A TREATISE OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC FAITH and CHURCH. Divided into three Books. By THOMAS JACKSON Dr. in Divinity, Chaplain to his Majesty in Ordinary, and Vicar of Saint Nicolas Church in the Town of Newcastle upon Tyne. The first Book. LONDON, Printed by M. F. for john Clarke, and are to be sold at his Shop under St. Peter's Church in Cornhill. 1627. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL and truly worthy Knight Sir RICHARD ANDERSON of Pendley in Hartfordshire, the blessings of this life, and of that to come, be multiplied. RIGHT WORTHY SIR; YOur unfeigned Love to Learning and true Religion, well known by real testimonies to all true Lovers of them, which have the happiness (as myself for long time have had) to be acquainted with you, drew this short Treatise upon its first return unto me (to whom it hath been from its first birth a stranger) to take you for its Foster-Father. Could it speak for itself, it would, I am persuaded, complain of wrong, if I should direct it to seek another Patron, being not acquainted with any Family which bears a more lively image of a well-ordered Church, than your Family doth. Nor is there any other to whom I more heartily wish all furtherance in good beginnings and proceedings, than I do to yours, and to that Honourable Family unto which you are happily united. Of this my desire, & of my best respect unto yourself, and to your Noble Lady, I have no better token for the present, than this Treatise of the holy Catholic Faith and Church. Thus commending both of you, with all yours, and it, unto the blessing of him, who is the sole Fountain of Faith, and Head of the Holy Catholic Church: I take my leave, and rest, Yours ever in the surest bonds of sincere love and observance, THOMAS JACKSON. From my Vicarage in Newcastle upon Tine, this first of january, 1626. Courteous and Christian Reader: THe sum of this Treatise was delivered in Catechism Lectures for the benefit of younger Students in Pembroke College in Oxon, at the request of the Master of that Society, my Reverend and Worthy Friend, and of some other good friends; to whose religious desires my hope was to have given better satisfaction, if my continuance in that ancient and sweet Nursery of Learning had been longer, or my studies there, less interrupted with other occasions. But God be praised, that College hath been furnished since with one of their own body, of whose learned and polite Labours, I hope one day to be with others, a partaker. This Treatise, as now it is, hath been for the most part since in the hands of others, being committed by me to the perusal of that great light of the Northern parts, my then Reverend and dearest Friend, Doctor Birkhead, from whose judicious censure, I hoped then, this and other of my Labours should have received some perfection, and I much comfort from his company. But it pleased the Lord, (whose good pleasure we must obey, not question) to call him from us, (no doubt to his greater good, though to the great loss and sorrow of every true member of the English Church which knew him) before it was my hap (being then absent from these parts) to hear from him, or speak with him. Since his death, it hath passed through many hands, but all as it seems, good friends, in that it returns unto me entire. And from it, as it is, (I hope) no orthodoxal Reader shall receive any discontent, nor any Adversaries of the truth much advantage. Wherein it is for the matter deficient, or not so fully expressed, I shall have opportunity, whether by the advice of Friends, or exceptions of the Adversary, to amend or enlarge, in other Treatises of the same Argument, (which by God's assistance) shall shortly be communicated to thee. And for this reason in part I have been the more willing to have it published at this time. Thine in Christ jesus, THOMAS JACKSON. ❧ The Contents of the several Chapters handled in this Treatise. SECTION I. Containing the description, definition, and properties of the Holy Catholic Church taken in the prime and principal sense, in the six first Chapters. Chapters. Folio. 1. That it is easier to oppose, than to answer a Romanist in this Argument of the Church. The Author's method for meeting with wrangling Sophisms. 3 2. The definition of the Church in general gathered from the diverse sorts of union between bodies natural, artificial, or civil. 5 3. Of the nature and properties of the Church taken in its principal sense. How it is differenced from other Bodies civil. Of the peculiar unity which it hath. 13 4. Of the preeminences which the Church hath of other Bodies or Corporations, in respect of the Governor of it, and the Laws by which it is governed. Of the two Attributes, Holy and Catholic. 21 5. Containing the frivolous exceptions of Cardinal Bellarmine, and some other Romanists against the former or like description of the true Church, or that Church which is principally meant in the Apostles Creed. 29 6. Containing the special points to be believed concerning this Article of the One, Holy, Catholic Church. How every one is so to moderate his assent or belief concerning it, that he neither incline unto presumption, nor fall into despair. 35 SECTION II. Of the visible Church in general. Of its principal Attributes or Privileges, unto the sixteenth Chapter. 7. Of the Church Militant and Triumphant. In what sense it is said that the true Church is invisible. 43 8. What is required to the constitution of a visible Church. Whence the unity or plurality of visible Churches ariseth. What unity may be had or expected between visible Churches independent one of another for jurisdiction. The diverse acceptions or degrees of the visible Church. 52 9 That albeit the true Church be always visible, yet it is a gross sophism hence to infer, that the visible Church is always the true Church; or that one visible Church is more privileged from erring than another. The strange blasphemy, by which the Author of the Antidote seeks to support the infallibility of the visible Romish Church. 66 10. In what cases Arguments of proportion may be drawn from Allegories. A full explication of the Allegory used by S. Paul, Gal. 4. and of the Argument, or concludent proof, in the same Allegory contained. 75 11 Of the consonancy between the promulgation of the old Testament, and the New. Of the opposition between the Law and the Gospel, or between the old Testament and the New. The explication of the Apostles argument, Heb. 9 ver. 13, 14. 86 12. The Allegory or Argument of proportion drawn from Noah's Ark, explicated according to the former rules, and retorted upon the Romanist. 92 13. How far, and in what cases, that Maxim used by the Fathers, Extra Ecclesiam non est salus, Out of the Church, there is no salvation, is true of the visible Church, or Churches visible. 97 14. Declaring by one special instance, the particular manner and opportunities, by which the Church visible or representative, did first encroach upon the royal Attributes of the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. For what causes Christians may separate thewselues, or suffer themselves to be separated from any visible Church, whereof they were sometimes members. 111 15. That our Forefathers separation from the Romish Church was most lawful and just, both in respect of Prince and State, and in respect of every private person which feared God, or sought to retain the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. 118 SECTION III. The visible Church of England retains the holy Catholic faith, which the Romish Church hath defiled. 16. That our Church was in the Romish Church before Luther's time, and yet in it, neither as a visible Church altogether distinct from it, nor as any native member of it. 139 17. That men may be visible members of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet no actual members of any present visible Church. 149 18. In what sense it may be granted, that the visible Romish Church, at the time of our forefather's separation from it, was a true Church, and yet withal the Synagogue of Satan, the seat of Antichrist, and common sink of heresies. 160 19 Whether our Forefathers in separating themselves or suffering themselves to be separated from the Romish Church, did any otherwise then God's Prophets or our Saviour's Disciples, had their case and opportunity been the same, would have done. 170 20. Whether the name [Catholic] can in good earnest be pleaded or pretended for an unseparable mark of the true visible Church. 21. That the title of [Catholic] is proper and essential unto the faith professed by the present visible Church of England, but cannot truly be attributed to the Faith or Creed of the modern visible Romish Church. 180 22. Of the adinuentions or new Articles added to the Creed by the Romish Church, by which she hath defiled the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. Of the difference betwixt the Church of Rome, and the Church of England concerning the rule of faith. What that ecclesiastic tradition was which Vincentius Lir●nensis so much commendeth: to what use it served in the ancient Counsels. 185 23. Of the agreement between the Enthusiast or some nonconformitants to the Church of England, and the Romish Church, concerning the manner how the Spirit of truth▪ (as they suppose) doth lead men into all truth. That the true sense of scripture is as determinable by light of reason and rules of art, as the conclusions of any other sciences or faculties are. A general survey of the depraved or more than heretical or heathenish infidelity of the modern Romish Church. 195 Errata. Page 80▪ lin. penult. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A TREATISE of the Holy Catholic Faith and CHURCH. IN the Exposition of the Apostles Creed, a work undertaken by me long ago, I did sequester four points from the body of that intended work, now almost finished. The first was the doctrine of the holy & blessed Trinity, which I reserved for the last part of my labours to be set down by way of prayer or Soliloquies, as being an argument, in my judgement, both then and now, more fit for meditation, then for controversy or Scholastic discourse. The second point was, the Article of the holy Catholic Church. The Third, the Communion of Saints. The fourth, the Forgiveness of sins. Points, which I knew not how to handle in that rank and order, as they are propounded unto us in the Creed, without manifest interruption of my intended method, which I endeavoured should be continuate, each latter part immediately issuing out of the former. Nor could I find a commodious entrance into the Article of Christ's coming to judge as well the dead as the living, before I had treated of the resurrection of the dead. Nor could I finish what I had to say, or what was to be said, concerning the last judgement itself, without some explication of the sentence to be awarded, and that is life everlasting to all true believers, and everlasting death to the disobedient and unbelievers. So then the articles of the holy Catholic Church, of the Communion of Saints, of the forgiveness of sins, have been out of choice and intended method left altogether untouched, reserved for peculiar Treatises. CHAP. I. That it is easier to oppose, than to answer a Romanist in this Argument of the Church. The Author's method for meeting with wrangling Sophisms. FIrst then of the Holy Catholic Church. An Argument, fitting for these times, being specially insisted upon and enlarged by Priests and Jesuits to our prejudice; they well perceiving, their intricate disputes and sophistical discourses in this point to be the only net, which Peter's pretended successors have left them for catching silly & uncatechized souls, or for intangling men of deep understanding, but of deeper discontent or dislike with their present Governors or Dispenser's of preferment. For unto men, either not misled by discontented passion, or otherwise not uncapable of sound reason, it might easily appear that there is no heresy at this day maintained in Christendom, (at least so generally) which doth either so highly offend God and his Christ, or so grievousty disturb the public peace of Christ's Church, or so desperately endanger the soul of every one that subscribes unto it, as this heresy concerning the transcendent Authority of the visible Romish Church. Howbeit, I must confess, it is a great deal easier to discover their blasphemies, & refute their heresies; to pity the stupidity of some, or to deride the petulancy or rashness of others: then to avoid the contrary errors, into which some reformed Writers of good note have fallen, some through mere eagerness of opposition, others through weakness and want of Arts. And no marvel; for there is nothing which sooner or faster leads Artists themselves into error, than identity of names or words, including in them diversity of significations or importances. The diverse significations of one and the same word, may be either equivocal, or analogical, or a medley of both. Be the diversity of this or that kind, or of what kind it may be, until the difference betwixt them be exactly notified or unfolded by some commodious distinction or artificial explication; they are apt to bring forth seeds of such endless quarrels betwixt controversy-writers, as grounds and tenements, not well bounded or surveyed, always breed betwixt greedy and wrangling neighbours. As in the one case, each man is prone to trespass upon his neighbour's possession, so in the other, each several signification or importance, is always encroaching upon the attributes or prerogatives, which most properly appertain to some other more prime and principal. Now there is no word or term used either in any scientifical, moral, or popular discourse, which hath so many, so much different significations or importances, as the word [Church] hath, whether we take it in the Greek, Latin, or English. For preventing the inconveniences, whereunto the multiplicity and diversity of its significations or acceptions expose us, the best remedy, we can think of will be; In the first place, to seek out the definition, the nature at least of the principal Analogatum, that is, of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to take a true terriar or survey of the attributes, prerogatives, or royalties, which belong either solely or principally unto it: In the second place, to value the other significations or importances, and rate their several attributes or properties by the nearness or remoteness, of their affinity with it, or reference unto it. Before we come to a perfect view of the nature or properties of that Church, which is entitled Holy and Catholic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we must inquire the nature or definition of a Church in general, or as it is abstracted from true holiness or universality. For these are the proper and formal differences of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of the principal Analogatum, comprehended under this word or name, Church, taking it in his universal or amplyest signification. CHAP. II. The definition of the Church in general gathered from the diverse sorts of union between bodies natural, artificial, or civil. COncerning the Name, it shall suffice to observe thus much only in transitu, or by way of entry or passage into the matter itself, signified by this Name. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the English word Church do not differ at all in their Grammatical signification or importance: and from so much of their signification or importance, as is only pertinent to our present inquisition, the Latin Concio doth no way differ; for all of them signify a certain congregation or company of men. In the manner, how they come to signify one & the same thing, this difference perhaps may be observed: The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do in the first place, or in their radical propriety, signify the persons met together or assembled: In the secoed or derivative signification, they import the place appointed for their meeting or assembly, which in Latin we properly call Aedem aut Templum a sacred house or Temple. To this latter signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Concio, which answers most exactly to their prime and radical signification, is not flexible. For Concio (as far as I have observed) is never taken pro loco aut Aede ubi concio celebratur, for the place or house wherein the assembly is, but usually for any speech or oration made unto the people assembled, or for the * Pro concione, is as much as Pro rostris. place wherein the Orator or Speaker stands. On the contrary, the English (a) for this word Church, whether we do according to the most usual and otherwise most refined Dialect of this Kingdom pronounce it, or as some other Dialects would have it Kurk, or as the most ancient Dialect sounds it, Kyrke, all derive their pedigree from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the first signification is in value the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the Lords house or palace. All the difference in the diverse pronunciation of it in our English, ariseth from the different manner of pronouncing or expressing the Greek K or Υ, in the Latin, English or modern tongues. Some expressing χ by the English K, others by the Latin C. which in English is usually expressed by Changed as Carolus, in English, Charles, and Cista a chest: so likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by li●e corruption of speech, comes to be Church. Such as express the Greek χ by the English K, and the Greek Υ by the Latin or English V. pronounce it Kurke such as retaining the true pronunciation of the Greek χ, found the Greek Υ like unto the latin or English Υ, have propagated the name of Kyrke. Church doth in the first place signify Aedem or Templum, the place, house or palace of the assembly; and in the second place it comes to signify or import as much, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Concio do, in the first place, that is, the congregation or Company of men assembled. Omitting quid nominis: the first inquiry must be quid rei, what is the summum genus of the Church, indefinitely or generally considered. And this hath presented itself unto us without further search: is an assembly or Congregation of men. Omnis ecclesia, omnis concio, est coetus aut multitudo hominum: Omnis multitudo, omnis coetus hominum, non est Ecclesia, non est Concio. Every Church is a congregation or assembly of men: Every Congregation or assembly of men is not a Church. The next Quaere therefore must be, what it is, that doth constitute or formally difference a Church, or concionem legitimam or an Ecclesiastic congregation, or at least the genus proximum of the Church in general, from an assembly taken in general. This cannot be the multitude or number of persons assembled, for these are ofttimes greater at a horserace, bowling, shooting, bull baiting, or other like concourses of people (which no man would call concionem legitimam or ecclesiam) then in those meetings which we properly call conciones, Ecclesias, or Churches. Secondly, that which formally differenceth a Church generally considered from an ordinary assembly or congregation, is not iuxtà positio, no vicinity or union merely local of the parties so assembled. For as the multitude, so the throng may be greater at a stageplay, then at a Sermon or Ecclesiastical congregation. And thickest crowds lest participate of the nature of a Church or Concio. Every Church herein exceeds an ordinary assembly or multitude, in that it is a society of men or corporation, & every corporation or society corporate supposeth an union, more than merely local, between the members; an unity proportionable to the unity of bodies artificial, natural or vegetable. An assembly or multitude, how great, how close soever, not thus united or framed into a corporation; or not united by some civil bond, answers in proportion to the Latin cumulus or aceruus, to an heap or congest of bodies homogeneal and contiguous, but not informated by one and the same form, not animated by one and the same soul or spirit. Every natural body is ens per se, etomne ens, quà ens, est unum. An heap or congest is neither ens nor unam, but by accident, or by extrinsecall denomination from the Identity of place, with in which the parts or ingredients of it are contained. So that union merely local, neither is, nor presupposeth any form either natural or artificial whence it floweth. Quod non est aliquid formatum, non est aliquid verè unum. That which hath no set form or fashion, can have no true real unity: for it is the form of every thing, which gives it a distinct entity or unity. That which hath no set form, can have no set or proper name, whereby to be known; it must be described by addition of quantity. For we do not say, a bread, a earth, a wax, or the like, as we say, a loaf, a candle, or a close; but a piece of bread, a piece of wax, if it be not made up into some certain form. An heap of corn, though every individual part or grain of it be specifically the same, as of Wheat, Rye, Oates, &c. cannot so properly be termed one body, as a ship may be said to be one body, although it consists of individuals or material parts, more heterogeneal for their substance or quality, and more dislike in outward form or figure, than rye is from wheat, or oats from barley. The reason is, because the union between the several parts of a ship is much greater and more perfect, than the union between the several grains of Corn in the same heap. All the material or individual parts of the ship, how different soever in their natural substance, quality or figure, are all wrought into one artificial form. If one should have an heap of corn bequeathed by legacy, and particularised by the place wherein it is, and by the measure which it contains; though the heap were dissolved, so the individuals (though put in diverse places) remain the same without any alteration or diminution of their measure or number, the legacy would stand good, and the party unto whom it is bequeathed, would sustain no loss. But if the individuals should be successively taken away, and others put in their places to make up the same measure, and the same heap (for outward fashion and quantity) which the Donor did bequeath, the legacy were lost; if this were done through his default, to whom it was bequeathed: for the heap is not the same, unless the individuals be the same, because it hath no form to give it distinct being or union. He that bequeathes a certain measure of corn, though dispersed, is presumed to have bequeathed the same corn, though afterwards it be made into one heap, or è contra. He that bequeathes an heap of corn is presumed to bequeath every individual grain contained in the heap at the time of the bequest, though they be afterward dispersed or put into several places, before the Donee can come to challenge them. But it is not so in a house or ship, for if a man should bequeath a ship by legacy, which afterwards were dissolved, albeit no material part were lost, yet the legacy were lost, because it is not the same body that was bequeathed, as having lost the form. So the Lawyers * Aliud enim materia est, aliud species. Cui materia legata est, species ex eâ facta non debetur: ut s●lana legata est, deinde vestis fiat, aut ex tabulis navis, aut armarium. Similiter traditur, si navis legata dissoluta sit, nequè materiam nequè navem refectam deberi. Hottoman: Quaest. il. lust. Quaest. octa●. say: si navis legata, dissoluta sit, neque materiam, neque navem refectam deberi. If the ship which is bequeathed by legacy be taken in pieces, neither the materials nor the ship which is made of them, is due to the legatee. For the materials were not bequeathed, but as united into one form, and the form being lost, the individual bequeathed is lost. Though the same materials were made up again into the like form, yet could it not be reputed the same ship, but another like unto it. But this is to be understood in case the dissolution be made, simul & semel, all at once: For if a ship bequeathed should, before the Donee take possession of it, be successively repaired, as Theseus his ship was, albeit never a rib, or plank, or other material did remain the same, yet the form being not dissolved or abolished, the ship should be the same it was. For the new materials, although numerically or perhaps specifically distinct from the former, yet being for use the same as the former were, and holding the same proportion with the whole, whereunto they were fitted, do no way dissolve, but rather continue the former unity or Identity of form. The same case is clearer in bodies natural, at least in vegetables. As if a master should bequeath a young tree; not of ten year's growth, unto his servant, giving him leave to cut it down, or to let it stand, as long as he pleased; though it should stand threescore years, before he cut it down; yet could no man except, that it was not the same tree, which was bequeathed, albeit never a material part could be thought to remain the same it was, when the tree was given. For albeit every material part should successively perish, yet in as much as others come in their places, altogether as capable of animation, of nutriment, of growth, or augmentation, as these were which have perished, the tree or vegetable is still the same. And although many vegetables the facto retain some of the same material parts which they had at their first plantation, yet it is an undoubted Maxim in true Philosophy, that ad identitatem corporis vegetabilis non necessariò requiritur identitas materiae; unto the identity of a body vegetable, identity of matter is not necessarily required. But of this point, by God's assistance, more at large in the Article of the Resurrection. 7 Answerably to these degrees of union between materials or corporal substances, (of which some are united only in place, others by form artificial, or truly Physical) there be as many degrees of union between multitudes, assemblies, or companies of men. Men assembled in a market place, at some match of sport, or merry meeting, are one multitude, not one body; and for this reason, being once dissolved, remain no more the same company, as having no other bond of unity, besides vicinity of place, or union merely local. As no man would say the same company that met at a horserace, this or the last year, shall meet the same again the next year. At least such companies cannot be the same they were, unless the individuals remain the very same. But Societies, Corporations, or Bodies civil, herein resemble bodies natural, that albeit every particular or individual person, that met in their common Hall or place of assembly this day, be dead within 20. years following, yet the Company or Corporation shall ramaine still the same it was. In this sense it is said, that although all men are mortal, yet corporations, consisting of mortal men, are immortal, because their laws & ordinances, are perpetual. The unity of proportion or subordination to the same Laws, is sufficient to continue the unity or identity of the Society or Corporation, albeit the parties subordinate, do alter, change or perish. Again, Bodies civil, or societies corporate, exceed not only other assemblies of men, which resemble heaps or congests, but even artificial or natural bodies in this; that the union of Bodies civil is not dissolved by dissolution of union local, or of continuity or contiguity. The Company of Stationers (for example) after every man hath repaired to his own home, remains the same it was, at their meeting in their common Hall; because the union or bond of every member to the same Laws and ordinances, still remains the same, or because there still remains the same power or authority in their principal Governors to call them together again. And in this point they resemble those natural bodies, which being resolved into fume or vapour, their fumes or vapours may be recollected again into the same body without any less of substance or quantity. As an Alchemist would bate but little or nothing in selling the fume or vapour of Quicksilver, for Quicksilver itself. So then unity of Laws and ordinances, is the life, the soul, and spirit of every corporation or body civil. Oath or other obligements to the observation of the same Laws, or to the maintenance of privileges bestowed upon the society, are as the nerves or arteries, by which motion is conveyed from the head or principal members to every inferior or particular member of the same Society. Thus we have found the genus proximum of a Church considered in general. CHAP. III. Of the nature and properties of the Church taken in its principal sense. How it is differenced from other Bodies civil. Of the peculiar unity which it hath. EVery Church in what usual sense soever it be taken, is a society or body politic; Every society or body politic is not a Church: Every member of the militant Church is ordinarily a member of the Christian Commonweal or Kingdom wherein he lives, Et è contra: Yet sometime it may fall out, by the interposition of civil iuridicall sentence, that a man may be no member of the Commonweal, and yet remain a member of the Church therein contained. As a man condemned to dye, is disenabled to do any civil act, yet not prohibited to receive the Sacraments: Others again cut off from the Church (as persons excommunicated in some sort are) may be members of the Commonweal. That which differenceth the Church properly so called from a society or body merely civil, is the diversity of Laws and ordinances, and the different manner of union betwixt the members of it. Howbeit a Church, a Commonweal, or body civil, are not (as the Romanists often dream or presuppose in their arguments brought for the prerogative of the Romish Church) two bodies contra-distinct or opposite, but rather one body endowed with several powers or perfections. When a Kingdom or commonweal becomes a Church, it loseth nothing of what it had, but rather acquires a new perfection or accomplishment. The growth or progress is but such, as the Philosopher notes in men, which fi●st live anima plantae, like mere vegetables, than the life of sense, and lastly the life of reason or understanding. But of this elsewhere. To find out the nature and properties of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the principal Analogatum, and prime subject of this our discourse, the branches of method are but two. The former is to find out the qualification or condition of the parties or members united. The latter is to find out the nature and manner of their union. With the Church as it consists of men & Angels, we are not to meddle. It suffices us to know, that we are called (as our Apostle teacheth us, Heb. 12. verse 22.) unto the city of the living God, the heavenly jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of Angels. What manner of union is between holy men and Angels, let it be defined by Angels themselves, or at least by men that are their consorts in the blissful vision of God and of his Christ. The subject of our inquiry, was and must be, That Church, which consists only of men, and of men considered in that estate, which they now have by God, being made man. Now albeit such men and Angels may be in some respect truly said one Society; and though both may be comprehended under some general notion (whether univocal or Analogical:) yet without all question, they do not univocally agree in those attributes, by which the Church, in its prime and principal sense, is usually set forth in Scriptures. We cannot say that the Angels are of Christ's flesh and of his bones, as every one is, that is a live member of his true Church. Yea though Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, and the Prophets, and all such as had perfect union with them in holiness of doctrine, life, or discipline, were after death, as well as living, live members of the holy Catholic Church; yet had they not, whilst they lived on earth, no not always since they lived in bliss, such perfect union, (for the manner at least) with Christ, as the Stis. have which have lived since Christ's Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, since which time the patriarchs and Prophet's union with Christ, hath been perfected. For it is a point not of opinion, but of belief, that the Son of God did take our nature upon him, not only to the end that he might lay it down for our ransom, or suffer for us in the flesh, but to the end withal, that having suffered for us according to his humanity, he might by it unite us unto himself as he is God, in a more peculiar manner, than our humane nature, without such union to his humane nature, was capable of. As we become righteous by the righteousness, which was and is in him, as he is man; so must we expect the accomplishment of our future bliss and glory, by participation of the fullness of that bliss and glory, whereof his humanity is now possessed. By this it is apparent, that every actual member of a Christian commonwealth or visible Church therein contained, is not a true actual member of that Church, whose nature and definition we now seek, and whereof every one of us desires and must endeavour to be such a member. For he that would make the Church thus Catholic or universal, as to comprehend every member of a Christian Commonweal, seeks to make it not to be holy. Now we must believe it to be as truly holy, as it is Catholic. Some there be, who define this Church to be coetus praedestinatorum, to be the society or company of the predestinate, but this definition is unperfect, for though it be most true, that every live member of the one truly holy and Catholic Church, is predestinated to this life of grace, which he now lives, and to the life of glory which he hopes for; yet every one, which is already predestinated to the one, or to the other life, or rather to both, is not as yet a live member of the one holy and Catholic Church. Saul was a person predestinated from the womb, but yet no civil member of the militant or visible Church, much less any true member of the one holy Catholic Church, whilst he remained a persecutor of it, and a zealous member, or furious instrument of the malignant Synagogue. Others define it to be Coetus evocatorum, the society or company of such as God hath called out of the world: but because many are called, and few are chosen, some others define it to be coetus electorum, the society or company of the elect. Against which definition or description, this exception may be taken, that the Authors and Maintainers of it, have entangled this article or point of Belief, necessary to all that hope to be saved, with intricate and unnecessary questions concerning Predestination or Election, with which I do not mean to trouble the Reader in the explication of this Article. It shall suffice us for the present, to consider, that such as God hath predestinated or elected before the foundations of the world, must be wrought and squared by the powerful hand of God, and the effectual working of his spirit, before they can be fit materials for that edifice or structure which we call the Church. There must be an alteration in every particular member, before it obtain perfect union with the whole body or edifice, from which it receiveth the sweet influence and nutriment of neverfading life. Now what manner of alteration this is, or wherein this qualification of materials fitting for this edifice (which we call the Church) doth consist, is a Quaere not so necessary in this place. 4 The second general thing proposed, to wit, the manner or union of the members or parts of that society (which is the truly holy, & Catholic Church) will sufficiently determine the former question concerning the qualification of them. The questions concerning the union, are in general, whether this union come nearer to the nature of union betwixt Bodies civil, natural, or artificial. And to this we answer, that each of these unions in part resemble it, all of them do not fully express it; because it is more real, more firm and solid, than any union can be betwixt the parts of bodies, civil, artificial, or natural. For this Church is a true and real body, consisting of many parts, all really, (though mystically and spiritually) united unto one head; and by their real union with one head, all are truly and really united amongst themselves. The union is wrought between both, by a power supernatural, by a skill superartificiall, by a wisdom infinitely surmounting the highest reach of humane policy. That this Church is a true body, the Apostle (who in his life time was a live member of it, and (under Christ the head) a chief master builder for his skill, and yet withal a most painful labourer in fashioning or squaring the parts or materials of this structure,) hath left registered. I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the affliction of Christ in my flesh, for his body sake which is the Church. * See Col. 1.18. and Ephes. 4. vers. 11.12.15.16. Colos. 1. v. 24. Every one than is so far a member of Christ's Church, as he is a member of Christ's body. He that is not in some sort a member of Christ's body, can be in no sort a member of his Church. He that is a true live member of the one, is a true live member of the other; He that is but an equivocal, analogical, hypocritical or painted member of the one, is but an equivocal, hypocritical, painted or analogical member of the other. 5 Now the excellency of the union betwixt Christ and his members, or the members themselves (and consequently of the members or true parts of the Church) may best be gathered from the union of those things, whereby the Church or body of Christ is represented or described unto us in holy writ. The Church or body of Christ is usually represented unto us, by an edifice, as indeed and truth the material Temple, which Solomon built, and which afterwards was restored, was but a type or emblem of that Temple, which Christ was to erect unto his Father. Christ himself was the true Temple, and therefore spoke no metaphor, but a mystery unto the jews, when he said, Destroy this Temple, and I will build it again in three days. joh. 2. vers. 19 As it is the King's presence which maketh the Court, so it is the extraordinary presence of God, which makes the true Temple of God. The material Temple of jerusalem, was therefore called the house of God, because God did therein manifest his glorious presence, & as it were, keep peculiar residence in it, in respect of other places. But in Christ, (saith the Apostle) Colos. 2. vers. 9 the Godhead dwelleth bodily. As he is the true Temple, because the Godhead dwelleth in him; so all they, and only they, in whom he dwelleth by faith, are true Temples of God, and live members of the Catholic Church. Now there is no union betwixt the parts of bodies artificial, or made by hands, so firm and strong, as the union betwixt the parts or materials of a Temple or stone building; no union again betwixt the parts of the body natural so perfect, as the union of life. Hence the Apostle Saint Peter tells us, That by our access unto Christ by faith, we are made living stones. As new borne babes desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby, if so be ye have tasted, that the Lord is gracious: to whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious; Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifice, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 2.2, 3, 4, 5. 