, and power over all, there was e­nough [Page 56]seen by the Council of Basil and Constance to define the contrary, and conclude a Council to be above him. And however the noyse again is greater in the Church of Rome, for the Pope than a Council, yet is there enough still heard in that Church by the French generally, and all moderate Romanists, to know the un­truth of it. So we say, whatever becomes of the Cardinals marks, Eminencie, An­tiquitie, &c. (by which he would have her marked out for the onely Church, in which the Pastors voice is to be heard) the Romish Church hath failed in her doctrine, cryed up Errours and Supersti­tions, yet so, that the Pastors voice hath been heard, and his word so pre­served there, that enough to discover them.

And now to some applying of what hdth been said touching use of Reason and Judgement, to our Case of Reform­ing. We examined the Church of Rome by the Marks, Eminencie, Antiquity, Suc­cession; We see they agree not to that a­lone, nor that in Saint Augustines pur­pose, as he applyed the like Marks to the Catholike Church: Nor doe they imply that Church, where barely found, to be [Page 57]a Church designed by God, to remaine uncorrupt, much lesse to be the Infallible Interpreter of his Testament.

Also we examined that Church by that maine mark of Sanctity of Doctrine (u­sing our Reason and Judgement (which they allow in this point) and that the judgement of a National Church) and found her so far from being Infallible, that she was grosly corrupted in her Be­lief and Worship: Of which we had ap­parent conviction from the evidence a­bovesaid, to wit, Scripture and Primitive practise, either of which excels the judge­ment and authority of the present Church of Rome.

CHAP. XIII. Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries.

NOw to the last part of the Obje­ction, The opening hereby of a Gap to all Heresie and Schism.

Answ. Due use of Reason and Judge­ment does it not; Sectaries that are gone out from us, cannot, 1. Pretend to such a way of Reforming the Church, or to such a Judgement as our Reformation was [Page 58]brought about by; they wanting the Au­thority which is needfull to it in every National Church. They as Members of this Church owed obedience and subjecti­on to the Government and Governours thereof, by divine precept; and could doe nothing as to a Reformation more than private men; whereas the Church of England (if under the Patriarchate of Rome, according to Ecclesiastical Ca­non; which would not have been con­tended about; yet) stood not bound to the usurped power thereof; but being a National Church, might justly eject that Usurpation, and make Reformation with­in it self of all Errors, maintained by that pretended Power and Authority.

2. As for that, wherein they dissent from this Church, they cannot pretend to such Evidence we spoke of; they doe not at all pretend to the practise and con­sent of the first Ages, nor have they plain and evident Scripture, but places unlearn­edly wrested. The Evidence required in dissenting from Authority, is such as by expresse words, or direct consequence is apparent to all that can use their Reason without prejudice of self-interest or fa­ction. But we must note a different evi­dence [Page 59]in regard of things propounded by the Church, as matters of Faith and Wor­ship— and things enjoyned, as circum­stantials of Worship, or pertaining to Order, Discipline. In the first sort the Church indeed stands bound to shew them evidently out of Gods Word, to be such, before they can be received by faith and full assent for such; because it is the office of the Church, or Governours thereof, not to make such, but to declare and propound them: But they that will charge the Church in those Proposals with Heresie, Superstition, or Idolatry, must have the full and apparent evidence aforesaid. In the second sort, Things Circumstantial, and of Order, and pro­pounded only for such by the Church, they that dissent and refuse to yeeld obedience, must have most cleare evidence that such things are unlawfull and forbidden by Gods Word, because that Word of God most evidently gives power to the Church, to make, constitute, and ordaine such things, and expresly commands obedience to Superiours. Now for the things which the Church of Rome propounded and im­posed as matters of Faith and Worship; as she had not evidence for them out of [Page 60]Gods Word, which was enough for our refusing them as matters of Faith and Worship, so we had sufficient evidence of Scripture and Antiquity against them. Whereas all that this Church of England propounds as matter of Faith and Wor­ship, is most clear by Scripture, and con­sent of Antiquity: So that it is most un­reasonable for our Sectaries to deny it, and impossible for them to have evidence against it. Much lesse is it possible for them to be convinced out of Gods Word of the unlawfulnesse of circumstantials and matters enjoyned, as of Order, and to have as apparent evidence for that conviction, as Gods Word gives them for obedience to their lawfull Gover­nours.

3. Their pretending to be convinced in their judgement, hinders not the Church of which they were members, to use her own judgement, and accordingly to pro­ceed by censure and excommunication, as i [...] said above, cap. 9. And hereby was this Church held together in Unity, no Sect or Heresie breaking forth which was not presently crushed, till force of Arms bore down the free use of Ecclesiastick Autho­rity, and emboldened men to contemn it [Page 61]If therefore Sectaries shall say to us, you allow us to use our Reason and Judgment in what you teach us. True, say we, for your own satisfaction, but not to abuse it against the Church. But we doe not, say they, abuse it, but have consulted our Guides, and used all meanes we can for satisfaction. We tell them, you must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration a­gainst publick Authority of the Church, & having modestly propounded it, attend the judgement thereof, to which if you cannot assent inwardly, yet yeild an ex­ [...]erhal peaceable subjection, so far as the matter questioned is capable of it, (which I adde because the matter questioned may be not so much in belief and opinion, as in worship and external practise:) For that must necessarily discover it self: and if it be such in any Church, that a man cannot in conscience comply with, and therefore cannot yeild external subje­ction so far as to doe or perform the same worship or practice; yet ought he still to yeild a peaceable subjection, in not re­sisting or reviling, but quietly suffer­ing (if need be) for the same un­der Authority. But you that dissent from the Church of England have no [Page 62]such cause for any thing belonging to the substance of Worship: And as for Cir­cumstantials and matters of Order, ye ought to shew as direct Scripture against the particulars, as that which commands you to obey them which are over you. And if your mis-informed conscience bade you forbear to submit to the doing of things enjoyned, yet should you have had so much conscience of the expresse precept commanding obedience to Supe­riours, as to forbear resistance and force, and to have rather quietly and peaceably suffered under the censures of the Church, and power of Authority set over you; and you cannot but think it reasonable, that the Church, which is entrusted with others as well as you, and hath the ad­vantage of Authority and publick judge­ment, should upon the not-appearing of your pretended evidence, maintaine her Judgement and Authority, and proceed against you, as the preservation of Peace and Unity requires. And thinke not be­cause you are allowed to use your Rea­son and Understanding in order to your beleeving and reasonable serving of God, you are therefore allowed to use force in order to the maintaining of your dissent [Page 63]from, and disobedience to Authority: For that God whose Truth and Service ye so much pretend, is the God of Order and Peace (1 Cor. 14.33.) not the Author of Confusion; such as your violence has wrought in this Church and Land.

No other meanes or remedy has the Church to preserve Unity, than by de­monstrating the Truth to every mans conscience, and censuring or casting out the Refractory. Nor other feare can she cast upon her children to keep them in o­bedience, than the losse of her Commu­nion, and their Answering it to God. Nor was there any other Remedy in the Antient Church, while destitute of help from the Secular power, I meane no o­ther Remedy proper to the society of the Church, to keep men in her Commu­nion.

CHAP. XIV. Their vain pretence of Infallibility.

HEre the Romanists lay hold on a seeming advantage by pretence of an Infallible guidance in their Church, telling their Proselytes, that the Prote­stants [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64]acknowledge their Church fallible in her Proposals, and therefore must leave men to their own reason and judgement, but our Church is infallible in her Defini­tions. How we Protestants leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement, rather than leave them to their Reason & Judge­ment, has been shewn already; and to the Romish pretence of Infallible guidance, we say still, could it be made good, there would be no more to doe, but every man upon understanding the terms and sense of her Definitions, to submit his Reason and Judgement without farther enquiry, how consonant they are to Gods revealed will, and what warrant he has from thence to assent and believe them. But here's the weaknesse and vanity of that pretence: This Infallibility which is pretended as the ground of all their belief, has no ground it selfe to be believed ( See below Chap. 27. &c. as we shew by many most evident arguments) and that which is alledged to take away mens Reason and Judgement, must allow every man his Reason and Judgment in the exa­mining of what is brought to prove it, as was shewn above, Chap. 11. &c. Whereup­on it will be harder to make men believe [Page 65]that pretence of Infallibility, than to be­lieve the proposals of Truth, from Guides that pretend not to it, but onely to the demonstration of that Truth by an Infal­lible Rule.

Hence it is easie to see, which is more reasonable and likely to keep men in obe­dience to the Church; Open and plaine dealing with them in the businesse of their salvation, or false pretences? The demon­stration of Truth to every mans consci­ence, or the Imperious dominion over other mens faith and consciences, under pretence of Infallibility?

We say to men, If you will be with us, you shall see what you doe: we require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods will, for you to believe and doe, yet know your salvation is concern­ed in such obedience, and be it at your ut­most peril to gainsay.

The Church of Rome saith to men, If you will come to me, you must put out your Eyes, resign up your Reason and Understanding, and with implicite Faith give absolute submission and obedience to my Definitions.

CHAP. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholike.

ANother of their maine Objections upon our division from them, is, That, whatever the Doctrine or Faith be which we retained, we divided from the whole Catholike Church, holding Communion with no part of it. To the same purpose is that which Cardinal Per­ron (in his Letter to M. Casaubon, and in his first book against the Kings Letter) alledgeth, That to be Catholike, and a­void the note of Schism, is not sufficient to hold the same Faith with the Catholike Church (for so did the Donatists) but to hold Communion also with it; which the Donatists not doing, were Schismaticks: And in like manner he would conclude us to be.

Our Answer in generall is briefly this, That we did not divide from the Catho­like Church, and that to a Communion with it is not required a full agreement in belief and practise with other parts of it: No nor an actual Communion with them alwaies, and simply necessary: and that [Page 67]our Case and the Donatists is different, as St. Cyprian's and their case was.

Now to clear these more fully. We say first: It was neither our intent (when we reformed) to divide from the Catholike Church, or any part of it, neither did we. We onely sought to reforme our selves, leaving them to themselves. We had in­deed to doe only with the Roman Church, which being a particular Church, as it may utterly faile, without failing of the Catho­like Church, so may it surely be in such a measure corrupted, that it deserves to be divided from. Yet our aime and intent was only to leave the Errours and Super­stitions we practised with her, and so to leave her no farther than her Communi­on was mixed with those Superstitious practises, i.e to leave her no farther than she had left her self (as we can prove) or receded from what she was for belief and practise in the more antient and purer Times.

