OF THE DIVISION BETWEEN The ENGLISH AND ROMISH Church UPON THE REFORMATION.  
By way of Answer to the seeming plausible Pretences of the ROMISH Party.  
Much enlarged in this Edition: By H. FERNE D. D.  ACT. 24.14. 
After the way, which they call Heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, etc.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1655.   

To the READER.  
GOod Reader, This Treatise was intended for private Satisfaction, but falling under the View of some, that were able to judge, and liked well of it, (better than it deserved) it was thought not unfit for more public use. And the Author (than fare off in the North) was importuned, not only to give his consent to the putting it forth, but to help it forward himself, by prefacing something to it, for the fairer bringing it forth into Open light. Know therefore, (Good Reader) and well consider it, that these are such times as the Apostle foretold, 2 Tim. Perilous (difficult and troublesome) times, 2 Tim. 3.1. Times in which it would be hard for good Christians to know how to behave themselves with safety; the dangers of these days threatening, not only the outward estate or worldly concernments, but attempting Conscience and Religion itself, and that on the one hand and on the other.  
They of the old Romish Superstition pretending Antiquity, and a present flourishing condition of a Church: They of the new persuasion boasting success, and holding forth New lights to carry aside.  
As in the day of Jerusalem, both the Children of Edom and of Babylon cried, Down with it, down with it, Psal. 137. They saw the trouble of Jerusalem, and were glad that the Lord had done it, Lam. 1.21. So it is with the true Protestant Church in this Land, now troubled and distressed. The Enemies on either side rejoicing, that the Lord hath done it to us.  
A pitiful thing it is, (and one argument more for Lamentation, than Jeremiah had for his) that the enemies of a Christian Church, should be such on both sides, as profess themselves Christians, acknowledge One Saviour, look for one Hope; and though agreeing all in the main, yet because of different persuasions in Religion, can be content, yea and rejoice to see a Christian Church to fall, and to be (if they might have their will) thrown quite off from the Foundation, on which they profess themselves to be built, rather than see it stand there, otherwise, than just as they do, and according to their frame.  
How much were it to be wished, and to be prayed for, that the Lord would roll away this reproach of Egypt, Jos. 5.9. from off the name of Christians, this uncircumcision, this hardness of heart? that he would take away this perverse Spirit he has mingled among us, (as Isa. 19.14.) from whence arise such Debates, and contentions, not only about the things of Earth, but of Heaven too: the Affairs and business of the State, and of the Church too.  
As for those of the Romish persuasion, when I look at those points of Religion controverted between us, which concern not the special and politic concernments of that Church (such as Universal Jurisdiction, and that which follows on it, Universal Subjection, and that which must maintain the former, Infallibility, and the like) I cannot but think, there might be a possibility of some peaceable and fair Christian agreement. Yea, and were there Reason and Equity in men, instead of that pretended Infallibility, to agree and stay upon the due Authority of free General Counsels, and instead of the now exorbitant power of the Bishop of Rome, to be content he should have only the Ancient Patriarchal Primacy allowed him in the first General Counsels, I should not despair of agreement as to these points.  
But when I consider, how nearly the Guides of that Church take themselves to be concerned in these Politic Interesses, and what a numerous society there is of Jesuits devoted to maintain them, I must needs say, that hope seems vain, and conclude them engaged to hold where they are, and to condemn all other Christians, and Churches to the Gates of Hell, that will not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the only Church, against which the Gates of Hell have not, nor can prevail by any error in Faith or Worship.  
He that will look into the business of Religion before, and at the beginning of the Council of Trent, will easily see by the several Colloquies held between Protestants, and Romanists, what agreement some points were brought to, and what further condescension might have been, had not the Interesses of the Court of Rome disturbed all. Or if he look into those Relations and Histories we have of the Council of Trent itself, he will see by the several discourses had upon the points controverted, what moderation there was in many learned men, but rendered ineffectual, by reason that the Arcana Imperii, those forementioned politic concernments of that Church, as they might not be once disputed, so they wholly overruled the other points of Religion, and excluded all Moderation in the Definitions of that Council.  
All the Christian World sees, how long the poor distressed Eastern Church has lain under that heavy condition, unpitied by Them of the Romish Communion; and how They have stood affected to us since our Reformation has sufficiently appeared by their several practices against us; What hand they had in our present troubles is not unknown to some; what joy they now take in them, let their own heart tell them; but what advantage they make of them for perverting of many, that is it we are to take notice of, and to withstand. I have opposed this Defence, such as it is, against their general plausible pretences: framed indeed both for Matter and Form, most-what according to the scruples of Those, that occasioned it; but may generally serve to give some stay in these tottering Times to those, that have not a more able hand to hold and keep them steady.  