6 Herein this union betwixt the members of the true Church or Temple of God, is truly resembled by the manner of union betwixt bodies politic, or societies corporate, in that, local union or vicinity of place, is not required to the beginning, to the increase, or accomplishing of this union; for though Christ's manhood be in heaven, and we on earth, yet are we true members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, as truly and as really, as the natural parts of our body are said to be our flesh, and our bones. No man, (saith the Apostle to the Ephesians, chap. 5. verse 29.) hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth it, and cherisheth it, after what manner? as Christ doth his Church. So that every member of the Church, or of Christ's body; is more near or dear unto him, than our flesh is unto us, and more his own, than our flesh is ours. Herein again this union betwixt the members of the true Church, exceeds all other union of bodies civil, artificial, or natural; that every particular member, once perfectly united unto the whole becomes immortal in itself. Not the whole body or corporation only, but every individual or material part, remains everlastingly the same. The whole body is not the same only by succession or aequivalency As the head, so every member is translated from death to life: the very selfsame individuals, which are in this life perfectly united unto Christ by faith, shall be raised up at the last day unto the life of glory. What it is to be perfectly united unto Christ, or what perfection of union with him may in this life be attained unto, falls not so properly within the compass of this present treatise. CHAP. FOUR Of the preeminences which the Church hath of other bodies or corporations, in respect of the Governor of it, and the Laws by which it is governed. Of the two Attributes, Holy and Catholic. THis Church or Kingdom of Christ, hath the pre-eminence of all other bodies politic, or Commonweals, in every respect, in every point, any way conducent to their unity, stability or prosperity. First, for the form of government it is most excellent. It is a Kingdom and hath but one head or governor, and he is truly one, not by succession, but by everlasting continuation of one and the same individual life. Secondly, the Laws by which this one Kingdom is governed, are more excellent in themselves, and more unchangeable, than the Laws of any other Common weal or Kingdom. Again, the Laws of this Kingdom be not only the dictates of the eternal God (for so were the ceremonial or judicial Laws of the jews:) but more than thus, they are the unchangeable copies or expressions of his immutable and most holy will; by whose due observance the true members of this kingdom become like unto him. Thirdly, the obligements or conformity of every Citizen or subject unto these Laws, are far more strict, than in any other Common weal or Kingdom: for of many privileges and gracious promises, which the Citizens of this Kingdom enjoy, it is not the least, that their everlasting Lawgiver and governor, vouchsafes to write his Laws, not in tables of stone or pillars of brass, but in the hearts of them, that are to be governed by them. Now what bond or union betwixt men can be imagined so great as that, which the fundamental Law of this Kingdom once written in the hearts of men, doth necessarily induce or effect, to wit, that every one should love his Lord & King above all, and love his fellow Citizens as himself. And the execution of this Law is the accomplishment of the felicity and prosperity of this Kingdom: who so hath once attained to this perfection, doth joy as much in the good things which his fellow citizen possesseth, as in his own good; so that the joy of each one is the joy of all, and the joy of all, is the joy of each one. 2 Again, this Church or Kingdom of Christ herein hath the pre-eminence for unity above all bodies natural or artificial, in that it is truly and indissolubly one, not by unity only of the form, or by the continued identity of the head, or of some or more of the principal members, but by true unity and individual identity of every integral or material part once perfectly united to the whole. And albeit these parts before their union were Heterogeneal & most dislike, yet after their union they become uniform & most homogeneal to each other. Though some were Scythians, others Israelites, or Arabians, though some were slaves, & other Lords, yea Kings and Princes, some Laymen, some Priests, some altogether illiterate, others learned, some old, some young: yet all of them upon their admission into this Church or Common weal, become a royal generation, Kings and Priests. The least, the meanest, or lowest member of this universal Church, or house of God, is himself a Temple of God. Thus the universality doth no way impeach, it doth rather set forth and commend the unity of this Church. 3 That which gives this Church or Kingdom pre-eminence for unity doth give it likewise pre-eminence for holiness before all other Kingdoms or societies whatsoever, and that is the participation of the spirit of Christ, or (as the Apostle speaks) the participation of the divine nature, which we have through the operation of the spirit as agent, but which formally consisteth in, or immediately resulteth from that immediate union which we have, through the spirits agency, with our Lord and King, who is both God and man. As this word Church so the chief attribute of the Church [holy] is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of many significations or importances. To set down all the several importances which this word holy hath in scripture, would be tedious; and in very truth, they are scarce comprehensible to humane capacity; they may multiply upon new occasions, and grow divisible in semper divisibilia. It shall suffice to know in general, that the diverse significations of this word Holy, are of their number which, as Aristotle tells us, dicuntur adunum, and may be as many as the references be unto the principal Analogatum, from whatsoever subject or matter the reference arise. As for example, Savitas, or healthfulness doth properly or formally consist in the right temperature, disposition or habit of man's body: but some things are said to be sana sound by perfect Analogy or proportion, as we say pomum aut nux, an apple or a nut, or wood is sound, which are not rotten, putrified or tainted. We say again that cibus est sanus, meat is healthful, drink is healthful, that the air wherein we live is healthful, that the diet, that is, moderatio victus, that exercise, is healthful, and so of every thing that is conducent to the procuration or preservation of health. And sometimes the effects or tokens of internal health do participate of its name, as we say there is, saliva, or urina sana, sound or healthful spittle: etc. 4 In like manner, holiness doth properly and formally consist in the right temperature or disposition of the soul, specially towards God. The Idea or exemplar of which temperature, is conformity unto Christ our head. Now every thing in scripture is termed holy, that hath any special reference to the producing of this temperature or quality of the soul, whether as a cause, means, or circumstance. So we say the word preached is Holy, because it is the seed or means of begetting this holiness, and withal, as it is indicium sanctitatis divinae, Cap. 4. a sign or character of his holiness whose word it is. In the same respect likewise the Sacraments are Holy, the place wherein the word is preached, or Sacraments administered, is likewise termed Holy. The day likewise or time, wherein such assemblies are held, are termed Holy. But the Holiness meant in this article, is internal holiness, or purity of mind. Now the fountain of this Holiness is in the head of the church Christ jesus, from whose fullness some branch or stream of true and real inherent sanctity of life, is derived to every true member of this Church. This Church itself is not termed holy, à maiori parte, from the greater part only: Every member of it is inherently holy. Howbeit this title of Holiness though common to all, doth not ex aequo convenire omnibus, is not equally communicated unto all, but by intrinsecall analogy or proportion. It is more perfect and more pure, in such as are already admitted into the Church triumphant; It doth rather purify or cleanse such of Christ's members, as have their habitation in these houses of clay here on earth, then remain pure and perfect in them. Recipitur ad modum recipientis, it is received according to the quality of the receiver. The same stream or water is not for clearness or other properties the same whilst it runs in a muddy channel, as it is in a Conduit of ●ead, or when it runs upon stone or gravel. Christ, saith the Apostle, loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it 〈…〉 of water by the word. That he might present it ●o himself a glorious Church, not having, spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. Ephes. 5. vers. 25, 26, 27. Though we be washed with the water of Baptism, and with the wine of the Eucharist in this life, yet cannot we be so washed or cleansed, as to be left without spot, wrinkle, or blemish, until we have put off this earthly tabernacle, either by death, or by that change whereunto all are subject that shall not die. The reason why all must either dye or be changed, is, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and the reason of this is, that flesh and blood is not capable of that purity or consummation of holiness: which is as the wedding garment, without which none may enter into those Courts of the Temple, within which the marriage of the Lamb and his Spouse be solemnised. Or to give the sum of the Apostles reason in his own words, We must be utterly stripped of the Image of the earthly man, before we can put on the complete and glorious Image of the heavenly. And as we have borne the Image of the earthly, we shall also bear the Image of the heavenly. But when shall that be? When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality; when the saying shall be brought to pass; Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Cor. 15. ver. 49, 54. 5 The title of Catholic, to my best remembrance, is not expressed in Scripture, but often employed in terms aequivalent. The Church of Christ was first expressly enstyled Catholic by the Apostles themselues o● 〈◊〉 compo●ers of the Apostles Creed, especially in opposition 〈…〉 visible Church of the jews, or rather to this people's factious conceit of the prerogatives which God had bestowed upon their Nation; misweening that the whole family or house of God, the full amplitude of the Messias his Kingdom, should be comprised within the house or family of Abraham, or at least, that none should have any title or claim to the Kingdom of God, unless he were first admitted to be a member of that visible society, which did meet at jerusalem as at their Common Hall, House, or place of Parliament. That the Church should be thus Catholic, or universal, or that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, or joint members of the same body with Abraham's seed, was a secret, not imparted to many before the Revelation of the Gospel. For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me 〈…〉: How that by revelation he made known unto me, the mystery (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may 〈…〉 and my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel, Ephes. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Saint Peter himself had not fully apprehended this mystery, until the Lord awaked him out of this dream, by interpreting the vision which he saw concerning this point. Act. 10. ver. 15. But seeing the event answerable to God's word, or to the voice which he heard in the vision, he burst out into this confession ver. 34. Of a truth I perceive that God is no accepter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him: accepted to be a live member of his holy and Catholic Church, as Cornelius no question either at this time or afterwards was. But the full importance of this term Catholic is set down, Revelat. 5. vers. 8, 9 And the four and twenty Elders sung a new Song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation: And hast made us unto our God, Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on the earth. The branches of this title Catholic are specially these three. First, God's Church is said to be Catholic or universal in respect of all places. Secondly, in respect of all sorts and condi●●●●● of men, national or personal. Thirdly, it is said Universal in respect 〈…〉 Some of every Nation, Condition, or state are admitted unto it. Some likewise are admitted in every age or generation of men. From the day wherein the Lord did lay the first foundation or corner stone in Zion, there have been in one place or other daily additions unto this Church without substraction; continual adgeneration without corruption, and a continual growth or augmentation without any the least diminution or decay of any true live particle, which it had before. CHAP. V. Cap. 5. Containing the frivolous exceptions of Cardinal Bellarmine, and some other Romanists against the former or like description of the true Church, or that Church which is principally meant in the Apostles Creed. 1 THis notification or circumscription of the true Church by the true and live-mysticall body of Christ, is not liable to that exception which Bellarmine and his followers have taken against Caluines' invisible Church, as they conceive it. Or in case the same exceptions be taken against the Church described or notified in the former chapters, one answer will suffice for both. Their only exception is this: Primum igitur, quòd vera Ecclesia sit visilibis probatur primò ex Scripturis omnibus, ubicunque invenitur nomen Ecclesiae. Nam semper nomine Ecclesiae visibilis congregatio significatur. Nec unum saltem locum Caluinus proferre potuit, nec protulit, ubi hoc nomen tribueretur congregationi invisibili. Bellar. de Ecclesia militante, lib. 3. cap. 12. That the true Church is visible, may first be proved out of all those Scriptures, in which the name of the Church is found. For by this name a visible Congregation is always signified. Calvin neither did nor could produce so much as one place, wherein the name Church is bestowed upon any invisible Congregation. 2 If his meaning be, that so much of the true Church, and live-mysticall body of Christ, as is now extant on earth, though altogether unvisible to us, be either excluded, or not principally meant in those places of Scriptures, Creeds, or Counsels, in which the true Church is notified unto us by these or the like attributes, one, holy, Catholkie, or Apostolic, it is grossly and apparently false. For all God's promises to the Church principally belong to the principal members of it, who are distinctly and individually known to himself only, not so to us. To whom notwithstanding their persons are visible, the profession of their faith is likewise visible. The sincerity of their hearts, or faith is to us invisible, and therefore invisible it is to us, whether they be live-members of the holy Catholic Church or no. If his meaning be, that many Individuals which are no true live-members of the mystical body of Christ, be literally comprised under the name and title of the Church; the allegation, though most true, is very idle and impertinent. For thus the jew is able to make proof, as direct and full, as can be required by any ingenuous and learned Christian, that most of those types and prophecies which we allege to evince jesus the son of Mary to be the Christ and promised Messias, are literally and historically meant and verified, either of the sacrifice of the Law, or of God's people; of David, of Solomon, or of some other, etc. All this notwithstanding being granted, doth no way disprove, but rather ratify our application of the same prophecies or sacred passages unto Christ, of whom they are always, in the intention of the holy Spirit, principally meant, and in whom alone they are exactly fulfilled, not only according to the mystical, but (for the most part) according to the most exquisite literal sense. Not that either all or most passages of Scriptures, which are first literally verified of some other, and after exactly fulfilled in Christ, have (as some great Divines think) two literal senses (albeit this may sometimes happen, though very seldom) but that of one and the same literal sense, there may be, and usually are, two or more objects; one more principal and proper; the other, either less principal, or less proper. Thus it always, not only is, but of necessity must be, wheresoever the terms, wherein it pleaseth the Spirit of God to express himself, contain in them a multiplicity of significations or importances, whether aequivocal, analogical, or ad unum. Now of all terms used in Scripture, this word Church, as was observed before, hath the greatest variety of significations or importances. And by consequence, it must have one principal object, of which all the principal attributes or titles of the Church, are punctually and accurately verified; and other objects less principal, to which notwithstanding the same name or titles, are in some measure often communicated. 3 Hence it may to the observant Reader appear, that Bellarmine's exception or argument against Caluine,) which being drawn into form, stands thus; [The word [Church] in Scripture, doth always import a visible company of men: Therefore it doth not belong to an invisible Congregation] is no better than this, The holy ointment did bedew or besprinkle Aaron's garments; Ergo, It was not poured upon his head, or it did not madifie or supple some other parts of his body: whereas the truth is, unless the ointment had first been plentifully poured upon his head, it could not have run down his neck, unto the skirts, or rather the brims of his vesture. Answerable to this representation, we say that all the glorious prerogatives, titles, or promises, annexed to the Church in Scriptures, are in th' first place, and principally meant of Christ's live-mysticall body. But being in abundant measure bestowed on it, they descend by analogy or participation, unto all and every one, (that hath put on Christ by profession) without respect of person, place, or dignity. All the difference in the measure of their participation or manner of their attribution, ariseth from the diverse degrees of similitudes or proportion, which they hold with the actual live-members of Christ's mystical body, in matter of faith or conversation. Such as have the true model or draught of that Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved, imprinted in their understandings, albeit not solidly engrossed or transmitted into their hearts or affections, are to be reputed by us, (who understand their external profession better than their inward disposition) true Catholics, ttue members of Christ's body, See chap. 17. parag. 1. and heirs of promise. Although in very deed, and in his sight that knows the secrets of men's hearts, many of them be members of Christ's body, only in such a sense, as foetus conceptus, non animatus, As an humane body shaped or organised; but yet not quickened with the spirit of life, is termed a man. 4 The conclusion touching this point, which Bellarmine & his followers are bound to prove, (if any thing they mean to prove to the purpose) is this, That under the name or titles of that Church, whereunto the assistance of God's spirit for its direction or other like prerogatives, are by God's word assured, the visible Church taken in that sense, in which they always take it, is either literally and punctually meant, or necessarily included. The visible Church in their language is a Society or Body Ecclesiastic notoriously known by the site or place of its residence, or by their dignity, order and offices, which are the perpetual governors of it. Ecclesia, saith Bellarmine, est tam visibilis quam est Regnum Galliae, aut Respublica Venetorum. And again, that Church whereof Christ is King, is as visible in his absence, by the presence of his Vicar general, as the Kingdom of Naples in the absence of the King, is by the presence of his Viceroy. Unto the attributes or prerogatives bestowed on the Church, in the Apostles or Nicene Creed, or unto the promises annexed unto it in the Scripture, the visible Church, as we say, taken in the Romanists sense, hath no claim or title, save only in reversion or by reflection: that is, The true mystical body of Christ, is only instated in the blessings, prerogatives, or promises made unto the Church: from this Body, or rather from Christ, which is the head of it, the said blessings immediately and successively descend in different measure unto the several members of it: or unto such as are no solid members of Christ in practice or conversation, yet true Catholics in opinion and love unfeigned unto the Catholic faith. And from individuals, thus habitually qualified; the Church visible or representative derives its right & interest in the promises made unto the Church generally or indefinitely taken. Wheresoever two or three, thus qualified, are gathered together in Christ's name; that is, not for any private ends, or sinister respects, but for mere love of truth; the presence of Christ's spirit is, by promise, annexed unto them. Though a thousand Bishops, Prelates, or Clerks, not thus qualified be assembled for their own gain or dignities, or if their consultations be managed by superior power or faction, they have no like interest in the former promise. For any Church visible or representative, whose individuals are not thus far qualified, the greater part whereof for number, or more principal for authority, may be infideles aut haereti ci occulti; that is, Heretics, Infidels, or Atheists in hearts. To usurp an absolute infallibility in judgement of matters sacred, is no better than blasphemy: for any such Church to expect the extraordinary assistance of God's spirit in their consultations, is but the dregs and relics of Simon Magus his sin. But of the diverse acceptions of this word Church, in what sense it is said visible or invisible, true or false, we are to speak hereafter, Sect. 2. chap. 1. CHAP. VI Cap. 6. Containing the special points to be believed concerning this Article of the One, Holy, Catholic Church. How every one is so to moderate his assent or belief concerning it, that he neither incline unto presumption, nor fall into despair. 1 THe special points which we are in this article to believe, are these. First, that as Christ, whilst he lived on earth was a King, albeit his Kingdom was not earthly, nor of this world: so he hath still a Kingdom, or at least a great part of his Kingdom here on earth; the members or Citizens of which Kingdom, whilst living in this world, are not of this world: their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as our Apostle speaks) is in heaven, that is, the Society or Corporation, whereof they are actual and live-members, is translated from earth to heaven, and their demeanour or conversation here on earth must be celestial, and such as becomes the sons of God. The second, that God or Christ in the choice or admission of Citizens into this celestial Corporation, doth not tie himself to any one Kingdom, Nation, or Province, to any visible Society or Corporation here on earth. But as heaven itself is alike distant from every part of the earth; so every Nation or Kingdom of the earth are alike free to stand for, or solicit their election or admission into this heavenly society, which we term the holy Catholic Church. Of these two branches of belief this third is a necessary consequent, that God hath not bestowed such privileges upon any visible Church or Ecclesiastical Society whatsoever upon the face of the whole earth, as diverse Founders of Colleges in our Universities, have done upon some Grammar Schools founded likewise by them. Many have been chosen and admitted for perpetual Fellows of the celestial Academy, which never were trained up in the doctrine or discipline of the Grecian, English or Romish Church. God is the sole Founder of the universal Church, and of every particular true Church. As for particular visible Churches, all are alike free, all their sons alike capable of admission into the holy Catholic Church; or if any odds there be, it is in the different measure of their observance of the laws prescribed to all, especially the Law of loving God above all in Christ, and of loving others as ourselves for Christ's sake. 2 The last point is, that of all such as are effectually called, or authentiquely admitted into this Society, none ever revolt again to the Synagogue of Satan or to the world. Their effectual calling and solemn admission, makes them such pillars in the house of their God, that they cannot be removed; Him that overcometh, will I make a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall go no more out, and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the City of my God, which is new jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God. And I will write upon him my new Name, Rev. 3.12. So he had said before, vers. 5. He that overcommeth, the same shall be clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his Angels. Wherein this victory consists, and how in this life it may be obtained, are points belonging to another Argument, and have been elsewhere discussed at large. That their names who thus overcome, are whilst they live on earth, written in the book of life, is evident out of the 20. chapter, ver. 12. the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. The difference between that part of Christ's Church, which is triumphant, and that which is militant here on earth, may be resembled by the estate of a visible Society or Corporation, of which the greater part or principal members live at home in wealth, in peace and quietness, whilst others of the same society sojourn as Factors, or Apprentices in foreign lands, yet certain of their admission to the same privileges which the other enjoy, after they have served out their Apprenticeship and performed all duties and services required by the laws of their Corporations. 3 Two questions, or rather two branches of one and the same question yet remain, which every one that sincerely mindeth matter of salvation, will often make with himself. First, whether every one that sincerely professeth belief of this article of the Holy Catholic Church, be bound to believe, that he himself is a true live-member of the same Church. The second, whether every one which professeth this article, be bound to believe, that there is a true possibility left him by the founder of this Church or Kingdom, that he may in good time become a true and live-member of it. Unto the latter question, my answer shall be out of the words of a woman to her husband distrusting God's love and favour towards them, whose words became Canonical Scripture; We shall surely die, saith Manoah unto his wife, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering, and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would at this time have showed us such things as these. judg. 13. vers. 22, 23. All and every one ought to be assured that if the Lord had any purpose to exclude them from being live-members of this Holy and Catholic Church, he would not so often, so lovingly invite them by the preaching of the Word, and exhibition of his holy Sacraments; all which he mightily profanes, whosoever otherwise receives them, then as undoubted pledges of God's love and favour unto him in particular. 4 To the former question, the answer is negative. All are not bound to believe that they are actual or real members of the Catholic Church. For none can truly believe thus much of himself, but he that hath made his election sure, and is certain, that his name is written in the book of life. Now though it be most true, that whosoever is elect, was elected from all eternity; whosoever is reprobated, was reprobated from all eternity: yet will it not hence follow, that every man is at all times either in the absolute state of election and salvation, or in the absolute state of reprobation and damnation. This is too desperate a division, to put Novices in faith upon it, a cruel rack for tender consciences. The best advice which I can in this point give, is that no man, especially no novice in faith, how strong a disputant soever he be, seek to wind himself into this Catholic Church, by strength of syllogism, lest Satan thence take occasion to wrest his hopes out of his hands, by the same or like engine. The judicious Reader is to take further notice that many syllogisms, which go currant amongst some good Divines, have many foul, though secret flaws, as hard to be espied in this subject of reprobation, election, and the like, as in any other, for these are hardly fashioned into syllogistical form. Many propositions are often in vulgar matters, taken for universal, when they are but indefinite. First, to instance in a subject wherein the fallacy is more gross and more easy to be discerned: Quicunque dicit Alexandrum fuisse animal generosum, is verum dicit. At quicunque dicit Alexandrum fuisse Bucephalum, dicit Alex 〈…〉 Ergo, Quicunque dicit Alexandrum fuisse Bucephalum, is verum dicit. Whosoever saith Alexander the great was a generous creature, saith true: but he that saith Alexander was Bucephalus, saih Alexander was a generous creature: Therefore whosoever saith Alexander was Bucephalus, saith true. Others perhaps may answer otherwise; but the only flaw in this Syllogism, if we examine it by the rules of Art, is that the Major proposition is indefinite, although it bear in front, a goodly show of an universal note. But how large soever the note of universality be, unless it do plene afficere medium terminum, it leaves the proposition as indefinite, as it found it. Now the medius terminus in the former syllogism is animal generosum. And to make the former proposition universal, the note of universality should have been added to animal generosum; as thus: Quicunque dicit Alexandrum fuisse animal quoduis generosum, is verum dicit. At qui dicit Alexandrum fuisse Bucephalum, dicit Alexandrum fuisse animal quoddam generosum. Here had been dictum de omni, quodvis animal de quodam animali: the Syllogism for its form had been true, but the major proposition had been apparently false; for Alexander was not every generous creature, or a generous creature of every kind. The fallacy is the same though not so easily discerned in these two syllogisms following: Whosoever mortifies the deeds of the body by the spirit is certain of life: But I mortify the deeds of the body by the spirit. Therefore I am an actual and live-member of the holy Catholic Church; assured of salvation. The universal note [whosoever] doth not plene afficere medium terminum, which is mortification, which is in itself a term indifinite, and hath many degrees or parts. To make the proposition universal or concludent, we should say thus: Whosoever doth in any sort mortify the deeds of the body, is a live member of the Catholic Church: But I do in some sort mortify the deeds of the body: Ergo, I am a live-member of the Catholic Church. The form of this syllogism is true, but now the Major is apparently false, otherwise he that would admit of this proposition or conclusion in time of prosperity, or in speculations abstracted from cogitation of sins, past or present, the same party in consciousness of actual sin or grievous temptations would yield to the premises and conclusion following: Whosoever lives after the flesh shall dye, and is utterly excluded from being a live-member of the holy and Catholic Church. But I have lived and do live after the flesh: Ergo, I am but dead and lost, I shall never be a live-member of the holy and Catholic Church. These two propositions, Whosoever lines after the flesh shall dye; whosoever doth mortify the deeds of the body by the spirit, shall live; if we resolve them rightly, are in value thus much: 1 There is a degree or measure of mortification, whereunto whosoever doth attain, is forthwith translated from death to life, and becomes a live-member of the holy Catholic Church, a perpetual Citizen of the jerusalem which is above without all danger of disinfranchisement. 2 There is a degree or measure of fleshly or carnal living, which who so doth in this life reach unto, doth thereby without God's extraordinary mercy exclude himself from the Communion of Saints, or society of the holy Church. So that both propositions are universal in respect of the persons, both indefinite in respect of the thing itself, to wit, mortification or carnal living. This degree or measure of mortification may be accomplished in this life. But who they be, that have attained to this perfect mortification, or when they attain thereunto; must be left to the judgement of God, and information of their own consciences. The safest rule for rectification of our consciences in this point, is that of Saint Peter: Brethren give diligence to make your calling and election sure. 2 Pet. chap. 1. vers. 10. The means to make our election sure are there at large prescribed by him. The brief or abstract of it, is this; to follow those practices, which our conscience enlightened by the light of God's Word, shall approve. For a good conscience is the mouth of the Spirit, and will one time or other speak words of comfort to every one that hath it, and seeks to keep it. And one voluntary testimony of it grounded upon experience or constancy of good thoughts, good deeds, or resolutions, is worth a thousand testimonies or confessions racked from the speculative understanding by force of Syllogism. SECT. 2. Cap. 7. Of the visible Church in general. Of its principal Attributes or privileges. CHAP. VII. Of the Church militant and Triumphant. In what sense it is said that the true Church is invisible. SEeing our purpose in the former treatise was only to find out the formal difference, by which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is essentially constituted and distinguished from all other Congregations or Corporations; & there was no difference at all to be observed between the significations of the Latin Concio, and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whatsoever formal difference fits the one, doth as properly fit the other. If we look upon them, as they lie in predicamental line, they have the self same aspect or situation. Their formal significations are as synonymal as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and Homo in Latin. But being now to search out not the formal differences whereby the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or principally so named, is distinguished from all other Societies, but the secondary acceptions or several branches of analogy, contained under the word Church or Ecclesia. We are in the first place to note, that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a connotative signification or importance, which the latin concio, or English Church hath not. It is as much in effect as evocata concio, a society selected or called out. This evocation or selection is of diverse sorts, and each sort admits diverse degrees. The whole latitude aswell of the diverse sorts, as of their degrees, may best be taken partly by surveying the terminum à quo, & terminum ad quem, that is, the estate or condition of life whence men are called, and the estate or condition of life, unto which such men are called as make the Church; and partly from the nature, quality or degrees of the evocation or motion itself. Some are called from profession of Paganism, or from Infidelity, unto the profession of Christianity vocatione merâ externâ, by external vocation only, as by preaching of the word, by exhibition of the Sacraments, or other like visible or sensible invitations, to become members of Christ. And if they admit of the invitation & profession of Christianity, they become visible members of the Church indefinitely taken. But proceeding no further; the former calling through their own default, not in respect of God's intention or purpose in calling them, takes no real effect. We may say of them as our Saviour saith in the parable, Matth. 22. vers. 8. The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. And men thus far called only, are mere grammatical passives, and may be paralleled by the high way upon which good seed was bestowed, though not received. 2 Others are called from Paganism or Infidelity, vocatione internâ, by internal touches or attractions, which in some produceth no better effects then good wishes or desires of amendment of life, or good motions for the present. And these may be paralleled by the stony ground which received the seed bestowed upon it, and for a while gave it nourishment and fair entertainment. In others, the internal vocation may produce some root, that is, some temporary resolution for amendment of life or practices conformable to rules believed; but no settled habit, no constancy in perseverance. And these may be paralleled by the thorny ground, in which the seed sown, took better root, then in the stony ground, but was stifled in the growth. This internal vocation is in others not only effectual for a time, or for some purposes, but produceth an habitual constant resolution of adhering to the truth known, and a conversation answerable to this vocation. The infallible consequent of all which is the gift of perseverance: the terminus ad quem of this their constant motion or progress perfected in victory, is indissoluble union with Christ. 3 Of men indissolubly united to Christ, that is, of such as are though in a different measure perfect live-members of the one, holy and Catholic Church, some are called not only out of the dregs of their native corruption unto the life of the Spirit, but out of this world into a better, and these are triumphant members of that one, holy, Catholic Church, which is the live-body of Christ. They are tuti et se curi, free not only from all danger of Apostasy, but from all possibility of any annoyance or encumbrances, which the world, the Devil, or the flesh can attempt against them. These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his Temple; and he that sitteth on the throne, shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither shall the Sun light on them, nor any heat. Revel. 7. verse 14, 15, 16. Such as are called out of the flesh unto the life of the Spirit, but not as yet out of the world, are militant members of the holy Catholic Church and victoriously militant. Tuti sunt, at non securi; They are exempted from ordinary danger or probable hazard of Apostasy, but not utterly secured from all danger of temptation, no not from all impairment of their present estate. 4 Such as are called vocatione internâ, by an inward calling, sed inefficaci, not effectual, or men not endued with the gift of perseverance, are militant members of the Church indefinitely taken, but not victoriously militant: no perfect members of the One, Holy, Catholic Church, so called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or by excellency. Such as are called vocatione externâ, by external vocation only, are no true members of the Church militant, much less any militant members of that true holy and Catholic Church, yet members in their kind of the visible Church; for so, as Cardinal Bellarmine acknowledgeth, occultihaeretici, aut infideles, dissembling Heretics, or Infidels in heart may be. And this sort of men may be best resembled by such as have been pressed for Soldiers, and taken their pay, but without any resolution or purpose to show themselves in the day of battle, much less to adventure themselves in any difficult service, but ready upon approach of danger to forsake the field, or revolt unto the enemy. So that the ordinary and usual division of the Church into triumphant and militant, comprehendeth more than the live-members of the holy and Catholic Church; to wit, such members of the visible Church or Churches, as oppose themselves to the holy and Catholic Church, or are not well affected towards it. 5 The visible Church is a transcendent, and doth neither exclude the members of the Holy Church triumphant or militant, nor doth it consist only of them, or of men internally, though ineffectually called: but of them and of others called only vocatione merè externâ, by vocation merely external. Every member of the Church triumphant, is visible to other members of the same Church, though all invisible to the Church militant here on earth; as, perhaps, the true members of the Church militant, are to them, save only so far as God hath revealed to them the names of such as shall be saved. The Church militant likewise is visible to God, and to the several members of it: But what members of this visible and militant Church, be live-members of the one, holy and Catholic Church, or who hereafter shall become live-members of it, is known only to God, or to men's private consciences, after their effectual calling. Every man perhaps may feel or perceive his own, but he cannot discern or see another's effectual calling. 6 Though the Church be sometimes by good Writers instiled as well invisible, as visible; we are not from this opposition of words or terms to conceit an opposition or distinction of Churches, as if some were visible, others altogether invisible. Such as most use these terms, mean no more by them, than we have said, to wit; what persons of the militant and visible Church be true Denizens of the heavenly jerusalem or City of God, is to us invisible or unknown. I cannot say, whether it were ignorance or malice in the Romanists, to construe these terms of visible and invisible, whilst they found them in some of our Writers, for divisive differences of the Church, as if they had constituted two contra-distinct or opposite Churches; when as it is plain, that they are for the most part subordinate & coincident. Ordinarily the live-members of the Holy Catholic Church, or of that part of it which is to us invisible, are members of some visible Church, but not é contra. For neither all nor most part of any visible Church in latter ages, are true and live-members of the Holy and Catholic Church, part of which we believe to be here on earth, though it be to us invisible. Finally, to be visible or invisible, are denominations merely accidental, no true differences of the Church. Between a visible Church, and a Church invisible, there is a mean. Many there be, or may be in most ages, which are no members of the visible Church, and yet better members of the true Church, than the members of the Church visible for the present are. For the true and orthodoxal Church, might be truly visible in its members so dispersed and scattered, as they cannot rightly be said to make one true visible Church. 