Now here's the usual mistake, and up­on the Romanists part the common pre­judice against us; that they still take the Roman Church and her Communion for the Catholike, and what they meet with in the Fathers touching the Catholike [Page 68]Church to this or like purpose (that Com­munion with it is necessary, that there is no salvation out of it) they apply to the Roman, or touching Communion with the Roman Church or Bishop, to the proving any man Catholike thereby: They appro­priate it to that Church as a special prero­gative, when as the Fathers did also prove the like by communion with other Chur­ches and Bishops, confessedly Catholike, although not so frequently, because Ro­man Church and Bishop of it was then of all other most eminent. Upon this double misapplication, those many Testimonies which Cardinal Perron (in his Epistle and Answer) has heaped up out of St. Au­gustine, and others, come to no purpose: For to be Extra Ecelesiam Romanam, is not presently to be Extra Catholicam. For though it was a good argument of old, when that Church was eminently and confessedly sound, to conclude affirma­tively, as the Fathers often did) such were good Catholiques, because in Communi­nion with that Church; yet now since Rome is notoriously corrupt and unsound, the argument will not hold, to conclude Affirmatively. Much lesse will it hold Negatively, to argue, such are no Ca­tholiques, [Page 69]because not in Communion with Rome. Nay when Rome of old was sound in Belief and Doctrine, it did not alwaies conclude the Negative (as will ap­pear by the Instances below of the Asian and Afriean Churches out of Communi­on with the Roman) much lesse can it conclude Negatively now.

CHAP. XVI. The Greek Church, a Church, and part of the Catholick.

FUrthermore, besides the Roman we acknowledge other Christian Chur­ches parts of the Catholique, and we say wee are not out of Communion with them, as the Church of Rome is by an actuall declaring of Non-communion to each other: For though wee agree not with those Churches, in all doctrines and practises (which is not De facto, necessary to the holding of Communion 'twixt parts of the Catholick) yet we holding them still parts of the Catholick Church, and they us, and not pronouncing Non­communion to each other, we both re­main in the Unity or Matrice (as Cyprian [Page 70]phrases it) of the Catholike Church.

Now as to our opinion of the Greek Church, we conceive, their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost to be from the Son, but yeelding it to be by the Son, to be onely a difference in form of speech, not of any Heretical meaning, as they are acquitted by some learned Romanists.

And for their opinion and judgement of us, we say, that Censure of Jeremias one of their Patriarchs, (which the Romanists object against us as condemning the Pro­testant Doctrine in many points) is not found to be warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church: and to it we may oppose the judgement of Cyril their late Patriarch, who approves our Church and doctrine.

But they ask, seeing we left the Roman, why did we not joyne to the Greek, or some other Church, or part of the Ca­tholick?

Resp. We were joyned with them in the Catholick Church, (as said before) but if by joyning our selves to some other Church, they meane holding and practi­sing as that Church doth, we say againe (as above) such agreement between the parts of the Catholick, is not necessary [Page 71]to Catholick Communion. 2. We say, it was not necessary for us. First, because we were a National Church, and there­fore not bound to joyn so, as to put our selves under any particular Church of one denomination. Private persons indeed are bound so to be joyned to one Church or other which are parts of the Catho­lick. Secondly, because our worke was Reformation, and casting off the Romish Errours, and wee saw no particular Church, but needed Reformation very much; and therefore we could not joyne to any so as to agree with them in all do­ctrines and practises.

These considerations shew, the many Testimonies brought out of the Fathers by the Romanists, for necessity of Com­munion, come not home to our case. For as they are abused when applyed to the Communion of the Roman Church (as a­bove noted) so are they not altogether applicable to the Catholick Church now, as it stands in a condition far different from what it was in St. Augustines time. At the time of the Reformation, it was found divided in two parts, accusing each other of Errour and Schism: It was our part then to consider, what Errours we [Page 72]had received by communion with the Ro­mish Church, and finding them to be many and great, it was not for us to make any other part of the Catholike Church a rule or pattern of Reformation, but to look to Gods Word, and the Primitive practise, when the Catholike Church was in such an intire estate, that the above mentioned Testimonies were truly appli­able to her. Which Church is by both sides confessed and acknowledged to have been so right and sound, that none could have cause to leave the Communion of any part of her; Which Church also must be acknowledged to be of more Authori­ty than the present Romish or Greeke Church. From that Word of God was our Rule, from that Primitive Church was our pattern, and by holding to that rule, and pattern, as neare as we could, if we cease to believe and practise many things as the Church of Rome doth, or not agree in all doctrines and practises with other parts of the Catholique Church, we can­not be said for that to have no Commu­nion with the Catholike Church.

CHAP. XVII. Of agreement and external Communion twixt the parts of the Catholike Church.

BUt further to cleare this point of actual communion and agreement betweene the parts of the Catholique Church by some Instances. In the points of keeping Easter, and Rebaptization, it is evident,

First, that the Asian and Roman in the one, and the African and Roman in the other, did not agree for doctrine and practise.

Secondly, that they could not 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 [Page 74]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 Non­communion, 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 de [...]yed Baptism to their chil­dren. Now there did not follow a divi­sion, [Page 77]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, o [...] 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 [Page 78]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 [Page 79]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 condem [...]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 [Page 80]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 [Page 81]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, tha [...]id not re­baptize; but [...]n the other (viz. the Do­natists) there was a wil [...] bre [...]king [Page 82]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. [Page 83]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. [Page 84] 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 infe­re [...]ce, is,

First, inconsequent, as to the particular [Page 85]Instances, Baptism and Circumcision: For the one, the Nicene Creed tels us what a necessary conjunction it hath with the be­lief of Remission of sins in rendring the Articles, thus, I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sinnes; and for the other, the Apostle tels us, how inconsistent it is with the Faith of Christ, Gal. 5.2.3.

Secondly, it is impertinent, as to my application of that Confession at Trent: for I alledged it not to ground any such Inferences upon it against the whole Catholike Church, as if the Gates of Hell could prevail against it wholly, in all sorts of Errours, saving the Verities and pro­fession of those Articles of the Creed; but seeing they made that Creed the con­fession of their Faith at Trent, according to the manner of Antient Councils; and acknowledged it in plaine words to be the onely foundation, &c.

I inferre first, That a Church holding that Foundation, may grosly erre in other things not so immediate to it, and yet be a Church. And indeed the Romish Church for these many Ages has had no tolera­ble Plea to the title and being of a Church, but so far forth as has held that foundati­on, however clogged with many Errours.

Secondly, that according to this their confession, their New and additional Faith of Trent is not that Catholike Faith against which, as pretended, the Gates of Hell cannot prevail.

And lastly, it shews, the intolerable boldnesse of the Romish Church or Court, which after the Tridentine meet­ing feared not to adde their new Articles to that former Creed, (which they had confessed to be the onely foundation) as making up one entire Catholike Faith, and to subjoyn Athanasius his Clause to it all, Haec est fides Catholica, extra quam, &c. This is the Catholike Faith, without which no salvation— as appeares by Pius quartus his Bul, and the Oath which every Bishop in that Church takes.

But that the Catholike Church has a promise in that large sense Cardinal Per­ron speakes it (lib. 1. cap. 18.) to continue perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine, we cannot say. We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense, for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine, he meanes it of such a priviledge and free­dome from Errour as the Church of Rome challenges, which is not necessary to the preservation of the Catholike [Page 87]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 [Page 88]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, [Page 89]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 [Page 90]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.

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 [Page 92]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 [Page 93]Testament, yea and give us reason for it, because the souls of the Patriarchs were not then in heaven, and so not to be Invo­cated, yet doe they alledge very many places for it out of the Old Testament to make a shew of Scripture. So for the New Testament. They acknowledge Invocation of Saints departed was not commanded or taught by the Apostles, or in their time; yea and give us reasons why it was not published at first; because (say Eckius, Copus, Salmeron.) It had been unseasona­ble and dangerous for Jew and Gentile at first to have heard it, lest they might think the Christians set forth and worshipped many Gods: or that the Apostles were ambitious of having such honour done them after their death.

It is then acknowledged not to have been so much as taught in that first Age, and yet will they again (when they come to maintain it) make the world believe it was also written then, and bring many places of the New Testament for a seem­ing proof of it. So of Image-worship, Pur­gatory, Indulgences, and most of their Sacraments, the more ingenuous among them acknowledge (as our Authors have gathered their Testimonies) they have [Page 94]not ground in Scripture: and indeed if they truly had, why should the Romanist so earnestly contend for unwritten Tra­ditions to hold them by? yet must Scri­pture be alledged for them all by every Controversie-writer. Which consequent­ly (as was observed) does acknowledge that Doctrines of Faith and Religion should be grounded there.

Secondly, that the necessity they have of resting upon unwritten Traditions e­qualized in Authority to the written Word of God, is a plain confession, they cannot stand by the undoubted Word of God, nor have any certaine ground of their New faith which rests upon preten­ded unwritten Traditions, and these you must take upon the word of their own Church.

Thirdly, that the same necessity of rest­ing upon unwritten Traditions, forces them to lay upon Scripture Imputations of Imperfection and Insufficiency, of darknesse and obscurity, very unbeseem­ing the Testament of God; written by the dictate of Gods Spirit, and left us as a signification of his will, and a Rule for the direction of his Church.

Let us then take leave a little more [Page 95]largely to speake to these two points: of the sufficient perfection of this written Rule, then of the sufficient perspicuity of it. The one casts off the necessity of their unwritten Tradition; the other, the pre­tence of their Infallible Judge or Inter­preter. And upon these indeed rests the whole frame of the New Roman faith: and therefore worthy, of all other points, to be a little insisted on.

CHAP. XXII. Sufficient perfection of the Scripture, as a Rule.