As for the Particular Doctrines of the Romish Church, some of the chief of them, (as Traditions, Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory) are spoken to, as concerning the Trial of Antiquity, towards the End of this Treatise. Where it is by divers instances shown, that they could not be doctrines of the Ancient Church. I may happily find time (with God's help) to make a fuller enquiry upon these, and other their novel Articles; that it may appear, what is justly and necessarily controverted between us, either in matter of Faith or Worship: What may be waved, as needlessly quarrelled at, or agreed, as needlessly contended about: And of the controverted Points, which Doctrine, Theirs, or Ours, will upon the trial of direct Scripture, prove more Apostolical: which upon principles confessed by us both, will appear more safe and reasonable, and also more agreeable to true Christian humility and piety. But of this hereafter, as it shall please God to give opportunity, and ability.  
It remains, I should speak to that seeming advantage they would make of our disturbed condition, to the abusing of unwary Protestants into a persuasion, that we have no Government, no Communion, no Church. Something is said to it, in the Body of this Treatise, upon the point of Schism and Division. But to give the Reader farther satisfaction, it must be considered, First, It is no new thing to see a Church under the power of the Sword, oppressed by the hand of violence, persecuted, scattered, and so deprived of the peace, order, and comeliness it had: Nor ought any Man to think, that he is not therefore in the Bosom of the Church, because he cannot lie in it quietly and at ease, as formerly; or that it is best for him to stay no longer in the Ship, (as they thought, Act. 27.30, 31.) because it is tossed to and fro, with a heavy and tedious storm. The Romanist, that judges much of things spiritual by the eye of sense, cannot well like of Christian worship, but when it is pompous and highly Ceremonious; nor of a Christian Church, unless it be gloriously conspicuous for outward splendour, and undisturbed order. But than is Truth of most price, when it is bought at a dear rate, and not sold upon any terms; when it is sought out with great difficulty, and held upon as great disadvantages; and then is Faith most precious, when it is most tried, and stands under the greatest prejudious.  
Secondly, Consider, what has happened to us, is fallen upon us for Trial, and Humiliation: to the end, that they, which are approved, might be made manifest among us, (1 Cor. 11.19.) for the Truth they hold to, and the Faith they profess; and that All might be humbled and corrected, the Sons of Levi especially refined and purified, Mal. 3.3. Our troubled condition therefore does not justify the Church of Rome, nor aught to confirm any in the error of that persuasion; but it condemns only our iniquities, in being unanswerable to that Pea e and Truth we enjoyed: and calls for, not a forsaking of that way of Worship and Religion we were in, but of those sins by which we provoked this wrath.  
Thirdly, Consider, what has happened to us, has to the same end and purpose often befallen the Church of God, without a dissolution of it. If the Lord has now covered this Church with a cloud in his anger, it is but what he did to Zion, Lam, 2.1. If in the indignation of his wrath he has despised both the King and the Priest, it is that which Jeremiah lamented in the sad condition of Jerusalem, Lam. 2.9. If destroyed his places of Assembly (as there complained of) it is not the destruction of a Church, but the want of that freedom it had of more public Worship and Communion. Look we into the Christian Church, how it was trained up for some hundreds of years in such a low and distressed condition: under perilous and dissicult times for the most part, which seldom afforded them a secure liberty of due and orderly assembling together. We see the Church at first falling under persecutions, and all of them scattered abroad, but some few that held together privately at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. and cap. 11.19. and in the next Chap. we see their meetings were very close and secret, cap. 12.12, 13. And so was it often with the Church, during the persecutions of the first 300 years, often put to have their meetings before day, and in caves, or secret places; yet so they maintained the Communion and being of the Church. Why then should any think it strange to see the like disturbance of peace and order happen to a National Church? But to come yet nearer our Case; When the Church under the violence of Arrian Emperors was persecuted, scattered, Bishops driven from their Sees, and all good Christian people (that would not communicate with Heresy and Schism) driven from the public places of Worship, & put to meet as they could, and where they could; yet so they continued the Communion of the Church.  
Now during those perilous times, there was nothing done in the Way of the Church, for Worship or Discipline, but 'tis or may be done in this Church. And if any can say, 'tis not so done, he does but speak the necessity of Times, or at worst but the fault & failings of men, not the want of any thing necessary in the Constitution of this Church. For notwithstanding the attempts of violence, there is the same Doctrine and power of Discipline remaining, the same Liturgy and form of worship, the same Government by Bishops and other inferior Pastors; and were there the same Zeal, as was in the Christians of the Ancient Church under the Heathen or Arrian violence, there would be no cause of complaint, no occasion of reproach, as there is now with some by reason of Communion and Discipline, not yet so regularly provided for in the present disturbed condition of this Church.  