7 The invisibility of the holy Catholic Church here militant on earth, hath not been in all ages the same. The members of this division (if so it please any man to conceit it) were, in the Apostles time, in a manner, coincident. Few there were (especially of the jewish nation) which did associate themselves unto the then visible Church, which were not even in this life associated to the holy and Catholic Church militant, & made living stones in the house of God. That saying of the holy Spirit, (Act. 2. v. 47.) was more peculiarly verified of those times, and of that people, then of any other times or people: The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. This saying includes thus much, That all, or most of those that professed themselves members of the then visible Church, became live-members of the holy Catholic Church. And no wonder, for the temptations or dangers, which then hindered the jews or Gentiles, but especially the jews from consociating themselves to the then visible Church, were more and greater, than such as hinder the members of later visible Churches, from entering into the Kingdom of heaven, or from resolute profession of that doctrine, without which, no member of any visible Church this day extant upon earth, can enter or be admitted into that one, holy, and Catholic Church. Until Bellarmine, Valentia, Stapleton, and some others, did trouble the stream or current of God's Word; as much as we have here said, was clearly represented to the adversaries of our Church. Witness that Enchiridion of Christian Institutions, set forth by the provincial Council of Colon, upon this Article of the Creed. The Author of which Enchiridion (were he one or more) having divided the Church into triumphant and militant, Ecclesia duplex est, militans et triumphans, utramque complectitur hic articulus. Triumphans est, coetus ille beatarum animarum cum Christo regnantium, qui et de mundo, et de Diabolo triumphavit, et regnat cum Christosecurus in aeternum, quem Apocalypsis describit: Hi (inquit) sunt qui ve●erant: de tribulatione magna, et laverunt stolas suas, et dealbaverunt cas in sanguine agni, et ideo sunt ante thronum, et scruiunt ei die ac nocte in Templo eius, et qui sidet in throne, habitat i● super illos: non esurient neque sitient amplius, non cadet super illo sol neque ullus aestus, etc. Vt ad Ecclesiam militantem veniamus; haec bisariam consideratur: primùm strictius, quat●nus dicimus eos esse in Ecclesia, qui ita sunt in domo Dei, ut ipsi sint domus Dei, seu Templum Spiritus sancti, qui constituunt urbem illaus beatam Hierusalem de coelo descendentem, a Deo paratam, constructam ex vivis lapidibus, de quibus dixit Apostolus: Multi unum corpus ●●mus in Christo jesu: quos et alibi vocat populum emundatum abomni iniquitate, acceptabilem Deo, sectatorem bonorum operum. Ecclesia vero elatenus accepta, soli Deo nota est; Quemadmodum idem Apostolus ait● cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius. Verùm ad eum modum non oportet accipere Ecclesiae vocabulum, ubi vel Christus de audienda Ecclesia precipit, vel patres post Apostolos de authoritate Ecclesiae differunt, E●c●irid. Christian. institut. fol. 65. ingenuously grants, that the Church militant, taken in its proper and strict sense, is invisible, save only to God. He grants withal, that some members of the Church militant, ita sunt in domo Dei, ut ipsi sint Domus Dei, they are so in the Church of God, as they themselves are the Churches of God; that is, as we said before, they are homogeneal and live-members of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or pillars and living stones, so laid by the hand of God, that they can never be removed. All he had to say against Lutherans, was, verùm ad eum modum non oportet accipere Ecclesia vocabulum, etc. That when Christ commands us to hear the Church, or when the Father's dispute about the authority of the Church, we are not to take the Church militant so strictly, as Luther, Caluine, and their followers sometimes do; to wit, for the live-members of Christ's mystical body. All this may be granted; we are not the men which they mistake us for. We never denied obedience to the visible Church, which consists of good and bad, which contains in it as well the reprobate as the elect. All the difference betwixt us is about the bounds or the limits of the obedience which we owe unto the visible Church. We say first the present Romish visible Church, doth exact greater and more absolute obedience, then either See this point handled at large in the third book upon the Creed. Sect. 3. from the 6. chap. to the 15. Moses, or such as sat in Moses chair, then either Christ or his Apostles did exact of their followers, whilst he lived here on earth. Secondly, we say, that we do not owe the same measure of obedience to any visible Church now on earth, as the primitive professors and believers did to our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles. Cap. 8. CHAP. VIII. What is required to the constitution of a visible Church. Whence the unity or plurality of visible Churches ariseth. What unity may be had or expected between visible Churches independent one of another for jurisdiction. The diverse acceptions or degrees of the visible Church. 1 TO the constitution of a visible Church, there is required first external profession of one and and the same faith. Whether the parties making this profession be many or few, it skils not. Sometimes the father of the family with his sons and manservants, were professors of the Christian faith, taught by the Apostles, whilst the mothers and the daughters with others of the same family remained in Paganism and infidelity, et é contra. Now though the house so divided, were not the Church of God, yet was there a visible Church of God, or part of such a Church in that house. A visible Church distinct from others in place of habitation only, not by diversity of faith or discipline. For, several families of the faithful were called Churches, as being, parts similares, Homogeneal parts of some more entire or ample visible Church. Secondly, to the constitution of an entire visible Church, there is required (besides unity of profession, or the unity of faith professed, or of moral Laws acknowledged) an unity of Laws or ordinances judicial, or an unity of discipline, of astipulation or obligement unto a peculiar kind of power or authority, before unusual in other Societies or Corporations. 2 Before the Pastors or governors of the Church had any commission or coactive power derived from Princes, States, or Common weals, to make Laws for the Church, or for punishing offenders; every member of the visible Church in what Realm or Kingdom soever seated, did renounce or abjure all use of such liberty, as every other member of the same Kingdom or commonweal, which was no member of the Church, did enjoy. It was not lawful for one member of the visible Church to implead another in matter of controversy or wrong, before a foreign judge. And although this astipulation was not legal (that is, not authorised by any humane Law or custom) yet did it bind them faster than any legal or civil bond. Dare any of you (saith S. Paul) having a matter against another, go to Law before the unjust, and not before the Saints? Do ye not know that the Saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 1 Cor. cap. 6. vers. 1, 2. But if some member of this visible church, had opposed this spiritual authority, or rejected this discipline or astipulation, what remedy had the Apostles against them? In primitive times, every one that was partaker of the Word, of the Sacraments, or of spiritual blessings, did thereby subject or oblige himself unto a peculiar kind of judicature or tribunal, unto which no other member of the Common weal or Kingdom, which was no participant of the Word or Sacraments, was either subject or obliged. And this was the sentence of Excommunication; an extraordinary and peculiar kind of judicature, which the Apostles exercised by authority immediately derived from Christ; not by commission or warrant from Princes, or Estates, not by the positive Laws or ordinances of any Body civil or ecclesiastic. I verily as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord jesus Christ, To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord jesus. 1 Cor. cap. 5. v. 3, 4, 5. That this Apostolical judicature did extend only to the visible church planted by him; that it did extend to all, and might be exercised upon every actual member of the same Church, is apparent from the 9, 10, & 11. ver. I wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to company with Fornicators. The Corinthians had extended this precept too far; so far, as it was not possible for them exactly to observe it; And upon this occasion it seems they did (as it usually falls out in like cases) utterly neglect to practise it within its proper bounds or limits. The Apostle therefore expresseth his meaning not to be, that they should not keep company with the Fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with Idolaters; for than must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a Drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without, God judgeth. 3 Thus it is true in blessings or privileges ecclesiastical as well as civil; Omnis commoditas sua fert incommoda secum: Every commodity or convenience is charged with some or other incommodious conditions. Such of the Corinthians as were foris, extra matriculam Ecclesiae visibilis, out of the visible Church in Corinth, were not subject unto this extraordinary judicature, or the inconveniences that did accompany it: Unto all which every visible member of the Church there planted was subject. But this subjection was like the service of God, a great part of their perfect freedom, and a chastisement, Heb. 12, 11 not sweet for the present but grievous, yet yielding the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them that were exercised by it. All the Corinthians that were foris, that is, out of the visible Church there planted, were more than liable, and more than obnoxious to a more dreadful judgement from God, which one time or other must inevitably fall upon every one, that is not found in Christ, or that is not a live-member of the holy Catholic Church. The only means, at least the ordinary means then possible, to be exempted from this fearful judgement, was by associating themselves unto the present visible Church, and by submission of their souls to this peculiar judicature of God's Apostles, Christ's Ambassadors. For this power (as the Apostle elsewhere speaks) was not given them for destruction, but for edification. The members of the Church that were thus judged by them, were chastened by the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world. 1 Cor. 11. vers. 32. Every Apostle of Christ had the same authority which S. Paul here practised; namely, full authority to set down orders for governing the churches planted by them, and for excommunicating all such persons, as either contemptuously violated their orders, or did otherwise scandalously trespass against the moral Law of God. 4 Was it then lawful for any visible member of the Church planted by Saint Paul at Corinth in case of controversies, which were to be arbitrated according to the tenor of his prescript before rehearsed, to appeal from the sentence of Saint Paul or other domestic arbitrators, unto S. Peter, or unto any foreign Church or See planted or governed by him? Or chose, was it lawful for the Churches planted by Saint Peter, to appeal unto S. Paul? If thus to do it were not lawful, then questionless, the Churches visible of Saint Paul's planting, were as truly distinct from the Chruches planted or governed by Saint Peter, as one free State or Common weal is from another, unto which it is not in jurisdiction or matter of appeal subordinate. Now it is not the unity or identity of laws or customs, that makes a Common weal or Kingdom to be one and the same, unless the persons which are subject unto the same Laws, be likewise subject to the same Supreme Tribunal. For albeit, aswell the temporal Laws as the Ecclesiastical constitutions of Sweden or Russia, were as like to our English Laws Ecclesiastical or temporal, as one apple is like to another; yet could not Russia, Sweden and England be so properly termed one Kingdom and Common weal, as England and Scotland are: although the Laws by which those Kingdoms are governed be much different. 5 In like manner, admitting the Laws & discipline of all the Churches planted by Saint Peter, by Saint Paul, and other Apostles, had been the self same: yet could they not in this respect be so truly and properly said one visible Church, as the particular Churches planted by Saint Paul especially in one and the same province were one Church; albeit their Laws or ordinances had been more different. It is probable then, that there were as many several distinct visible Churches, as there were Apostles, or other Ambassadors of Christ, immediately endued with this extraordinary judicature which is immediately derived from Christ, See Fr: Mason of the consecration of Bishops, etc. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 24. and independent upon any earthly power, or any power whatsoever on earth; whether spiritual or temporal. Their opinion is very probable, who think that every Apostle had his peculiar circuit allotted him by Christ; and that they did disperse themselves into twelve several parts of the world. According to this tradition of the Ancients, a learned Critic of our times in matters sacred, doth point and interpret the 25. v. of the first of the Acts, after another manner, than any known Interpreter (to my remembrance) doth. And they prayed saying, Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If ye put a comma, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sense of this later interpretion will be full. that he may take the room of this ministration & Apostleship, from which judas by transgression fell, that he (to wit, judas) might go unto his own place. Forso this place is ordinarily expounded: but the Greek may bear another sense, to wit, that he that took part of the ministration and Apostleship from which judas had fall'n, might be sent that circuit, which judas (had he not fall'n) should have gone. I It is then profession of the same faith, participation of the Sacraments, and subjection to the same Laws and Ordinances ecclesiastic, which makes the visible Church to be one. TWO It is the diversity of independent judicature, or supreme tribunals ecclesiastic, which makes plurality of visible Churches, or distinguisheth one from the other. III That which makes every visible Church to be more or less, the true Church of God, is the greater or less efficacy or conformity of its public doctrine and discipline for enapting or fashioning the visible members of it, that they may become live-members of the Holy Catholic Church, or living stones of the new jerusalem. Every true visible Church is as an inferior Free-school or Nursery for training up Scholars, that they may be fit to be admitted into the celestial Academy. 6 There be two questions yet remaining of very good use, which (if God permit) shall be more particularly discussed hereafter. First, Whether there be any judicature ecclesiastic for independency, or otherwise, altogether the same with that which the Apostles in the first planting of Churches, had and practised. Secondly, Whether independent judicatures ecclesiastic, did or may decrease or multiply in succeeding ages, or so decrease for number, that there shall be but one left on earth unto which all aught to be subject so far, that there shall or can be but one true visible Church. Concerning the first point, Whether there be any judicature Ecclesiastic altogether the same with that which the Apostles had: I am not of opinion with Erastus, that great Physician and good Divine, that the exercise of Excommunication, was then only needful, when no visible Church had any legal or civil remedy to preserve its unity, or purge itself of gross offenders. Or that the right or power of Excommunication, which the Apostles and their immediate successors had, did utterly expire and vanish, after once whole Cities or Common weals became Christian, and the Churches which before had only sojourned amongst them, were incorporated into them as live principal members; enabled by full authority derived from the supreme Majesty or sovereignty of States or Kingdoms, to inflict corporal punishment upon offenders, to enact coercive or penal Laws or other means necessary for diffusing the doctrine of life throughout the whole body politic, without let or encumbrance of any particular part or member. But though I be not thus far of Erastus his mind, that the power of Excommunication did at that time specified by him, utterly expire or determine; yet hath experience made it more than probable, that after the Churches and Common weals, were so mutually interwrapt and linked together, that every member of the Common weal was enforced to become a member of the Church, and to be so admitted by Church Governors: the edge of the spiritual * Vide Andraeam Laurentium in Libello de Excommunicatione. sword was much abated, the force of former spiritual ordinances became stifled with the multitude of persons against whom they were directed. Whether the defect be in the power itself, or in such as have it, but do not use it; certain it is, that this branch of discipline is not in our days so effectual as sometimes it hath been, either for framing visible Churches unto the rules prescribed by their great Founders or first Planters, or for conforming the members of the visible Church unto the true, Holy, and Catholic Church. The mere spiritual power with which alone the Apostles and their immediate Successors were endued, was of greater efficacy than both the remainder of the like spiritual power in later Bishops and Pastors, and all the strength of secular or civil power, wherewith Princes, States or Kingdoms, since the mutual incorporation of Common weals and Churches have (as they were in conscience and de iure divino bound) assisted Prelates and Church-governors. 7 To the second question [Whether there be one or more independent tribunals] the later Romanists unanimously answer, that there is but one only judicature or supreme tribunal here on earth, the judge whereof they make the only head of all the Churches, or (as they would say) of the whole militant Church here on earth. Nostra sententia est, saith * Lib. 3. de Ec●les. mil. cap. 2 et in catechismo in ●ticulo de sancta et Cath. Ecclesia. Bellarmine, Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram esse coetum bominum eiusdem christianae fidei professione et eorundem sacramentorum communione, colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris vicarij, Romani Pontificis. Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant, qui vero ad eam non pertineant. Tres enim sunt partes huius definitionis. Professio verae fidei, Sacramentorum communio, et subiectio ad legitimum pastorem Romanum Pontificem. The Church in our opinion, saith Cardinal Bellarmine, is one not two, and this one true Church is a Company of men linked together by profession of the same christian Faith, by communion of the same Sacraments, under the government of lawful Pastors, and chiefly of the Bishop of Rome, Christ's sole Vicegerent here on earth. Out of this definition (he further adds,) it may easily be gathered what men pertain unto the Church, who pertain not unto it. For the parts of this definition are three; Profession of Faith, Sacramental Communion, and subjection to the lawful Pastor, viz. the Bishop of Rome. The conclusion which he aims at is this, that whosoever either doth not hold the same Faith in all points which the Romish Church doth, or doth not communicate with that Church in the use of Sacraments, or doing both these, doth not withal acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for his supreme Governor ecclesiastic, he no way belongs to the true Church. Whosoever holds all the three parts of the former definition, he is the true son of the same Church. The militant Church, saith the Author of the Antidote, is a society or company of men, linked and combined together in the same profession of the Christian Faith, and use of Sacraments under lawful Pastors, chiefly under one Head, and Vicar of Christ the Pope of Rome. the 3. part of the Antidote, cap. 1. p. 17. §. 5. 8 The Church triumphant is more beholding to, or rather less injured by this Cardinal and his followers, than it was by some former Popes or Counsels, which as the * Raynold in Thes. Doctor of famous and blessed memory long since observed, have made the Pope head of the Church triumphant. Cardinal Bellarmine and his Epitomists, in making the Pope such an head of the universal Church militant, make him an essential head of all Christ's actual live and indeficient members here on earth. And thus to do, is an indignity to Christ, not literally or fully expressable by any terms which the tongue or pen of men can invent. It may notwithstanding, be thus typically represented or shadowed. Suppose a man should put a Gorgon or Saracens head made of straw or clouts, taken out of a sink, or some other place not fit to be named, upon the King's statue or image made by public authority, of pure gold, having first stricken off, or stolen away the true head, which the Artificer had framed of matter homogeneal and correspondent for form or proportion to the rest of the body. 9 Contradictory to Cardinal Bellarmine and the Author of the Antidotes definition, we may for the present conclude, and the rules as well of nature and reason, as of laws supernatural and divine, will ratify our conclusion, viz. First, that since the Churches and Commonweals absolutely distinct each from other, and independent one of another, have been thus wedded together as soul and body, as man and wife; there have been as many several visible Churches independent each on other, for matter of jurisdiction or subjection to one visible Head, as there be several free States or Christian Kingdoms independent one of another. Secondly, that the subordination of Church to Church, is in proportion the same, with the subordination of the several states, wherein the Churches are planted. The best union that can be expected between visible Chuches seated in Kingdoms or Commonweals independent one of another, is the unity of league or friendship. And this may be as strict as it shall please such Commonweals, or Churches to make it. Thirdly, to make the Church seated in one absolute State or Kingdom, live in subjection to another Church seated in another Kingdom, or to any member of another Church or Kingdom (head or branch) is to erect a Babel, or seat for Antichrist, not to build up one holy Church to Christ. This practice or usurpation of the Romish Church, hath been the reason why the christian world for these many years, hath been more confused and disordered, than the Synagogue of Mahomet. Nor is there any possibility that christian States or Kingdoms should ever be so united in faith and love, as that their joint prayers should be acceptable unto God against the Turk or other professed enemy of Christ, until they have cast off this heavy yoke of Satanical slavery. But of these points hereafter. 10 Lastly, since the Church hath been diffused throughout all and every part of Kingdoms and Provinces, it is impossible that every member should personally meet to make laws and orders. And yet all laws are presumed to be made by universal consent, and in this regard, the Churches have been enforced to have as well Churches as Bodies politic, representative. And inasmuch as the practice and custom hath been, to admit none but Clergy or Churchmen, as members of the Body ecclesiastic or Church representative: the name of the Church hath been in a manner appropriated to the Clergy, Churchmen, or Spiritualty. The Church or body ecclesiastic representative, that is, the Church enabled to make laws or canons ecclesiastic, (of what members soever, it doth, may or aught to consist, for their qualification, as whether only of Clerks, or whether it may admit some mixture of the laiety) is either permanently existent, or existent only by vicissitude or turns. The Church representative which is existent, only by vicissitude, or at certain times only, may be comprehended under the names of Counsels or Synods, whether ecumenical, general or provincial, or of Convocations ecclesiastic. The Church representative permanently existent, amongst the Romanists, is the Consistory of the Pope and his Cardinals. Albeit in very deed, the Jesuits, the Canonists, and later Papists of their instruction, have contracted the Church representative into the Pope's breast alone. He, to use their own dialect, is the virtual Church, that is, He eminently comprehends all the authority which is formally and ordinarily seated or inhaerent, whether in the Church representative, or in the whole militant and visible Church of God, whereof He claimeth to be the sole visible head. He hath the same reference to the whole body of the Church visible beside, as Plato his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the life or quintessence of the visible Church, or in respect of that Church, all in all. So Cardinal Paleotus, in his book, de sacro consistorio, would persuade us, that as God Almighty sometimes governs the world by his ordinary power, or by the ministry or coagencie of second causes, sometimes by his extraordinary immediate or absolute power; so the Pope sometimes determines controversies in religion and orders the affairs of the Church, by the consent and assistance of Counsels, or at least of his Consistory; sometimes by himself alone, and by his sole plenary and illimited power. Cap. 9 CHAP. IX. That albeit the true Church be always visible, yet it is a gross sophism hence to infer, that the visible Church is always the true Church; or that one visible Church is more privileged from erring than another. The strange blasphemy, by which the Author of the Antidote seeks to support the infallibility of the visible Romish Church. 1 THe subject of our next inquiry, shall be so to share the titles or attributes given by the Scriptures, orthodoxal antiquity, or other good authority, to the Church indefinitely taken, between that one, Holy, Catholic Church which we believe in this Creed, and the visible Church or Churches, which we see or know; so as that God and his Holy Church, may have their full dues, and Gods deputies here on earth, Caesar's or other governors of his visible Church, may have no wrong. The best and most general rule for our direction in this search, is that, which will better appear from a treatise concerning the exposition of prophecies. For, as one and the same prophecy touching Christ, so one and the same promise made unto the Church, may be often literally verified, and in different measure successively fulfilled of diverse parties. Some promises may be literally verified of the visible Church or Synagogue of the jews before our Saviour's Incarnation, and of the visible Churches planted by his Apostles; and be in part fulfilled, throughout every age, of the live-members of Christ's body to us invisible, but lastly to be exactly fulfilled of the Church triumphant or Kingdom of glory. 2 Most of the later Romanists arguments, are mere Sophisms à dicto secundùm quid, ad simpliciter; that is, they take all those glorious titles or promises made to the Church in its most ample or exquisite signification, to be exactly and entirely fulfilled of the visible Church throughout all ages; when as they are verified of it in part only, or at some special times, or by way of type or shadow, and unto which she hath at no time any absolute title, but conditional. In this mist of ignorance, the Author of the blind guide of faith, in his second chapter, doth strangely wander, not only from the truth, but from the level which he had taken, not much amiss, in the first chapter of his treatise; and as his custom is, when he hath lost his way, like a bawling Hound, not well entered, falls a barking at Doctor Whitaker, whose words or meaning, how sincerely he quotes or recites, I leave it to the unpartial Readers examination. In his third chapter having proposed this Thesis, That the true visible Church is apparently known, and famous to the world, he labours to prove in the fourth chapter, that the true visible and apparently known Church can never fail. That the visible Church was in the Apostles time and after, the true Church of God, we never denied: nor will we contend with him, whether the true Church of God on earth can ever fail, no not whether ever it ceaseth to be visible. Where then is the difference? These two propositions, the true Church of God is always visible, the visible Church is always the true Church of God, differ as much as a Mill-horse, and a Horse-mill: or, as to stand with a man, and to withstand a man. The whole visible Church in the days of the Emperor's Constantius and Valens, did Arianize, as the Romanist cannot deny. The best answer that they can give to this Instance is, that these Emperors did not reign long, for Valens died within three years after the persecution by him begun. However; the Council of Milan, of Sirmium, etc. was the then visible Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I hope, they will not say, that it was the true Church of God. For though almost all the Bishops and most Christians throughout the Roman Empire did subscribe unto these Counsels, yet was not the true * See the 17. chap. of this book, especially parag. 6. Church of God during these three years invisible, but more remarkably visible in some few which did contradict the then visible Church, content to suffer exile or other martyrdom, in maintenance of the Holy Catholic faith, which is the life and soul of the Church of God. In few ages after, wherein worse beasts than Valens was, were chief Governors of the visible Church: that is, after the succession of Romish Bishops was grown up unto a perfect beast, according to the measure of Antichrist; the true Church of God was remarkably visible in such as that visible Church did condemn for heretics. Instances to this purpose are plentiful in unpartial Writers. And when the doctrine of Antichrist was come to his full growth, as in the Council of Trent, although the whole body of Germany besides Chemnitius and some few others; although the whole visible Church of France besides Calvin, and some such, had subscribed unto that Council; yet the true Church of God had been visible in France and Germany in these worthies. Enough there was in their writings against that Council, to condemn all such as followed it, that is, the visible or representative Church of Rome, of palpable Antichristian heresy. Yet when we say, that the true Church of God was visible in these men, & in their writings, or in john Hus, etc. we do not tie ourselves to embrace what soever they wrote, for truth. We may say of the true visible Church, or of the truth by which we become visible members of the true Catholic Church, as one said of Truth philosophical, That it could not be sound entire in the writings of any one Sect of Philosophers; in the writings of all of them it might. This advantage we have of all the Philosophers; that we have a surer and more perfect rule for examining the writings or doctrines of several visible Churches, than they had any for examining truths philosophical. Absolutely to assent in each particular to any writers or teachers, since the first constitution of the Apostolic Church, or accomplishment of the written rule of faith, were to descent from them in the main and fundamental point of Catholic Faith. For unless there be an unfeigned and hearty desire, a spirit of watchfulness and of willingness to limit our adherence unto whatsoeever other writings, according to the greater or less evidence of their consonancy with the written rule; neither Scholar, nor Master, nor Church visible or representative, can be any other then equivocal or dead members of the true Church. The Catholic faith itself, could it possibly be planted in any man's heart, without the spirit or Genius to direct or inform it, would quickly either putrify or grow crooked. 3 Amongst other glorious titles wherewith the same Author seeks to adorn the Church of Rome, this, which is the title of his fifth chapter, is one, that the true Church cannot err. A proposition, I must confess, as hard for us to disprove, if he take it in sensu composito, as it is for him to prove, in sensu diviso. That no Church, as it is true, and whilst it is true, or in respect of those points with reference to which it is denominated true, can possibly err, is a truth that cannot be denied. But if by the true Church, he mean a visible, or the visible Romish Church; there neither is, nor hath been any visible Church, though planted by the Apostles themselves, which since their times hath not either ceased to be a visible Church, or else continued for a long time as palpably erroneous and false, as truly visible. Whatsoever this Author deem or write, his Fellows and Masters with one mouth confess, that every private man in their Church may err; that the Bishops assembled in Council, without the Pope's direction or confirmation of their sentence, may err; that the Pope himself unless he speak ex cathedra, may err. And by this confession either the Romish church is no true Church, save only whilst the Pope speaks è Cathedra, or else the whole body of the true Church (if the Romish church be the true Church,) may sometimes err. For at all times else, both head and members of this Church may err. In this inference, I take it as granted, that the Pope doth not always speak ex cathedra. Now if in these interims of his cathedral silence, any Bishop, Priest or jesuit shall take upon them to instruct their Auditors, out of the Pulpit or otherwise, in points of faith or controversy; their poor flock by this man's collections against us, cannot be made partakers of that true and infallible faith, without which no man can be saved; because their Preachers or ministers are not infallible, nor (to use his words) undoubtedly fenced from all danger of error. His collections against us are these: Guide of Faith. cap. 5. pag. 54. Finally to what end do Protestants strive so much for the Churches erring, but only to deprive themselves thereby of Church, Faith and Religion? For whereas neither religion, nor Church can stand without supernatural faith, nor supernatural faith be attained without infallible certainty of the things believed; if their Preachers, their Ministers, their Church be not undoubtedly fenced from all danger of error, the Articles they believe have not that inerrable warrant, which is necessary to faith. Did this man, may we think, believe that he himself was undoubtedly fenced from all danger of error? If he did so believe, the Cardinals of Rome shall do him much wrong, if they choose him not Pope the next Election, or appoint him not as coadjutor to the present Pope. If it be replied, that the Romish instructers, be they Bishops or Priests, cannot err because they neither believe nor teach others to believe any points of faith, but with absolute submission of their instructions to what the Pope already hath spoken, or shall hereafter speak ex cathedra concerning the same points; the medicine will be a great deal worse than the disease. For this persuasion or resolution is altother incompatible with the first grounds of faith, and is flat Apostasy from Christ, as hath been discussed at large in the second book upon the Creed; and shall be further manifested, if occasion require, in the second book of this Treatise. To the former objection, the answer on our part is easy. For true faith receives its infallibility, not from any infallibility in our immediate and ordinary teachers, but from the infallibility of the truths themselves, which they propose unto us out of the rule of truth, and from the infallibility of that internal and secret Teacher, without whose impressions of truths infallible in men's hearts, no true faith can be conceived by the Church itself in what sense soever taken, or by any member of it. But this point likewise hath been fully discussed throughout our second book upon the Creed. Concerning this glorious title of not erring, wherewith he seeks to invest the visible Church, the case is easy, and the issue short. If the true Church which can never err, be the visible Church; then that visible Church, which often hath erred, and doth still err, cannot be the true Church, nor such a supreme judge of controversies, as he imagines the visible Romish Church to be in his 6. chapter. Now whether the visible church of Rome hath not of later years grossly erred in many points, & most grievously in this very opinion of their own absolute infallibility, Cap. 6. comes to be disputed in the second book. In which likewise it shall (by God's assistance) appear, that this vaunting Doctor hath really danced in that inextricable maze, which he terms but an Imaginary circle, cap. 7. 4. The special title or attribute, which in this place requires larger discussion, whether it belong merely to the Holy, Catholic Church, so termed by Excellency, or in some measure also unto the visible Church; is that Maxim usual amongst the Fathers, Extra Ecclesiam non est salus, that is, as the forecited Author proposeth it, cap. 8. that out of the true Church there can be no hope of salvation, in any congregation or sect whatsoever. As an additional to this general Testimony, they add that of S. Hierom. tom. 2. Ep. 57 add Damas'. & tom. 4. l. 4. comment. in cap. 11. Isa. If any one were not in the Ark, he was drowned in the time of the inundation. If any one he not in the Church, he perisheth in the day of destruction. And again, Gaudentius a little more ancient than Hierom (as this Author cities him;) It is manifest that all men of those times perished, excepting only such as deserved to be found within the Ark, bearing a type or figure of the Church. For so in like manner they cannot be saved, who are separated from the Apostolic faith, and Catholic Church. Guide of Faith, cap. 8. 5 Pius Quartus affirmeth that, that Creed which he hath patched up out of the Nicene creed & council of Trent, is the Faith, extra quam non est salus, out of which there is no salvation. Unto an empty discourse addressed to this purpose, the said Author of the Antidote in his ninth chapter of the Guide of faith, hath prefixed this swelling title, Cap. 9 No Sectary (so he terms us,) can be saved by believing general heads. The mark he aims at, is that we are bound under penalty of damnation to believe whatsoever the visible Church commends unto us as a point of faith; as firmly, as we believe the general articles of the Apostolic or Nicene Creed. And to obtrude this conclusion upon us, which would draw us to a general Apostasy, he hath shamelessly transferred that royal prerogative of God's moral law avouched by S. james, [Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. c. 2.10.] unto all the mandates of the visible Church. And lastly, to accumulate impudence, having once transgressed the bounds of Christian modesty, he further adds [That it is not enough to believe all the mandates of the visible Church, See the 19 Chapt. of this Book. unless we do communicate with it in practice.] But in what points we may communicate with the Romish church, in what we may not, shall be in particular discussed hereafter. For a general answer to his blasphemous allegations, we can conceive none better, none so good, as that which S. james hath framed for us: He that said, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, nor bear false witness against thy neighbour; said also in more precise and cautelous terms, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the similitude of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them, etc. Now if we shall communicate with the present Romish church, in worshipping the Images of the Almighty Creator, of the persons in Trinity, Cap. 10 and of every living creature in heaven; or in adoring the similitudes of bread and wine, or rather bread or wine itself, we should daily draw the guilt of transgressing the whole Law of God upon us. Wer● not these kind of men further transported with their blind zeal unto their own Traditions, and malice towards the Gospel of Christ, than the jews were; we might refer this point unto the Romanists, as the Apostles did the like unto the judgement of the jews, Whether it be better, to obey God forbidding, or the visible Church commanding the adoration of Images, or the consecrated Host, judge ye. CHAP. X. In what cases Arguments of proportion may be drawn from Allegories. A full explication of the Allegory used by S. Paul, Gal. 4. and of the Argument, or concludent proof, in the same Allegory contained. 