FIrst then, of the sufficient perfection of Scripture, which we say containes all things of themselves necessary to be believed, or done to salvation. All such things we say, it contains; not expresly, and in so many words, but either so, or as deducible thence by evident and suffi­cient consequence. The Romanists are forced to grant that the Scripture con­tains plainly the prima credibilia (as some of them expresse it) the first and chiefe points of belief; or those that are simpli­citer necessaria, and omnia omnibus neces­saria [Page 96](as Bell. expresses it, lib. 4. cap. 1.) but they also say, that there are many o­ther things necessary in belief and pra­ctise to salvation, not there contained, or thence deduced; therefore they adde Tra­ditions to make a supply.

CHAP. XXIII. Of Traditions which we allow.

FOr Tradition, We allow,

1. That Universal Tradition which brings down Scripture unto us, through the consent of all Ages, for that Tradition is supposed in the reception of the Scri­pture. But we say, the Scripture contains all material objects of Faith necessary to Salvation, i.e. all things that had been ne­cessary for Christians to believe and doe for Salvation, though there had been no Scripture.

Secondly, we allow that kind of Tra­dition which brings down the sense of Scripture to us through all Ages of the Church. So the Creed may be called a Tradition, and other Catholike Declara­tions of the Church bringing downe the sense of Scripture in any point of Faith. [Page 97]Now as the Scripture does suppose the former Tradition, so this kind supposes the Scriptures for its ground, delivering nothing but what is contained in them, and neither of these sorts derogatory to the sufficiency of them.

Thirdly, we allow some Traditions that bring down matters of practise tou­ching Order, Ceremony, Usages in the Church, as of Fasts, or Festivals, or Rites about Sacraments, and the like: But such if they be not contained in the Scripture, so neither are they within the limits of the question; which concerns necessaries to salvation: such we deny those to be; and such things as are necessary to believe to salvation, we deny to come down to us by unwritten Tradition: and what Tradi­tions the Romanists pretend for the con­troverted points, we deny that they con­tain such things necessary, or to have been delivered down in all Ages; and therefore can be no ground for necessary faith, whe­ther we consider the matter of them, or the uncertainty of them. Our Arguments briefly are,

I. Such as shew the Scriptures sufficient for Salvation; as Joh. 5. ver. 39. for in them ye think ye have salvation. Where our Sa­viour [Page 98]supposes, they thought true in it, or else his reason had not been good— for because they might have Salvation by them, i. e. know all things necessary to it, therefore he bids them search the Scrip­tures, and they should find, they testified of him— So 2 Tim. 3.15. expresly, they are able to make wise unto salvation, &c. They have two shifts here;

1. That Scripture is profitable to that end; for that word (Profitable) (the Ro­manists lay hold on) because the Apostle saith there, All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, &c. and so (say they) is every book profitable to that end, though not sufficient, and so they will have the whole Scripture but partially profi­table.

But we answer, Sufficiencie belongs to the whole Scripture, though in propor­tion also to every Book. And the other expressions of the Apostle there, shew this to be onely a shift. For he said be­fore, that Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation; can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose, and onely to doe it in part, and imperfectly, teaching him onely some knowledges to that purpose? Also he saith after, ver. 17. [Page 99]by the Scripture, The man of God is throughly furnished, or perfected to every good work, i.e. to Doctrine, Instruction, &c. such as he spoke of before; which must needs imply a sufficiencie to that end.

2. Their other shift is, That the Scri­pture is said to doe this, because it con­tains many things plainly in it self, and shews from whence we may have the rest, i.e. from their Church. We answer, Had it shewn us that (which it does not) yet could not this shift be reasonable here: For so the Law might have been said to make us perfect, because it shews us Christ, and was a School-master to him, Gal. 3. and John Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples, by shewing them Christ.

II. Such Arguments as forbid and ex­clude all Additions to the Scripture, and so imply the perfection and sufficiency of it, and condemne their super-added Traditions, as, Deut. 4.2. and cap 12.32. against adding to his precepts. And Rev. 22.18. a Woe pronounced to him that addes. And Gal. 1.6. an Anathema to them that bring in another Gospel beside what they had received. And Gal. 3.15. [Page 100]to a mans Testament none addes, much lesse to Gods. And Mat. 15. our Savi­our expresly condemnes the Pharisees that taught for Doctrines of Worship, the Traditions and Commandements of men.

Now see, what shift they make with these places. One is, that the prohibition of adding concernes the whole Word of God written and unwritten, no man may adde to that. We answer, that the places of Deut. and of Rev. are expresly of the written Word. Also that of Gal. 1. and Gal. 3. must be meant of the written: for that which is written beares the name of the Gespel, and of the Testament of God, and can we thinke it beares it parti­ally? Saint Aug. lib. 3. contra Lit. Petil. and elswhere expresly applies that of Gal. 1. to the Scripture, thereby excluding all doctrines of Faith not received from Scripture. And Saint Hier. upon 1. of Hag. relating to that place, saith, Percu­tit Dei gladius— that sword of God, or Anathema, strikes through all those do­ctrines, which absque authoritate & te­stimonio scripturae quasi traditione Aposto­licâ confingunt; without the authority and testimony of Scripture they hold [Page 101]forth under pretence of Apostolical Tra­dition. And for that other of Gods Te­stament, The Romanists must suppose that God Almighty has done, as it fares with many men, who intending to write their Will, and having begun, and prefix­ed the Title (This is my Will and Testa­ment) and proceeded far in it, being pre­vented by hastening death, leave the rest by word of mouth: so will they have God to make a Will partly Written, part­ly Nuncupatory. Now how derogatory this is to the providence of God, who sees not?

Another shift, That those Traditions are onely forbid, which are contrary to what is written, and so no man may adde. We answer, The Apostle saith, Gal. 1. praeter, beside that which ye have received, and Bell. expresly interprets that praeter by contra; but in the judgement of Saint Aug. and St. Hier. in the places above cited it is enough to incurre the Ana­thema, if they teach any thing of faith, which is besides that which is received from Scripture saith St. Aug. and absque authoritate & testimonio Scripturae, the authority and testimony of the Scripture, saith St. Hier. to which adde Tertul. a­gainst [Page 102] Hermogenes, Non est scriptum, time­at vae illud ad [...]icientibus, It is not written, Let him fear that curse which is denoun­ced against them that adde. It was then enough to bring a man under the woe pronounced against them that added, if the thing they added was not written; and not onely because it was contrary to what was written. But our Saviours speech, Mat. 15. taken from Is. 29.13. Their fear towards me is taught by the pre­cepts of men; shews that all Traditions, though not contrary to what is written, yet if they teach for Worship or Faith ne­cessary to salvation, that which is not commanded or written, they are to be condemned. For though the Pharisees Corban was directly against the written command, yet their superstitious washing was not. And upon that occasion our Saviour condemnes them as to this point. To this very purpose is one of St. Basil's Ethick Rules, Quicquid extra Scriptu­ram est, cum non sit ex side peccatum est. He saies not contrà, against; but extra, besides, or without Scripture; and being so, it cannot be of Faith, and therefore sinfull, if so propounded and imposed: And this excludes the Romish Traditions [Page 103]from being rules of Faith or Worship; besides that they are to be challenged of contrariety and repugnancy to Scripture for the most part.

CHAP. XXIV. Their Arguments against Scriptures suffi­ciencie, and for Traditions.

THeir Arguments for their Traditions and against the sufficiency of Scri­pture, are so many aspersions cast upon the undoubted Word of God, not with­out derogation to the Providence and Wisdome of God, nor (for the most part) without some contradiction to themselves.

Their first concerns the purpose of God in it, That he did not purpose it to contain a perfect Rule, because the Pen­men of holy Scripture had no command to write, but did it upon occasion, or as Bel. (necessitate quadam coacti) upon oc­casions ministred, and urging them to write.

We answer,

1. If the necessity of the Churches call'd for Scripture, and urged them to [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104]write, it shews of what concernment it is to the Church.

But 2. though the necessity of the Church ministred the outward occasion to some bookes, it supposes the purpose and special providence of God in apply­ing them to the work. Hear Bell. himself acknowledging, lib. 4. c. 3. Deo volente & inspirante Aposelos scripsisse quae scrip­serunt, That the Apostles wrote what they did write, by the will and inspiration of God. This is well, but this amounts not to a command, faith he: Being then prest with St Aug. saying, Quicquid ille (Christus) de suis dictis & factis nos le­gere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tan­quam manibus imperavit, Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his sayings and deeds, that he commanded them to write. lib. 1. de consens. evang. c. ult. He is forced to confesse they had mandatum in­ternum, an internal command to write— And now what needs more? for if they had had all of them as expresse outward command as Saint John had to write his Revelations, or as Moses had to write what he had from God, it would not have made it more the purpose of God, than did the inward command: Nor would it [Page 105]have made Bellarmine any whit more granted the Scripture of the Apostles to be written for such a Rule; for he does not grant it of Moses Writings, though he had such a command, and therefore we may leave it as a vaine reasoning.

But see what he saith of Scripture as written for a Rule, That it is a Rule, and Regula fidei Catholicae the Rule of Catho­like Faith; and Regula credendi certissima, & tutissima, The Rule of Belief, and that most certain most safe. Bell. affirms l. 1. c. 2. and this is well towards a perfect Rule; and there he inferres upon it, seeing it is so, sun [...] profecto non erit, qui eâ neglectâ spiritus interni, semper incerti, saepe fal­lacis, judiciose commiserit, He is not well advised, who neglecting Scripture, rests upon the judgement of a private spirit, which is alwaies uncertain, often decei­ving. How well might the inference been made so against unwritten Traditions, seeing the scripture is Regula fidei Catho­licae, & regula credendi certissima, tutis­sima, sanus profecto non erit, &c. He is ill advised, who neglecting Scripture commits himself to unwritten Traditions, which are often deceitfull, alwaies uncertaine. But in his fourth Book cap 12. Scripture is [Page 106]with him but a partial Rule, unwritten Tradition is the other part: Nay, he de­nyes in the same Chapter, that it was the proper and chief end of Scripture to be a Rule, but to be utile quoddam commoni­torium ad conservaudam doctrinam ex prae­dicatione acceptam; A profitable means to admonish and remember them of the doctrine they had heard preached: That profit in­deed the Scripture did afford, but the end of that remembrance, and conserving of the Doctrine preached was, that the Scri­pture should be as a standing Rule, or Guide to them, and so to us, that did not heare what the Apostles preached: To us it is not properly a Remembrancer, but a Guide and Rule; and that must be the chief end wherefore it was written.