Indeed this may be said towards an excuse, that such has been the Conjuncture of Affairs for these last years, such the uncertainty of Occurrences in relation to Church and State, that it made the Times very difficult for those that had lawful power to know, or resolve how to use it lawfully, and to the best advantage. The Winds in this storm have blown so contrary and from such several quarters, and the Waves, which beat upon the Ship, have been so broken and uncertain, that it was hard for those that were at the Helm to steer, or bear up against them. And if our Pilots tired out with the storm, did think it best (as they did, Act. 27.25.) to let the Ship drive a while, out of hope the Wind would cease of itself, or some other more favourable blast arise from some other quarter: This indeed might be prudence for the then pressing Exigency; yet must not they or any else, because the storm lies still upon us, think (as they did, Act. 27.30.) of flying out of the Ship, But rather take courage after long abstinence, and provide for safety as well as the difficulty and distress of the Times will permit.  
There laid a heavy storm upon the Church, when it was under the Heathen, or Arrian violence; yet if compared with the condition of our Times, it will appear to have been in better capacity of holding the Communion more regular and distinct, by reason the opposition was more regular, certain, and apparent: The Civil power was the same, no alteration of State to trouble them, but only the will of the Prince changed, and for the time bend against them: the business also of Religion was clear, and easy to resolve, for, whether we consider the Heathen Superstition, or the Arrian Heresy: both so apparent, that the temptations of compliance were less forcible, and so the means of holding Christians together, in a distinct Communion more ready and easy.  
The condition of our Times hath indeed been more difficult, which though it might persuade forbearance a while, and excuse it: yet now it calls for the more courage and zeal, in providing for that which seems to have been too long neglected, (a more regular Churchway of Communion and worship) that which the Apostle calls for, and minds the scattered Hebrews of, Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, Heb. 10. ver. 25. as the manner of too many among us is, who are either careless of meeting at all for divine worship, or indifferent where or with whom they meet: nothing scrupling that promiscuous Communion, which is yet seen in too many places, and should (I confess) be provided against. If any ask how? how, but by the power of the Keys, which the Sword of violence cannot cut in sunder, nor the Church lose, unless they that hold them, cast them away? The use of that power is to separate or take forth the precious from the vile, (Jer. 15.19.) the tender Sheep from the violent Goats, the peaceable Christian from the factious Schismatic: And he that is filthy let him be filthy still, (Revel. 22.) and he that will contemn, let him mock on still, but God is not mocked. And were this done, as it might be done according to the present distress of these Times, there would be no occasion for the Adversaries to mock, or for other to complain (as the Prophet Isa. in the behalf of Jerusalem, ch. 31.18.) There is none to guide her of all the Sons whom she hath brought forth, neither is there any that taketh her by the hand, of all the Sons that she hath brought up. But the Adversaries that have afflicted her, and said to her, Bow down, that we may go over, would for their mocking have cause to fear what the Lord threatens at the 23 ver. I will put the cup of trembling into their hand.  
And now Good Reader, if thou be'st (or wouldst show thyself) a good Churchman, that is a good Christian, abhorring Idols, and hating to commit Sacrilege, desiring to keep thyself pure from Superstition in divine worship, and from Faction and Schism in Church-Communion: Beware then of false Teachers, Beware of the Concision, (Phil. 3.2.) both New and Old; Suffer not thyself to be cut off from thy former Communion, either by any new Sect, or by the cunning of any Romish persuasion: Let not these troublesome Times, which are for thy trial, and manifesting of what is approved in thee, be unto thee an occasion of falling. God, whom thou servest in the spirit, is able to make thee stand. To his grace I commend thee.  
HEN: FERNA.   

Of the Division between the English Church and Romish upon the Reformation.  
IT cannot be denied, that every Christian is bound to learn and know upon the best Evidence he can, what it is that God will have him believe to Salvation, and how he will be worshipped by him. To this he stands obliged, both by the end of his hope, Salvation, if he will attain to that, and by his Vow, at his entrance into Christianity, the promise he made, to Believe, and Do all, etc.  
Now when differences are among Christians about Faith and Worship, we are more concerned to use care and diligence in seeking after the Truth: not to follow all Guides, or take all on Trust, but, as S. Judas bids us, Earnestly to contend for the Faith once delivered, Judas ver. 3.  
Many years have we contended with the Church of Rome about the Faith once delivered, impleading her of innovating in Belief and Worship to the introducing of gross Errors, and Superstitions: And still we have more cause to contend with them of that Church, because more busy now in working upon the distempers of the Times, and in drawing away some unwary and unstable Protestants, by plausible pretences of seeming advantage to the Romish Church, in comparison of the now disturbed condition of the Church of England.  