1 Unto the argument drawn from Noah's Ark I could use the common exception, Sensus allegoricus aut Symbolicus, non est sensus argumentativus; That points of Doctrine are not to be grounded upon the allegorical or Symbolical sense of scriptures. But exceptions are then useful when they are needful, & they are then only needful, when the Testimonies against us, are not only true but concludenr. And some good writers to my apprehension, have not in any point given greater advantage to their adversaries, then by denying Orthodoxal or plausible antecedents, when they should have examined the Argument, or traversed the vulgar judgement, concerning the consequence. We will not therefore deny, that the argument may be rightly drawn from Noah's Ark unto Christ his Church which in Thesi, is as much as to say, that sensus allegoricus seu mysticus est aliquando argumentativus: The allegorical or mystical sense is sometimes argumentative; yea it is always so, when the Allegory is rightly grounded upon the literal sense, and when the terms are distinct and rightly suited. For such an allegory, is an argument from proportion, which is the most usual kind of argument amongst sacred Writers. I will instance in two arguments of S. Paul; in the one of which I must be somewhat longer, because it is more difficult. Yet to recompense this inconvenience, the matter of it rightly explicated, is very Homogeneal or suitable to the matter now in hand, and may serve as a leading case to others which we are hereafter to handle. Galat. cap. 4. ver. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bondwoman, was borne after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise: which things are an allegory. As every Analogy or proportion, so every Allegory (especially in matters sacred) if it be explicit and complete, consists of four distinct terms. In this present Allegory of the Apostle, as in the like used by sacred Writers, the two first terms have a literal, proper or historical sense: the other two have a borrowed, metaphorical or symbolical sense. Or to speak more significantly, (perhaps to some men) the two first terms, besides their historical or native signification, have a symbolical or emblematical importance; that is, the realities or matters historically related or literally expressed, are as types and shadows of some more principal events, to ensue; though not literally expressed or foretold, but by way of hieroglyficall emblem. And in this Allegory, the historical and proper terms, are Hagar the Handmaid, and Sarah her Mistress. The Allegorical terms, by these foreshadowed, are the two testaments, the one from Mount Sinai, whereof Hagar the Handmaid is the type, the other from heaven, established by our Saviour's blood, whereof Sarah the Mistress and the Freewoman, is the type. Thus much is clear from the Apostle himself. The difficulty which hath puzzled many good interpreters in the exposition of this Text, herein consists: namely how, and in what manner the other terms, which are here interserted, as Mount-Sinai, or Hagar in Arabia, the jerusalem that now is, and the jerusalem which is above, are reducible to the four former terms wherein the Allegory properly consists. To prove that Hagar, Sarahs' Handmaid, was the type of the Testament given upon Mount Sinai, the Apostle thus infers, or rather interprets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia. Gal. 4.25. This inference to a mere Artist, may well seem strange: for it is merely equivocal. And whatsoever sensus mysticus, parabolicus or allegoricus be, certainly, sensus aequivocus non est sensus argumentativus, the equivocal sense can bring forth no sound Argument. 2 To this we answer, that many things which are aequivoca casu, in respect of men, are aequivoca à consilio, in respect of God's providence: And diverse prophecies which have been conceived and expressed in terms equivocal, have been remarkably fulfilled according to the different or contrary significations of one and the same prophetical word; as on the contrary, one and the same evangelical word or attribute of Christ, may (according to its different or equivocal significations) comprise the literal significations of two or more prophecies conceived in distinct terms, no way equivocal or coincident in the original. Instance was * In a Sermon upon the 31. of jer. verse 22. elsewhere given, in the Latin Nazarenus, or Nazareus, truly verified of Christ, both as he was the rod of jesse, and as he was the Idea of legal Nazarites. To these the instance of our Apostle in this place is parallel. That the same mountain, which the Hebrews call Sinai, should by the Arabians be called Agar, and bear the same name which Agar, Sarahs' Handmaid did, was merely accidental or casual, in respect of men. But that God should promulge his law, and enter a covenant with his people upon this Mount, did, by the disposition of his Allseeing providence enigmatically portend what the Apostle, (by an Analogy of interpreting Scriptures well known in his time,) infers; to wit, that such as did adhere unto the law, or first covenant, as to their mother, scorning or loathing the sincere milk of the Gospel or new Testament, should by so doing, become rather children of Abraham, by Agar the Bondwoman, then by Sarah the Freewoman, as anon shall be declared. But besides this equivocation of the word Agar, and the doubtful signification of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is an amphibology in their reference or conjunction, which many good Interpreters not well observing, have left the stream or current of the Apostles words much troubled in translations, though in a manner clear in the Fountain. 3 Most of the Ancient, with some modern, make the Mount Agar, the entire subject of this proposition: as if he had said in English; This mount Agar bordereth upon jerusalem: whereas the Apostles meaning is, that Agar, Sarahs' Handmaid did border upon, or answer unto the than jerusalem. The vulgar Latin speaking of this Mount, saith, continuatus est; Erasmus, confinis est jerusalem, which I wonder at, if we have his last corrections, seeing a * Sepulveda in his Epistle to Erasmus. learned man did admonish him to amend it. Aquinas, to justify the sense of the vulgar translation, gives this reason, why Mount Agar might be said to be continuatus jerusalem, because the journey or pilgrimage from this mountain was continual. But Sepul veda very well replies, that there was never any journey less continuate, than the Israelites journey from mount Agar to jerusalem. For it was a continual wand'ring up and down, neither was the jerusalem, whereof the Apostle speaks, but the whole land of Promise the term or period of the Israelites wand'ring pilgrimage. Some others whom Luther followeth, have taken some pains in Geography, to show, that the mountains in Arabia, are continuate unto that part of judaea, wherein jerusalem stands, but how true soever this may be in Geographie, it cannot be more true, then impertinent to our Apostles meaning. For Agar or Sinai is not such a general name of the whole mountaine-country in Arabia, as Wold or chilterne is in English. It is the proper name of that one famous Mount, on which the Law was given, betwixt which and jerusalem, there be so many other hills and mountains, that it cannot be said, in any Geographical sense, to border upon jerusalem. True it is, that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signify as much as to border or trench upon, yet this is but a secondary or derivative signification. The reason of this derivative or borrowed speech is, because such as are properly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, such as march together in battle array, are vicini, or near one to the other. Our two later English translations render it better, answereth to jerusalem, or as Beza, ex adverso respondet: But neither, as I think, refer this word answering, to Geographical situation. In which sense the Latin respondet is (at least by Poets) sometimes used. So Crete is said to answer to Athens: Contra elata mari respondet Cnosia tellus. 4 But our later English by this word answering, meaneth it to be in the same rank with jerusalem▪ Howbeit to speak in the proper terms of Art military, such as are in the same rank, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are next in the same file, that is, in eadem serie, incipiendo a front ad ●ergum, in the same line or row from Front to Rear. As when Soldiers march ten in breast, and thirty deep, they are said to be thirty ranks, and ten Files, and yet thirty in File, and but ten in Rank. The first and second in the same File, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and second in the next File to these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto them. Or as in a team or draught of Oxen, such as are of the one side, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with reference to them such as are on the other side are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as are in the same yoke are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. However, because Soldier's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, when they march in order, hold just distance and proportion one with another; hence it is, that in Aristotle and other good writers, the several terms of any just proportion, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as two, four, eight, sixteen. 5 The termini 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Allegory, are not mount Agar, but Agar Sarahs' Handmaid and her offspring, and the jerusalem which was in our Apostles time. On the other side, the termini 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to these, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, betwixt themselves, were Sarah, Abraham's wife & her offspring, and the jerusalem which was above. As for Mount Agar or Sinai, it is no formal part of the Allegory, no term at all in this proportion, but only collaterally, or by way of metonymy interserted: inasmuch as the old Testament, which is one of the formal and primitive terms in this Allegory, was given upon this Mount, the old Testament or Covenant itself, and jerusalem which then was, cannot be properly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as making but one term, and differing only, as homo and rationale. So the new Testament, and the jerusalem which is above, make but one term, whereof the one is as the soul and quiddity, the other as the body or compositum, unto which Sarah, Abraham's wife is the terminus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Unto this or like kinds of arguments drawn from proportion, there is always some Common Notion or prolepsis presupposed as a ground to support them. The presupposed ground of this argument is, that Abraham's family was a type, yea more than a type of the militant Church; the very root of that celestial Vine which God, having brought out of Egypt, did plant in jewry. This presupposed; our Apostles argument may be thus drawn; The same proportion which Agar the Handmaid had to Sarah her Mistress in Abraham's house, the same proportion hath the old Testament to the New, in the house of God; the same proportion which Agars' offspring had to Sarahs', the same proportion had the Children of the Law, that is, the jerusalem which then was, unto the jerusalem which is above, that is, to the children of the Gospel or sons of promise. Now Hagar was sometime a visible and principal member of Abraham's family, a kind of second wife to Abraham, and Ishmael her son was for a while Abraham's presumed heir: yet after Agar did begin to despise and contest with her Mistress Sarah, and Ishmael to flout or persecute Isaac, Abraham's heir apparent and Son of promise; both Mother and Son were cast out of Abraham's house, and deprived of all hope of inheritance in the land of promise. Sarah bearing the type of the true visible Church then on earth, did pronounce that sentence of excommunication against them; Cast out the Bondwoman and her Son. Gen. 21.10. and God ratifying in heaven what she had bound on earth, enjoins Abraham to put her sentence in execution. Gen. 21. verse 12. The Covenant likewise which God made with this people upon Hagar, or mount Sinai, was as the betrothing of Israel unto himself. The Law of Moses, whilst it was lawfully used, was the only Catechism or Introduction, without which there was no entrance into the Church of God. The children of this Covenant, did by virtue of it become haeredes praesumpti, the presumed heirs or children of God. 6 But when this deputed or nursing-mother came once to contest with the true Spouse of Christ, with the new Testament or Gospel: and after her children, the jerusalem which then was, began to persecute the children of the jerusalem, which is above; the mother with her children, that is, the Law, with such as sought to be under it, were cast out of the true visible Church of God, by the Apostles, unto whom our Saviour had committed the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. There is a special Emphasis in that speech of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not all one, as if he had said, the earthly jerusalem which had continued from David's time till Christ; but not the same for condition in our Saviour's time, as it was in David's: For it now stood in such opposition to the Gospel, as Hagar did to her Mistress Sarah, at the time when she and her Son committed those misdemeanours, for which both of them were cast out of Abraham's house. The jerusalem which was on earth, was sometimes, or in some part rather a consort than an opposite or adversary to the jerusalem which was above. So was the old Testament or the Law, and all such as lawfully used it, rather subordinate allies, than foes or adversaries to the new Testament, or heirs of promise. The occasion which Agar took to despise her Mistress, was her barrenness, but the Lord took occasion from Agars' contempt and scorn, to visit Sarah, as afterwards he did Hannah with mercy in the midst of grief, and gave her strength to conceive seed, and she was delivered of a child, when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude: and as the sand, which is by the Sea shore innumerable. Heb. 11. vers. 11, 12. Nor was Abraham only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as good as dead, in respect of procreation, but Isaac in whom his seed was to be called, was by him destined to death, and in figure or token of the resurrection, received to life again, before he became the Father of the glorious offspring, which God had promised to Abraham. 7 In like manner the present jerusalem or Synagogue, did deride the new jerusalem when it first came down from heaven to abide with men on earth, and flouted the promised seed, (even whilst they persecuted him to death) more bitterly than Ishmael had done Isaac: He saved others, himself he cannot save. Thus they did, and thus they said, not remembering, that what had been said to Abraham, and done to Isaac, was to be fulfilled in Christ: therefore he was not only to be as good as dead, or destinated to death, as Isaac was; but to taste of death before his glorious seed came to be multiplied as the stars of heaven. Thus much besides the body or emblem exhibited in Isaac, was expressly foretold by the Evangelicall Prophet, Esa. 53.10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travel of his soul, and shall be satisfied. But that which serves best for setting out the parallel betwixt the Apostle and the Prophet, is this. After the Evangelical Prophet had written the history of Christ's passion in the 53. chapter, he presently sets down that invitation of the new jerusalem (pre-figured by Sarah and her barrenness) to take up old * Hannah prayed and said; My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord, my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies, because I rejoice in thy salvation. They that were full, have hired out themselves for bread, and they that were hungry, ceased: so that the barren hath born seven, and she that hath many children is waxen feeble. The Lord killeth, and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. 1 Sam. cap 2, ver. 1, 5, 6. hannah's Song; Rejoice o barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into singing and cry aloud thou that didst not travel with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent, & let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy coards, & strengthen thy stakes. For thou shalt break forth on the right hand, and on the left▪ & thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, & make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Isa. 54. v. 1, 2, 3. The Apostle immediately after his explication of the former Allegory, Gal. 4.27. takes up the first part of the Prophet's song by way of testimony or confirmation of his doctrine. But jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou Barren that bearest not, etc. Cap. 11 CHAP. XI. Of the consonancy between the promulgation of the old Testament, and the New. Of the opposition between the Law and the Gospel, or between the old Testament and the new. The explication of the Apostles argument, Heb. 9 ver. 13, 14. 1 But when did the Church or spouse of Christ (or children of the new Testament) first take up this joyful song, whereunto the Prophet did invite her? Immediately upon our Saviour's death and resurrection? No: these were the days of the Church's widowhood, wherein she sat (for a while) destitute and comfortless, and wherein her womb was shut up from bearing children. The Apostles themselves had as little strength as Abraham had, to beget, or Sarah had to bring forth children unto God, until they were endued with power from above. The new jerusalem did not descend like a glorious bride from Heaven, until the bridegroom her Lord, had ascended from earth to heaven in glory. But within ten days after, the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles and disciples in visible shape, in token that Christ's Church was now betrothed unto him: this was as the solemnisation of the Marriage. And whereas, for fifty days after our Saviour's resurrection, we do not read of one soul more than their own, begotten to God by the Apostles and Disciples: there were added upon the fiftieth day, three thousand souls unto the new jerusalem or visible Church; and every day after such as should be saved. And these being dispersed throughout every Nation under heaven, did propagate the seed, increasing and multiplying much faster than the Israelites did in Egypt. The songs of joy foretold by Esaias the Prophet, were taken up by these sons of the new jerusalem, whilst they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance. Acts, 2. ver. 4. God gave his Law upon Mount Agar or Sinai fifty days after the Israelites were delivered out of Egypt: and fifty days after the deliverance of his people from the bondage of sin and Satan, the same Lord proclaims his Gospel or new Covenant upon Mount Zion in jerusalem the Metropolis or royal seat of Abraham or David's seed. The visible jerusalem from David's time till Christ's, is as the middle term of proportion, between the Law and the Gospel; that is, the same proportion which the Law, as opposed unto the Gospel, or which Agar with her children, had unto Abraham's offspring by Sarah, in respect of civil freedom, or of emblematical or typical preeminences; the like proportion had Abraham's offspring by Sarah, (or the visible jerusalem in her greatest glory) unto the new jerusalem after the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Apostles, and such as were in their times converted unto Christ. And as the Law being given upon Mount Agar did emblematically import a kind of civil servitude unto such as did adhere unto it, whilst it stood in opposition to the Gospel: so the Gospel being promulged in the visible jerusalem, did betoken the spiritual freedom of all such as abandoning the Law, did embrace it. 2 Of the difference or agreements betwixt the Law and the Gospel, or (which is all one) betwixt the old Testament and the new, I shall have occasion to treat elsewhere. For this time it shall suffice in a word to advertise, that the old Testament and the new, are sometimes compared and considered by sacred Writers, tanquam includens & inclusum, as the Husk and the Grain. The Gospel before Christ's time, was in the Law as the corn new set in the ear. And the Law and the Gospel, or the two Testaments, thus considered, are rather one than two, at least there is an unity of subordination betwixt them. Unto such as used the old Testament as they ought, only as an Introduction to the new, there was indeed but one Testament. For, as the Schools speak, ubi unum propter aliud, ibi unum tantùm. The same Testaments may be sometimes considered as abstracted or severed each from other. Thus the Gospel or new Testament since our Saviour's death and resurrection, is become as pure corn, threshed and winnowed. The old Testament or the Law (thus severed from it) remains only as the chaff or husk. If we thus consider the Law or old Testament, as the jews embrace it, that is, altogether severed from the new, to which alone we Christians adhere by faith; they are not only two, but two opposites or contraries. The jews appetitus caninus, or womanish longing after the Law, and our constant adherence to the Gospel (thus opposed unto the Law, as pure corn unto the putrified chaff or husk) breeds a kind of Antipathy between us. For such as is our several food and nourishment, such our several dispositions are. We feed upon the pure corn, or rather upon the bread of life itself cleansed from all bran; the jew only upon the chaff or husk; and his religion is as loathsome to us, as swine's flesh is to him. See Philip. 3. vers. 7, 8, 9 3 This opposition or subordination between the legal or evangelical Testament will further appear from our second instance which was in the same Apostle, Heb. 9 ver. 13, 14. If the blood of Bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. The terms of proportion likewise in this inference are four. The first, not fully expressed but employed, and it is a sin or trespass merely committed against the Law of ceremonies. The second, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this, is a legal or proper sacrifice for such a sin, to wit, the blood of Bulls and of goats, and the sprinkling of the ashes of an Heifer. The third term typified by the Ceremonial sin, is man's natural corruption, sins original or actual, or sin of what kind soever committed against the moral Law of God. The fourth term is the sacrifice by God appointed, to purify and cleanse us from such sins, and that was the bloody sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Christ, whereof the legal sacrifices were types or shadows. So that the legal sacrifices had two uses or references, the one expiatory, (for their offering did expiate sins merely ceremonial:) the other sacramental or prefigurative, for they did picture out or represent the eternal sacrifice, whereby our redemption was fully wrought, as the Apostle proves at large in the 10. chapter to the Hebrews. His argument in this place is in effect thus; The same efficacy which sacrifices merely legal offered by the Priest had in cleansing men from sins merely ceremonial [as from touching of the dead, or some creeping thing etc.] the same, but much greater efficacy, hath the blood of Christ being offered by the eternal Spirit (that is, by the Godhead personally dwelling in him) to cleanse us from all sins against the moral Law of God, and to purify us from such dead works, as, not expiated by his blood, would bring forth everlasting death. Now the Apostle takes it as granted, that the legal sacrifices did not only sufficiently cleanse men from such sins, but withal did legally sanctify them: and so in like manner Christ's blood was not only the full price of our redemption, but is withal the fountain of our sanctification, by which we are qualified for admission into the heavenly Sanctuary. 4 The first original of the jews hypocrisy and malice, was their ignorance in the law of Moses, for they thought, these legal sacrifices were sufficient to cleanse them from all sins whatsoever. And if such sacrifices could have freed from sin, the jew had been most free from sin, of any people living. Most of those that presecured our Saviour Christ, might be, as S. Paul was, whilst he was a persecutor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without stain or blot in respect of the righteousness which is of the Law. Phil. 3.6. In presumption of this their integrity, with reference to the Law of Ceremonies, & of their being Abraham's sons, not by Agar but by Sarah; the better sort of the worse jews scorned to hear of being set free by the truth itself, which they in part believed: If ye continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? But our Saviour tells them, In as much, as they committed sin, they were the servants of sin, (& being servants, they were in the same case with Agar and her son) for the servant abideth not in the house for ever. If the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. john 8. vers. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. Thus you see, that the Apostle Gal. 4. v. 18. etc. did teach no other thing, than our Saviour here doth. These jews by relying upon the prerogatives of the Law, became as sons of the bondwoman, remaining still slaves to sin. Others by adhering to the new Testament, which the Son of God ratified by his blood, became sons of the freewoman, or as this Evangelist * joh 1.12. elsewhere speaks, the sons of God. How exactly the present visible Romish Church doth parallel Agar and the jerusalem which then was when our Saviour and S. Paul thus wrote and spoke, shall by God's assistance, be declared hereafter. Let us now see how ill that Church doth parallel Noah's Ark. Cap. 12 CHAP. XII. The Allegory or Argument of proportion drawn from Noah's Ark, explicated according to the former rules, and retorted upon the Romanist. 1 FRom these and the like Arguments drawn from the types to their antitypes, we are for conclusion to frame the Argument drawn from Noah's Ark after another fashion, and to a better end than the Romanist doth. The terms of proportion in this argument are conspicuous: First, Noah, secondly, his Ark; thirdly, the means of safety from the flood by his Ark. Terms to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are first Christ, 2. his Church, and 3. the salvation of such as enter into his Church. First, to parallel Noah and Christ in some few points. The Lord said unto Noah, Gen. 7. ver. 1. Thee have I found righteous before me in this generation, that is, (as the Apostle saith of Abraham) he had whereof to boast with men, but not with God. He was righteous not only coram hominibus, but prae hominibus coram Deo, more righteous than any other man living, even in the sight & judgement of God, yet not perfectly righteous in the sight of God. This was Christ's peculiar, in whom that which was in some measure or comparatively verified in Noah, was exactly fulfilled: for he only amongst all the Generations of men, was altogether pure and righteous before God. Again Noah was a Preacher of righteousness, and extraordinarily qualified for this function by the spirit of Christ. So much that place of S. Peter proveth in his 1. Epistle, 3. chapter, verse 18, 19, 20. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. By which also he went, and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffring of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing. Yet Noah had but his portion, though a large one of the Spirit: sed Christo Deus non admetitur spiritum, God giveth not the Spirit by measure to Christ, joh. 3. verse 34. He spoke but the word, and great was the number of Preachers, and from his inexhaustible fullness, we all received grace for grace. 2 Again, Noah built an Ark by God's appointment, for the safety of all such as were obedient to his preaching, into which, whosoever would not enter, was destroyed by the Flood, for disobedience to his preaching. All this was fulfilled of the Church, which Christ builded: for whosoever doth not enter into it, shall be devoured by the everlasting flames, for disobedience to this authentic Preacher of righteousness. The issue then between us and the Romanists is, unto what Church Noah's Ark answers as a figure? to the visible Romish Church, or only to the Church before defined, which is one, Holy, and Catholic Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say of this later only, not of any visible Church, save only so far as it is an introduction to this Church. Our reason is this: Although it be true that none of the sons of men, besides such as entered into Noah's Ark, were saved from the deluge; yet is not this negative more unquestionably true, than the affirmative; That whosoever entered into the Ark, were saved from the deluge. This is so expressly and determinately set down in the Scripture, that no Atheist can question the meaning or extent of the propositions, wherein it is set down. In the self same day, (saith the Scripture, Gen. 7. verse 11.) entered Noah and Sem, and Ham, and japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the Ark. And in the 8. chap. and the 18. verse. Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his son's wives with him. So that eight souls came into the Ark, and eight went forth. 3 So then for conclusion, Noah's Ark was a type of that Church, into which whosoever enters, shall be saved; but such a Church is not the visible Romish Church in what sense soever it be taken. First, it is not true of the universal Church consisting of the laiety and Clergy, nor of the Church representative; to wit, their general or provincial Counsels. For none will affirm, that all and every one of their Bishops, or such as give suffrage in their Counsels, shall have the suffrage of Christ, or their names written in the book of life. They will not astipulate, that whosoever is graced with a red hat in Rome, shall be sure to wear a Saints or Martyrs crown in heaven. Even the Pope himself, whom they make their virtual Church, may be a notorious vicious man, and dye the death of the wicked: and therefore neither living was the head, nor at his death any member of that Church, which was prefigured by Noah's Ark; because he can neither save himself, nor such as have committed their souls to be wafted over to the new jerusalem, by this presumed Pilot of Peter's pretended ship. So that either Peter's ship was not such a type of Christ's Church, as Noah's Ark was, or else the Pope is no Pilot of it. 4 Do we speak this as men? doth not the Scripture say the same? do we make these collections as sectaries, or hath not S. Peter made them unto our hands? For, speaking of the Ark, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water; he saith, The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 3. cap. verse 20, 21. His meaning is, that as Noah's Ark was the type of that Church extra quam nulla salus, intra quam salus certissima, out of which there is no salvation, in which salvation abounds: so the waters by which the Ark was consecrated or hallowed to be the receptacle of safety to mankind, was a type or figure of that sacred Laver by which the Church is consecrated or hallowed to be as the womb or breast of salvation to the faithful. Baptism itself answereth in proportion to the door or window of Noah's Ark. But of what baptism was the water, by which such as entered into the Ark were saved, a type? A type of external Baptism? No, external Baptism, and the waters of Noah, were types of the same rank, both were types or shadows of that internal Baptism, which is wrought by the Holy Ghost, by which we are incorporated into the body of Christ, and become more undoubtedly safe from the everlasting fire, than such as entered into Noah's Ark, were from the deluge of water. 5 The Apostles argument, Heb. 9 holds as truly of Christ's Church, as of his Sacrifice. If the Ark which Noah built, did save all such from the deluge, as entered into it; how much more shall that holy and Catholic Church, which Christ hath built, and sanctified by his most precious blood, give life eternal to all such as in this world become live-members of it? Such members they are made, not by external Baptism, or by becoming members of the visible Church, but by internal grace or sanctification. But never did the jew dote half so much on external circumcision and legal sacrifices, or the aaronical Priesthood, as the modern Romanist doth on the Sacraments of the Gospel, and on his imaginary Priesthood after the order of Melchisedeck, or other like notes or sensible cognisances of the visible Church. Now it were more than wonder, if the excess of this his blind zeal unto these externals, did not draw him to much greater, more direct diametral opposition unto Christ, unto an higher pitch of inveterate malice against the members of his Holy Catholic Church, or Kingdom spiritual, than the high Priest or Elders exercised against his person, whilst he was present in the flesh. Thus much for this time of the allegory or argument of proportion drawn from Noah's Ark. As for the general Maxim, extra Ecclesiam non est salus, [There is no salvation out of the Church,] although it be absolutely and punctually true, Cap. 13 only of that one, Holy, Catholic Church, which was exactly typified by Noah's Ark; yet the same Maxim is literally appliable unto, and in certain cases, undoubtedly true of some visible Church or other. All true visible Churches have some right or interest in it. CHAP. XIII. How far, and in what cases, that Maxim used by the Fathers, Extra Ecclesiam non est salus, Out of the Church, there is no salvation, is true of the visible Church, or Churches visible. 1 THe persons that are extra Ecclesiam, are of two sorts. First, such as never were members of any visible Church, as all Infidels, modern jews, and Mahumetans, etc. Secondly, such as have been members of some visible Church, but have been either cut off from it by Ecclesiastical censure, or have separated themselves from the visible Church or Churches wherein they lived. In respect of the first sort, that is, of all such as never were members of any visible Church, the Maxim extra Ecclesiam non est salus, there is no salvation out of the Church; is not universally true: yea, taken universally, it is universally false in respect of time; that is, it could never be verified of all and every one that was extra Ecclesiam visibilem, out of the visible Church in any age. There was a time, wherein Gods visible Church was confined to one people or nation, to the offspring of Abraham. Now it were an heresy to say, that no sons of men, besides the sons of Abraham, or such as did associate themselves unto the visible Church then resident only in Abraham's family, were saved: during the time of the Law, or before the Law was given, righteous job was no son of jacob, yet the son of God. And it were uncharitableness, though no heresy to say, that jethro, Rechah, or jonadab, were all sons of perdition, or were sons (as our Saviour said of the jews) of their father the Devil; because they were not the sons of Abraham, or had not the visible Church of Israel for their mother. In respect of this present time, to say, We know no means, by which any Inhabitant of China, or of Terra incognita can be saved, is a great deal more safe, then to think God hath no means unknown unto us, by which he may and doth save some, even in those countries wherein there is no visible Church or Christian Congregation; or whose Inhabitants have no commerce with any Christians. We see by experience, that God teacheth such as are borne deaf and dumb, many things by the eye or other external suggestion, which such as have the use & benefit of ears & tongue, could not learn either by sight or other external sense. Now albeit the Apostles rule, faith cometh by bearing, be most undoubtedly true; and true likewise, that without faith, it is impossible to please God: yet were it an hard censure, hence to conclude, that none such as are born deaf and dumb can be saved. The Apostles saying then, that faith cometh by hearing, must be limited by its proper subject; that is, men to whom God hath given the gift of hearing. So must the Maxim now in question, extra Ecclesiam non est salus, out of the Church there is no salvation, be limited or restrained to its proper subject. Howbeit, the exact limitation of it might best be made or taken by such as have occasion to dispute with the jews or Heathens. It is only or especially true, in respect of such jews, Turks, or heathens, and their several progenies, as have commerce with Christians. The former Maxim, with reference to such men, is universally true; if we take the visible Church universally or indefinitely, unless such men associate themselves to some visible Church or other, they cannot be saved. And in some cases it may be undoubtedly true, in respect of some particular visible Church; but so, true only, ex accidenti, or hypothesi, by accident or upon supposition. As if a jew or Mahometan by profession and birth, should live in this kingdom, having no possible means of associating himself to any other congregation of Christians, than such as conform themselves to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England: it were both safe and orthodox to lay the former Law or Gospel as hard unto him, as the Papists do unto us; to tell him in plain and peremptory terms, that there were no means for him to escape the horrors of hell, and miseries of the world to come; unless he would become a member of Christ's Church, planted here amongst us. Or in case he and other more, such as he is, were to leave us, and to reside in some other State or Kingdom; we were bound in conscience to apply the like medicine unto him or them, and to tell them, there were no hope for them to escape the wrath of God, but by becoming the sons of God: no hope to become the sons of God, but by becoming the children of some visible Church endued with power and authority to baptise them into Christ's death, and resurrection. Of heathens then or infidels, or of whosoever not as yet professing Christianity, yet having commerce with Christians, and living within the call of the visible Church, that of Cyprian is universally true; He that hath not the Church for his Mother, cannot have God for his Father. Albeit by the Church in this saying, we mean a visible Church. 2 Of such as have been actual members of some visible Church, but have either separated themselves from it, or have been cast out of it by ecclesiastic censure or coactive power: neither of the former Maxims, [extra Ecclesiam non est salus: Et qui non habet Ecclesiam Matrem, non habet Deum Patrem,] out of the Church there is no salvation: And he that hath not the Church for his Mother, hath not God for his Father;] is universally true, if we speak of the Church visible, whether particular, indefinite, or universal. Both must be limited by the reasons or occasions, which did move the parties to forsake the Church wherein they were baptised, or by the causes for which they were excluded, or cast out of it. It is here supposed, that if the causes, why they are excluded from one visible Church, be just and good, and the exclusion itself legal and formal; the parties thus justly excluded from one, cannot lawfully be admitted into another visible Church. 