But this to note, how this engage­ment for unwritten Tradition in h [...]s fourth. Book, would not let him be constant to what he had fairly spoken of Scripture in his first. So it fares with most of them, Truth forces much from them, till they come to be confronted with an adversary in defence of some point of their New Faith.

Their second sort of Reasoning against the sufficiency of Scripture, is by enume­ration [Page 107]of some things necessary to be be­lieved, which are not contained (say they) in Scripture. As first, That Scri­pture is the Word of God, is necessary to be believed, but not contained, or shewn by Scripture: This is in every of their mouthes. Among the rest, Bell. thus, lib. 4. Scripture cannot shew it self to be the Word of God, for the Alcoran affirms also of it self the same, that it is the Word of God.

We answer,

First to the Impertinency of this Cavil, That (as it was said above in the stating of the Question) to believe Scripture to be the Word of God, is not of those material objects of Faith which we say are contained in Scripture, and are such as had been necessary for Christians to believe, though there had been no Scri­pture; also that the Scripture being recei­ved upon Universal Tradition (as we said) does not derogate from the sufficiency of Scripture, for that is a Tradition which Scripture supposes, does not ex­clude in this question. For had the Scri­pture been never so full and sufficient ac­cording to the Papists mind, i. e. had it plainly confirmed (if we may suppose [Page 108]such a thing) all that they say is necessa­ry to be learnt by unwritten Tradition, yet would it not have contained this (that it is the Word of God) otherwise then it doth, but must suppose that universall Tradition still to bring it down to us. But we also say; that although Scripture is so brought down to us, yet being re­ceived upon such Tradition, it discovers it selfe to be divine by it own light, or those internal arguments (as they are called) which appear in it to those that are versed in it.

And now see what Bellarmine does here acknowledge, lib. 1. cap. [...]. he makes the title of the Chapter, Libri [...] can [...]ni [...]is verbum Dei contineri, among other arg [...] ­ments, he proves it excellently well by some reasons drawne from Scripture it selfe, as by the conspiration of the parts, the event of Prophecies, and the like, and there saith, Sacris-Scripturis nihil notius, nihil certius: Now, when he comes to contend for unwritten Tradi­tion against Scripture: Scripture cannot shew it selfe to be the Word of God more than the Alcoran It had been well if Bell. had sate down with his own dishonour in contradicting himselfe, and not used [Page 109]this odious instance of the Alcoran to Gods dishonour.

But as I noted at the beginning, their Necessity of resting upon unwritten Tra­ditions, forces them to cast many asper­sions upon the undoubted Word of Al­mighty God. Heare what others say up­on the same score, the Jesuite Bailius in his Catechisme, Without the Testimony of the Church, I would believe the Scri­pture no more than my Livy; no more than Aesops Fables, saith another. And how can it prove it selfe to be no Fable (saith another Romanist) more than any other writing that is mixed with Fables? To this purpose are those other reproa­ches, that sall from them The Scripture, a mute letter, as if no sense in it, but as the Church gives it, a nose of wax, as if apply­able of it self any way.

This the language their Disciples must learne, to speake reproachfully of that Word which was written by the Holy spirit of God, given them to sal­vation, and must judge them at the last day.

Another of their Instances of things ne­cessary, but not contained in Scripture, is Baptism of Infants. This generally objected [Page 110]by them all: And amongst them I single out Bell. to answer himselfe, or (as I may say) contradict himself in it. For lib. 1. de baptis. c. 8. he proves it by places of Scripture, and saith, the argument is strong and effectual, and cannot be a­voyded, and that the thing is evident in Scripture. Now when he contends for Tradition against Scripture, This thing of Childrens Baptisme must be one of them that is necessary, and not contained in Scripture. This is not ingenuous nor con­scionable, but enough to answer the ob­jection.

We say further, that Baptism of Chil­dren, as to the practise of it, is not contai­ned expresly in Scripture, i. e. it is no where commanded to be done, or said, that they did doe it: But the grounds and necessity of it are sufficiently deliver­ed in Scripture, and that's enough for the doing of it; and that the Arguments from Scripture by Bel. and others alledged doe sufficiently shew. And these are their chief Instances.

Their third and last sort of reasoning is from places of Scripture expresly naming Traditions, as 1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Thes. 2.15.

Answ. The whole Gospel was Tradi­tion [Page 111]till it was written: Now if they will have these places make for them, they must shew those Traditions mentioned, did contain things necessary to salvation, and no where written. It is plain they did not. The first concerns Rites and Orders in their Assemblies; and the other, if un­written, concerned the coming of Anti­christ, the falling away before it (the things spoken of in that Chapter, and not of necessity to know unto salvation) and that Tradition, if any more then was written touching those points, being lost, it appeares how well the Church of Rome is to be trusted in this businesse of unwritten Tradition, that cannot shew those which were, nor prove those she has, to be delivered by the Apostles.

Also from places of Scripture, which they will have to imply Tradition, as Ioh. 16 1 [...]. I have yet many things to say to you, &c. 1 Cor. 2.6. We speak wisdome a­mong the perfect: and that to Timothy, Custodi depositum—That good thing com­mitted to thee keep— 2 Tim 1.14.

Answ. These prove no more than the former place, unlesse they can also prove and demonstrate to us, that they concer­ned things not written, and yet necessary to salvation.

2. We must tell them that Hereticks of old did usually pretend these very pla­ces for their unwritten doctrines, and made the like Inferences as the Papists do St. Aug. upon John shews they would say, their doctrines were of the multa which Christ had to say, and Tert. de praescript. c. 5. tels us, Hereticks alledged, the Apostles delivered some things openly to all, some things secretly to a few (the very thing the Papists say) and they proved it (suth he) by St. Pauls saying to Timothy, Custo­di depositum. St. Iraen l 3. c. 2. shews Here­ticks alledged the scriptures were obscure, not to be understood by those that know not Tradition; alledging for it, that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. we speak wisdome, &c. Terp. in his Book de resur. tels us, Here­ticks cannot stand if you binde them, de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas sistere, to be judged by the Scriptures alone: and in the same book calls all Hereticks, Lucifu­gas scripturarum, such as fly the light of the scripture.

And now we must say in the last place, their usual objection of Hereticks alwaies alledging Scriptures and shunning Tradi­tion, is most vain, as appeares by the for­mer Testimonies. As for their alledging [Page 113]scripture, it made for the dignity and suf­ficiency of scripture; Hereticks well knowing the Authority Scripture had in the Church, and therefore that it was in vain to use other proofs without it, and so the Romanists are necessitated (as was said above, Chap. 21.) to pretend it for the proving of those points which they know, and sometimes confesse are not grounded on scripture. As for Hereticks shunning Tradition, it is most true, they carefully shunned that Tradition which delivered down the sense of scripture in the points of Faith through all Ages of the Church: for to shun that, was to shun the evidence and light of scripture. But as for unwrit­ten Traditions (such as we and the Roma­nists contend about) they shelter them­selves under the darknesse of them, made great advantage (as we saw) by pretence of them, alledging the very same reasons and places of scripture for them, as the Romanists do, and so we leave them both well agreed in this point.

CHAP. XXV. The evidence of Antiquitie in the point.

NOw for the evidence of Antiquity. Though we are to speake more ge­nerally to that trial by the Fathers after­ward, yet here in brief to this particular point. There is scarce one Father, but we bring him expresly witnessing (as we af­firm) the fulnesse and sufficiency of scri­pture in all things necessary. Bell. in l. 4. c. 11. sets down very many of them, and admits them for the sayings of those Fathers, how then does hee decline them?

1. One of his General answers (and it is what others answer to) that the Fa­thers speake of omnia omnibus necessaria to be contained in scripture. This the ex­presse testimonies of those Fathers have extorted from him, which is no little pre­judice to their cause (who equal tradition to the written Word, and plead the ne­cessity of what is conveyed to us thereby) for if all things necessary for all be con­tained in Scripture, then surely the do­ctrines and faith delivered in unwritten [Page 115]Traditions are not necessary for all. They indeed that have given up their belief to all the dictates of that Church, are con­sequently necessitated to believe them, but we may be good Christians and yet not believe them, because not written, and not necessary it seemeth to all. That w^ch they can pretend to say here, is, that such unwritten Traditions become neces­sary to be believed upon the proposall of the Church, and to be by all believed, to whom they are sufficiently propounded or made known. Indeed, of Scripture, we grant, All things there revealed be­come upon sufficient proposal of them necessary to be believed as true; yet not all to be believed, as necessary in them­selves to salvation. But of unwritten Traditions, we cannot say, Men are bound to believe them as true, upon the propo­sall of their Church, unlesse they can de­monstrate the testimony of their Church to be Infallible, or that she propounds them upon full Catholike, or Universal Tradition, and consent of all Ages; which they cannot doe: Much lesse can we say, Men are bound upon the propo­sal of their Church to believe them, as containing things necessary in themselves [Page 116]to salvation, unlesse they can prove the contents of those Traditions to be so, which is impossible; or that their Church can make new Articles of Faith, or those things necessary to be believed to salva­tion, which were not so in themselves be­fore. This the sober and moderate Ro­manist must and will deny.

2. He shifteth off their Testimonies, by restraining them to the particular thing there spoken of, as if they onely meant, the scripture was full to that point onely. When as indeed upon occasion of some particular point, which they were proving, they speak in general of the suf­ficiency of Scripture, saying, it contains all things necessary. Therefore to take a­way these, and all such shifts which they bring to restraine what the Fathers spoke generally, We shew they spoke so gene­rally of the sufficiency of Scripture, that they left no room for unwritten Traditi­ons to come into the rule of Faith. This we shew unanswerably, by the Fathers (alledged above, chap. 23.) arguing ne­gatively (as Tertul. sometimes) Non est scri [...]tum, therefore not to be received: and speaking exclusively to all things not written, as, that we must not say or teach [Page 117]any thing of faith, praeterquam quod scri­ptum est, saith Saint Augustine lib. 3. con­tra Lit Petil. Sine his Testibus, saith St. Chrysost. and citra Scipturam, in Psal. 95. and absque authoritate & testimonio Scripturae, saith St. Hier. in 1. cap. Hag. and, Quicquid extra Scripturam est, cùm non sit ex fide, peccatum est, Basil. in Re­gulis Eth. Such exclusive words (praeter­quàm, sinè, citrà, abs (que), extrà) they use against admitting of unwritten Tradition for a Rule of Faith; which words and speeches are not any way to be eluded.