Our work is therefore to strive with them, not out of the spirit of contention, to the multiplying of Controversies, or enlarging the Rout which (God knows) is too wide already: but only to the necessary defence of ourselves, our Faith and Worship, of which we are always ready to give an account. And as to the charging of them, however they deal with us, we are willing to excuse in them, what is excusable: Yet so as to make appear, what is deceitful in their general plausible pretences, and what is hurtful or destructive to the Catholic Faith, in their particular Doctrines.  
This is certain and not to be denied, that a Doctrine of Faith was delivered, the true Profession of which, makes or constitutes a Church: also that there is and will be, to the World's End, must not be taken as the Romanists do, as if one and the same Church of one denomination, as Roman, or Ephesian, or English, should do it; or, as if those Pastors, which are chief in place should do it; but that it shall be done in some part or other of the Catholic Church, and by such of the Pastors in the Catholic Church, as it pleases God to use for the preservation of his Truth: a Church, in which, and by which (as the Pillar of Truth) that doctrine shall be preserved and upheld: and in that Church a succession of Pastors and Teachers to deliver down that Doctrine of Faith once delivered by our Lord and his Apostles.  
The Romanist, when he is to contend for his faith, is not willing to come to the Trial of particular Doctrines, but rather stays in the Generals of a Church, a visible succession, and the like, seeking by these (which make a plausible noise to the unwary) to prove the continuation of the Doctrine rather, than to defend his Church by the Doctrine she delivers; and to make a clamour of Division and Schism (odious Names) rather than to examine upon due consideration of that purity of Faith and Worship (which every Church ought to hold) where the cause is, and whose the fault, that we now stand divided.  
We begin with the Generals. Where, upon the seeming advantage of the former pretences, they charge us with setting up a New Church, when we reform; and as consequent to that, with Schism or breach of Communion. We deny that we set up a New Church, or made a Schism, or that we stand guilty of this breach of Communion.  

CHAP. I. We set not up a new Church, but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation.  
IN order to the first, they usually put the question, Where was your Church before Luther? A Question that carries a charge very plausible to the unlearned, who cannot distinguish between the face, and the body (or rather soul) of a Church: between that which makes a Church, and that which makes it such a Church. We answer therefore, our Church was there where now it is, and where it always was; the same Christian Church, as before the Reformation, having lost nothing that made it so. But say they, The Church in England before the Reformation was their Church, holding and practising what they did. Be it so, that the Church of England generally held and practised so, yet may it remain the same Christian Church, when it ceased to hold and practice so. For we may likewise put the Question to them, Where was your Church for divers Ages of the Primitive and first Times? They will answer, where it is now, at Rome and elsewhere. But we say, that was our Church, holding and practising (for the main) as we. For where was there for those firster Ages, a Romish Church holding and delivering the Canon of the Scripture, as they do now? or pretending to an Infallibility, as now? or challenging Universal subjection, as now? where was there a Romish Church for 500 years, that held Purgatory a point of Faith? that taught Invocation of Saints for Catholic doctrine? or that practised it in the public Liturgy for about that time? or that taught, or practised Image-worship for a longer time? or where was a Roman Church that taught and enjoined Communion under one kind, for a 1000 years? This is most notorious to them, that are but reasonably acquainted with Antiquity. Nor is Cardinal Peron's 18 cap. lib. 1. against the King, touching the Agreement of the Ancient and Modern Church, any proof against it, but a flourish only. Now if they, notwithstanding these and many other errors and corruptions by (degrees crept in upon that Church) will say, Their Church is still the same with the ancient Roman Church, they must give us leave to say with more reason: We, notwithstanding we have cast off those corruptions, are the same Christian Church; yea, and say it with more truth and advantage, in as much as that which made the Romish or English Church before the Reformation to be a Church, we have retained, without the accrueing corruptions, and so much more like the Church which was at Rome, and in England in the first and purer Ages. We say therefore, we are the same Christian Church, having lost nothing that made us so, but only cast off many things, that endangered our being so, viz: those many errors & superstitions that tended to the destruction of that Christian faith, which made us a Church. As a man recovered from some pestilential or dangerous disease, is the same man that before, has lost nothing that made him so, only now freed from the corruption, that endangered his being so. We set up then no new Church, but reform that which was, freeing it from former corruptions. And this makes a different Church, but not a New Church; a different Church I say, according to accidental differences, by which the same body may differ from itself at several times, and the parts of the same body from one another at the same time: so one Church may differ from itself at several times, & from other Churches, yet they and it be parts of the Catholic Church; but not according to Essential differences, which constitute a Church as part of the Catholic, and make it differ from another, that is not so. The English Church differed from itself as before and after Reformation, yet the same Christian Church; only before it had a Romish face, and garb, and apparel suitable, and a body full of spots and sores: After, it appeared otherwise, yet still the same body, the same Church, not lost any thing of that which made it so; but only cast off accessary accidental corruptions.  