3 Swarez in his treatise (to my remembrance) de causa formali, and in that question, An dentur plures formae in uno composito, whether there be more forms than one in one body, mentions a Synod, which anathematizeth all such as dogmatically do hold, tres animas in uno vivente, three souls in one living body. And had the spiritual sword been put into Lactantius his hands, it is very likely, he would have put all such Philosophers, Geographers, or Astronomers, as had held the Antipodes, to have sought out a visible Church in that region. At the least, if his arm had been so long, as the jesuits make the Popes, he would have cut them off from all Communion with any visible Church or congregation of Christians, within the Hemisphere wherein he lived. And no question, but every visible Church hath such power and authority, that it may (so it will tyrannically abuse the power, which God hath given it) cut off every inferior member de facto. But being cut off, though from the universal Church visible, upon no greater occasions or juster causes, than these late mentioned; they do not thereby cease to be members of the Church, which is to us invisible; that is, of the Church which is Holy, and Catholic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no, not to be visible members of the Holy, Catholic Church taken in a secondary sense, that is, of the Catholic Church which is visible to us. Of which, and of the ground of this distinction between an actual member of the present visible Church, and a visible member of the Holy, Catholic Church, we shall speak hereafter. But to hold, tres animas in uno vivente, three souls in one living body, is not so great an error in Divinity, or so meritorious of excommunication; as either to affirm, that there be two persons, or to deny, that there be two natures in our Saviour Christ. He that should dogmatically hold the affirmative or negative specified, deserveth to be utterly cut off from every visible Church. And one and the same stroke of the spiritual sword which cuts him off from being a member of the visible Church, doth incontinently cut him off from being a member of the Holy, Catholic Church in what sense soever taken: or to speak more properly, he doth deprive himself ipso facto, of all communion with Christ, or his body the Church, by denying the unity of his person, or by confounding his natures. And having thus apparently excommunicated himself from that holy Church, which is only known unto God, to us invisible: the visible Church stands bound in duty of conscience, and allegiance to Christ, to deprive him of all communion with her or any member of hers, either in the hearing of the word of Christ, or in the administration of the Sacraments: bound she is, to withdraw from him all benefits or comfort of Christ's death and passion, which are committed to her dispensation, until he repent and be reconciled again unto Christ. 4 From this truth, some excellent writers against the usurped power of the Romish Church in the use or exercise of Peter's keys; some I say, aswell before Luther's time as since, have gathered this general doctrine; That the visible Church hath only power to declare, who are separated or excommunicated ipso facto from the holy Catholic Church; she hath no power so to separate or excommunicate any excommunicatione majori, by the greater excommunication, unless they have first excommunicated themselves, or voided their hopes or interests in the holy Catholic Church, by heretical positions, or opinions, or by lewd and scandalous misdemeanours. Of this opinion was that famous Weselius, which was entitled lux mundi before Luther arose, or the light of the Gospel which we now enjoy, did break forth. But though the doctrine be true, yet he and such as follow him▪ extend the truth of it a little too far, and beyond its proper subject. There is a mean between this opinion, and the contrary extreme of the Romanist, which cannot be found out, without some division of such errors, or other causes, as either justly deserve, or at least may be pretended to deserve excommunication, or utter separation from the visible Church. Some errors in Divinity as we say, are heresies ex specie; of so deadly a nature, that they induce a separation from the Holy, Catholic Faith, even in their very first degree. Of this rank are all such errors in Religion, as are directly opposite or contrary to those fundamental points, whose positive belief is necessary to salvation; which he that believes not, is infidelis secundùm infidelitatem purae negationis, that is, such an Infidel as they are, which cannot say the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, or ten Commandments by heart, or know not the general contents of them: and which peremptorily to deny, or contradict, doth argue infidelitatem pravae dispositionis, an infidelity of contradiction. We say in Logic, Every contrariety if it be direct and full, doth necessarily include a contradiction, as he that saith nix est alba, Snow is white; doth as fully contradict him that saith, nix est nigra, Snow is black, as he that should say, nix non est nigra, Snow is not black. For album esse, to be white, is somewhat more than non esse nigrum, not to be black. The rule is appliable in Divinity, and of good use in this present argument. If not to believe there is one God, if not to believe that this one God is the Author of goodness, and the rewarder of such as seek him, be infidelitas purae negationis, a privative infidelity, and argue an absolute privation of life spiritual: then to believe there be more Gods then one, or that God is not the Author of goodness, but it is all one whether we serve him or serve him not; is an error ex specie, in its kind heretical and deadly. If it be infidelitas purae negationis, an infidelity privative, not to believe the incarnation of Christ (as certainly it is; for all such as do not believe it, are Infidels:) then to be but positively persuaded, that Christ is not truly man, is an error ex specie, heretical, a deadly heresy, infidelitas pravae dispositionis, an infidelity of contradiction or contrariety. Again, if not to believe, the Son of God is truly God, or if not to believe, that this true Son of God was incarnate for us, necessarily argue a privation of life spiritual, and be, (as we say) infidelitas purae negationis, a privative infidelity, then if any man which acknowledgeth Christ, be of opinion, that he is not as truly God as he is man, this man by entertaining such an opinion, doth undoubtedly separate and disunite himself from the holy bond of Catholic faith, and by consequence stands excommunicated ipso facto, from the Holy, Catholic Church, and deprived of the communion of Saints; whether the visible Church doth her duty or no, in depriving him of all communion with herself, or with her members: yea, though the Pastors or Governors of the visible Church could by bribery, or other sinister respects be misswayed, if not to abett or maintain him in it, yet to use connivance towards him. Now of all such errors as are ex specie heretical, and necessarily induce a separation or disunion from the holy, Catholic Faith or Church; the former assertion of Weselius is true, to wit, That the visible Church doth not by her authority cut them off from being members of the holy, catholic Church, but only declare them to be no members of that Church. And of all persons excommunicated by the visible Church, or that separate themselves from the visible Church for fear of being censured upon these causes or occasions; the former Maxims are universally true. There is no hope of salvation for them until they return again into the bosom of the visible Church by unfeigned sorrow, and by true submission and repentance. Yet suppose they never return again to the visible Church; they are not therefore deprived of salvation because they are extra Ecclesiam visibilem, out of the visible Church; but because they were cast or went out of it, upon such causes or occasions, as did first make them to be extra Ecclesiam sanctam & catholicam, out of the Holy, and Catholic Church. Or, in case by repentance they return again into the visible Church, whence they were cast out, and obtain salvation: yet are they not therefore saved, because they are in the visible Church, save only as it is the mean, or an instrument of reuniting them unto the Holy, Catholic Church, or of engraffing them into Christ. Other opinions or errors in religion there be, that be ex specie very dangerous, yet not deadly, unless they be in a high degree; or perhaps in the highest degree not deadly in themselves, unless they be mingled with some spice of some other pertinacy or disobedient humour, more than ariseth merely from the strength or habit of the error, or from the nature of the object, about which the error is. To be persuaded that the blessed Virgin did not continue so pure a virgin (all her life time) after our Saviour's birth, as she was before, is certainly an error ex specie, very dangerous; yet nothing so deadly as the error of Eutyches, which held that our Saviour Christ did not, after his resurrection and glorification, continue as truly man, as he was before. So long as a man holds errors of this second rank only to himself, being not sufficiently enlightened by the messengers of truth, to discern their danger, nor admonished by pastoral authority to abandon them: as it cannot be denied that he is soul-sick; so it is not safe to affirm that he is sick of them unto death, no not after the second or third monition, unless his monitions be seasoned or tempered with a large measure of fatherly and loving instructions, grounded upon perspicuity of truth. Frequent contempt or neglect of such admonitions, though it be in matters not altogether deadly, may induce a separation from the holy, Catholic faith, unto which nothing is more opposite than disobedience in cases wherein obedience by the Law of God is due. 5 Every one that is not rooted in faith, and not truly ingraffed in Christ, although for speculative opinions, he be an Orthodox, yet is he in respect of salvation but as an Embryon, or as the seed or homogeneal Element, from which vegetables or living bodies spring. Now among such seeds or models of vegetables or sensitive bodies, as are not yet organised, or being organised, are not truly informed, or quickened; some may be so inwardly or deeply tainted, that no benignity of native soil, no comfort of Sun, no refreshing of wholesome winds, or dew of Heaven, can quicken or give them specifical perfection: O●her seeds there are of the same kind, which though tainted, yet they are not so deeply tainted, but that they might be organised or quickened by such comforts or cherishments, as could not revive the former: albeit, even the latter also are certain shortly to perish, if they be transplanted from a good soil to a bad, or be exposed to noisome winds or other uncomfortable occurrences or contagious adherents. Now every error (as was intimated before) in matters of Religion, is a tainting, or an infection or sickness of the soul, and of errors some are so deadly, that neither the bosom of the Church, nor all the benefits of Christ's death committed to her custodies, (though imparted in as ample manner, as she can distribute,) can revive or quicken the parties tainted with them. Other errors again there be not so dangerous in their kind, or not so full grown, but that the parties tainted with them, may retain or recover life; so they may continue in the visible Church, and enjoy the communion of Saints, and participate with them in the word of life, in devout prayers, and in the ordinary use of Sacraments. Howbeit, even these errors also become deadly, if the parties in whom they settle, be with Hagar and Ishmael cast out of Abraham's family into the wilderness, or be constrained to dwell in Mesech, or to have their habitation amongst the Tents of Kedar. Now in respect of such as are cast out of the visible Church, because they will not abandon or cast out such naughty, though not deadly opinions, out of their souls; the former rule of Weselius concerning excommunication fails, if it be extended as far as some have done it. For some have taught or by their speeches given others just occasion to conceive their meaning to be, That the visible Church hath only a declarative sentence in all excommunications: whereas this rule is to be restrained unto excommunications only of the former rank, that is, such as are directed against manifest heresies, ex specie heretical and deadly. To kill a man already dead in heresy, the Church cannot, but only declare him to be dead. The visible Church notwithstanding hath power simply and absolutely to excommunicate some of her members, albeit it doth not fully appear unto her, whether the opinions wherewith their souls are tainted, do either necessarily induce or argue a schism or separation from the holy Catholic faith. Yea though this point be doubtful, or though it be more probable, that the opinions as held by them, do not induce a separation from the holy Catholic Church or Faith: yet may the visible Church use her authority of binding them, before they have bound themselves, and deprive them of all communion with the sound and orthodox members of the Church; lest happily they might by their vicinity infect others. It would argue more folly than pity, or at least more pity than discretion or wholesome discipline, if the Church should be indulgent to such as are over indulgent to their naughty opinions or lewd affections; especially if they hurt others either by misperswasion, or ill example. 6 Now of all and every party that is cast out of the Church upon these occasions, the former Maxim, extra Ecclesiam non est salus, out of the Church is no salvation, is most true. The most wholesome and most effectual medicine that can be applied unto souls sick of this sickness, is to be instant in denouncing unto them, that albeit they be not as yet spiritually dead, yet there is small hope of life, unless they seek readmission with sighs and tears into the bosom of the visible Church. And though it be true, that such as do not in time seek their readmission by repentance, do therefore perish, because they are separated from the visible Church; yet do they not perish, quatenus separantur à visibili Ecclesia, sed quatenus separantur ab Ecclesia sancta Catholica, that is, their separation from the visible Church, is a praeviall disposition to the spiritual death, or such a cause of it, as the Pilots absence is to the passengers, whose company he hath for their misdemeanours abandoned: yet doth not their spiritual death properly consist in this separation, nor immediately and instantly result from it, but it consists in, or immediately results from their separation from the Holy Catholic Faith and Church: unto both which the visible Church wherein they lived, so they had still remained in the bosom of it, might have united or wedded their souls, or yet may reunite them, so they will with submissive or hearty repentance return unto it. CHAP. XIV. Cap. 14 Declaring by one special instance, the particular manner and opportunities, by which the Church visible or representative, did first encroach upon the royal Attributes of the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. For what causes Christians may separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be separated from any visible Church, whereof they were sometimes members. 1 FRom this distinction of errors in Religion, which either deserve, or may be pretended to deserve the sentence of excommunication, we may discover the manner how the great monster with seven heads and ten horns, the grand mystery of iniquity, was brought forth out of the womb of the visible, and as the Romanists call it, the Catholic Church. The manner was thus: seeing the ancient and orthodox Fathers had in the name and power of the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (as they were in duty bound) excommunicated the Encratists, Eutychians, Arians, Nestorians, etc. which had manifestly excommunicated or divorced themselves from the holy Catholic Faith by adherence to their wicked opinions; the Successors of these holy Bishops in place of authority, but not in holiness and understanding in matters spiritual, took upon them to pronounce the like censure upon every opinion which they disliked, and expected the whole visible Church should hold the persons of men whom they excommunicated, though (God wot) upon most dislike occasions, in as great execration, as those whom the ancient Fathers excommunicated. 2 A notable instance to justify this assertion, we have in the seventh Synod or second Nicene Council. The point in debate was, whether such Prelates and other Ministers as had favoured the Eiconaclastae, and withstood the worshipping of Images, were to be received again into the Church, and to be restored to their dignity, upon their submission. The books being produced, by which it did appear that Athanasius, Cyrill, and other ancient Pillars of the orthodoxal Church, had received notorious heretics into their favour and communion again; a Bishop of the Province of Sicilia learnedly puts in this exception or caveat. * Qui hactenus lecti beatorum patrum Canon's, de Novatianis, Encratistis, et Arianis dati sunt: huius autem haeresis magistros quo loco habebimus? The Canons of the blessed Fathers which hitherto have been produced, were enacted against the Novatians, the Encratists and Arians: But as for the Masters of this present heresy, in what rank shall we place them? Upon which a Deacon of the same Church and Province, propounds this question: * Minor●●●st quae nunc novata est haeresis, an maior illis qua hactenus fuere? Tharasius sanctissimus Patriarchas dixit; Malum perpetuo idem est et aequale. Whether is this new sprung heresy greater or less than those heresies which have been before it. To all which, the great Herod of Constantinople, Tharasius, being reconciled quoad haec to the Roman Pilate, Pope Adrian, makes this learned answer; Evil is always the same, always equal. This is true saith * Epiphanius venerabilis Diaconus sanctissima ●atanes Ec●lesiae, et Vicarius beatissimi Thoma Archiepiscopi Sardinia, inquit; Maxim autem in rebus Ecclesiasticis, in quarum decretis cum paruis tum magnis errare idem est, si quidem in utriusque lex divina vio●atur. Epiphanius, (the venerable Deacon of the most holy Church of Catanes, Vicar or Deputy for the most blessed Thomas, Archbishop of Sardinia:) but especially true in causes ecclesiastical or matters concerning the Church, from whose decrees to swerve in matters great or small, is all one, seeing the divine Law is violated in both cases. And after him, one john a venerable Monk, (Vicegerent for the oriental thrones) as if his part had been to act the Parasite in the Comedy, and to turn magnas into ingentes, gave this verdict: * joannes venerabilis Monachus locum tenens thronorumorientalium dixit: Haeresis ista omnibus haeresibus ●eior est, malorum omnium pessima utpote quae Oeconomiam seruatoris nostri subvertat. Synod. 7. Act. 1. This heresy is worse than all other heresies, and of all evils the very worst, etc. But was this great Patriarch Tharasius, so stoically senseless, as not to be offended with this illiterate rough-shod Ass, that thus would claw him like a Spaniel? For if this heresy were worse than all other heresies, or the worst of evils: the most excellently illiterate Patriarch, and the venerable Deacon, were grossly overseen in their sentence, That all errors or heresies in matters ecclesiastic, were equal. Or will any Christian be so senselessly partial, as to think that this illiterate factious Council, could be Prophets or Doctors infallible in their conclusions, when they bewray themselves to be gross heretics, or more than heathenish Stoics in the premises, that Malum semper est idem & aequale, that evil is always the same, always equal. Thus by the self same stroke of Authority, by which this Council did the facto thrust all other out of the visible Church, that would not worship Images, they have declared themselves to be excommunicated de iure, from the holy Catholic Church. 3 In this assertion, the ancient Fathers unanimously accord, that defection or swerving from the Catholic Faith, doth exclude men from the Catholic Church, and by consequence from salvation, but about the extent or precise limits of holy Catholic faith, or about the exact list of Articles to be believed, their concord is not so general. What particular opinions did induce or argue a defection from Catholic faith, or divorce from the Catholic Church, was never consented upon by the ancient Fathers, nor could their joint authority in this case be so great, as in the former. The latter ages of such, as in respect of us are ancient, are in this point various and superstitious. But of the use & effects or just causes of excommunication, we shall have occasion to speak more particularly hereafter. The rules most pertinent to our present business, & which serve as an entry to the main controversy betwixt us & the Romanists, are two. 4 The former immediately concerns Prelates or Church Governors. They are always to remember, that this power is given them, not for destruction, or to show their own greatness, but for the edification of others; and therefore never to be used but upon special and weighty occasions. He that strikes fiercely, with his spiritual sword, at feathers, doth always either wound himself, or wrest his arm: neither is it safe to measure the justice of Prelates proceedings, by the event; or to collect, that God doth approve their sentence, because the party sentenced by them, may often come to a woeful or fearful end. They may dye in their sins, and God's justice may be manifest in the manner of their death, and yet for all this their blood may be required at their hands, which did thus rule them with a rod of iron, or feed them, as the Apostle says, with the sword, when they should have nourished them with the milk of the Gospel, or at least have used salutari severitate, wholesome severity towards them. The second caveat concerns private men; and it is, that they be more unwilling to separate themselves from the visible Church, then to be cut off from the commonwealth wherein they live. The occasions of voluntary separation ought to be more weighty and heinous, in respect of the parties from whom they voluntarily separate themselves; then are the causes of excommunication, for which inferiors are violently, yet justly separated from the Church by their Governors. Cato, as one saith, could not have committed so heinous a murder by killing another man, as by killing himself: for I think it had scarce been possible for him to have killed any Roman that had less deserved death than himself did: yet not in this respect only, but simply and absolutely, it was a greater sin in him, and is more unlawful for any man to kill himself, then to kill another. The rule is as true in this point of spiritual murder; that is, of unlawful separation (active or passive) from the visible Church. Though it be a grievous sin in Governors to deprive their inferiors of all communion with the visible Church upon light and unnecessary occasions; yet it is a greater sin in inferiors to deprive themselves of the same communion upon the same or like occasions, especially if they be not certain elsewhere to enjoy the like or equivalent communion without disturbance. Such as intend a separation, must always respect, as well terminum ad quem, as terminum à quo, whom they go to, as from whom they depart. It is a motto better befitting Christians in violent persecutions, by heathens, then in voluntary separation from Christian Churches: Quos fugiam habeo, quo fugiam non habeo: I know from whom I fly, but whither to fly, I know not. To forsake the Church wherein we have been baptised, for the foul abuses that we know by experience to be committed in it; before we be certain in what other Church we may be admitted, in which there is not in some kind or other, the like or worse abuses, or more unsufferable grievances: were as desperate a madness, as for a passenger to leap into the Sea, because he knew the ship wherein he sailed, and the company with whom he must necessarily converse, were deeply infected with a deadly pestilence. And thus to do, were a desperate prank, unless the party adventuring, had very great skill in swimming, and were withal within ken of some comfortable shore or harbour. All this may seem to make for our Adversaries, or at least against our forefathers, which were sometimes members of the visible Romish Church, but did either voluntarily separate themselves from it, or suffer themselves to be thrust out of it; when as they might have retained communion with it, so they would have embraced their doctrine. Besides the danger of separation from it, both they and we have felt the severest strokes of the spiritual sword of excommunication, which the Governors of the Romish Church could reach us. 5 The branches of the main controversy betwixt that Church and ours, are two. The first, [whether the reasons which moved our forefathers to depart from that Church, or not to embrace her doctrines, were just and necessary.] The second, [Whether our forefathers, being howsoever separated from it, had commission, full power and just authority from God to unite themselves into a true visible Church; whether they did rightly pursue such warrant or commission as they had, and whether they and we have been and are a true visible Church.] The just and necessary reasons, for which men (whether few or many) may and aught to separate themselves from any visible Church, are in general two. The first, because they are urged or constrained to profess or believe some points of doctrine, or to adventure upon some practices, which are contrary to the rule of faith, or Law of God; and are either ex specie, or ex gradu & cumulo, either for their specifical quality, or for their burden or number, so heretical and deadly, that they necessarily induce a separation from the holy and Catholic faith, without which the Church can neither be holy nor Catholic. The second, in case they are utterly deprived of freedom of conscience in professing what they inwardly believe, or be bereft of some other means either altogether necessary or most expedient to salvation, both which may be had in some other visible Church. In this later case, that rule of our Apostle given unto servants, is true; Let every man abide in the same calling, Cap. 15 wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord being a servant, is the Lords freeman. Likewise also he that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. 1 Cor. 7.20, 21, 22, 23. Although we were persuaded that we could communicate with such a Church without evident danger of damnation: yet in as much as we cannot so communicate with it, upon any better terms then legal servants, or bondslaves do with their Masters; we are bound in conscience and religious discretion, when lawful occasions and opportunities are offered, to use our liberty, and to seek our freedom, rather than to live in bondage. CHAP. XV. That our Forefathers separation from the Romish Church was most lawful and just, both in respect of Prince and State, and in respect of every private person which feared God, or sought to retain the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. 1 WHen we debate the lawfulness of our Forefathers separation from the Romish Church; we mean the than Romish Church as visible. Now unto the constitution of an entire and complete visible Church, there is required, First, an unity of faith and doctrine: Secondly, an unity of discipline or coactive Laws, but especially an unity of subordination to one independent judicature. Unity in points of faith and doctrine, is more essential to the Church as it is holy and Catholic, that is, as it is Orthodoxal. Unity of Laws or discipline, or of independent judicature is more essential, and more necessary to the Church, as visible. Hence as we said before, there be as many distinct visible Churches, as there be independent judicatures, or supreme Tribunals Ecclesiastic. Unto a Catholic Church or unto a Church visibly Catholic, such as the Romanists believe their Church to be, both kinds of unity are necessary. Whether this unity of discipline, full power of jurisdiction, or independent judicature, be seated in one person or more, that is, whether the form of ecclesiastical government be Aristocratical or Monarchical, is in our Divinity all one. The unity or conformity may be as complete and perfect the one way, as the other. But the Romanists, the English Priests, and jesuits, do not only hold this unity of independent judicature to be necessary to the constitution of the visible, Catholic Church; but that it must of necessity be radically in one person, to wit, in the Pope, on whom as upon the head and fountain, the unity of the Holy, Catholic visible Church, doth depend: and for this reason they put his Holiness in the definition of the Holy Catholic Church, as you heard before out of Cardinal Bellarmine, and the Author of the Antidote. So that the Pope's supremacy hath the same place in the whole visible Church, as every summum genus in his proper predicament. As nothing can be truly said to be in the predicament, unless it participate the nature or definition of the summum genus: so none by this doctrine, can be a true member of the holy Church, unless he be subordinate to the Pope: Or, as no man can come to the Father, but by the Son; so none can come unto the son, but by this Holy Father, the Pope. Every one must be visibly united unto him and to his Laws, before he can be mystically or spiritually united unto Christ. Howbeit by putting the Pope in the definition of the Holy, Catholic Church, with intention thereby to exclude us from it, who deny his authority; they entangle and fetter themselves in another point of great consequence betwixt us & them: of which advantage we shall make some better use hereafter. The sum of our present dispute is this. As professing of unity with the Romish Church in all points of faith which that Church teacheth, doth necessarily induce a disunion or separation from the holy Catholic Faith and Church: so the acknowledgement of such subordination as is required unto the head of it, in matters of discipline or jurisdiction, induceth flat rebellion or high treason, against all free States or Kingdom's Christian. 2 The reasons which moved our forefathers to forsake the visible Romish church, or to suffer themselves to be forsaken by it, and withhold us from returning to i●, were and are in two respects most necessary and just. Just they were, and are necessary; First on the behalf of every private man that had or hath a care of conscience and Religion. Secondly, on behalf of Prince and State, in respect of Christian and religious policy. And first of the reasons in behalf of King and State: Their positions which induce rebellion against free States & Kingdoms, and which, were they jointly admitted, would leave supereminent or royal Majesty only a naked title, without any realty of sovereignty or jurisdiction, are two. First, That the spiritual power is above all secular or civil power. And this assertion, were it rightly limited, is in itself orthodoxal. But the more orthodoxal it is in itself, the more deadly it makes the second position, unto which they seek to wed it. The second position is, That this supreme and spiritual power is totally seated in the Clergy, as in a body distinct from the body politic: Yea the most of them hold the plenitude of this power, to be in the Pope, from whom all spiritual power of jurisdiction is derived to the rest of the Clergy, after the same manner, as jurisdiction in causes temporal is derived to inferior Magistrates from the Monarch or supreme Majesty in every Kingdom. The Regiment of the Church, as they say, is Regimen monarchicum, a visible Monarchy, of which the Pope is the visible Monarch. As the spiritual power, which the Church of Rome or Pope usurpeth is intensively most absolute & independent: so is the object of it for extension most transcendent and illimited. Pope Innocent the third by virtue of this supposed plenary power did challenge to be supreme judge in censuring or punishing mortal sins: Intendimus decernere de peccato, cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura, & (or ut) nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignorat quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque peccato mortali corripere quemlibet Christianun. cap. novit. de judicijs. We intent (faith he) to determine concerning Sin, the censure whereof so unquestionably appertains to us, that no man well in his wits can be ignorant, that it is a part of our power or office to chastise or correct every Christian man for any mortal sin of what kind soever. But if in this Cathedral constitution he did not err; the Christian world might have as infallible a perpetual rule for guiding Miller's hands and Tailors shears, and for preventing or punishing all cozenage in Trades or Crafts, as it hath for ending controversies in matters of faith or divinity. 3 It is an idle and frivolous distinction which some Canonists have framed to solve the truth of this Pope's sentence. Aliud est de re, actione aut contractu iudicare, & aliud iudicare de peccato: It is one thing to determine of the action or contract, another to determine or judge of the sin committed. For as Father * See this point excellently handled by father Paul, whose Apology for the state of Venice, (as I now perceive) is translated into the English tongue. Paul excellently observes, quod inseparabile est distinguunt: they put a diversity without a difference. For if the pope may judge of every matter or contract as it is a sin, I hope he would prohibit it, if it were a sin, and compel men to observe his Edicts or prohibitions. And doing thus, what remains to be done by any temporal power, whether supreme or subordinate, but only to look on, or to be as Sheriffs to see his Decrees put in execution, or to be his hangman or executioner. No Magistrate doth punish but upon supposal of some fault or sin committed. Lex non est just is posita, saith the Apostle, sed iniustis. The Law punitive is not given against the just, but against the unjust. And if the Pope might be supreme judge of every mortal sin, every malefactor might have the benefit of appeal unto him in all matters criminal. He might punish Princes for making unjust Laws, or for not executing such Laws, as they themselves have made or have found made unto their hands by their Predecessors, or as he shall make or appoint them to make. 4 Again, all of them agree in this, that the Pope hath a supreme independent power to make coactive Ecclesiastic Laws for the welfare of the Church; & in as much as all temporal power is subordinate to the power spiritual, which, as his subjects say, is originally and plenary in himself; he may by virtue of this supreme spiritual power, disannul all such Laws as any temporal State or Kingdom shall make, if these to his Holiness unerring spirit, shall seem contrary to the Laws of God, or to the Laws Ecclesiastic, made by himself, or by his predecessors. Now in case any Temporal Princes or States, shall, after some monitions, refuse to repeal such Laws as they have enacted, but he dislikes; they stand obnoxious ipso facto to the sentence of excommunication. The exercise of this terrible power hath been within these 400. years, frequent in many Kingdoms, and famous of late against the Venetians. That ancient and renowned State for wisdom and gravity, and of all States professing Romish faith, always most venerable for devotion, had made such a Law, as the Law of Mortmain here in England, for repressing the excess of Levies portion, which was become like a huge deformed wen in a fair and comely body: and being admonished by the Pope to repeal this Law, and another edict necessary for the preservation of peace; whereby the unruly Clergy within their territories were subjected to the censure of the State; because the Venetians would not obey his monitions, and betray their ancient liberties, the Duke and Senate were excommunicated by his Holiness. I do not well remember, whether that State had made a decree, that no provision should be carried out of their territories to Ancona: but put the case, they had made such a Law, in as much as Ancona is a City which belongs to Peter's patrimony, a signory or Lordship of the Church of Rome, this Law must be controleable by the Pope, because it is prejudicial to the Church. And the temporal Sovereignty of Venice, must submit themselves unto the spiritual jurisdiction of the Romish Church, or feel the stroke of Peter's sword. 5 The like dreadful consequences, of these dangerous principles, about the supremacy, or jurisdiction spiritual, did cause diverse Kings of this land, before Henry the eight, to separate themselves and their people from the visible Romish Church in matters of jurisdiction, though not of doctrine. For an English man to have received any title of jurisdiction from the Pope, or any foreign Prelate subject unto him, was by the ancient Laws of this land, a praemunire. I will only touch so much of the Romish Churches practice in this State, See Sir Edward Coke Reports in Lailors case. as foreign Writers have taken notice of, which was enough to give our Kings just occasion to make such Laws of praemunire, as the forecited Author produceth. Pope Innocent the third (presuming upon his former rule, that it belonged unto him, de quocunque peccato mortali corripere quemlibet christianum,) to censure or punish every man, for any mortal sin;) charged john, King of England, and the French King, to keep the Church's peace, under pain of his curse. And in the process, excommunicates the French King, for taking arms against King john. After, the same Innocent the third, (upon what displeasure I know not) excommunicates King john, arms the French King with the spiritual sword, to make war, authorising King john's own natural subjects to rebel against him; until the poor King was brought so low, that he was content to become the Pope's Farmer of his own Kingdom: but being once admitted his Tenant, and become Farmer to the Church of Rome, his privilege was greater, and his person more sacred, than it had been by being God's Vicegerent. For the Council of Lateran excommunicated all such as did or should molest or vex him; so long as he remained the Church's Rent-gatherer. This strange odds, hath the holiness of that Church, of other things, which by God's Law were counted holy; that whatsoever doth but touch it, nay whatsoever hath but vicinity with it, and relation or reference to it, strait way becometh Holy, and capable of greater privileges, than Princes or the Lords anointed are. 6 From this superexcellent Holiness of their Church, they now pretend that every Clergy or Church man is exempt from all jurisdiction temporal; as if their persons, on whom the Pope or his Bishops lay their holy hands, become more holy and sacred, then royal power itself, which as the Apostle saith, is from God: so sacred and holy, that no temporal sword may touch them, lest their calling should be polluted. Some professed reformers of their School Divinity, since the light of the Gospel broke forth, have not been afraid or ashamed to plead that this exemption of the Clergy from secular jurisdiction, is de iure divino, by divine Law, and ratified by that Text, * 2 Cor. 2. cap. vers. 15 Spiritualis homo diiudicat omnia, ipse autem à nemine iudicatur, He that is spiritual, judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. But were the allegation true or pertinent, either there should be no spiritual men besides the Pope, and so the subject of the proposition, should be homo singularis, one man only; or, if there be more spiritual men, they should all of them be Popes to judge all others, and be judged of none, no not of the Pope of Rome himself, unless he be no body. For these are convertible; Qui omnes dicit, neminem excipit, Qui neminem dicit, omnes excipit. He that saith all, excepteth none; and he that saith none, excepteth all. But however, if all Clergy men may by the Pope be exempted from all jurisdiction temporal, and he may make as many Clergy men as he list, or list to be made by him, and make such Laws for them as it pleaseth him: who sees not how easily he may bereave Princes of their natural subjects. The case betwixt them is on the Pope's side, like a game at draughts or Chests, wherein the one party hath gotten the start or advantage to make as many Kings as he list, and the other having lost his opportunity of taking the like advantage, must be sure to lose the game, if the play hold. 7 Again, seeing they make the Pope to be the supreme head in all causes Ecclesiastic or spiritual, and over all Ecclesiastic persons: I see no reason but that every Priest and jesuit of the English, Scottish, and Irish Nation, should be indicted for mocking his sacred Majesty, as often as they instile him their Sovereign Lord. For every one that in good earnest calls the King his Lord, is presumed to acknowledge himself to be the King's Subject. Now every Subject, is a Subject in respect of jurisdiction. To be the King's Subject, and not to be subject to the King's jurisdiction, implies a contradiction. So that in final conclusion, for English Priests to call the King their Lord, and yet to profess and believe, that their persons belong not properly to his jurisdiction, but to the Popes; is all one, as if they should say: Noah indeed was japhets' Father, and japhet did well so to call him; but japhet was not Noah's son, nor did he owe him any filial obedience: as certainly he did not, if he had been exempted from Noah's paternal jurisdiction, after the same manner, as the Romish Priests are from jurisdiction temporal. But to submit the whole temporal power and laws made by it, to the spiritual power, as it resideth in the Pope; is to make all Princes and Monarches more subject unto him, then inferior or secular Magistrates are to them: not so much as mean Lords in fee, but mere Tenants at will. Yet is this subjection of all temporal power unto the Pope's spiritual power, not the opinion only of the Romish Clergy or flattering Canonists: even their Civilians are infected with this heretical and traitorous doctrine. Witness that otherwise learned and ingenuous Civilian, Balthasar Ayala, sometimes chief justice of the Spanish Army, under the Prince of Parma, Lib. 1. de iure et officijs belli, cap. 2. sect; 27. 