That they bring many sayings out of the Fathers for Tradition, it is true, and Bellarmine boasts in the number; but to what purpose? when they do but beat the aire, strike us not. For they either meane the Scripture it self, or Evangelical Do­ctrine contained in, and delivered to the Church by the written Word, to which the name of Tradition is often given by the more ancient Fathers, Iraen. Tertul. Cyprian; or else they mean the forme of Doctrine and Belief delivered downe in the Church, which though they often call Tradition, yet is it written and contained in Scripture, and is but the explication of it, or the Traditive sense, nothing to [Page 118]the unwritten Traditions we speak of; or else by unwritten Tradition (as they often mention that too) they imply things of Practise, and Rites, and Festivals, or Fasts and the like, not matters of Faith neces­sary to Salvation. And among these some Fathers avouch such for Apostoli­cal Traditions which the Romanists will not allow, as standing at Prayer between Easter and Whitsontide, and every Lords day, and the Trine immersion in Baptism. In a word, where the Fathers say, the Apostles left some things to us unwritten, let the 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 [Page 119]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. [Page 120] 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, [Page 121]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 [Page 122]which we may be ignorant, and of which the Church of Rome is ignorant notwith­standing all her Traditions: yet f [...]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 [Page 123]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 selfe­conceit, 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 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 [Page 125]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, [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 [Page 129]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 [Page 130]the Negative, we challenge them, that they cannot prove it either by Scripture, or any convincing demonstrative reason: Notwithstanding they are bound to shew us it (according to their own concessions) expresly contained in Scripture: For, they grant all things necessary for all to believe (and such they hold this point of Infallibility) are so contained in Scri­pture, it being one of their prima credi­bilia, and necessary for all to be believe. vid. c. 22. We, as Negatives, are proved, shew it is not imaginable, that a belief of that consequence (the ground-worke of all Faith, the stay of the Church, as they will have it) should be so ill provi­ded for. That,

First, the four Evangelists writing the Gospel of Christ for the use of the Church, and all Believers, should, if they knew it, be so silent of it, and yet record many things of far smaller im­portance.

Secondly, that Saint Paul, when he had occasion to speak it, as when he wrote to the Romans, should not give the least hint of this priviledge, no not when he told them the priviledge of the Jews, cap. 3. that to them were committed the Ora­cles [Page 131]of God: How convenient had it been to have spoken this priviledge of the Ro­mans, that to them were entrusted the Oracles of Christ, and the interpretation of them? Again, when writing to the Co­rinthians, he had occasion to tell them of some, saying, I am of Paul, I of Cephas, I of Apollo, in stead of telling them, All must hold of Cephas (as the Roman Church has defined it of necessity to sal­vation to be subject to the Roman Bishop the successor of Cephas) he chides them for such faction and division. Or when he and Saint Peter agreed upon a distri­bution of their Ministry, that one should apply himselfe to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles, nothing should be acknow­ledged of Saint Peters Universal Jurisdi­ction, Gal. 2. Or when he reckoned up the severall Orders as God had set them in his Church, Ephes 4.11. it should not been said, First Peter, then the Apostles, but First Apostles, Secondarily Prophets, and after for ordering Ministers of the Church, it should be added, some Pastors and Teachers, without any insinuation, that the Lord had given the Bishop of Rome to be supream Pastor, and Doctor of the Church.

Thirdly, that St. Peter himselfe giving all diligence (as he saith Epist. 2. cap. 1.) to minde them of what was needfull be­fore his departure, should not tell them whom they were to follow after he was gone.

Fourthly, that we should have so of­ten warning of false Teachers (both in the Gospels and Epistles) and nothing of this Remedy: So much of Antichrists, and nothing of the Vicar of Christ.

Fifthly, that the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor, or that Cyprian and the African Bishops in their opposition to Pope Stephen, should not know this priviledge of the Church of Rome, or not acknowledge it. If it be said, Both Victor and Stephen judged right: Be it so, and let Cardinal Perron cry, Oh Providence, that after-Councils judged the same! (as he lib. 3. against the Kings Letter) yet does it not follow that they were infallible, or had Univer­fall Jurisdiction to judge for the whole Church; Nor yet did they judge altoge­ther right; for Victor did not judge a­right, when he concluded excommunica­tion against so many famous Bishops and Churches, upon a different time of ob­serving [Page 133]Easter; For albeit Irenaeus and o­ther famous Bishops and after-Councils acknowledged the truth of the thing it self, viz. The observing of the Time of Easter, yet did they not approve his judgement in proceeding to an Ex­communication of, or rather a pronoun­cing of Non-communion with those Chur­ches: And if Stephen did generally with­out exception, as it seemes he did, conclude all Heretikes to be received without rebaptization; after-Coun­cils did not judge the same, but con­cluded the contrary upon some He­retikes; for some there were, that did not observe, but destroyed, what was essential to the Form of Baptism, and could not therefore be received without being baptized at their admission. Fur­thermore, that Saint Augustine, and the Council of Carthage should be so ill in­structed in their Faith, as not to know or acknowledge this, but to hold so long a contestation with the Bishop of Rome in the businesse of Appeales; or that the then Romish Bishops, and their Proctors in that Cause, should be so ignorant of this point, that in the former businesse they should neither alledge Infallibility of [Page 134]judgement belonging to the Pope of Church of Rome, nor produce any Scri­pture for what they pleaded for, but one­ly pretend a Canon of the Council of Nice, which upon strict examination could not appeare: for the true Canon of that Councell, which concerned the Pope, did not come home to the business. But the wits of later ages, especially of this last which hath produced Jesuties, have found out Scripture and reason for this Pretended Visible Universall Infalli­ble Judge. We shall examine them, but I must tell them (which I hinted above) that they are bound to shew us it expresly in Scripture.

For in the former controversie, of the sufficiency of Scripture, they grant (and must needs doe it) that the Prima Cre­dibilia, or the Omnibus Necessaria, are contained expresly there. Now this of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome being the first thing to be believed by them, the ground and formal reason, upon which they believe all things else, they are bound to shew it expresly set downe in Scripture. And doubtlesse had there been such a thing intended by our Saviour, he would have left it distinctly [Page 135]set down, that all might be directed to that Infallible Guide or Judge.

Bellar. to shew the certainty of their belief above the Protestants, delivers, the Proposition of Faith (as he calls it, l. 3. c. 10. de verbo Dei) in such a syllo­gisme. That which is revealed in Scripture is true, But this is revealed in Scripture,— The first proposition is granted on both sides: of the second (that this or that is revealed in Scripture) We, saith he, are certain. Why? because of the testimony of the Church, Council, or Pope, of which we have apertas promissiones, plain, and clear promises in Scripture, that they cannot erre. But the Protestants know this or that to be revealed in Scripture by conjectures onely, or the judgement of a private Spirit. So he.

This proposition of Faith we shall speak to bleow, chap. 28. Here I mention it, that to shew according to the Argu­ment above, they hold themselves bound to produce cleare Scripture for this ground-work of their Faith; therefore he is forced to call them apert as promis­siones. He names two in that place; the First is from Acts 15.28. Visu est Spiritui sancto & nobis.

Answer. This if it concerns any thing, belongs to a Council, (therefore Bellar. put them all in together, Church, Coun­cil, or Pope, for, as I noted above, they are not agreed where to fix) but what promise is here to Church or Councel? It is but a relation of what the Apostles said, and might say it in their priviledge of Infallibility: and I hope none of the af­ter-Councils presumed to say it, as they said it. Bellarmine was ill advised to give us this for a cleare promise, which is nei­ther promise, nor yet cleare: for how does it appeare by any thing in the Text, how after-Councils might speak so? Nay it is cleare they could not speak it upon a priviledge of infallibility. For Councels (as Bel. ackdowledges, l. 2 de Concil.) nec habent, nec scribunt revelationes, sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones. Neither have, nor propound revelations, but draw their Conclusions out of the word of God by discourse. Now no men ever undertook to deliver Truth infallibly, which they beat out by reasoning, and concluding upon discursise meanes: In­deed if Bellarmine instead or this (Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis) had givien us that of Mat. 28. I am with you to the end, [Page 137]or that of John 16. The spirit of truth will gvide you into all truth; he had 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 [Page 138]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 [Page 139]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 [Page 140]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 [Page 141]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 [Page 142]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 [Page 143]that Faith there is an Act or Virtue in Peter, or not rather taken for that Catho­like truth believed and confessed by Pe­ter? Peters confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time: but that on which Christ sayes there, He will build his Church, was Peters Con­fession, i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him; and so its plaine the Fathers tooke it, for they opposed this Faith or Confession (as the Cardinal acknow­ledges) against the Arrians, That Christ was the Sonne of the living God.

Bell. applyes the promise following (I will give thee the Keys, &c.) to this busines of the One visible Interpreter or Judge, and will have (whatsoever thou loosest) to signifie not onely the relaxation of sins, and their censures, but nodos omnes le­gum—& dogmatum—the dispensing with the tyes of Laws, and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversie, lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him with­out further proof. Now when this promise of the Keyes is applyed to judgement a­bout sinnes and offences, we know what [Page 144] binding is as well as loosing; but when it is thus stretched to universall judgement in the interpretation of Scripture, defi­ning points of faith, dispensing with Lawes we cannot tell, unlesse we thus in­ferre, that as loosing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture, so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it; if loosing be againe the power of dispensing with Lawes, which binde men (as in point of marriage or the like) then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawfull, as for Clergy to marry, or what he has commanded, as people to re­ceive the Sacrament in both kindes. And the Pope it seems by vertue of this pro­mise or power of Keyes may thus loose, and binde, and not erre: yet these are their chiefe places of Scripture. Now let us come to their Reasons.