For thus it stood between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, before the Reformation. They were both parts of the Catholic Church, both built upon the same foundation, that Catholic Faith, which had been delivered down in all Ages: that into which they and we are Baptised into, (they not yet daring to baptise into any points of their new faith) that which they and we yet agree in, which makes them a Church, and part of the Catholic, because they retain that Faith still, though clogged with many dangerous errors and superstitions in belief and practice. While the Church of England was in Communion with them, it also admitted of many superstructures, Hay, stubble and worse: Errors & superstitions, which by degrees crept upon the Foundation, and pass at this day in the Church of Rome (to the great abuse of poor Christian Souls) as Catholic Faith. The work of Reformation was to retain the foundation, and whatever was Christian and Catholic, & only to throw off the superstructures, that burdened and shaked it.  
These errors and superstructures after they appeared, were complained of in all Ages, by many that still held Communion with the Romish Church; and History also assures us of many in several Ages, that did actually cast them off, and suffered themselves to be put out of the Romish Communion, rather than admit of them; and how many thousands more must we suppose to have been not recorded, when 7000 were in Israel, not so much as known to Eliah? This we note, not as if we were bound to seek the Church only in those Reformers, which were of a divided communion from Rome, or to deny the Church to be in those of the Romish Communion, but to show, that however those errors were for some Ages delivered, as Catholic Doctrine, by the greater and more prevailing party in that Church, yet were they not held for such by many that continued in that communion, and rejected actually by many thousands besides.   

CHAP. II. The demand of Professors in all Ages. We can show it better than they.  
WHen therefore they call upon us to name Professors of the Protestant faith in all Ages; though it belongs to them rather to show the Professors of their faith in all Ages, (their part being the affirmative, asserting what we deny) and it be a thing they are not able to do for the five first and best ages (as was above insinuated) yet we answer them: If by such Professors they mean those that held a distinct communion from the Roman Church, it is not necessary to name such, because the faith was preserved still in that Communion, though with a great mixture of errors: yet after those errors and corruptions grew to a height, we can give examples in all Ages after, of such Protesters against them, divided from the Romish Communion, and persecuted because of them; and more abundant examples happily of such we might have had, but that little is come down to us of those poor Christians, beside what hath come from or through the hands of their professed Enemies. Now in those examples we have so many instances, not of new Churches set up, but of the former reform; and representations of the Catholic Church in some part more pure, in some part (and that generally the greater) more unsound.  
First, it is not necessary, there should be such, so professing in all points as we do: For here is a latitude of Truth, and several degrees of Purity, within which God is pleased to preserve his Church, as both Reason, and Experience, demonstrate.  
2. There might be such so professing, though not so visible and known as to be recorded.  
3. There were such, so fare as the preservation of Truth and purity in doctrine in such a degree was necessary for the continuance and propagation of the Church: Else what could Eliah have said, if he had been challenged to show Professors at that time within the Kingdom of Israel? or after, if they that held the true worship in King Ahaz his time had been challenged to show them in the Church of Israel or Judah? for as to his point of preservation of necessary Truth and due worship, there is no difference betwixt Jewish and Christian Church, the continuance of God's Church being as necessary before Christ as after. But we may see how the Romanists are fain to plead for their Faith and Religion by the uncertain Records of History rather than by the known and confessed Writings of the Prophets and Apostles; yea, to hang all upon a negative Argument from the Records of History, rather than to rest upon that which is positively affirmed in Scripture; For thus runs their Argument. We do not see this or that doctrine professed in all Ages, therefore it cannot be Apostolical; whereas it is fare more safe to argue, This Doctrine or Religion we see is Apostolical, plainly delivered in Scripture, therefore it was professed in all Ages; professed I say, though not always so numerously and openly, as they expect; nor so fully as is by Protestants in all points asserted: yet at least so professed as was necessary to the preservation of saving Tr〈…〉, and continuance of the Church. Their negative Argument is fare more forcible against themselves, their Doctrines being Affirmatives, and they bound to show them professed in all Ages: Whereas our difference from them being in the Negative of what they erroneously affirm, must needs suppose the Errors in being before there could be any Protesters against them; and render it a vain challenge, to show Protestants, as Protestants in all Ages; when as many Ages passed before the Errors got head, against which they protested. And for those Ages in which the Errors prevailed: what if Histories have not recorded, what if Historians that wrote then, did not so much as know those who were free from such Errors? which is very possible, when Eliah knew not of any in his time, and yet there were 7000: what then becomes of their Faith, that make this their chief plea against Protestants?  
But if by Professors in all Ages they mean such as dissented & complained of the prevailing Errors, though it be impossible there should be such in all Ages simply, because those errors were not at all for many Ages, yet such are found (as we said) in all Ages after the Error appeared; and how many more suppose we to have been, which are not recorded; or to have written against arising Errors in that Church, whose Writings are not come down to us?  