8 If we put both these positions together, to wit, That the Pope hath power to exempt all Ecclesiastic persons from jurisdiction temporal, and to subject all temporal laws to spiritual laws of his making; we may repeal or antiquate an ancient and usual distinction of the sword spiritual and temporal. For by these devices, they have put such a spiritual handle upon the temporal sword, and given the Pope so fast hold of it, that if he and Christian Kings should at any time fall at variance, his Holiness (so long as this doctrine stands authentic) may be sure to have the drawing of it, and poor Christian Princes, to whom the sword by right (more ancient than the Popedom is) properly belongs, must be contend to defend themselves with the scabbard. For these and many like reasons, our forefather's departure from the visible Romish Church, was most just and necessary on the behalf of Prince and State, and in respect of lawful and Christian policy. 9 The reasons on the behalf of every private man, were in two respects, again most necessary. First, because that Church did and doth utterly deny, even to her own children, the free use of means, either altogether necessary, or most expedient to salvation. These she will not give unto her own children; no, nor sell them at any lower rate, than the Devil sets upon his wares; that is, they must fall down and worship her. Secondly and principally, because the Church did and doth rigidly and peremptorily exact our belief and profession of many doctrinal points, and upon such belief enjoin many practices; of both which some are ex specie, for quality so heretical and diabolical; others ex gradu et cumulo, for degree or multitude, so deadly, as they manifestly induce a separation from the Holy Catholic Church, or nenessarily argue a contradiction to the Holy, Apostolic and primitive faith. So that besides the excessive price which the Romish Church sets upon her own children's necessary food, they may not eat it after they have bought it, unless it be mingled with deadly poison. The doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, of the Churches, or the Pope's absolute infallibility, in matters of faith and manners, is an error in itself, ex specie, heretical and more deadly than heathenism: and includeth infidelitatem pravae dispositionis, infidelity of contradiction, as malignant as the infidelity of the jews; and the consequent of it, is an entire Apostasy from the Apostolic faith. This I have * In the third book upon the Creed, Section the last. elsewhere endeavoured to show at large; the sum of which work, shall by God's assistance, be recollected in this Treatise. I now meddle only with this transcendent heresy, as it is diffused through other errors. The very participation of it, is as the Pharisaical leaven, by which all other erroneous opinions or conjectures, which that Church hath sucked, either from Heretics of old, or from some mistake or misreading of ancient Fathers, are malignified and made much worse than they were in their first Authors. Our first instance shall be in the manifold and daily transgressions of that rule of faith, given by our Apostle, Rom. 14. verse 5. into all which transgressions, this doctrine doth lead and draw them blindfold, as the Philistines did Samson, after they had put out his eyes. The Apostles rule is, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And this full persuasion or assurance of faith, is, in the cases there mentioned necessary; because whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, verse 23. This last Maxim is most undoubtedly true, and the former precept most exactly to be observed, in such cases, as the Apostle there speaks of: that is, where the positive practice (unless our warrant be authentic in itself, and evident to us,) is very dangerous or deadly; whereas on the contrary, the forbearance of such practice is either safe, or not prejudicial to our souls, but to our bodies only, or estate temporal. But in what cases doth the authority of the Romish Church, where it bears sway, draw men to transgress the former rules of faith or conscience? In many. 10 To rob God of his honour, or do him prejudice in his glorious titles of mercy, bounty, and the like, is unquestionably a grievous sin: and being such, no doctrine or practice ought to be admitted or imposed upon us, which with probability may induce or infer it; especially, if the end or benefit for whose attainment the suspected doctrine or practice is imagined behooveful or useful, may as certainly be obtained by some other more safe and no less effectual or convenient means. If from these grounds we should enter friendly conference with an ingenuous Papist, and tell him, as the truth is, that we Protestants do teach, That good works are most necessary to salvation; and that the more such works we do, the greater certainly shall be our reward, so we do them in sincerity, and acknowledgement of our bounden duty towards God, humbly confessing ourselves (after we have done all, even our very best) to be unprofitable servants. It from these allegations we shall thus infer, that glory, honour, immortality, and eternal happiness in the life to come, being all that he seeks after by welldoing; seeing we seek for the very self same things, by a safer and less suspicious way, why should he not be content to abandon all conceit of merit, and to renounce the term as an offensive and suspicious title, for a poor suppliant to use before the Almighty Majesty of God. To this and like Queries, all the answer you shall get, is this: and this you shall have from the more judicious and ingenuous secular Papists; that for their own parts, they could be well content to relinquish the opinion or term of Merit, so they were left unto themselves; but they must use the one, and maintain the other in obedience to the Church. So strong a hand hath the Church his mother over his faith and conscience, that he had rather adventure to stand upon real terms of meum and tuum, or come to iuridicall contestation with God his Creator and Redeemer, than disobey or descent from her in the use of words, or in matters of conceit or opinion only. 11 Again, no Christian denies that our Saviour is able to hear our prayers at all times & in all places; that he is more favourable and compassionate unto us, than any Saint in Heaven or earth can be; that his Father always heareth him. It is likewise a fundamental article of our belief, that we ought at all times to pray unto him, that he would pray unto his Father for us; that it is our duty to offer up our prayers and the best sacrifice of our souls and spirits in honour of his great and glorious name; that to come unto the Father by his mediation, is to worship him in truth and spirit. All these positions are ex fide & de fide, points of necessity to be believed. And if we were always employed in some of these practices, happy were we, although we did nothing else. No Saint, we may be sure, would be offended with us for praying continually unto Christ, unto whom they contival pray or give thanks. But whether in praying unto Saints as the Romanists do, we do not offend both Christ and them, is not so clear and unquestionable. 12 To request the Saints deceased to pray for us without express warrant or assurance that they can hear our prayers, is superstitious; to offer up our prayers unto them by way of Honour or tribute, without assurance of faith, is flat Idolatry. Yet admitting it were lawful not only to pray, but to offer our prayers unto their Images; yet to fall down before them and worship them, is certainly a practice so quite contrary to the rule of faith, and Gods holy commandments, that he which feareth God, (who hath expressed himself in this point above others to be a jealous God) would in ordinary discretion and reason, before he durst adventure upon so dangerous a practice, demand as express a dispensation or countermand to the former precept, as Abraham had to assure him, he should not commit murder by sacrificing his only son. Lastly, admitting the invocation of true and unquestionable Saints, (as for example, the Apostles) and the adoration of their Images, to be no sacrilege or wrong to God; yet to honour every one whom the Pope shall canonize for a Saint, with all the former points of honour, which they exhibit to S. Peter, S. Paul, &c is a great wrong unto those glorious Saints, an heresy, or rather an Idolatry ex specie deadly. And yet for adventuring upon all these dangerous practices, they have no other assurance of faith or warrant of scripture, besides their unwarrantable and blind belief of the Church and Pope's infallibility. Nor can the ingenuous Papists give us any other answer to such reasonable demands, as were now proposed in this point of Invocation of Saints, or adoration of Images, than was given before, That He doth all this in obedience to his mother the Church. I should proceed to the like faithless and desperate practices in the Mass, for which they can have no true assurance or warrant from God or his Laws; but only rely upon the supposed infallibility of this Church, which notwithstanding may be manifestly convinced of gross and stupid heresy, in the doctrine of transubstantiation. But because the doctrine is ex specie heretical, and the practice deadly, I shall reserve the refutation of both, & the explication of the ancient and orthodoxal opinions concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, or communication of his body and blood, unto a peculiar Treatise. 13 Generally, the more dangerous or deadly any practice doth seem to be, whilst we compare it with the ordinary & common rule of man's actions; the more evidently it ought to appear unto him that undertakes it, by what special rule or warrant it is exempted from the common rule or general prohibition of other facts and practices in nature and appearance like it. If a judge should charge the Sheriff or other inferior officer to see execution done upon some malefactor; it were no wisdom for the inferior Officer to adventure upon the judge's command, unless he knew that the judge had special commission and warrant from the King to sentence him to death, and that he had legally so sentenced him. Yet would it be a point of ill manners and indiscretion for an inferior justice or officer, to require the like special warrant or express rule of Law for whipping a vagrant person, or putting some idle fellow in the stocks. The judge's word or command might in this case be a sufficient warrant, especially to one not skilful in the Laws, nor too scrupulous in yielding obedience to such as are skilful in them. It is nicety, ill manners, and indiscretion to exact an express rule of scripture or faith for standing at the Creed, for kneeling at the Lords board, for using the Cap and Surplice. In these cases consent of the Church or tradition will suffice; so there be not any express Law or commandment to the contrary. He that exacts in these points as express rules of faith, or warrant of scripture for his obedience to ecclesiastical authority, as he would, or as every man ought to do for adventuring upon worshipping of Images, invocation of Saints, or the like; hath made his brain or fancy the chief seat or mansion of his Religion, which should be seated in the heart. To run thus far in seeming opposition to the Romanist, is not truly to oppose him, but to meet with him in the point of disobedience to God's Laws. The one, by disobeying the Church in these cases wherein it hath authority to command obedience; disobeyes those Laws or mandates of God, which give the Church authority to make Laws in things indifferent, neither expressly forbidden nor commanded by the Law of God. The other, by vowing absolute blind obedience to the Church, disobey Gods particular and express Laws, even the most fundamental Laws of p●ety and religion, the laws of nature and of Nations. 14 To kill a private man without warrant of authority, is a heinous and fearful sin, but far more heinous to kill a Prince, or to raise tumults in a State, or incense the multitude to take arms against their sovereign Lord: yet upon these and worse practices will any well catechised Romanist adventure, without any further warrant than the Church's command or approbation, which he believes to be infallible. But that the Church hath absolute infallibility, and full power to command his conscience, or authorise his action in these cases, what special warrant hath he from God or his Laws? Mat. 16.18. The best they bring, is this; Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. But doth this place either prove Peter to be the Rock on which the church is built, or the Popes to be Peter's perpetual successors in that confession, which Peter then uttered, which was the rock indeed on which Christ's Church is built, and which did make Peter to be such a rock or living stone as he was in the house of God? I could be content to try this issue with any jesuit, whether he could, by better probability from this Text infer, that the Pope is Peter's successor in the infallibility of holy doctrine; then I shall infer from another Text following in the same Chapter, that the Pope is the first borne of Satan, perpetually obnoxious to the check which our Saviour gave unto Peter: Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matt. 16.23. This was but a friendly check of Peter; but will prove the judicial censure of the Pope and his Disciples, unless they recant this wicked doctrine. Our Saviour bestowed the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rock upon the son of jona (as the jesuits will have it) in the former place, whilst he uttered that worthy confession; Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. By faithful adherence to this confession he became a living stone, a part of the foundation of Christ's Church, the first in order of twelve. But nominis omen habuit, he did best brook this name after our Saviour's resurrection. A little after the uttering of the former confession, when out of his kind nature (as we would term it) but certainly our of a carnal imagination (as the Spirit would censure it,) he sought to dissuade his master from suffering death, and so to hinder him from dissolving the works of Satan, and overthrowing his Kingdom, our Saviour calls him Satan, as if he had said, Peter, thou counselest me to that very thing, whereunto Satan himself, so I would give him audience, would persuade me with more Rhetoric than thou hast. What if I should say, That all the Popes are Peter's successors, and that so much may be proved out of this 16 chapter of S. Matthew, will it therefore follow that none of them are Antichrists or Sons of Satan? No, distingue tempora, & concordabunt scripturae, distinction of times, is the reconciliation of scriptures. The first and ancient Popes were Peter's successors in the former confession, all or most of them living stones in the house of God. The later Popes are Peter's successors in counselling Christ's Church to undertake those practices in Christ's name, whereunto the Devil doth always counsel men by internal suggestions of the flesh. Peter's temporary infirmity, is become their hereditary heresy. Certainly their succession in Peter's chair doth no more argue than to be his successors in the stability of faith; than succession in Moses chair proves the Scribes and pharisees to have been Moses true Disciples, or them the jews lineal descent from Abraham, proves then to be Abraham's children. The Analogy of faith will warrant this doctrine for conclusion: That these later Popes and their followers are of their father the Devil: for they go about to murder Kings and Princes, which take upon them to defend the truth. This did not Peter, this would not any Bishop of Rome have done within five hundred years after Christ. SECT. 3. Cap. 16 That the present visible Church of England retains the Holy, Catholic Faith, which the Romish Church hath defiled; and by defiling it, hath lost that true union with the primitive and Apostolic Church, which the visible Church retaineth. CHAP. XVI. That our Church was in the Romish Church before Luther's time, and yet in it, neither as a visible Church altogether distinct from it, nor as any native member of it. 1 IT is in the first place objected, that we had no Church at all before Luther's time. Secondly, that neither Luther, nor Christian Princes which embraced his doctrine, had any authority to erect or found a new Church. If we say, as we must say and believe, that we had a true Church before Luther of a Monk became a Reformer, it will be demanded where our Church was, and of what persons it did consist. To the former part of this importunate demand, [Where was your Church before Luther's time?] the Reverend & learned Doctor Field pithily answers: Our Church was in the same place then, wherein now it is. His explication will justify his meaning against all gainsayers. Howbeit, I must frame my answer according to my former principles, & fit it to some captious questions or objections made by some of our Adversaries since this Worthy died. 2 If our Church before Luther's time were in the same place wherein now it is; it will further be demanded, Whether it were a Church distinct from the than Romish Church, or a member of it. That we had a visible Church before Luther's time in this Kingdom, altogether distinct from the Romish visible Church planted in this Kingdom before Luther was borne, or so distinct as respublica Venetorum is à Regno Gallia, as the State of Venice is from the kingdom of France, seems very improbable to the Romanists, and somewhat hard for us to prove; unless we will derive our pedigree from the Albigenses, the Picardi, or the poor men of Lions: which to do I know not how safe it is, or how well pleasing it would be to the present visible English Church, unless we had better records of their tenets, than I have seen, or then the visible Romish Church, that de facto condemns them for heretics, was willing to propagate to posterity. On the other side; if our Church before Luther's time, was a member of the than Romish Church, we shall be further questioned, what authority our King and State had, either to dismember their Church, or to make a new entire distinct Church of an old dismembered part of their Church. In these and like objections, they always suppose two things as unquestionable, which we utterly deny. The first, that the whole multitude of Christians throughout these Western parts, as England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, etc. excepting such as were by their Church disclaimed for heretics or schismatics, were all members of the then visible Romish Church: and that there was such an union betwixt all and every one of this multitude, as sufficeth to make all individuals within these States or Kingdoms, true members of one visible, or of the then visible Romish Church. The second, They suppose that our union with some present visible Church, is a native degree or part of our union with the Holy, Catholic Church: or that our union with some present visible Church, is necessary or essential, not accidental to our being, or not being members of the Holy, Catholic Church. For our more orderly and safe proceeding, we are in the first place to shake, and hereafter (by God's help) to raze these two rotten foundations, whereon all their arguments, either for annoying ours, or for supporting their Church, are grounded. 3 Our first Counterfort shall be this. All the particular Congregations recounted by reformed Writers, which before Luther's time, had either separated themselves from the visible Romish Church of their times, or had been disclaimed by it for schismatics or heretics, being sequestered from this dispute: our Church might be, and was in the visible Romish Church (as Bellarmine and other professed sons of that Church define it,) and yet be in it, neither so as to make one entire visible Church, distinct from it, nor as any integral part, or natural member of it. If we take all, which the Romish Church doth challenge for her sons before Luther's time; there was in that multitude rather a Church truly visible, than one true visible Church, if we measure the truth of the visible Church according to our former principles, and as we ought to measure it, by the conformity which it hath with the one, truly holy and Apostolic Church. Our meaning is, the whole multitude of Christians in these Western parts before Luther's time, (all those being excluded, which the Romish Church representative did condemn for heretics or schismatics) had no such unity, as truly answers to the unity of a body natural, but an unity only answerable to the unity of an heap or congest of Heterogeneals. Some had the number only, others the very character of the Beast. The heap or congest which we suppose as an Emblem of the visible Romish Church (taking that Church in that amplitude which they challenge, before Luther by God's appointment, attempted reformation) shall be an heap or congest, of several metals, all or most part unpurified. In this one heap or congest, a great part of heterogeneals, though not all, shall be supposed to have had the union of continuation or concretion: that is, some pieces of unpurified gold, by the negligence or unskilfulness of the artificer, were made up or suffered to make up themselves, in some clod or cake, with an huge quantity of copper, lead, brass, iron, or other base metals, all unpurified from their dross, the other part of the same heap or congest consisting of several or lesser pieces of richer metal, all homogeneal in themselves, though many unpurified, and wanting the union of contiguity or concretion. 4 The parts of a good Mineralist or Refiner in this case, were first to dissolve the cake or clod, and to sever the richer metal from the base. Secondly, to purify homogeneals, so severed, from their own dross. Thirdly, to make them up so severed or purified, into plate, wedges, or Bullion; or to put some other accidental or artificial form upon them. All this being done, we cannot say, there was a true generation of any new body or substance, or that the Refiner did make gold where there was none before, (as some Alchemists profess, that they can turn iron or other metals specifically distinct, into gold) here was only a refining of metal preaexistent, and an addition only of an accidental form. To parallel the Refiners work, by the reformation wrought by Luther, and the Christian Princes, that hearkened to him: First, it cannot be denied, but that the visible Romish Church, or if you will the faction of the Romish Court, did bear a great sway throughout most Realms in Christendom, before Luther's time. Besides the Body of the Clergy, or Church representative, many Potentates, some through ignorance, others for hope of gain or advantage against their adversaries, did adhere unto it. This faction or combination, doth in proportion answer to the clod or concrescence of Heterogeneals in the emblematical congest before mentioned. For, there was no true union betwixt them in matters of faith. On the other side again, it cannot be denied, but that many in every Kingdom before Luther, did utterly detest the tyranny of the Court of Rome: many as well of their Clergy, as of their laiety, did in heart and affection wish a reformation as well of the Ecclesiastical Government, as of the doctrine professed and practised in their Church. The States, Princes, or private men thus affected, answer in proportion to the several pieces of homogeneal and richer metal in the former heap or congest. All that Luther, all that the Christian Princes which followed him, did intend or undertake, was; first, to dissolve the clod, or break the faction of the Romish Church or Court, spread through their Kingdoms: Secondly, to refine and purify themselves and their adherents from the dross and soil which they had taken by their adherence unto, or vicinity with the Romish Church: Lastly, to unite themselves thus refined and purified in matters of faith and doctrine, into a new form of government ecclesiastic, independent on the tribunal or Court of Rome. 5 So then it is false, which our Adversary's object, that Luther did take upon him to make a new Church. For this supposeth a plantation of new faith or doctrine never planted before, in which the life and soul of the true Church consists. Whereas they say we had no Church before his time, it is true only, secundùm quid. Their meaning can be no other, but this, We had no visible Church altogether severed and distinct from theirs: and this again is true, only in respect of those times, wherein the Kings of England, or Emperors of Germany, did submit themselves and their Subjects unto the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. Albeit this submission, (being wrought for the most part through violence or devilish policy) doth not argue our foreelders to have been parts or members of the Church of Rome, from which they were severed in heart and affection, and severed in form of government, de iure, though not de facto. In the times of diverse Kings, the Church of England was severed de iure, et de facto, from the visible Romish Church. So likewise were diverse Churches in Germany. But for Chronologie or matter of history, I must refer them to another place. The question is much what the same, as if they should ask us, Where was King Henry the sevenths' Kingdom, where were his Subjects, where was your Commonweal; whilst Richard the third did call Parliaments, and sway the Sceptre of this Kingdom? The Kingdom of Henry the seventh, and of his Successors, or the English Commonweal, was in the same place then, as now it is. The deposition of the Tyrant, the dissolution of the tyranny, and the reducing of English Subjects to their true allegiance, did work no essential alteration in the Commonweal or Kingdom, but only a reformation of the government and reducement of it to the fundamental laws of this Land. No more did the rejection of the Romish Churches usurped authority in matters spiritual, induce any substantial alteration in the English Church, but a reformation or reduction of it unto the fundamental constitutions of the Primitive Church. But to return to our former illustration: This argument, You had no visible Church before Luther's time, ergo, you had no true Church, is no better than this; There was no Plate or Bullion in the forementioned heap or congest before the Refiner did his part; ergo, there was no true gold or silver. For as every part of gold, is gold, and every part of silver is silver, but every part of a wedge or plate, is not a wedge or plate: so every member of the true Church of God, is himself a true Church and Temple of God: yet is not every part or member of the true visible or Catholic Church, a true visible or Catholic Church. Or, as 8. or 10. pieces of gold, into which an Angel may be broken, though they remain for weight, for value, & for substance the same they were; yet can they not be said to be the same Angel, because they want the unity of that artificial form, into which they were made: so likewise, although there were ten thousand in this Kingdom before Luther's time, all true members of Gods Holy and Catholic Church; yet could they not be properly said, one visible Church, so long as they wanted that unity of discipline or independent government, which we have, for the most part, since enjoyed. 6 Now as any kind of metal made up into a wedge or other artificial form, is less subject to putrefaction, soil, or canker, than it was whilst it lay scattered in several fragments or pieces: so the union of Christian Professors into one visible Church, is a good means for preserving every particular member, specially novices in faith, from such errors, heresies, or other temptations, as if they had been left alone or scattered, would endanger their faith. And yet again, as the perfection or purity of gold above other metals, is best proved, in that it doth not so easily take soil or rust, though it lie scattered in little pieces amongst other base metals, or other bodies apt to taint or putrify: so the true members of Christ's Church or Body, are best discerned, best approved by living upright in points of faith, in the midst of a perverse or crooked generation, or by continuing undefiled in the bosom of a polluted visible Church; out of which they may not, they cannot, at their pleasure depart, but are to expect the call or summons of God's special providence. 7 So then whether we had for these six hundred years a visible Church, distinct from the visible Romish Church or no, is not pertinent to the main point in question; for they falsely assume, we justly deny, that men are saved by being actual or professed members of the visible Church, or that our union with the present visible Church is a native degree or part of our union with the Holy, Catholic Church, whereof Noah's Ark was the type. We say, the former union is available to the latter, only ex accident; in as much as the present visible Church doth by doctrine and discipline, draw us to a conformity, in points of faith and other means necessary unto salvation, with the ancient Catholic and Primitive Church. This did not the visible Romish Church, for diverse hundred years before Luther's time: but on the contrary, she did discompose or misfashion them from all true conformity with the ancient Catholic Church. Howbeit, even in the midnight of superstition and palpable darkness, which had overspread the visible Romish Church, there were within it, though not of it, many visible members of the Holy, Catholic Church: men by so much more true and lively members of the Holy Catholic Church or Body of Christ, by how much they were less true and actual members of the visible Romish Church; that is, by how much their adherence unto the Romish Church representative, or to the authority of the Court of Rome, was less firm or none: as in a general plague, when every city and town throughout the whole Kingdom, is infected; they are most safe which have solitary dwellings in the country, and have least commerce with port towns or markets. Such adherence to the visible or representative Church of Rome, as the Jesuits and others now challenge, doth (as we have often said) induce a separation from the Holy, Catholic Church, and is more deadly to the soul, then to be bedfellow to one sick of the pestilence, is to the body. CHAP. XVII. Cap. 17 That men may be visible members of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet no actual members of any present visible Church. 1 THe two principal points, whereon we pitch, may be comprised in these two propositions: the first, A man may be a true live-member of the holy Catholic Church, albeit he hath no union or commerce with any member of the Churches visible. And this proposition is clear from that point formerly discussed, how far it was true of the visible Church, extra ecclesiam non est salus, Out of the Church there is no salvation. The second, A man may be a true and visible member of the Holy, Catholic Church, and yet be no actual member of any visible Church. The truth of this later proposition, may be proved by many instances of most ages, since the Church (whether under the Law or Gospel) became visible. For this present it shall suffice to explicate the meaning of it according to my former promise, and to confirm the truth of it so explicated by one or two pregnant instances. Albeit most of the terms in this proposition or distinction contained, have been explicated before in two inquiries; the one, what was required to the constitution of the Holy Catholic Church. The other, what was required to the constitution of a visible Church. To what was then said, I will add only thus much: That the Church may be termed Catholic, either in the prime sense (or as we then said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) or in a secondary analogical sense. The Catholic Church in the prime sense consists only of such men, as are actual and indissoluble members of Christ's mystical body, or of such as have the Catholic Faith, not only sown in their brains or understanding, but throughly rooted in their hearts. In a secondary Analogical sense; Every present visible Church, which holdeth the Holy, Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved, pure (and undefiled with the traditions or inventions of men;) may be termed an Holy, Catholic Church. When we say, a man may be a visible member of the holy Catholic Church, and yet no actual member of any present visible Church, we take the catholic Church in the later or secondary sense, that is, for a Church wherein no point of faith or doctrine is maintained or allowed, which is not consonant and homogeneal to the Catholic & primitive faith delivered by Christ & his Apostles. Who are indissoluble members of Christ's body, is only visible or known to him: Many thousands are and have been true members of it, which are & have been altogether invisible to us. But who they be, which profess the unity of that faith, which the Apostles taught, and without which no man can be saved, is visible and known to all such as either hear them profess it viva voce, or can read and understand their profession of it given in writing. 2 The truth of the second proposition may easily be manifested hence, in as much as the union between the members of any Church as visible, consists in the unity of discipline or jurisdiction, or of laws judicial or ceremonial; whereas the union of the Church as holy and Catholic, formally consists in the unity of faith or doctrine, or of Laws and Mysteries internally spiritual and moral. It is clear, that the former union may be dissolved without the dissolution of the latter, as the latter likewise in some cases may be dissolved without dissolution of the former. As for example, a man may be cut off by excommunication or exile from all commerce with the present visible Church, wherein he was bred and borne; and yet not thereby cut off from the Holy, Catholic, orthodoxal Church. Again, a man by heresy or impious opinions, (whether voluntarily and secretly embraced by him, or thrust upon him by the visible Church which hath authority of jurisdiction over him) may separate himself from the Holy, Catholic Church; and yet still remain an actual member, a dear son of the visible Church, in whose bosom he is willing to live. Every visible Church whose Laws are ratified by Sovereign Authority, and whose Governors are armed with power coactive, may cut off any particular member; besides the head, from which all power coactive is derived. Suppose one or two, or more be actually cut off by excommunication, exile, or the like censure, not only from public communion in the Church, but from all civil commerce with his neighbours: yet if I know, that he was so cut off either upon misinformation, or mistake of his judges, as if he had held some grievous heresies, which as appears to me he did not; or that the Church Governors out of ignorance, spleen, or faction, or other sinister respects, which I may not in particular examine, did condemn these opinions held by him for heretical or schismatical, which are in themselves, and to my knowledge, orthodoxal and truly Catholic: he is to me and to others which know his meaning, a visible member of the Holy, Catholic Church, though no more a member of the visible Church wherein he did, and we yet remain. And albeit I have no power to rescind the visible Church's decree, or authoritatively to pronounce him a Catholic, whom they, to whom the cognizance of such causes belongs, have condemned for an heretic; and albeit, I may not admit him to public prayers, or to communion at the Sacraments, as being interdicted by authority: yet I may and ought still to retain that communion with him which in this Creed we believe to be betwixt all true members of Christ's body, or professors of the Holy, Catholic faith, that is, the Communion of Saints: such a Communion as is betwixt the members of the Church triumphant, and the living members of Christ's body militant; or rather such as is between the orthodoxal professors of the English, or other reformed Churches. I am bound to pray for him, and he for me, that we may continue steadfast in the faith which we have received from the Holy, Catholic Church of former times, from which the Governors of the present visible Church, have swearued in this particular. Of this case thus propounded in Thesi, Athanasius his case was the Hypothesis. The then Church representative or visible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had condemned him in one or two general Counsels for an heretic, and being so condemned he was utterly excluded, and perpetually cut off from all communion in things sacred, with the visible Church or its members, so long as he maintained that doctrine which it condemned. Which doctrine it is certain, he neither did nor would recant, whatsoever the then visible Church did or might determine to the contrary. 3 If either the name Catholic, or the thing signified by it, be to be valued for the time present, by the multitude of suffragants, or number of suffrages given ex cathedra; Athanasius and his followers were no more Catholics, than Wickliff, and Hus with their followers in their times, were; For one Bishop that did maintain or favour Athanasius doctrine, there were more than forty did oppugn it. And yet he boldly pronounceth that the faith professed by him, was the only true, Catholic faith, without which no man could be saved, which whosoever did not keep holy and undefiled, was to perish everlastingly. Suppose not ten in all the Christian world beside, had resolutely embraced the same faith which Athanasius did so much magnify: or suppose all (were they more or few) which did embrace or profess it, had been with him condemned for heretics, and utterly cut off from all communion with the visible Church, all either banished into several Hands, or shut up into several prisons: all this notwithstanding, they had still remained the only true visible members of the Holy, catholic Church, which these times afforded. And for this reason were they to be accounted the only true visible members of the Holy, Catholic Church, because they only were contented, rather to be cut off from the present visible church, then to communicate with it in such doctrines or opinions, as either contradict or defile the catholic primitive faith. 