First is from Gods providence, who was not ignorant how many difficulties, and controversies would arise about the faith, and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge. Answ. This is to measure the wisdome of God by the modell of our Reason: but the same reason may also tell us, it would have been more conveni­ent for the Church to have had such an [Page 145]Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation, than one for the whole Church, which was to be spread over all the Earth; yea reason may further tell us, it had been suitable to his providence, expresly to have told us, who that Infallible Judge was, and where we should finde him. And it cannot be imagined in reason, but he would have done it, had he appointed any such; for he was not ignorant, that many & the greatest controversies would be about this Judge.

He tells us plainly, There must be Here­sies: and the end wherefore; that they which are approved may be manifest, 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withall this re­medy of an Infallible Judge; we must think it is, that approved faith may be of more price, and worth; gained with more earnest enquirie, and diligence in search­ing the Scripture, & using the like means: so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulnesse; all which would have faln and grown remisse in the hearts of men, if to trust all their belief upon an Infal­lible Guide, without any further enqui­tie.

CHAP. XXVIII. Of certainty of belief, and whether they or we have better means for it.

THe Second reason is from certainty of belief, which they say the Prote­stants cannot have for want of such In­fallibility: but we are certain (saith Bell: in his Proposition of Faith above-men­tioned §. 27.) that this or that is revealed in Scripture, because of the Testimony of the Church, Councel, or Pope, which can­not erre:

Now would I ask, first, whether they believe, that Christ is the Son of God, Sa­viour of the world, that He suffered, and now sits at the right hand of God, or the like; because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture, or because they see it evidently there themselves. If they say, because the Church testifies it; then it seems they cannot (which is false) or may not (which is worse) believe God immediately, when he speaks as plain as the Church can. If they say, because they see it evidently there, then have they two formall reasons of their belief, One, the immediate evidence of Scripture: The [Page 147]other, the Testimony of the Church. And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture, then so may we also. And so we doe, not exclu­ding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture, where it needs; which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe, but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture, and make it more evident to us.

Again, I would ask, how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture, that the Church is Infallible? because of the Testi­mony of the Church? No, that they can­not say here, but must alledge for it plain Scripture (apert as promissiones, clear promi­ses, as Bellar: called them) and must allow men the use of their reason & judgment, upon the evidence of them. Well, if they may believe that great point, of the In­fallibility of their Church, upon imme­diate evidence of Scripture, why may not we believe other points so too? or why doe they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground, on which they them­selves lay all their faith at once? for they believe the Churches Infallibility revea­led in Scripture, because they see it, as [Page 148]they say plainly promised there. Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scri­pture can have certainty of belief: why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence? if they cannot have cer­tainty in that particular, then can they not have any certainty in any thing else, which they believe, upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church. Onely this they get by it, and must answer for it one day, that believing all things else up­on the supposed Infallibility of their Church, they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture, and to be the will of God, which are not; yea, to believe contrary to that which is re­vealed, as the half communion for the people.

Again, they that understood and be­lieved what the Apostles preached, and wrote to them, did it without the exter­nall means of an Infallible Interpreter, upon the evidence of what was spoken or written: and therefore so may we. Now to say, They that spoke and wrote were Infallible, and the other knew it to be so, is no more than what we say, Scripture is Infallible, that speaks to us the same [Page 149]which they spoke and wrote, and there­fore we way as well understand and be­lieve it upon the same evidence.

We doe not here (as I insinuated be­fore) exclude the exterior helps & means which God has appointed for interpre­ting and clearing the Scriptures, such as definitions of Councels, the judgment and practice of Primitive Ages, the skill and labour of the present Guides of the Church, which make for the clearing and evidencing of that which is contained in Scripture; but upon the evidence of that, or manifestation of the truth, out of that, is the stay or last resolution of our Faith. Waldensis, a learned writer in the Church of Rome many years agoe, with divers o­thers, doe well apply that of the Samari­tans to the Wowan (Now we believe, for we have heard him our selves, Joh. 4.42.) unto this last resolution of Faith begin­ning in the Testimony of the Church, as the first motive, but ending and staying upon Scripture; As they were first mo­ved and brought to Christ upon the Wo­mans saying, but believed indeed when they heard him themselves: So the saying and judgment of the Church at our first coming and after is a great motive, and [Page 150]light to us; but then indeed we believe when we hear him our selves; when we hear him speak thus and thus to us in Scri­pture.

Now he that upon carefull and impar­tiall using the means God has appointed, does search for the Truth, shall finde what he seeks, or not erre inpardonably: whereas the Romanist, receiving all upon a supposed infallible Testimony, seeks no further comes not to (audivimus ipsi, we have heard him our selves) blindly casts his faith upon a false ground, and so is led to believe (as I said) many things as revealed of God, which are not, and sometimes the contrary to what is re­vealed.

Their third Reason is from pretence of Unity; which they say is preserved a­mongst them by this means, but lost a­mong the Protestants for want of it; and they instance in the breaches, and confu­sions of these our Times. Answ. We had the same means for Unity which the Anti­ent Church had (as was said above, ch. 13.) and so long as we could freely use them (having the secular power to friend) here­sie and schisme was prevented, and Unity preserved: but when the sword of vio­lence [Page 151]prevailed, no marvail if Licentious­nesse grew bold, and cast off the cords of obedience Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil. And we see this pretended Infallibility could not keep Burbon and his Army in order, but that they sacked Rome, made the Pope their prisoner, and forced him to unworthy conditions. And we read that Hereticks of old (as Arrians, and o­thers) when they had the Emperours fa­vour, bore down all before them: so that this means of Infallibility either could not keep them from breaking out, and pre­vailing, or else (which indeed is the truth) there was no such belief of an Infallibility in the Church of Rome in those better Ages: nor was it ever made use of, or al­ledged against Hereticks to repress them. The judgment indeed of the Bishops of Rome was often alledged, as was also the judgment of other Churches and famous Bishops, but this without implying an In­fallibity in judging.

Nay this pretence of Infallibility is so farre from being cause of Unity in the Catholick Church, that it has been the chief cause of division, and of losing more than they retain by it. The Greek Church stands dis-joyned from the Roman, be­cause [Page 152]of her challenging Universal sub­jection and Infallibility; and therefore no more to be dealt with. And this has lost all those that in these later Ages have been divided from the Communion of the Roman Church, because the pretense of Infallibility made her incorrigible, and cut off all hopes of her amending the er­rors they complained of, and desired to have reformed. So that let them cast up what they have lost, and they will have no cause to boast of what they hold by it.

Nay did the Romanists truly confesse what belief they have of this Infallible Judge, it would in all probability be found, that not the faith of such Infalli­bility, but the fear of Inquisition, fire and faggot, keeps those they have in obedi­ence, at least external.

But some of them have said, This Rule or way, if followed, does produce Unity: but the Protestants Rule of belief is not apt to doe it, but rather begets division. Answ. It is true that their Infallibility (though not Real but pretended) where it is followed, i. e. indeed believed, will produce, according to the strength of er­roncous perswasions, an answerable effect [Page 153]in those that are drawn to believe it: for such must needs submit to all things else. But being onely pretended, not reall, it cannot be apt to produce the effect, or hold men to them, but as we said, has lost many. Our Rule of believing upon evi­dence of Scripture, (gained by due use of the means appointed thereunto, (as above mentioned, in this Chap.) if conscionably followed, will produce the effect of Unity and peaceable submission, and is more apt to do it. For therfore was Scripture given, that there might be one Faith: and cer­tainly not given with such obscurity, as to make men quarrel, but with such evi­dence, as men not wanting to themselves, may therby come to know that one faith, without such a visible Infallible Judge. And when any will deceive themselves and prove obstinate, the Church proceeds to restrain them by Ecclesiastical censure, even to excommunication, for preserving Unity in the rest. And other means the Antient Church had not, nor can the Roman goe farther in the way of the Church: for as for fire and faggot, it was the way of the Adversaries of the Churcith.

The Testimonies they cite out of Fa­thers are all not concluding; They are [Page 154]such as send Hereticks to the Church in general, as S. Augustine doth the Dona­tists often: but this does not argue, that we shall finde any where in the Church a Visible Infallible Guide. Otherwise we say, in every Church there are Guides and Pastors of publik judgment, to whom inferiours must submit, and the consent of the Catholick Church is above that. Or else they are such Testimonies, as re­port the judgment of the Bishop of Rome given in such or such causes, and required by other Bishops or Churches. But this comes not home neither. For we finde the judgment of other Bishops, and lear­ned Fathers alledged, and required, and that by Popes themselves. So was Atha­ [...]asius his judgment, desired by Liberius, and Hieromes often by Pope Damasus; and that in matter of doctrinal points, and with a great deal of submission to their judgment, as to be guided by it; (as appears in Pope Liberius Letter to Atha­nasius, and Damasus to Hierome.)

One place of Irenaeus is much cited by them, Ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem, &c. lib. 3. cap. 2. which [...]ndeed makes against them: For this [...]mplies neither Universal jurisdiction, [Page 155]nor Infallibility in the Romish Church: Neither did Irenaeus mean so much as the words by reason of the ill Latine Trans­lation, may seem to imply. For the Greek had it, (as I have met with it, and as the whole Context avouches it) [...], and is ill translated potentiorem principalitatem, but rather sounds pro­pter convenientiorem institutionem, seu principium; That Church being from Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and therefore the most convenient example to shew the succession of Pastors and Doctrine. For from thence he fetches his argument to confute those Hereticks, that being pres­sed with Scripture did accuse it (as he saith) of obscurity, as not to be under­stood of them who were ignorant of Tra­dition; therefore he confutes them by the undeniable succession of the Churches, and because Longum est (saith he) omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, there­fore he singles out the Roman, as that which was maxima, omnibus cognita & à gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro & Paulo fundata & instituta, (there is the [...], a more convenient beginning of succession in that, than in other lesse fa­mous Churches) and by the doctrine re­ceived [Page 156]from the Apostles, and delivered down in that Church, he confounds the Hereticks. Now (saith he) with this Church (because of such a beginning and succession) every Church ought to agree: and so they did then, and therefore it was needlesse for him to instance in any other Church.