The Church of England, when it pleased God more openly to discover the Errors, and to touch the spirits and consciences of Men, did accordingly cast them off? only the Church of Rome would neither acknowledge them to be such, nor amend any thing: but having for many Ages challenged Universal Jurisdiction over all other Churches, and prided herself, as the only Catholic Church, and Infallible Guide, she did withal render herself altogether incorrigible, without hope of reformation and amendment.   

CHAP. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials.  
SOme Exceptions they make against this, that hath been said. 1. From the expression used by some Protestants, that we and the Church of Rome differ in Essentials; thence I have heard some of them make this fallacious argument. If differ in Essentials, then have the Protestants made a new Church essentially differing from that which was. Answ. The fallacy is in the word Essentials, which is taken either properly, for Doctrines of Faith belonging to the constitution of the Essence or being of a Church, or improperly for such as endanger it, working to the dissolution of it, tending to the corruption, & destruction of the Essence and being of a Church: In this latter sense the Doctrines of Error and Superstition, wherein they differ from us, are termed Essentials, being no light matters, (as those of Rites and Ceremony) but such as concern the Essence or being of a Church: not constitutiuè indeed, and in the affirmative (i. e.) not such as are to be held and asserted by every Church, but destructiuè rather, and in the negative, that is, such as are to be denied and avoided by every Church, as it tenders its own being and preservation. Even as a man, that is in company with infected persons, is concerned, as he tenders his life, to avoid the contagion, or to free himself from it, if tainted; So still the difference of this Church from what it was under the Papacy, is as of the same body once infected, now sound, once diseased, now recovered.  
The Church of the Galatians was fare gone in the way of the Mosaical Law to the endangering of the Gospel, insomuch that Saint Paul saith in a manner they were removed to another Gospel, Gal. 1.6. and that he was afraid of them, cap. 4.11. The Churches of Pergamus and Thyati●a were so far corrupted, that Satan is said to have his seat there, Rev. 2.13. and those that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and those that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, v. 14, 15. And Jezabel was suffered to teach in Thyatira, and to seduce the servants of God, ver. 20. Now when these Churches were reform, the seducing Teachers and false doctrines cast out, were they New Churches set up? or could those that still adhered to the Law, or new Gospel in Galatia, or to the false doctrines in Pergamus and Thyatira, challenge the reformed party of Novelty? so was it with this Church before and after the Reformation, having parted with nothing, that belonged to the being of a Church, or to the Faith once delivered, but only cast out those false doctrines that had so generally prevailed in it, while it was in communion with the Roman Church.  
2. They object, We cast not off Errors or Superstitions, but the true Catholic Faith. Answ. Indeed it concerns them to make the World believe (if they can) that their New Faith was always Catholic, and that we for denying it are Heretics. But the clearing of this belongs to the examination of the particular doctrines.   

CHAP. IU. Particular Churches may reform; Especially when a General Council cannot be expected.  
3. THey ask what Authority we had to reform the Church, and tell us, we should have expected the determination of a General Council, and not been Judges in our own Cause. Ans. We took not upon us to reform the Church, but had a necessity and duty upon us to reform ourselves. Neither did we undertake to impose upon other Churches, but purge our own. And as we were a party in the cause, so was the Pope and his faction; and as we would not have been Judges in this cause, could we had a competent Judge, so was not he with his faction fit to be a Judge in the cause. Indeed a lawful and free General Council of the whole Church, setting scripture before them as their Rule, had been the only and competent Judge; but seeing such a Council was not to be had, or expected, (not a General one, because of the division of the Eastern Church from the West, nor a lawful and free one, because of the exorbitant power of the Pope and his Dependants) it remained we should use the means left us, and do it by Provincial and National Synods, keeping the same Rule, the Word of God, Which Gerson with other wise learned men allows, and calls it reformari per parte●; when the Church reforms itself by parts; and to this, provincial Counsels do suffice, Gers: de Concil: Vnius obed:  
And so we read, the Emperor with other Kings and Princes, who called for a General Council to compose differences in Religion, thought it reasonable upon the tergiversation of the Pope, to do it by Provincial Synods in their several Dominions, and so they threatened the Pope they would do, if he would not consent to a Council. A Council, and the rame of Reformation were always formidable to the Court of Rome, and between the dread of a General Council, and the fear of such Provincial Synods, Pope after Pope hung tormented for divers years, using all the artifices as might be, to satisfy the Princes, and yet to keep off both General and Provincial Synods; till Pope Paul the third arose, a man of Spirit, and cunning, who turned the fear of a Council into the hope and expectation of advantage by it; And so indeed he and his dependants ordered the business at Trent, that nothing could there be determined without his privity and direction; that in the end both Princes and People, instead of relief, they expected by a Free Council, found themselves more hampered and enslaved by the pretended General Courcel of Trent. Where divers points, which before were more free to opine in, or have freedom of opinion in, were defined Articles of Faith, and all hope excluded of gaining what divers Princes made no question to carry at the beginning, viz: Communion in both kinds, Priest's marriage, Service in a known tongue, and some other.  