4 That which some Romanists in this point reply, to wit, that julius then Bishop of Rome, did not consent to Athanasius his condemnation, but entertained him in his exile; may for aught I know, or at this present have to say against it, be as true in part, as it is impertinent. Sure I am, that the Bishop of Rome did not so resolutely and manfully oppose the Arian faction, or the then erring visible Church, as Athanasius did. That confession of the catholic faith, which the Church of Rome herself retaineth in her Lyturgy, as a Trophy of the victory, which the catholic faith in the issue obtained over the potent Arian heresy, was neither conceived, published, nor commended to the Christian world, by the Bishop of Rome, but by the exiled Athanasius. This worthy Bishop saw almost all the Prelates in the world beside, for the present, to be set against him. How these, or their successors, or such as lived after him, would be affected, he knew not; in respect of the truth of his doctrine, he cared not, as being confident, that his doctrine was truly catholic and authentic, without the ratification or proposal of the then Bishop of Rome or his successors, or of any visible church succeeding: he knew Christ's Apostles and their immediate successors had embraced it. For such as lived with him, or were to come after him, at their perils be it, if they embrace it not. Though not ten of that age, or any age after him, were to be saved; yet of these few, not one, as he protests, could otherwise be saved, then by believing, as he did, and as former Saints of God had done. If the then Bishop of Rome, did receive Athanasius in the name of an Orthodox or Catholic, and bid God speed unto his labours; all that can hence be inferred, is this, That Athanasius was to the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the holy, catholic Church, and the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the same church to Athanasius. But neither of them, not both of them, the then visible church, nor any members of it. As many as after this time became true members of the holy, catholic Church, became not such by holding union with the then visible Church, but by adherence to that catholic faith, which Athanasius and other visible members of the holy, catholic Church then taught. The holy catholic militant Church, hath continued one and the same since its Foundation, not by continuation of one and the same visible Church, but by continuation of one and the same catholic & Apostolic faith throughout all ages, which faith hath been sometimes maintained but often oppugned by churches visible or representative. 5 It is one thing to say, the Holy, catholic Church hath been in all ages visible, another thing to say, the visible Church hath been in all ages catholic: We may and aught to grant; that in every age since the Apostles time, there have been many not only true but visible members of the one, holy, catholic Church, that is, such as were able out of Scriptures to make demonstration unto the observant; that their doctrine was orthodoxal & consonant to the orthodoxal faith & doctrine of the primitive Church, howsoever contradicted & eclipsed by the present visible churches wherein they lived, till Luther & Christian Princes by God's appointment united the visible members of the Holy, catholic Church into visible Churches. A * Hic tum Epictetus Episcopus: non fidei (inquit) causa, Jmperator, hodie, neque judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum, faciendorun study adductus Liberius hunc instituit sermonem, sed quo possit apud Senatores Romanos gloriari, se rationibus Imperatorem superasse. Constan: Tanta●e orbis terrae pars, Liberi, in ●e residet, ut tu solus homini impio subsidio venire & pacem orbis ac mundi totius derimere audeas? Liberius. Esto quod ego solus sim: non tamen propteria causa fidei fit inferior. Nam olim tres solum erant reperti, qui Regis mandato resisterent Tunc Eusebius Eunuchus: Tu (inquit) Imperatorem sacis alterum Nebuchodonosor? Liberius: Minime sane: sed non minus temere tu hominem condemnas, de quo nullum factum sit indicium, quam ille olim. Tom. primo Concil: pag. 478 pregnant instance of the former distinction we have gathered to our hands in that famous Dialogue between Constantius the Emperor and Liberius then Bishop of Rome. The Emperor having (as the Romanists since have done) mispictured the regiment of Christ's body or Church, by the regiment of common weals, wherein Laws are made by the whole consent or by the consent of the greater part of the body politic, presseth Liberius with this argument. Doth so great a part of the world reside in thee Liberius, that thou alone darest undertake the defence of this impious man (Athanasius) to the disturbance of the peace of the Empire and of the world? Hereto Liberius answers. Be it so as you say, that I alone defend Athanasius, yet the cause of faith shall hereby suffer no detriment, for the times heretofore have been, wherein three only were found that durst resist the King's command. To this reply Eusebius the Eunuch rejoines, Do you, Liberius make the Emperor another Nebucodonozer? I do not so, but thou Eusebius deals no less unjustly than Nebucodonozer did, in thus condemning a man who hath not had a judicial trial. 6 So long as Liberius stood to this confession, he was a visible member of the Catholic Church. But when he sought to purchase the Emperor's savour by subscription to Athanasius his condemnation, Liberius Romanus Pontifex, Athanasio, Hilario et Hier: testantibus, per vim et minas sollicitatus, huic primae fidei formulae subscripsit, Athanasium condemnavit, et cum Arianis communicavit: idque per literas ad Valentem a liosue scriptas significans, ab exilio liberari sedique suae restitui petijt. Itaque contra fidei confessionem ac iustitiae legem peccans, adeoque turpissi mam sibi morum et vitae maculam inurens, Arianorum communione pollutus, quanquam infidelis et haereticus non esset, a communione Catholicorum, et sede Pontificia excidit. Binnius in notis ad Sermiens Council habit. Anno 357. And again, Liberius Arianorum communione pollutus, ab unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae merito exciderit Ibid. and communion with the Arians; although he might by this dealing, regain his former dignities, and become a principal member of the then visible Church; yet did he thereby cease to be a visible member of the Holy, Catholic Church. For albeit Bellarmine would in part excuse him, as if that which he did, did not continere in se manifestum haeresin, contain any manifest heresy: yet Baronius and others, and amongst the rest, Binnius confess, that for yielding to the Emperor, the Catholics did eschew communion with him. Now these Catholics that did eschew communion with Pope Liberius for communicating with the Arian faction, were neither the Catholic Church, nor the visible Church, but at the best, visible members of the Holy catholic Church. And the Church as catholic, includes as well universality of succession and of time, as extension of place, or multitude of persons professing the catholic faith. After this defection of the Romish church in the Bishop Liberius, the whole Roman Empire was overspread with Arianisme. If there were any visible Church of note, which in those days remained catholic, it was in the East, without the precinct of the Roman Empire, or in this our Island. The chief pillar or ground of truth which the Roman Empire in those times had, was Gregory of Nazianzen, as may appear out of that ancient Author that writes his life. Though Constantinople had been held the chief watchtower of the ecumenical church visible: yet when Nazianzen was sent for thither to support the catholic cause against the Arians; so much of the catholic church as was extant in that great city, was contracted within the narrow walls of the * Exceptus autem a qui busdam, et generis, et pietatis cognatione cum eo coniunctis, Ecclesiam offendit, quasi malum in ment, aut quasi signum in colle ut Prophetae verbis utar, hoc est, numero per exiguam atque obscuram (quod vide licet pijs viris libertas omnis ab eo, qui imperium tenebat, erepta esset) sacras etiam omnes domes spoliatas, ac servim occupatas uni sictae Anastatiae templum orthodoxis patebat, forcasse etiam quia propter ambitùs et circumscriptionis angustiam, contemptui habebatur: quemadmodum norunt, qui vetus hoc Templum perspexerunt. Vita Nazianzeni a Greg. praesbit. Conscripta. Temple of Anastasia, for that church only was permitted them to meet in, (as is thought) in contempt, that the littleness of it might upbraid them with their paucity, it being a fit receptacle rather for a private conventicle, then for a just and lawful congregation. Nazianzen then was the Luther of ancient times to reform the visible church, being endeavoured with Arianisme. Luther was the Nazianzen of later times, to dispel the mists of Popery and Romish Idolatry, by the light of the Gospel, and to reduce the visible church unto conformity with the ancient church. 7 As many as in our Saviour's time here on earth, at the instigation of the high Priest, of the Scribes and Pharisees, (or of the then visible church representative,) or otherwise out of their private choice, did persecute him and his Apostles as deceivers or authors of new sects or heresies; did thereby dissociate themselves from the ancient and Primitive Church of God established in jewrie, and yet remained true and obedient members of the then visible or representative church. On the contrary, such as, before our Saviour's death or passion, did acknowledge him for their Messias, although for so doing they were excommunicated and cast out of their Synagogues, that is, utterly cut off from being any longer members of the then visible church, did by this their known sufferings or martyrdom, become illustrious and visible members of the true Primitive and catholic Church, whereof Abraham, David, Samuel, with all the rest of the holy patriarchs and Prophets, were principal parts. The jews had agreed, (saith S. john, chap. 9 verse 22.) that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the Synagogue. For fear of this heavy censure, the Parents of that blind man, which our Saviour had restored to sight, put off the Pharisees with this dilatory answer; * joh. 9.20.21. We know that this is our Son, and that he was borne blind; but by what means he now seeth, we know not, or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age, ask him, he shall speak for himself: The Son being asked, boldly replies, If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. And for this answer, he is cast out of the Synagogue or visible church, and yet remains a more conspicuous and visible member of that holy church which Moses had planted in Israel, than his Parents were, which continued, as they had been, actual or unseparated members of the present Synagogue or visible church. Cap. 18 CHAP. XVIII. In what sense it may be granted, that the visible Romish Church, at the time of our forefather's separation from it, was a true Church, and yet withal the Synagogue of Satan, the seat of Antichrist, and common sink of heresies. 1 But here it will be demanded, whether these visible members of the holy, catholic church, which were as living stones or fit materials for erecting reform visible churches, (as having not their consciences indelibly branded with the character of the Beast) were, before Luther began his reformation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or no, that is, whether they were the immediate sons of God, begotten only by his Spirit, without the ministry or travail of any visible church? To affirm they were such sons of God, we may not: and if we say they were the sons and daughters of God, and yet withal the sons and daughters of the visible church, which was before Luther's time; that visible church (which by our positions can be no other than the church of Rome,) was certainly a true church, in that it brought forth sons and daughters unto God. All this may be granted, that the Romish church before Luther's time, was, and at this day is, a true church, quoad hoc; that it did and may bring forth sons and daughters unto God, that is, there are these means of regeneration in it, which are not in the Mahometan or jewish Synagogue. In opposition to both which, it may be said a true church; though in respect of the Primitive catholic church, or of reformed visible churches, it may truly be termed the Synagogue of Satan, or seat of Antichrist, in many respects, as much worse, as it is in some respects better, than the jewish or Mahometan Synagogue. The Thesis was as discreetly proposed, as learnedly prosecuted by Doctor Rainolds Romana Ecclesia nec est catholica Ecclesia, nec sanum membrum Catholicae Ecclesiae; The Roman Church neither is the Catholic Church, nor any sound member of the Catholic Church: In saying this, he did not deny it in some respects to be a true Church; which is in express terms affirmed by junius in his book entitled Liber singularis de Ecclesia; by Doctor Covell in his Apology for Master Hooker, and by Master Forbes, upon the 14. of the Revelation, whose testimony is so much the more to be esteemed, because he expressly maintains the papacy or representative Romish church to be the Kingdom of the great Antichrist. So that in the judgement of these three which have handled this point very discreetly, as also in the judgement of learned Doctor Rainolds; the visible church of Rome might fitly be compared unto a Mother, which brings forth sound and healthy children, but when they come to suck her milk, she infects them with such loathsome diseases, as accompany lewd and naughty Strumpets: or if they chance to escape infection by the milk which they suck from her in their infancy; yet when she comes to feed them with stronger meats, if they be content to be fed by her, and seek not their food from the ancient, Primitive, and catholic Church, like an abominable nasty slut, she poisons all the food which is of her own dressing. Some there may be in this Church, (or as yet under her government) which are more cleanly Cooks, and do not so pollute the food of life, but that such as are continually fed by them, as by ordinary Pastors, may escape the danger of their mother's infection, and die members of the Holy catholic Church, though not actually separated from the present visible Romish church, nor externally united to any visible reformed Church. 2 All this I take to be a true branch of the forecited Author's meaning: but in what sense the visible Church of Rome before Luther's time, might be said, a true Church, and yet withal, the Synagogue of Satan: or in what manner their Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests, may be said to exercise the ministry and service of Christ, and yet they themselves be bondslaves of Satan, Priests of Baal, and native members of Antichrist; may in my judgement, be most punctually expressed by that excellent distinction of the civil Law, Aliud est Magistratum esse, aliud est in Magistratu esse, It is one thing to be a true Magistrate, another thing to be in the Magistracy, or to execute a Magistrate's office. From this distinction was gathered this general ruled case, or sentence; That the Acts of him that was a false and unlawful Magistrate, might be lawful and just. This resolution or ruled case, did grow upon this occasion. One * Vide Hottoman illust. quast. quast. 17. An quae a falso Magistratu per Magistratus nomen gesta sunt, raia esse debeant▪ Barbarius was by a common error, chosen Praetor, and continued in the place, whereof he was altogether uncapable, as being a bondman. Some there were, which did not only consent to remove him after the truth was known, as he was indeed by law removed, because he was never lawful Praetor; but withal did question, whether the Acts that he had done, whilst he unjustly usurped that office, were of any validity, or rather void in Law. It was determined according to the tenor of the former distinction, that though he was falsus Praetor, a false Praetor; yet he was in verapraetura, in a true Praetorship; and the Acts which he did, did receive their validity from the Praetorship, not from the Praetor. One part of the Praetor's office was to set men free, which were bondslaves; and in this respect it was requisite that none should be Praetor, but he which was a Freeman, and that no bondslave, though chosen Praetor by a common error, should ever prescribe by long continuance in the place, but was instantly to be amoved, so soon as the truth was known and declared. So that in respect of his person, or of right unto his place, that Maxim of Law was still in force, Quod non valuit ab initio, non potest tempore valescere; that which was of no value from its first beginning, cannot acquire any validity, by continuance of time: yet in respect of the persons which were made free Denizens by him, that other Maxim (much oft times mistaken or misapplyed by some modern Lawyers) was true; Communis error, facit ius, A common error, makes a Law. In as much as he was chosen Praetor by a common and full consent of lawful suffragants, though so chosen by a common error; yet the Acts done by him, till the error was known and declared, were just and lawful: such as had been set at liberty by him, were as true Freemen, as those that had been set free by true and lawful Praetors. For their manumissions or enfranchisements took validity not from the condition or person of the Officer, but from the virtue of his office into which he was an intruder. In like manner, though Richard the third were a Tyrant, no true King; yet the Laws made by him were true and good Laws, and the Earls or Barons created by him, were true Earls, and true Barons: for though he were not legitimus Rex, a lawful King, yet he was in legitimo regno constitutus, he did manage a lawful Kingdom: Nor were they Traitors that did yield obedience to the Laws made by him, or submit themselves unto the Magistrates of his appointment: save only in cases, wherein the Laws made by him might prejudice the fundamental laws of this Kingdom, or cut off the right of Succession to the Crown. But in case the Magistrates, Earls, or Barons created by him, should have commanded their inferiors to take Arms against the known and lawful heir to the Crown; to have yielded obedience unto them in this case, had been treason: as Richard himself during all the time of his Reign was no better than a Traitor. 3 Either from the Analogy of the former ruled case in matters civil, or from the general or fundamental rule of equity, whereof that was a branch, did the Church ordain, that Baptism administered by heretics should not be reiterated. For though no heretic be a true member of the Church, and therefore no true Priest; yet so long as he is in sacerdotio in the Priest's place, the acts of his ministry or Priesthood be good. Now though the Pope or Bishop of Rome be more than an heretic, even the Antichrist or man of sin, the supreme head though not of all Christ's enemies (for jews and Turks are such,) yet of all Rebels or usurpers of his throne on earth; 2 Thes. 24. nevertheless seeing (as the Apostle saith) He sits in the Temple of God, even the acts of his ministration or Priesthood are good: nor are the Bishops consecrated by him, so polluted by communion with him in their consecration, but that their Episcopal Acts, as the ordination of Ministers, the administration of Sacraments and the like, be lawful and good, so long as they observe the form of ordination or administration of sacraments prescribed by Christ and his Apostles. The word preached by them likewise, hath the force and efficacy of begetting faith in their Hearers hearts: & so long as they teach nothing but what Christ hath taught, the people or laity owe the like obedience unto them, that the people of the jews, in our Saviour's time, owed to the Scribes and Pharisees. For though perhaps they have in many points degenerated much further from S. Peter's doctrine and manner of life, than the Scribes and Pharisees had done from Moses; yet so long as they sit in Peter or other catholic Bishops chairs, that precept of our Saviour, Mat. 23.3 [Illos audite, hear ye them,] binds them as much as it did the jews. How far it bound the jews, I leave it to the Expositors of the 23. of S. Matthew, and amongst the rest to Maldonat. 4 It is certain, the people were not by virtue of this precept bound to do all that their high Priest with his confederates would ex cathedra command them to do, though intended by them, in ordine ad Deum & salutem Ecclesiae, with reference to God, and to the welfare of his Church. For Caiaphas had delivered this sentence ex cathedra, It is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. john 11. ver. 49. And upon his authority or warrant, they adventured to put the Lord of glory to death. Had not this false Apostatical Priest, been in vero sacerdotio, a chief officer in the house of God; neither could so clear a truth as he uttered, have been inverted to such a pernicious end, as it was spoken by him, & apprehended by others; nor could he have conceived or uttered so clear a truth of himself, as S. john instructs us he did. This he spoke not of himself: but being high Priest that same year, he prophesied that jesus should die for the Nation. joh. 11.51. Other Acts of his priesthood took their validity from his office, not from his person: this speculative truth took its poisonous operation from his person, not from his office; although he could not have borne so bitter enmity unto Christ, unless he had been in that office. Now albeit we grant that Caiaphas did prophesy by virtue of his place or Priestly office, yet no Romanists (as I hope) will deny, that Caiaphas in the preposterous application of his prophetical sentence, might well brook the name of Antichrist; at the least that he was a type or shadow of the Antichrist to come; who was to sit as Caiaphas did in the Temple of God, or if so they will have it, in S. Peter's chair, that he may wrest divine truths authoritatively to as wicked ends, as Caiaphas did. 5 But may it not hence be inferred, that as the Sanedrin was the only visible Church, which God had here on earth; so the Romish Church from which Luther did separate himself, was the only true visible Church of Christ, at the time of his separation? This may be granted de facto, but not the iure. For there was an express Law of God, that there should be no more visible Churches, than one, before our Saviour's death and resurrection; after which there were to be as many visible Churches de iure, as there were several independent Sovereignties. I have heard indeed of some French Catholics (as they would be accounted) which use this as an argument, whether intended by them, ad homines, to delude the obiecter only, or ad rem, to the matter itself, I know not: But this argument they use, to prove that their Church (as opposed to Reformed Churches) is the true Church, because the Pope is Antichrist, & Antichrist (as the Apostle teacheth) is to sit in the Temple of God, and the Temple of God, no question, is the true Church; whence seeing he sits in their Church, they infer that theirs is the true Church, not ours. But as in most other arguments concerning the Church, so in this they cozen themselves with the fallacy, à dicto secundùm quid, ad dictum simpliciter. First both letter of Scripture and analogy of faith, do teach, that Antichrist is to sit as Caiaphas did, in a true Church, yea to be a chief Officer of some Church: otherwise he could not be a principal Rebel or notorious Traitor against Christ. But in that he was to be such a rebel and such a Traitor, it is not conceivable, that the Church which wholly submits herself to him, as to her head, should be the true Church, much less the only Church of Christ. The former argument will hold thus far, The Pope is Antichrist; ergo, the Church of Rome is a true Church secundùm quid, that is in opposition to the Synagogue of jews, of Turks, or other professed Infidels: But if we speak absolutely, or compare it with Churches truly Christian, it is no true Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Satan. Or, as he said of his sordid Hosts entertainment, that there was so much fire, as a man could not have truly said in strict propriety of logic phrase, there was no fire; that is, there was so much, as if he had been bound by covenant of Lease, never to have suffered the fire to go out, he might have saved his lease from forfeiture: and yet there was no fire but a mocke-fire to the entertaining of a stranger; so much, as was a greater eyesore to him that had sought comfort or refreshing from it, then if there had been none at all. In like manner there is so much of the true Church in the present Romish visible Church, as a man cannot say, it is no Church at all; so much true doctrine in it, as sufficeth to support the title of Antichrist, and to make it the very seat of all abominations or impieties more than natural. For as the mingling of the Traditions of men with Moses doctrine, did make the leven of pharisees to be so malignant and distasteful to God and all good men; so is it the mixture or making up of the doctrine of Christ and of Devils, in one and the same Liturgy, which makes Antichristianisme in grain. And as * In the third book upon the Creed, Sect. 3. and 4 in diverse Chapters. elsewhere is observed, the Idolatry of the Romish Church, is so much worse than the Idolatry of the Heathens, by how much that Churches general belief of one God, of the glorious Trinity, and of the redemption of mankind, is better than the Heathens belief or knowledge of the same points. 6 But when it is said that Antichrist is to sit in the Temple of God, it is not meant only that he should sit in the present visible Church, but that he should be an usurper of that chair which sometimes had been the seat of God's Saints, and be an intruder into that Church, which had been Holy and Catholic before his intrusion, and which still retains the roots and stems of Catholic faith, into which it shall be his and his followers continual care, to engraff the doctrine of Devils, and to exercise their spiritual whoredoms in the Oratories of God. Cap. 19 CHAP. XIX. Whether our Forefathers in separating themselves or suffering themselves to be separated from the Romish Church, did any otherwise then God's Prophets or our Saviour's Disciples, had their case and opportunity been the same, would have done. 1 But here again, the Author of the Antidote, or the blind Guide of faith, will object, That neither the Prophets of old, nor our Saviour's Disciples before his death, did separate themselves from the present visible Church. If not to believe as the Church visible and representative for the time present did; if not to communicate with her in matters of fact or practice, were to be separated from the present visible Church (as this Author's words * cap. 9 parag. 5. of this book, his words are set down. elsewhere imply) the Prophets out of all question, did either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be separated from the visible Church wherein they lived. Ezekiel and Daniel would never have consented to the Priests and Rulers in their persecutions of jeremy as a false Prophet or Traitor. Our Saviour's Disciples before his death stood excommunicated by the visible Church of the jews, they were as far from communicating with the chief Priests and Elders in matters of faith and practice, as we are from communicating with the Romish Church or members of the Trent Council. But if this man's meaning be, that neither the Prophets, nor our Saviour's Disciples before his death, did take upon them to erect a new visible Church altogether distinct from the erring Synagogue, the objection is true, but no way prejudicial to us. For they lived in that Church or common weal as our forefathers before Luther's time, which feared God, did in the Romish Church, or common weal which had not by public consent abandoned the Romish Religion; that is, neither as absolute members of the Synagogue, nor yet a visible Church distinct from it, but as visible members of that primitive Church from which the Synagogue had degenerated. As for the Prophets and other godly men which lived before our Saviour's death, they wanted rather power than willing minds to reform the corruptions of the visible Church, in which they lived. And the true reason why that Church continued so corrupt from josias his death, until the destruction of the Temple, and grew so wicked again in the age before our Saviour's time; was, because, during these times, there were either naughty Kings, or no Kings at all in Israel. Had jehosophat, Ezekiah, josiah, or any like unto them of David's line, been Kings of judah in Herod's stead: there is no question, but they would have brought the Scribes and Pharisees to better order, or have deposed them; either have reduced the then visible Church to its primitive purity, or have erected a new visible Church, according to the pattern prescribed by Moses. That the Priests and Prophets did so overbear the true Prophets of God, jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. to the ruin of the City and Kingdom, was the fault of jehoiakim, and Zedekiah. As at this day again, it is the fault and folly of Christian Kings, that the Church of Rome is not either reduced to better conformity with the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or else demolished as the jewish Synagogue was. But what should move this man, I mean the Author of the blind Guide of Faith, to make the former objection against us, I cannot conceive; unless it were to give us and the Christian world to understand, That the visible Romish Church his mother, could be very well content to continue, till Christ's second coming, as erroneous and antichristian as the jewish Synagogue was before his first coming in the flesh; upon condition she may retain her wont power and authority to tyrannize over us and other Saints of God, as the visible jewish Church or Synagogue did ofttimes over the true Prophets and Christ's disciples. 2 For conclusion of this point; In as much as Christian Princes and free States did second Luther in his intended reformation of so much of the visible Romish-Church, as was seated in their Sovereignties or Dominions; this warrants our separation to have been just and lawful, and free from all suspicion of rebellion or schism; whereunto the like attempts in jury, though undertaken by God's Prophets, had been obnoxious, unless the Princes or chief Magistrates had given them countenance and authority. Howbeit neither Prince nor people jointly or severally, either now have, or at any time had power to make a new church altogether distinct from the Catholic Church militant on earth, which hath been one by continuation of the same faith, since the Apostles time. But in case any part of the Church militant or visible, be infected with heresy, or overswayed by faction, to approve such impious and ungodly practices as are incompatible with the Holy, Catholic faith, which hath been professed in pure and uncorrupt times: every free Prince or State, have in this case power and authority sufficient, to dislinke themselves from the factious combination of the visible Church or Churches seated in foreign States or Kingdoms, and to unite themselves into renewed forms of visible Churches, distinct from others. Yet thus to do, so they do no more, is not to make a new Church never heard of before, but rather to recollect the scattered members of the Holy, Catholic Church, in whom the life and substance of the true Church of God consists, and to put a new accidental form upon them. 3 The case is altogether the same, as if an Army consisting of threescore thousand English, French, and Italians, appointed by joint consent of these Nations, to invade the Turk, should be misled by the Italian General, to revenge his private quarrels upon the Christians. If the English, upon discovery of their General's treachery, should abandon him, and adjoin themselves unto the Hungarians or other Christians oppressed by the Turk; they could not justly be blamed, either for defection or revolt, or for levying an Army, or undertaking a war altogether new, without any warrant or commission. Well might they presume their Prince would approve their proceedings, specially if their service had success answerable to the godly intentions of their first Commission. 4 As many of our forefathers as did submit themselves unto the jurisdiction of the church of Rome, and undertaken such services as the Pope or Roman Prelacy did appoint them unto; they did thus only upon presumption, that the Pope did faithfully execute his Commission as the Apostles successor, or that he did command in chief for Christ. But when the contrary was notoriously known unto this people, that he did but counterfeit the visage of the Lamb, that he might the more plausibly effect the designs of the Dragon: Our Prince and people, in abandoning his yoke, and breaking off their confederacy with the church of Rome, did well. And this being done, they remain the same church they were for life and substance, but the same Church better purified and purged from rebellious Antichristian humours, the same Church so much more homogeneal to the ancient Primitive catholic Church, by how much they remained the freer from servitude to Romish tyranny, whose usurped authority over other Churches, is but Antichristianisme or Apostasy from Christ. CHAP. XX. Cap. 20 Whether the name [Catholic] can in good earnest be pleaded or pretended for an unseparable mark of the true visible Church. 1 But in all these Illustrations it will be excepted, that we take something for granted, which the Romish Church will utterly disclaim. This for one, That our forefathers at the time of their departure from the Romish Church, were true Catholics, or, in the interim between the abandoning of the Prelacy of Rome, and the establishing a Prelacy or form of Government of their own more refined, were visible members of the holy, Catholic Church. For so destitute is the Roman Church of all true & solid properties of the true Church of God, that she is fain to plead the name and title of Catholic, to be her proper note or Ensign, which no other Church may more presume to challenge, than a Servingman may presume to wear his Master's coat or cognizance, after he be discharged of his service. In this waking dream, the Author of the Guide of saith, was brought to rave, as followeth: Now I come (saith he) to the great Character of our glory, and renowned title of our profession, the name [Catholic] a name famous in the Primitive Church, famous in the Apostles days, and inserted by them among the Articles of our Creed: famous after in all succeeding ages, and used commonly by the Fathers; not so much to make a difference, (which some think) betwixt the jewish Synagogue, and the Christian Church, as to sever and distinguish the false named Christians themselves, from the true and unfeigned believers. And, Reason teacheth, & D. Whitaker often confesseth, the marks and properties of the Church, to be unseparable from the Church, whose marks they are. Therefore that which once was, must still continue a mark of the Church, because the true Church, although it admit some accidental change, yet it is always in nature, unvariable; in essence, unchangeable: so that the properties which flow from the essence thereof, as the name [Catholic] doth, can no more be altered, changed, or cease, than the power of laughing, a property which proceedeth from the nature of man, can ever cease to appertain to man. c. 18. sect. 1. & 4. p. 155. & 138 Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici? 2 If the power of laughing proceed from the nature of man, and the nature of man consist in reason: it will be very hard for any man to refrain laughing, that hath but so much reason as to consider the vanity of this assertion, that a name should be an unseparable property proceeding from the nature of any reality. God gave names to the first Man, and to the first Woman, and the first man gave names befitting other creatures: but the names proceeded not from the nature of the creatures named, but from the Imposers; otherwise their names should have been the same in all nations and languages. And if the name [Catholic] were an unchangeable mark or natural property of any real Church, it should be of the Greek Church or nation, unto which the name or title of Catholic is prime and natural. If the real property answering to this name had belonged to the Romish Church, the holy Ghost would have expressed it by a Roman name, and have called the Roman Church, the universal Church, at least the Romanists should have called themselves universals, not Catholics. But let us listen again unto this Raver. We only enjoy the lively badge, and are invested with the Livery of the true professors of Christ. Neither can Mr. Abbot, or Mr. Whitaker dismantle us of that royalty, by saying, Names may be falsely imposed to things, or unjustly usurped. For this name is not imposed by man, nor usurped by abuse, but imparted by God, inspired by the Holy Ghost, (as I have proved above) who cannot apparel us with any feigned attire, nor can the Devil take from God's people their cognizance, or nobilitate his vassals with the colours of Christ. 3 Was the name of Catholic more immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, than the name of Angels or Apostles was? or was this title more appropriated to the Church, than the other two titles of Holy and Apostolic. Now S. Paul tells us, [2 Cor. cap. 11. verse 14, 15.] that Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light, and it is no marvel if his Ministers transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ. Is it then impossible for the ministers of Satan to usurp the name of Christ's Apostles or Catholics, though both names were imposed by God, and inspired by the Holy Ghost? Certainly seeing this transformation is not in substance, but only in colour or show, it must needs include the colour or usurpation of the name, whether of Apostles, or of Catholics. But he further adds, [That no heretic could ever obtain to be called Catholics by true Christians.] For this very reason, we Protestants of reformed Churches, who are, if not the only true Christians on earth, yet the truest Christians, and the most conspicuous members of the Holy, Catholic Church, as militant here on earth, dare not vouchsafe to bestow the name of Catholic upon any Papist, but with such an addition or item, as we give the name of Angels to infernal fiends, which we term Satan's Angels, or collapsed Angels. Now the same analogy which Gods Angels or a holy Angel hath to Satan's Angel, or to a collapsed Angel, a true and holy Catholic hath to a modern Roman Catholic. For by this term we mean such a one, as being a servant of Satan, doth seek to transform himself into a true and holy Catholic. The point which this blinde-guide was to prove, was this, That no heretics could usurp the name or title of Catholic. We say it is the property of the modern Romish Church to counterfeit the fairest titles given to the Church, by orthodoxal Antiquity, more plausibly than the ancient heretics could. And by this property, we discern her to be that mother of Harlots, which can imitate the Lamb's voice, whilst she acts the Wolves part. He further objects, that the jews and mahometans, when they hear a man named a Catholic, thereby conceive some member of the present modern Roman Church, not any of Luther's or Caluines' followers. So we likewise, when we hear a people brag and instile themselves a holy nation, we presently conceive the parties that thus instile themselves, to be jews. Yet do we not for all this, believe that the jewish Nation is the Holiest of Nations, or the only chosen people of God now on earth. As for both jews and Turks, it is likely they could be well content to suffer the Romanist to enjoy the name Catholic, as a pre-eminence above Christians. For, they might well hope to prove their own Religion to be better than the best professed amongst Christians, if once it were granted that the Roman Catholic Religion, is the best. But to give the Christian Reader some real solace after his pleasant recreation at this ridiculous Discoursers folly; in that he and his fellows can thus seriously plead for the name Catholic, which they seek by faction to engross unto themselves: this is an argument to us, that the floods already approach the sandy foundations whereon this spiritual Babylon is built, and that her downfall is at hand. For unless her professed Champions and Pilots were likely to be drowned, they would not so earnestly catch at such shadows, or floating bul-rushes, as this Guide of Faith hath done. But leaving the shadow, let us in the next place see whether have better interest in the body or substance, whether we or they do better deserve the real titles of Catholics. Cap. 21 CHAP. XXI. That the title of [Catholic] is proper and essential unto the faith professed by the present visible Church of England, but cannot truly be attributed to the Faith or Creed of the modern visible Romish Church. 1 WHether the name Catholic were first bestowed upon the Church, or upon that faith which is the life and soul of the Holy, Apostolic Church, shall be no part of our inquiry. It sufficeth that the name Catholic itself is univocal in respect both of Church and faith. True faith is therefore Catholic faith, because it is the only door or way unto salvation, alike common unto all without national or topical respect. Whosoever of any Nation have been saved, have been saved by this one and the same faith, and whosoever will be saved, (as Athanasius speaks) must hold this Catholic faith, and he must hold it pure and undefiled. The main question than is, who they be that hold this Catholic faith, and whether they hold it undefiled or no. Were Vincentius his rules as artificial, as they are orthodoxal and honest, the issue betwixt us and the Romanist would be very easy and triable. But let us take them as they are. Id catholicum est quod ab omnibus ubique et semper, etc. That is Catholic, which is held by all in all places, and at all times. The three special notes of the catholic faith or Church, by him required, are universality, antiquity and consent. Whether these three members be different or subordinate, and ofttimes coincident, I leave it to be scanned by Logicians. According to the Author's limitation, all three marks agree to us, not to the Romanist. 