Thus are we also willing to deal with the Romanists at this day. They being pressed with Scripture, accuse it of obscu­rity, and say, (as those Hereticks that Irenaeus had to deal with) It is not to be understood by them that are ignorant of Tradition; We therefore tell them of the Doctrine of Faith delivered down in all Churches, and bring them to the Antient Roman Church, which was glorious then for its foundation and preservation of true doctrine, and tell them, because of such an [...], they ought to agree with it now: which they doe not in the main points between us and them controverted (as abovesaid) and in this particular of an Infallible Universal Judge for the whole Church.

¶ Thus farre we have proceeded upon the first and chief Rule of Triall, Scripture; the Sufficiency and E­vidence of it, Now to the other.

CHAP. XXIX. Of Consent of Antiquity.

OUr second Rule of Triall, is, Consent of Antiquity. We say, the Roma­nists cannot prove their Doctrines by that, as they ought to doe, if they will have them passe for Catholick; for then according to Vincentius his Rule, semper & ubique, they must be alwaies and ge­nerally held in the Church. Yet is there a pretence made to it, and great confi­dence and boasting among them of the Fathers: not that they know, they have indeed advantage by them, as to the due proving of their cause, but because the Protestants have freely and ingenuously spoken their Judgment of the Fathers and their authority. Therefore the Ro­manists make advantage of it with their own Proselytes, as if the Protestants de­clined all Triall that way. Now should we speak with that liberty of the Fathers writings, as they doe of the Scripture, loading it with imputations of obscurity, imperfection, corruptions, &c. it might I hope be so much more justifiable in us, as the divine authority of Scripture surpas­ses all humane writings,

But this we professe, however they are obliged to disparage the written Word of God (and a miserable cause it must be which obliges men to such a plea) yet are not we obliged to detract any thing from the due worth of the Antient Fathers: for, take their Writings as they are, we averre that the Popish faith cannot prove it self to be Catholick by them.

Yet if we say, the Fathers were men, and subject to error, which the Scripture is not, we doe but say, what they ost ac­knowledge themselves. If we say, they have erred in several Ages, and that ma­ny of them together with a general con­sent (as in the Millenary belief, the In­fant communion, and the place of faith­full Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment) we doe but say, what the Ro­manist cannot deny, who doe acknow­ledge the Fathers erred in these.

If therefore we say, they are no Rule of Faith to us, we doe but say, what they of the Ages following thought, that they were not bound to follow them in these errors, after they were once detected, and what the Romanists must acknow­ledge, for they also have forsaken them in these.

If again we say, the Writings of the Fathers have come through ill hands un­to us, which have corrupted or maimed the true, and patched false and suppositi­tious writings to them, the Romanists cannot but acknowledge, we have great cause to think there was more providence of God in the preserving of Scripture en­tire, than the Writings of the Fathers. Onely here is the mischief again, they are obliged to speak any casualty that hap­pens to Scripture, and to make a noise of corruptions, obscurity, &c. because they finde it too plain against them, and are afraid the people should see it too; but of the Fathers writings more rarely doe they acknowledge any such thing, not because they have cause to joy of them, as plain and full for the Romish faith; but because their advantage is by their forged writings, and the corruptions of the true ones; also because those writings came through their hands for several A­ges, and so the false dealing, that has been used, becomes chargeable upon the pro­fessors of their cause: False dealing I say, what by the cunning of Monks that had those Writings in Manuscript, what by their several editions of the Fathers, what [Page 160]by their expurgatory Indexes. In all which it is easie to see what labouring there has been, to make the Antients speake the Language of their present Church. Hence have they advantage, not truly, by the Writings of the Antients, but such as serves to their purpose, espe­cially when to deal with those that are lesse learned; whom they can turn to this or that place in such or such a Father, knowing they are not able to judge whe­ther the writing be supposititious, or the place corrupted, or whether the same Fa­ther elswhere expresses himself otherwise, or be contradicted by other Fathers, and there speaks onely his private opinion.

This caution Vincentius gives us in his Rules for Catholick doctrine, cap. 39. Whatever any, quamvis sanctus, doctus, Episcopus, Martyr, praeter— vel contra— though holy, learned, though a Bishop or Martyr, holds beside or against the rest of the Fathers: id inter proprias & privatas opiniunculas— it must be severed from the Publick doctrine, and placed a­mong private opinions.

Well, though all this makes for the dis­advantage of the Protestants, that they have not the Fathers writings, as they [Page 161]came from their own hands and pens, but as through the hands of many Ad­versaries: yet take them as they are, with all the difficulties of finding what is tru­ly theirs, and what is the sense of it, the Protestants never doubted to enter this kinde of triall by Antiquity; not stand­ing or falling by every thing we meet with in one or moe Fathers, (for the Romanists will not so) but maintaining:

1. That the Romanist cannot prove his Affirmative by a full and sufficient consent or 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 [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 [Page 164] 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 [Page 165]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 [Page 166]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 JESƲS 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 [Page 167]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 Church.

Secondly, we have Evidence against the Roman faith, by that which we meet with in the Fathers appliable to some points of it.

1. Sometimes we meet with the Name indeed which the Romish point bears, but not the Thing; as for example, in some [Page 168]few Fathers, there is mention of a purging fire after this life; but neither doe they agree upon the same thing among them­selves, nor any of their conceits with that thing the Romanists call Purgatory. So we meet with the name of Oblation and Sacrifice in the Eucharist but in senses we admit of, not the Roman thing of a pro­per Sacrifice. So we meet with prayers for the dead, which indeed was the do­ctrine and practice of the firster Ages, but it was not for relief of any Souls in a supposed purgatory, to which the Romish doctrine and practice of praying for the dead is bound. So for private confession, we allow it in the sense and way the An­tient Church did perswade and some­times practice it, not as imposed and pra­ctised by the Roman.

2. Sometimes we meet with phrases in the Fathers favouring some Romish do­ctrine, but then we shew by argument and reason from the same Fathers, that those phrases doe not speak indeed the Romish sense. As for Transubstantiation, many hyperbolicall expressions, many speeches founding the change and Trans­elementation of the Bread; but we shew they could not mean a substantial change, [Page 169]because we finde them use like phrases of the change of a Man in regeneration, of Water in Baptism, of Oyle in the Chrism after consecration; in all which no sub­stantial change or conversion. Also be­cause many of the Fathers in plain terms acknowledge, This is my Body, to be a fi­gurative speech; and because it is clearly evinced out of them, that indeed they held the Bread remained in substance after consecration. One instance whereof we had above, in this Chap: in their answer to the Eutychians. Another we may have from their saying, our bodies to be nou­rished by the Body of Christ, and to re­ceive increase by it. Bellarmine here ac­knowledges an hyperbolical improper speech, and that they meant our bodies ex contactu corporis Christi did receive a disposition to immortality; a figurative speech indeed, taking the body of Christ sacramentally, and speaking of it what the sacramental element does indeed: for our bodies are indeed nourished and re­ceive increase by the Elements, and this implies necessarily the substantial remain­ing of them. But for Bellarmine his ex­plication, it is too impertinent; as if re­ceiving a disposition to immortality, [Page 170]could satisfie their saying, that our bodies are nourished and receive increase, which we finde to be real upon the receiving the Elements as well as any other Bread or Wine; and to say they receive that disposition ex contactu corporis Christi, is to say Christs body is touched by ours, when as this manner of the Romish real presence enforces them to say, Christs body in the Sacrament is impalpable, and cannot be touched or felt.

Let me adde here how Cardinal Per­ron in his Letter to Master Casaubon, wa­ving as it were Transubstantiation, layes the whole Importance of the Sacrament on the real presence, viz: our Communi­on or substantial Union to the Body of Christ; citing S. Cyrill, who calls it the Knot of our Ʋnion with God. Observe first, that Transubstantiation it seems is not necessary to this importance of the Sacra­ment, our Union with Christ: see we if their real presence (which divided from Transubstantiation must needs fall in with the Lutheran Consubstantiation) will be necessary to it. It is true that the impor­tance of the Sacrament is our Union with Christ, and for that Union we acknow­ledge there must be a real presence of [Page 171]Christs body to those it is united to in the Sacrament; and so a real presence or Communication of the Body of Christ, we hold, and a real Union: but as this Union is spiritual, so is the Presence too: yet real, yea most real, as when our Savi­our said, My flesh is meat indeed, [...], John 6. it was really so, did really nourish, yet spiritually.

Now secondly, would I know, how such a real presence as they contend for (viz: a corporal, carnal, or contradistinct to spiritual) can be necessary to the impor­tance of the Sacrament: for that real presence being the bodily communication of Christs body, as it is not the thing of the Sacrament, or the importance of it, viz: our Union with Christ, (for all un­worthy receivers have that bodily com­munication of his body into their mouthes and stomacks) so cannot it be any help to, or pledge and assurance of our substan­tial and true Union with Christ: for their real presence communicates his bo­dy to our bodies, without any sense and feeling nay against sense, and so cannot be any pledge or sacramental confirma­tion to us of receiving him spiritually: also it conveyes his body through the [Page 172]mouth without any real eating, and so cannot be any representation or assu­rance of our spiritual eating: Lastly, it makes his body stay a while in the sto­mack, without any union or incorporati­on, and so cannot make any way to the working or assuring our reall Union with Christ, our nourishing by his body and blood. Of such importance is their real presence or bodily communication, that it makes for nothing but to destroy the Sacrament, and to take away the real eat­ing of the Sacramental bread, the real in­corporation of it into our bodies, the real nourishment received by it: all which are necessary in the Sacrament, to testifie and help our spiritual eating of Christs body, our nourishing by it, our Union with him, which is the importance of the Sacrament. And this of our spiritual eat­ing and union is well set out by the Fa­thers, that have written upon John 6. especially by S. Augustine, yea and well expressed by the Councel of Florence; Hujus Sacramenti effectus (or as the Car­dinal, the importance of this Sacrament) quem in anima operatur dignè sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum, The ef­fect of this Sacrament which it works upon [Page 173]the soul of the worthy Receiver, is the uni­ting of a man to Christ, (and this I hope is a spiritual communication) and then further, Omnem effectum, quem materialis cibus & potus quoad vitam agunt corpora­lem, hoc Idem quoad vitam spiritualem & hoc Sacramentum operatur, Every effect, which material meat and drink hath, as to the bodily life, the same doth this Sacra­ment work as to the spiritual life. What Protestant could have spoken better, to set out the spiritual communication of Christs body and blood, our incorporati­on into him, union with him, signified and wrought by the sacramental commu­nication, incorporation and nourishment of the Elements?