The Princes and the People were very ill satisfied with this dealing; the French did not of many years receive that Council, yet did not proceed to make use of a national Synod (happily because of the troubles in that Kingdom) but the English Nation would not be so fooled; for seeing aforehand what could be expected from the Court of Rome, they made use of that Power, which God has left in every Church of judging for itself according to his word: especially when the Catholic Church stands so divided and oppressed with faction, that the chief remedy of all, a Free General Council, cannot be had.  
What God spoke to his people by the Prophet Hos. 4.15. Though Israel transgress, yet let not Judab sin, tells us, a particular Church may and aught to reform, though others will not; and the examples of many Provincial Counsels in this point of declaring, and casting out errors, creeping upon them, warrant what we have done. For if Saint Augustine and the other Bishops in a Provincial Synod declared against, and rejected the usurped claim of the Pope in point of Appeal, why might not the English Church under Henry the VIIIth. cast out his usurped power here? And if the Provincial Synod of Laodicea declared against, and condemned the worshipping of Angels then on foot, why might not we also declare against worship of Saints and Images prevailing here?  
If it be said, it was not done here by a just Provincial Synod, but the most of the former Bishops were against the Reformation, and displaced. Answ. We need not tell them how the business was carried at Trent, how some were sent away, some kept back, others, and they but Titular Bishops, sent in; and all to make up a major part; which the Histories of that Council witness. And Dudithius an Hungarian Bishop, and one of the Orators for that King, complained of it, as it is to be seen in his advices and Letters from thence. But we say, that in that Reformation under Henry the VIIIth. and Queen Elizabeth is more largely pursued in my Ist Part, Chap: 2. there was no displacing of Bishops, but all passed with a general consent. And upon that Reformation or Ejection of the Pope's usurped power, arose the first division of the English and Romish Church. In that which followed under Queen Elizabeth, the business of the Synod was regularly carried by the Major part; the displacing of the Bishops, that were put out, being before, and that upon the denial of the Oath of Supremacy, and their conspiring together to refuse to Crown the Queen. I will conclude this point of our Reforming with the saying of Saint Cyprian, lib. 2. Ep: 3. Si quis de Antecessorib: etc. If any of those that went before us did through ignorance, or simplicity not observe and hold this, which the Lord by his example and doctrine hath taught, it may be pardoned them through the Indulgence of God; Nobis non poterit ignosci, etc. but to us it cannot be pardoned, who are now admonished and instructed of the Lord. So say we, If any went before us in the Communion and Errors of the Roman Church, through simplicity of heart, we deny him not mercy with God; but we could not expect it, if being better instructed of God we had not amended our known errors.   

CHAP. V We not guilty of Schism. The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists.  
THus fare of our Reforming, Now of that which followed upon it, breach of Communion. And here they charge us with Schism. When I say breach of Communion followed upon our Reforming, I do not take the charge and guilt of it upon us, or imply that it followed as the proper effect does upon the immediate cause; but followed accidentally, occasionally, and is to be imputed to some cause else; not our reforming, but their default. They gave us cause by Errors and Superstitions thrust upon us, to reform; They, when We and all Nations called for Reformation, remained incorrigible; We did our duty, they would not do theirs; Division of Communion necessarily follows (by reason those Errors were not only in belief, but in practice and worship too) not upon our leaving the Errors, but upon their not leaving them; not upon our going forward, but because they would not come on: As when communicating of Infants, was believed as necessary, and accordingly practised through the Catholic Church, we must understand it, as generally believed and practised, or more generally, than was any Romish Error before the Reformation for many ages, that National Church, which first reform itself in that belief and practice, did it justly without expecting a General Council, and as to that belief and practice stood divided from other National Churches or parts of the Catholic, till they should reform too; indeed there followed no breach or division upon it, because they all reform.  
That saying of S. Augustine so much in the Mouths of Papists, Nulla necessitas, etc. there is no necessity of dividing from the Church, was true many ways, but no way against us.  
1. True in regard of the occasion upon which it was spoken, viz: the ill lives of many in the Church; no necessity of dividing or leaving Communion for that.  
2. In regard of the Persons against whom it was spoken, viz: the Donatists; they had no necessity, or just cause of leaving the Church.  