2 First concerning universality, the question is not, Whether at this present hour, or in any former age for these thousand years past, there are or have been more, which profess the present Romish Religion established in the Church of Rome; then the Religion established in the reformed Churches since the separation was made. If we should come to calculate voices after this manner, Whether will you be a Roman Catholic, or a protestant: They might perhaps have three for one amongst such as profess themselves Christians, ready to cry, I am not for the protestants; but for the Roman Catholics will I be. But it was far from Vincentius his meaning, that universality should be measured after this fashion; for he very well knew that the Arian faction had prevailed especially by this tumultuary kind of canvas or calculation. The multitude of voices thus taken for them, may prove their faction to be stronger and greater than our Church; it cannot prove their faith to be so universal as our faith is. The fallacy by which the Romanists deceive poor simple people, is in making them believe, that our Religion and their Religion, our faith and their faith are duo prima diversa, or so totally distinct, that part of the one could not be included in the other. But for the universality of our faith we have every member of the Romish Church a suffragant or witness for us. First, nothing is held as a point of faith in our Church, but the present Romish Church doth hold the same, and confess the same to have been held by all orthodoxal Antiquity. So that for the form of faith established in our Church, we have the consent of the Primitive Church, of the four first general Counsels, of all succeeding ages unto this present day, the consent likewise of the present Romish Church, and of ourselves. Now as France is a great deal bigger than Normandy, if we compare them as distinct and opposite; and yet France, and Normandy is bigger than France without Normandy: so likewise though the present visible Romish Church be much greater than the Church of England, yet seeing the Romish Church, how great soever, doth hold all the points of faith which our Church doth, for Catholic and orthodoxal; our consent, and their consent, our confession and their confession, is more universal than their consent without ours. But if their consent unto the points of faith believed by us, prove our faith to be universal, and our Church by consequence to be Catholic; why should not our consent unto the points of faith believed by them, prove their faith to be universal, or their Church to be Catholic? Because it is not enough, to hold all points of Catholic faith, unless the same points be kept holy and undefiled. The Romish Church, we grant, doth hold all points of Catholic faith, and so far as she holds these points, we descent not from her: yet descent from her we do in that she hath defiled and polluted the catholic faith, with new and poisonous doctrines; for which she neither hath the consent of Antiquity, nor of reformed Churches. And in respect of these doctrines, she stands convicted of schism and heresy, by Vencentius his rules. For it is with him a fundamental rule, That no present visible Church, hath any authority to commend any thing as a point of faith to posterity, which hath not been commended to the said Church by Antiquity derived from the Apostles times. A proficiency or growth in faith, he allows and granteth, modò sit in eodem genere, so it be in the same kind, or proceed from the same root: but for additions or new inventions, he takes them for the marks of schism and heresy. 3 So then we hold the Catholic faith, and they hold the Catholic faith. And seeing they hold the Catholic faith in the same measure that we do, is it not reason they should be termed Catholics as well as we, though not so good catholics as we? No reason they should be termed Catholics at all. Where is the difference? In this. We hold it pure and undefiled, they have defiled and polluted it for many generations, and do still defile it with many loathsome additions and inventions. Now in this case the denomination followeth the worse part, that is, they are not so much to be reputed Catholics for that they hold the Catholic faith, as to be adjudged Heretics and Schismatiks, because they have defiled and polluted it with many new inventions, and being admonished hereof and reproved, will not purify their faith, will not reform their religion according to the rule of faith and the practice of Antiquity. Their faith not purified from the additions of the second Nicene and Trent Council, can be no Catholic faith. Their Religion not reform, can be no true Religion, save only in reference to Paganism, judaism or Mahumetisme. For as Dionysius saith, Bonum non est nisi ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu, Nothing is good which is not entire and sound, evil ariseth from every defect. Every new addition or invention in matters of faith or doctrine, is enough to make that church schismatical, which before was Catholic and orthodoxal. Catholic and orthodoxal no Church can be, unless it hold all points of faith without admixture of humane inventions or of new articles. The admixture of a great deal of man's meat with a little swine's meat, makes the whole dish to be no man's meat, but swine's meat. Our Church according to, Vincentius his rule admits a growth or proficiency in faith, in that it holds not only those propositions which are expressly contained in Scripture, but such as may by necessary consequence be deduced out of them, for points of faith, and this growth is still in eodem genere, from the same root. Other points of faith besides these, our Church admitteth none, but ties even her Prelates and Governors to obtrude no other doctrines as points of faith, upon their Auditors, than such as are either expressly contained in Scriptures, or may infallibly be deduced from them. And this is the fundamental and radical difference between our Church and the Romish Church, which admitteth such an illimited increase or growth of faith as is in heaps or congests of Heterogenealls. CHAP. 22. Cap. 22 Of the adinuentions or new Articles added to the Creed by the Romish Church, by which she hath defiled the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. Of the difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England concerning the rule of faith. What that ecclesiastic tradition was which Vincentius Li●inensis so much commendeth: to what use it served in the ancient Counsels. 1 THe paine-worthiest enquiry in this argument, were first to make search what additions or adinuentions unto the ancient or primitive Canon of Catholic faith have been made, received or authorized by the Romish Church, since the Council of Ephesus which was some 3. years before Vincentius Lirinensis wrote his admonitions concerning this point; and in what age and upon what occasions, such additions have been made or received. Secondly, to make proof or demonstration, how far and in what manner such additions do corrupt or contaminate the Holy, Catholic faith; and how far each or all of them jointly or severally, do undermine or overthrow the holy Catholic faith. The first addition or adinuention of moment, Con●il●or jesum Christum crucifixum pro nobis ●arne sepultum & resurgentem in coelosque reversum, venturum iudicare vivos & mortues praeter haec mortuorum resurrectionem expecto, & secundum unius cuiusque actionem aeternam retributionem ●onorum simul & malorum, obsecrans intercessionem sanctissimae intemeratae Dominae nostrae deiparae & semper virginis Mariae, sanctorumque Angelorum, & sanctorum gloriosorum Apostolorun, Prophetarun, Martyrum, Confessorum & Doctoru sept. Synod. act. 1. & 3. which comes into my memory, is the Invocation of Saints and veneration of Images. Both which points were added as articles of faith or parts of the creed, which all were bound to believe and profess by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Precedent of that illiterate parasitical and factious Assembly, which hath been commonly enstyled the seventh general or second Nicene Council. In these & the like abominable decrees the then Bishop of Rome was Tharasius his complice, his instigator and abettor, as may appear from the speeches of his Legates in that Council, and by his own Epistles, although part of the Epistle may be justly suspected to have been framed since. But by what spirit this Council was managed, or in whose name they met together, I refer the Reader unto that learned Treatise in the book of Homilies (whereunto we have all subscribed) concerning the peril of Idolatry, especially the third part. What ingenuous minds of this Kingdom thought of that Council, before either the Author of these Homilies or Luther was borne, may in part be gathered from an * Hoveden anno 79●. ancient English Historiographer, who saith the Church of God did hold this decree in execration. 2 The self same points with a great many more of like or worse nature, all whatsoever any Council which the Romish Church accounteth general or ecumenical; or any Canons which the same Church accounteth Catholic, even all the decrees whereto the Trent Council hath affixed their Anathemaes, have been annexed by Pius Quartus to the Nicene Creed, and are inserted as principal points of that oath which every Roman Bishop at his consecration is to take; one part of which oath or solemn vow it likewise is, that every Bishop shall exact the like confession of his inferiors to be ratified by oath or solemn vow. Caetera omnia à sacris & oecumenicis concilijs, ac praecipuè à sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita, & declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; fimulque contraria omnia atque haereses quascunque ab ecclesia damnatas, & rejectas, & anathematizatas ego pariter damno, reijcio & anathematizo. Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo, eandem integram & inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè (Deo adiuvante) retinere & confiteri, atque à meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri, & praedicari, quantum in me erit, curaturum, Ego idem N. spondeo, voveo, ac iuro, sic me Deus adiwet, & haec sancta Dei Evangelia. Onup. de vita pont. pag. 472. The particular decree concerning Invocation of Saints and adoration of Images, is much enlarged by the Trent Council, and by Pius Quartus. But of the equivalency of Idolatry in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, * In the fifth book upon the Creed, or a treatise containing the original of unbelief, etc. sect. 4. elsewhere at large. In this one point, to omit others, the present Romish Church far exceeds the Eastern Church, in the time of the second Nicene Council; in that it ratifies the worshipping of all such Saints as are canonised by the Pope. 3 The second addition made by the Roman Church unto the ancient canon of faith, is, a transcendent one, and illimited; and that is, the making of Ecclesiastical Tradition to be an integral part of the canon of faith. This doth not only pollute, but undermine the whole fabric of the holy, primitive and Catholic faith. That there is a certain rule or authentic canon of faith, is a principle, wherein the ancient primitive Church, the modern Roman, and all reformed Churches agree. The first point of difference betwixt us, is about the extent of the written canon, specially of the old Testament. The main points of difference are these. First, we affirm with antiquity, and in particular with Vincentius Lirinensis, that the canon of Scripture is a rule of faith, perfect for quantity, and sufficient for quality: that is, it contains all things in it, that are necessary to salvation, or requisite to be contained in any rule; & so contains them as they may be believed and understood, without relying on any other rule or authority equivalent to them in certainty, or more authentic in respect of us, than the Scriptures are. The modern Romish Church denies the canon of Scripture to be perfect and complete in respect of its quantity, or sufficient for its quality or efficacy. To supply the defect of its quantity, they add Tradition, as another part of the same rule, homogeneal and equivalent to it for quality. To supply the unsufficiency aswell of canonical Scriptures as of Tradition in respect of their quality or efficacy towards us, they add the infallible authority of the present visible Church. The former addition of unwritten Traditions, as part of the infallible rule doth undermine: this latter addition of the Churches infallible & absolute authority aswell in determining the extent, as in declaring the true sense and meaning of the whole rule, utterly pulls down the structure of faith: yet when we reject Ecclesiastical Tradition from being any part of the rule of faith, we do not altogether deny the authority or use of it. Howbeit that Ecclesiastical Tradition, whereof there was such excellent use in the Primitive Church, was not unwritten tradition, or customs commended or ratified by the supposed infallibility of any visible Church. That Ecclesiastical Tradition which Vincentius Lirinensis so much commends, did especially consist in the Confessions or registers of particular Churches. Now the unanimous consent of so many several Churches, as exhibited their Confessions to the Nicene Council, being not dependent one of another, not overswayed by authority, nor misled by faction to frame the Confessions of their faith by imitation, or according to some pattern set them, but voluntarily and freely exhibiting such Confessions as had been framed and taught before these controversies arose; was a pregnant argument to any unpartial understanding man, that this faith wherein they all agreed, had been delivered unto them by the Apostles and their followers, by the first planters of the Churches thus agreeing; a pregnant argument likewise, that these first planters had been inspired and taught by one and the same Spirit. Each particular Church was a competent or authentic witness of every other Church's integrity and fidelity in seruando depositum, in careful preserving the truth committed to their special trust. On the contrary, in that Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and other heretics, did obtrude such constructions of scriptures upon their Auditors, as had no where been heard of before, but sprung up with themselves, or from the places wherein they lived: this was an argument more than probable, that if the Apostles had delivered the whole form of wholesome doctrine unto posterity (a point questioned by no Church in those times) these men, or the particular Churches which abetted them, had not kept the doctrine delivered unto them by our Saviour and his Apostles; but had corrupted or defiled it with the idle fancies of their own brains, or with the muddy conceit of their discontented passions. To speak more briefly, though perhaps more fully: The unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches, as exhibited their several Confessions, Catechisms, or Testimonies of their own and their forefather's faith, unto the four first ecumenical Counsels, was an argument of the same force and efficacy, against Arius and other heretics, for whose conviction these Counsels were called, as the general consent and practice of all Nations in worshipping some Divine power or other, hath been, in all ages, against the Atheists. Nothing, besides the ingraffed notion of a Deity or divine power, could have inclined so many several Nations, so much different in natural disposition, in civil discipline and education, to affect or practise the duty of adoration. Nothing, besides the evidence of truth delivered unto the Christian world by Christ and his Apostles, could have kept so many several Churches, as communicated their Confessions unto the Council of Nice and Ephesus, etc. in the unity of the same faith. 4 Howbeit this unanimous Tradition Ecclesiastic, was not in these times held for any proper part of the Rule of faith, but alleged only as an inducement to incline the hearts of such as before acknowledged the written word for the only Rule of faith, to believe that the interpretations or decisions of those Counsels, did contain the true sense and meaning of the Rule acknowledged by all. So that the written Tradition which Vincentius so much commends, was not by the Nicene Council used to any such purpose as the Romanist now use unwritten Traditions. The only use of it was to direct the present Church in her examination of the Catholic truth, or points of faith. The chief authority which the visible Church then challenged, did consist in the unanimous consent of Ecclesiastic Tradition, and that (as was said before) but an inducement to embrace the interpretations of the present Church, and reject the interpretations of upstart heretics. 5 But was it a received truth in these Primitive times, or a truth acknowledged by Vicentius, (the pretended patron of Roman Catholic Tradition) that the joint consent of so many Bishops, as were assembled in the first Council of Nice, or the joint Confessions of so many several Dioceses as were then delivered to that Council, should unto the world's end, continue an argument or inducement of like force or validity, as it then was, either for establishment of the Canons which succeeding Counsels should make, or for condemning such opinions as with the consent of as many (or more) Bishops, as were there assembled, should be condemned for heresies? No: the same Vincentius hath given posterity a Caveat as full of wisdom, as of religion; in some cases not to admit of his former admonition, concerning the trial of Catholic faith, either for refelling heresies, or for establishing of the truth. The limitation of his former admonition, is, in his own words, thus. * Sed neque semper, neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed novitiae recentesque tantummodo. cum primum scilicet exoriuntur, antequam infalsarint vetus●ae fidei regulas, ipsius temporis vecentur angustijs, ac priusquam, manante latius veneno, maiorum volumina vitiare conentur. Caeterum dilatatae et inveterata haereses nequaquam hac via adgredienda s●nt, eò quod prolixo tempurum tractu longa iis furandae veritatis patue●it o●casio. Alque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores, vel schismatum vel haerescon prophanitates nullo modo nos oportet, nisi aut solâ, si opus est, Scripturarum authorita●e convincere, aut certe iam antiquitus universalibus Sacerdotum Catholicorum Concilijs, convictas damnatasque vitare, etc. Vinc. Lirinens. Commonit. c. 39 As for ancient and inveterate heresies, they are not in any wise to be refuted by the former method, because continuance of time (after heresies be once set on foot) may afford Heretics many opportunities of stealing Truth out of the writings of the Ancient, or for exchanging orthodoxal antiquity with profane novelties. Now what opportunities of falsification did these 800. years last passed afford, which the Roman church was not always ready to take? The opportunities afforded by dissolution of the Roman Empire and variance of christian Kings, first made the Roman Clergy such sacrilegious Thiefs, as Vincentius supposeth any opportunity may make heretics to be. And the Roman church, being fleshed with the spoil of Christ's flock and christian churches through the West, have not been wanting unto themselves in devising new opportunities in coining a new art of falsifying Antiquity, of stealing the consent and suffrages of the christian world, from orthodoxal and primitive truth. So that if this controversy may be examined and discussed by Vincentius his rules, since the first acknowledgement of the Pope's supremacy, since the making of Edicts for the acknowledging of it, since the exemption of Clerks from royal or civil jurisdiction; all the written testimonies, or unwritten traditions, which the children of the Romish church do or can rake together, are void in law, and void in conscience: there is not so much as one legal single Testimony, but all are as a multitude of false and illegal witnesses, of parties or conspirators in their own cause. 6 But although heresies of long standing & continuance cannot be refuted, nor may not be assaulted in Vincentius his judgement, by the former method; that is, by multitude of suffragants, or joint consent of several Provinces: is there therefore no other means left to convince them, no way left to eschew them? yes, we may eschew them, (saith he) as already condemned by ancient and orthodoxal Counsels; or we may convince them, so it be needful or expedient, by the sole authority of Scriptures. Now if the Scriptures be sufficient to convince heresies of long continuance or long standing, and to confute such heretics, as want neither wit, will, nor opportunity to falsify ancient records, and imprint traditions of their own coining, with inscriptions of Antiquity; I hope the same Scripture was (in Vincentius his judgement) a Rule of faith neither uncompleate for its quantity, nor unsufficient for its quality: a Rule every way competent for ending controversies in religion, without the assumption either of Tradition or decrees of Council, as any associates or homogeneal parts of the same rule. 7 Unto what use then did Ecclesiastical tradition, or general Counsels serve for quelling heresies? Ecclesiastical traditions or unanimous consent of particular Churches throughout several Kingdoms or Provinces in points of faith, was in ancient times, & yet may be an excellent means, by which the Spirit of God leads general Counsels into the truth. And the Counsels whose care and office it was to compare and examine Traditions exhibited, were the sovereign and principal means under the guidance of God's Spirit, by which as many as embraced the love of truth, were led into all those truths, which are at all times necessary to salvation, but were much questioned and obscured by the jugglings and falsifications of former Heretics. Into the same truths which these Counsels were then, we now are led, not by relying upon the sole authority of the Counsels which the Spirit did lead, but by tracing their footsteps, and viewing the way by which the Spirit did lead them. And this was, by necessary deductions or consequences, which reason enlightened by the Spirit, and directed by the sweet disposion of divine providence, did teach them to make, and doth enable us to judge that they were truly made by them. CHAP. XXIII. Cap. 23 Of the agreement between the Enthusiast or some nonconformitants to the Church of England, and the Romish Church, concerning the manner how the Spirit of truth, (as they suppose) doth lead men into all truth. That the true sense of scriptures is as determinable by light of reason and rules of art, as the conclusions of any other sciences or faculties are. A general survey of the depraved or more than heretical or heathenish infidelity of the modern Romish Church. 1 IGnorance or unaduertence of the manner how the Spirit leads us into the truth or true sense of the rule of faith, hath been the mother of two monstrous twins in latter ages; of Enthusiasm, and of Romish implicit or magical faith. The Enthusiast presumes he hath the Spirit for his guide, and knows he hath it, merely by his breathing or afflation. The Romanist observing the Enthusiast to run into gross errors, by relying upon the immediate voice, the breathing or suggestion of his private Spirit; thinks it safest to believe none but public Spirits, and that the public spirit speaks nothing, or judgeth nothing for authentic, save only in public Assemblies, as in general Counsels, or in such public place, as is the Consistory of the Pope and his Cardinals. Neither of them consider, as the truth is, that either the connexion between principles of faith, and the conclusions or inferences which follow upon the admission of such principles as true, or the non-coherence of inferences pretended from sacred principles expressly contained in the Scriptures, may be as clearly demonstrated to reason, though unsanctified; as the connexion or non-coherence between the principles and conclusions of any art or science whatsoever. Between sciences properly so called, and the faculty of divinity, this is the only difference: The principles or Maxims of sciences, properly so called, may be rightly conceived, and fully assented unto, by mere light of nature, without such assistance or illumination of the Spirit, as Christ hath promised to his Church, and without which no principles of faith, though expressly contained in Scripture, can be rightly conceived, much less firmly believed. So that the conclusions of arts and sciences, may by light of nature be absolutely known; whereas even those conclusions of faith, whose connexion with the principles of faith (expressly contained in Scripture) is as clear and demonstratively evident to reason, not enlightened by the Spirit, as any connexion is between scientifical conclusions, and their principles, cannot be absolutely known or firmly believed, without the assistance of the Spirit; because the principles whence they are deduced, cannot by reason unsanctified, or not enlightened, be absolutely known or assented unto. And unless the princples be absolutely known or believed: the best knowledge or belief of the Conclusions, can be but conditional. Every Artist knows, that the connexion or non-coherence between a postulatum or hypothesis, (that is, a proposition not fully known, but taken as granted,) and the conclusion thence rightly deduced or pretended, may be as clear and evident as the connexion between an undoubted principle, and the conclusion demonstratively deduced from it, or pretended to be so deduced. He that is no competent judge of a problem absolutey considered, may give absolute and infallible judgement of the same problem upon the mutual acknowledgement or agreement of the controversors. As if two Novices in Arithmetic, should move this question; Whether fifty were a square number, whether sixty four were a cubic, and refer the decision of both ore tenus, to an exquisite Mathematician, that did not well understand English; it were impossible for him to resolve the problem before he perfectly understood the terms. But upon their mutual acknowledgement, that fifty in English was as much as Quinquaginta in Latin, and a square the same that Quadratum in Latin; he could absolutely resolve them that fifty could be no square, that the next number below it, was a square, although he knew not how to express it in English. Upon the acknowledgement of both parties likewise, that sixty four in English was as much as sexaginta quatuor in Latin, he could absolutely resolve them, that it was both a square and a cubic number. 2 To propose the like case in Divinity, which shall be this; Whether Polygamy be lawful, or rather a true branch of adultery: suppose this controversy were to be handled before some Heathen Civilian, between two Christians, the one of which had married the others daughter, and intended to marry a second wife in a foreign Country, where the party grieved had no Christian Magistrate to do him right. An heathen judge, that could understand the literal meaning of the Scripture, though he did not in any sort believe them, and made no conscience of Polygamy himself, might in this case give as upright judgement, as the Pope and his Cardinals could, and that according to the rule of faith; so the parties would both submit themselves to have the controversy decided by that rule, that is, by the Scriptures of the old and new Testament. The party peccant might plead custom and tradition, The practice of the Patriarches and holy men of God for his warrant, and that with greater probability than the Romanist can plead for worshipping Images, or then they excuse themselves from spiritual Adultery. If the party grieved should against custom and tradition, plead or oppose that law, Let every man have his wife, and every wife her husband, or other like Texts, which some great Divines have alleged for decision of this case; they would not conclude the cause, specially before a judge not acquainted with the mystery of the Creation. For he that hath a wife and a wife, hath a wife, and she that hath a husband, and a husband, hath a husband. But if that precept of our Mat. 19.9. Saviour, [Whosoever putteth away his wife unless it be for adultery, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her being so put away, committeth adultery:] were once produced; any Heathen Civilian might give this absolute and infallible sentence, [If ye Christians will admit this Law for true and just, or for a rule of conscience; then Polygamy certainly is a natural part of Adultery, and he that hath a wife and marrieth another, is to be punished as an Adulterer.] For what is the reason why he that putteth away his wife, though by legal divorce, and marrieth another, commits adultery with the second? or why he that marrieth the first being so put away, is likewise an Adulterer? Is not the reason because the bond of matrimony betwixt the husband and the first wife, according to this your Christian law is not dissolved by a legal sentence of divorce, extra casum adulterij, unless in case of adultery? Yet as a sentence of divorce gotten upon suspicion of adultery or subornation, or upon other causes which humane Laws, and God's Law unto the jew did permit; cannot by the Evangelicall Law altogether dissolve the bond of matrimony: so out of all question, it doth rather loosen or weaken it, than corroborate or knit it faster. Wherefore if he that having gotten a sentence of divorce, by formal course of Law, against his wife, become guilty of Adultery in the Court of conscience, and by the evangelical Law, if he marry another: then much more shall he be an Adulterer, who having a wife whose chastity was never called in question, against whom no sentence of Law hath been obtained, if he shall presume to marry another. Thus far an Heathen, by light of natural reason, without the assistance of God's Spirit, may go in this and many other controversies amongst Christians. 3 Were not most Recusants throughout this Kingdom worse affected, I will not say towards us and our Religion, but towards truth itself, even towards the light of the Gospel, than any civil Heathen either are or can be; they might as clearly discern the usurped authority of the Romish Church, over their faith, and over Scriptures the rule of faith, to be as true a branch of Apostasy from Christ, as Polygamy is of Adultery; and that it doth more evidently dissolve the bonds of matrimony betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church, than Polygamy or adultery doth the bond of matrimony, betwixt man and wife. First, they make the Scriptures, as was said before, not only an imperfect rule in respect of its quantity, but this defect being in their opinion supplied by associating unwritten Traditions unto it; in the second place they make both Scriptures and unwritten Traditions to be an unsufficient rule in respect of their quality. For it is their doctrine, that we cannot know which be Canonical Scriptures, which are not, which be authentic traditions, which not, but by relying upon the authority of the visible Church. Again, admitting the Church could determine, which were Authentic Traditions, which were not, and that no Traditions should hereafter be received besides those which she had determined: yet if any controversy should arise concerning the meaning of those Scriptures, which she hath determined to be Canonical, or concerning the meaning, limitation or use of these Traditions which she hath acknowledged to be authentic; no private man may take upon him absolutely to believe this or that to be the meaning of either, but with submission of his judgement to the Church's sentence. And this, as I have * In the third book upon the Creed, section the fourth. See section the second, ca 2.3.4. elsewhere showed at large, is not only to make the authority of the Church to be above the authority of the Scriptures, but utterly to nullify the authority of the Scriptures, save only so far as they may serve as a stale or footstool to support or hold up the authority of the Church or Pope. So that the last resolution of the Romanists belief, as out of their own comparisons of the Scriptures to colours, and the authority of the Church unto the light by which colours become visible to us (as * In the book fore cited, sect. 4. cap. 5. par. 12. is elsewhere demonstrated) must be this; That he absolutely believes only the infallible authority of the Church concerning the truth of Scriptures and their true meaning: their truth or meaning he neither absolutely nor infallibly believes. So that, if he believe any divine truth, it is only ex accidenti, that is, in as much as the Church doth not err in that point of faith, which she proposeth unto him: howbeit to believe that which is true, upon no better motive or condition then this, is much worse than the ignorance of truth, or mere unbelief of the same truth. How many several divine truths or articles of faith soever he thus believeth; he can be no true Catholic, because he believes no divine truth, but as it is mixed with hellish antichristian falsehood. If we shall prove that this supposed infallibility of the Romish Church doth in diverse points induce not only heresy but infidelity, and that infidelity of a worse sort, then can be incident to any Heathen; I hope our intended conclusion will be sufficiently evicted, that whosoever holds this absolute infallibility of the present visible Romish Church, whatsoever he holds beside, can be no Catholic. To give you an instance for proof of this. 4 If one being a Christian shall steal, he doth commit a grievous sin, yet a sin of one kind or species, that is theft: he doth not thereby cease to be a Christian, he doth not thereby become an Infidel or Antichristian. The like we may say of fornication, adultery, murder, incest, or the like, all which are grievous sins, and without repentance exclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet can we not say, that they make a man an Infidel, though worthy to be cast out of the Church, until he give full proof of his humble submission and hearty repentance for his fact. But if any man that hath been baptised and made a partaker of the word, which in many points he believes, shall by covetousness, malice, intemperancy, or the like, have so far corrupted the feeds of Christianity, or Law of God written in his heart; as he shall think, that which indeed and truth is theft, fornication, adultery, murder, or incest, to be no sin, he is by the general verdict of the Schools, not only an heretic, but an Infidel. Now Infidelity is of two sorts, either infidelitas purae negationis, privative infidelity, such as is in the Heathen, which have not known God or his Laws, as having no commerce with his people; or infidelitas pravae dispositionis, depraved infidelity, of which there be more degrees; as first it may be in the Heathen to whom the truth of the Law or Gospel hath been imparted; but they have impugned both, or had them in derision: or it may be in the jew, which acknowledgeth the truth of Mosaical and Prophetical writings, and yet oppugnes the truth of the Gospel, which is contained in them, with greater spite and violence, than the Heathen which acknowledge neither. Briefly, as the contrariety is greatest, which is betwixt opposite qualities of nearest alliance in predicamental line; such as have the same immediate or proximum genus: so is their infidelity or enmity unto the Catholic faith most deadly, which communicate with true Catholics in most principles, and yet swerve grossly from them, and from the truth, in some particular principles or practices thereon grounded. As, for an Heathen to hold murder, or incest, to be no sin, is not a crime so heinous, as the like in a jew: For a jew to licence or authorise incestuous marriages, to allow or reward the murder of Christians, for whom Christ shed his blood, includes not so great an enmity unto Christ and his Laws; it argues not so high a degree of infidelity, as the like practice or opinions do in him, that professeth himself to be a Christian, to be a successor of Christ's Apostles, to be Christ's Vicar here on earth. 5 To prove our intended conclusion by full induction; first, let inquiry be made what pillage and spoils of ecclesiastical Benefices the Pope, or (which is all one) the Church of Rome hath made by Bulls of provision throughout this and other Kingdoms; whereby many Christians have been induced to account sacrilege no sin. Secondly, what oaths, whether of allegiance from Subjects to their Sovereigns, or of solemn leagues betwixt Prince and Prince or free Sovereignties, or of solemn contracts betwixt man and wife, have been dispensed withal, and utterly nullified by the Pope; by which means a great part of the Christian world have been seduced to esteem breach of lawful vows or perjury joined with disloyalty, to be no sin. Thirdly, what marriages the Pope hath licenced between parties forbidden to marry, not only by the Law of God, but by the civil Law of the Ancient Romans, and other Nations, by which means many great Families, and whole Christian Kingdoms have been induced to account such incest or fornication, as was loathsome to the Gentiles, to be no sin. Fourthly, what massacres or cruel butcheries of men never convicted or condemned by course of Law, have been either licenced before hand, or commanded, or else allowed, approved, and commended after the fact done, by the Pope; whereby many Christians have been seduced to account cruel murder no sin, but a meritorious act, yea an act of mercy and pity towards Christ's Church. If all such particulars as belong to every branch here specified, and have been related by unpartial Historians, were duly collected and examined with the circumstances; we might refer it to any Heathen Civilian, to any whom God hath not given over to a reprobate sense to believe lies, whether the supposed infallibility of the Romish Church, or the prerogative given to the Pope by his followers, be not, according to the evangelical Law and their own tenants, worse than heresy, and worse than any branch of Infidelity, whereof any jew or Heathen is capable; yea the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or period of Antichristianisme. Why should we look for a greater Antichrist in Rome or elsewhere, then hath been already revealed, when as the Pope hath herein manifested himself to be the first borne of Satan, in that he takes authority upon him to execute the prerogative wherein Satan and his Angels most delight; that is, of turning Gods affirmative precepts into negatives, and Gods negative precepts into affirmatives. 6 Amongst other explicit Articles of the Roman Creed, which every Bishop at his consecration is bound by oath to maintain, this is one; that in the Mass there is, sacrificium verum proprium et propitiatorium pro vivis et defunctis, A propitiatory sacrifice as well for the dead as for the living. How far this heresy doth contaminate or overthrow the Canon of Catholic faith, into which it is inserted by Pius Quartus, as it were a toad or spider put into the Chalice or wine of the sacred Eucharist, I am not now to meddle. My only purpose for this present is, to give the Reader to understand, that failing in other points about consecration of Bishops in England, their principal exceptions against our Church and Ministry is, that our Priests in their ordination do not receive the power of sacrificing Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. But their inserting this clause into the form of ordination, doth prove their Priesthood to be antichristian. And as many as received ordination in this form, had the number, though not the character of the Beast. And although this clause did not nullify their Priesthood which had been thus ordained before the doctrine of the present Mass was fully discovered to be a part of Antichrists Liturgy; yet doth it now make all communion with them either in ordination, or in the Romish Sacrament of the Eucharist to be a desperate heresy: and for this cause the controversy about the Mass must be reserved to the second Book of this TREATISE. FINIS.