Again, we oppose in some points the deeds of the Fathers against their phrases. Phrases may be carelesly (at first) or fi­guratively spoken, and may in time be altered and corrupted, but deeds remain in History, and deeds upon controversie speak the judgment indeed of the persons interessed: such we alledge. As for ex­ample, against those many Eulogies and high expressions which the Fathers used to the magnifying of the Church of Rome and S. Peters Chair (abused now to prove [Page 174]that this Infallibility, Ʋniversal Juris­diction, and exorbitant power, challenged by the Bishop of Rome, was acknow­ledged by Antiquity) we bring deeds, and those upon contestation: as the standing out of Polycrates and all the Asian Bi­shops against the sentence of Pope Victor: also in the contestation between S. Cypri­an and Pope Stephen, it is easily seen that Cyprian by all those speeches he had used to the magnifying of the Roman See (and many they alledge out of him) meant no­thing lesse, than to ascribe to that See, what of late Ages they have challenged. So in the contestation between the Ro­man See and the African Bishops (among whom S. Augustine was one, and one that used to speak sometimes very high of the Roman Church) in the business of Ap­peals, we see their judgement by their deeds.

We see also by this, how that which is spoken by the Fathers, may prove but uncertainly and unwarily spoken, when it comes to the Trial, and farre short of that the Church of Rome would have us believe they meant. For it cannot be de­nied, but the Fathers often speak with a Latitude, and apply things to the present [Page 175]advantage. As when they had to doe with Heresies newly sprung up, they usually opposed the eminency of the Church of Rome (as then indeed it was eminent both for succession and doctrine) setting it out with glorious Titles: or when the Fastern Bishops needed relief, (for the West en­joyed peace for the most part of the four first Centuries, when the East was much troubled) and applied themselves to Rome for help (as Athanasius, Chrysostome, and others) that their cause might be judged in the West by the Pope and his Councel, when they could have no justice in the East: no mervail if by such applications, the Church and Bishop of Rome gained many high Titles and acknowledgments from such distressed persons, and their Wel-wishers. But when it came to a con­testation with Rome it self (as in the cases above-mentioned, wherein Cyprian, Au­gustine, and others, were engaged at se­veral times) it is plainly seen that those Testimonies which Cyprian, Augustine, and others had given in so high a strain, meant not what they seemed at first sight to attest, or what the Cardinal and other Romish writers bring them for.

Now they must acknowledge this used [Page 176]sometimes by the Fathers, to apply their speech to the present advantage, (not indeed contradicting what they meant, but moderating what before they spake more unwarily) for the Cardinal observes the like of them, l. 4. c. 3. That before the Arrians arose, the Interpretation of that place of the Rock, Mat. 16. run upon the person of Peter: but afterwards the Fa­thers finding the advantage of the place against the Arrians, interpreted it of the Confession which Peter made, that Christ was the Son of the living God: to this pur­pose he there. And it comes all to this. The Fathers before spake unwarily, but afterward spake as they saw they had reason. Yet thus it fared in this great point of Romes greatness, for which they pretend the Fathers.

Therefore to conclude the second point: the Romanists have the shadow, the shell, the name, the phrase many times, but we carry the substance, shew the thing, the sense, the judgement, the deeds of Antiquity.

3. Sometimes we meet with beginnings of opinions and practises in the compasse of the first four Ages, which the Church of Rome did after form into a fixt belief [Page 177]and practice; but it was not so then. Then indeed the seeds were scattered, out of the which by degrees sprang some of this forbidden fruit, which the Roman Church now holds forth. As for Exam­ple, The opinion of a purging fire was then but in the wandring conceits of some few (as above insinuated in this Chap.) and which is to be further noted, those few into whose conceits it first en­tred, were of the Greek Fathers; yet so little did it prevail in that Church, that to this day it is not improved into a do­ctrine or belief of the Church among the Greeks. Which shews it rested but in the conceit of some particular men.

So for the point of Invocation, we finde beginning given to that practice in the fourth Century, by Rhetorical Apostro­phe's used in their Orations for the Dead, by the excesse of devotion and honour that some were carried with towards the blessed Martyrs, breaking out sometimes into compellations of them, and uttering their desires to them, as if they had been present.

Here we have a private practice begun by some few, not grounded upon any doctrine of the Church. And long time [Page 178]after it was, ere it crept into the Letanies or publick offices of the Church. So in the point of the half-Communion, we meet with some private practice, some receiving the bread only in a case of ne­cessity, but publickly it was ever admini­stred in both kindes, and also privately, where and when it could. And many express declarations we meet with against receiving it in one kinde; and when it was received so, it was held an imperfect, and not full Communion; This is most plain in Antiquity for above 1000 years.

And now whoever will examine well the flourish of Card: Perroun in his first book, cap. 18. (where running through all the points of Romish faith and pra­ctice, he affirms the antient Church to have held and practised so) will no que­stion finde, that, what is there alledged, falls short of proving the doctrine or practise of the ancient Church, and that the Card. often gives us the Name with­out the Thing, or the Phrase without the Romish sense, or some private opinion for the doctrine of the Church; or some beginning practise for an established one; or a private practice for the practice of the Church. Besides, there is no consent [Page 179]of Fathers given in that Chapter upon any point.

CHAP. XXXI. Card: Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholick according to An­tiquity.

ANd here it will not be amisse to take a view of two of his Rules or Ob­servations, which in his Letter to Mr. Ca­saubon he gives us, to shew what is re­quired to make a man or Church Catho­lick now, according to the doctrines and practises of the antient Church. By which I cannot see how himself or his Church can stand, or challenge the name of Ca­thelick He there saith (in his second ob­servation) That any should passe for Ca­tholick, it is needful they be conformable to the integrity of the belief of the Fathers, i.e. to believe all things they believed, ac­cording to that degree they believed them in, viz: to believe as necessary to salvation the things they believed to be so, and as pro­fitable to salvation, the things they believed to be so, and as not repugnant to salvation, what they held so. This is one of his Rules.

Here are strict conditions; yet let us see how they or we stand bound to them. For the first, Things believed necessary to salvation. The Romanists cannot chal­lenge us Protestants for not believing what they of the antient Church did so believe, with a due and full consent. And for the points controverted (which they challenge us for not believing) let them, if they can, give us so general a consent of Fathers for them, as we finde in those former Ages agreeing in the Millenary belief, in the place of faithful Souls (out of Heaven) till the Day of Judgment, in the Communion given to Infants, as ne­cessary for their salvation, and some o­ther: and yet neither the Cardinal nor any Romanist holds himselfe bound to believe in these things (put them in what rank they will, as necessary or profitable) as they more generally did of old for some Ages. If they say the Millenary b [...] ­lief was rejected within the compasse of the four first Ages, For that is the com­passe of Time the Cardinal is pleased to allow in this tryal; True. But then it tells us, the succeeding Ages did not hold themselves bound to believe all things as they before them did, nor doe the Roma­nists [Page 181]hold themselves bound to believe ei­ther that errour, or the two other of the place of Souls, or Infant Communion, which continued after, even to the end of the Ages fixed by the Cardinal. And will they have us Protestants bound to believe either what the Fathers did believe erro­neously, or what the Romanists please to say the Fathers did believe, when we know they did not, or generally did not?

And as for the other two points of be­lieving things profitable to salvation, and things not repugnant, How will the Cardi­nal possibly give us a consent of Fathers in those points? or if he had the confidence to have undertook it, seeing so many things of opinion, of Rites, and of Cere­monies fall under those conditions of pro­fitable or not repugnant to salvation, shall any Church be therefore not Catholick, because it does not hold or practice in every such thing, as the Church in those Ages did? as for example, Trine immer­sion in Baptism, standing in publick pray­er betwixt Easter and Pentecost, and some other, not onely held and used by the Church of those Ages, but affirmed by some Fathers of those Ages to be of A­postolical [Page 182]Tradition, yet are they not held or practised by the Romish Church.

The Cardinal his other Rule is in his fourth Observation in the same Letter, Let that be held (saith he) as truly anti­ent, and to have the mark of the primitive Church, which is found to be believed and practised Ʋniversally by the Fathers of the Times of the four first Councels; and when it appears, that the things testified by them, were not held for doctrines and observances sprung up in their time, but as perpetually practised in the Church from the Age of the Apostles; and that there is not found in the former Authors testimony against them, but in all places (where there is occa­sion to mention them) agreeable and fa­vourable. So he. This indeed is reasonable fair, as to the tryal between them and us: yet not this of it self to give a sufficient ground for belief; for how will it hold in the forementioned instances of Infant-Communion, and the places of mens Souls till the resurrection, in which both they and we reject what was generally believed and practised in those Ages? where still by Generally, is meant, more generally believed or practised, and so the Cardinals word Universally, in his Rule is [Page 183]to be understood. But as to the points con­troverted: How can the Church of Rome hold to this, or stand by it, when she is never able to shew her doctrines so at­tested, believed, practised? nay when as we are able to shew the beginning of ma­ny of them but springing up in, or after those Ages, as Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Image-worship, Transubstantia­tion, half-Communion? Nay when their own Authors give us reasons why the A­postles, and those of the first Age did not teach (as Chap. 21. was noted above) Invocation of Saints and Image-worship, to the first Christians; yet must these passe for Catholick doctrines, universally believed and practised from the Age of the Apostles. A cause this, that needed the great wit of that Cardinal, to make Antiquity appear for it in so fair a shew, and then to perswade men so far out of their wits, as to believe it did so indeed; Where­as these general Hints, that have been given from the beginning of the 30 Chap: may suffice to let any man, that hath rea­son, know, it can be no good appearance, which is made of Antiquity, but a cunning disguise: and that the Trent Articles can be no Catholick or perpetual doctrine of the [Page 184]Church, but Novel-points of Romish per­swasion, creeping at first, (some in one Age, some in another) into Opinion or practice, and so by degrees gathering strength, till they were asserted by the most and chiefest in that Communion, and defended for the doctrine of that Church, and at length coi­ned into Articles of. Faith, as the Catho­lick doctrine of all Ages, and of the whole Church.