3. In regard of the Catholic Church; there is no necessity of dividing from that, for they that divide from the Catholic Church, do break with it either upon the point of Faith or Charity, i. e. they either depart from that one Faith held in the Catholic Church; or holding that Faith, do break with it for some cause or matter external to that one Faith, and for it uncharitably condemn all others, as not belonging to the Catholic Church. So did the Donatists. We did neither. For our ceasing to communicate with the Roman Church (which yet is but a particular, not the Catholic Church) was upon the preserving and keeping entire that Catholic Faith once delivered, which being the chief bond of Uniay of the Catholic Church, and being by us preserved together with the bond of Charity in not condemning them, as no part of the Catholic Church, we cannot be therefore said to divide from the Communion of the Catholic Church; or to be cause of that Division, which followed upon our endeavouring to preserve that Faith entire; but they are the cause of it, that would not, and yet would condemn us.  
Our defence then in general stands thus. We had just cause to reform, and so had they; We in Reforming did what we ought: if they had done what they ought, and had cause to do, no breach or division had followed. And further, We in doing what we ought, preserved the Faith entire, together with Charity. They would neither cast off their Errors, which clogged and corrupted the Faith, nor retain Charity; but cut us off (as much as in them) from the Catholic Church. It is clear then to whom the Cause of this Division must be imputed.   

CHAP. VI How necessity of dividing Communion arises.  
BUt that it may more particularly be understood, what we did, and what cause or necessity we had of so doing: We must consider, that the necessity of abstaining from the Communion of this or that Church, does not presently arise upon Errors or Superstitions suffered or taught in that Church, and held or practised by many in it: No, though they be gross Errors, and may be damnable to them, that carelessly suffer themselves to be seduced into them. Such were the seducing doctrines suffered and taught in the Churches of Galatia, Pergamus, and Thyatira (Chap. 3. as abovesaid) yet was not any therefore necessitated to divide from their Communion.  
But then the necessity arises, 1. When the Error is directly Fundamental, as in the Arian heresy; for which all true Catholics held themselves obliged to abstain from their Communion. We do not charge the Roman Church upon that score, in the cause of this division.  
2. When the Error and Superstition is in the practice, that concerns the administration of the Sacraments, the public service, the Form and Worship (in all which stands the exercise of the external Communion) so that men, truly informed and convinced of those Errors and Superstitions, cannot communicate with good conscience, there arises a necessity of abstaining from such practice, and consequently from Communion with that Church, so far as to such practices, yet so as holding it a part of the Catholic Church. This, I say, is a dividing from such a Church in the external Communion, by ceasing to practise and hold some things, which it doth, but a joining with it in the Catholic, of which we hold it still a part, as we also are. And this may give sense to that distinction, of forsaking the Errors, but not the Church, i.e. not forsaking, or casting off that which makes a true Member of the Church, or not breaking with the Church upon the point of true Faith or Charity.  
3. When such Superstitious practices, together with Errors in belief (in themselves gross and palpable, and to the careless or wilful, damnable) are not only taught and permitted in a Church, but imposed also, and required, as a condition of Communion (so that they which shall not so profess, or practise, are sentenced as Heretics, and excommunicated) there is just cause and necessity of dividing from the Communion of such a Church.  
Now in both these respects we charge the Church of Rome with the cause of our Division, and that we were thereupon necessitated to abstain from her Communion, yet so as holding her then, and still a Church; and being then, and still ready to hold Communion with her: Saving the duty of true Members of the Catholic Church, in case she would provide for the security thereof by a tolerable Reformation.  
So our defence stands upon these two Assertions. That such a cause is just and necessary: and that the Church of Rome gave it, and we had it; which two make up the two Propositions of this Argument. It is lawful to abstain from the Communion of that Church, which requires unlawful and sinful conditions of her Communion; but the Church of Rome requires such. Or thus. All men ought upon true conviction to forsake their known Errors and sins; but we knew them, and were truly convinced of them, therefore in forsaking them we did what we ought.  
The first proposition in both these forms stands as undeniable, or else it must be granted, that we may be bound to continue under a necessity of sinning, and that knowingly. So the whole business rests upon the second proposition, that such was our Case, and such the Cause that the Church of Rome gave; which must appear by examination of the particular doctrines of Belief and Practice, enjoined all the members of that Church.  
Now that they contain such Errors and Superstitions, as before mentioned, we are ready to demonstrate both by Scripture and the best Antiquity. But it is our purpose and work in present, to discover and take away the general pretences and plausible allegations they make for themselves, or against us in this Cause.   

CHAP. VII. Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we do.  
AGainst our Defence so stated, they usually reply; If Protestant's upon Apprehension, or conviction of Errors and Superstitions in the Church of Rome had just cause to forsake her Communion, then may Sectaries justly forsake the Communion of the Protestants Church. For they also say, and are many times persuaded and convinced, that that Church imposes on them such Errors.  
Answer. Set the Terms aright, and the fallacy, or ambiguity of this captious reasoning will appear. If by our apprehension or conviction of Errors in the Church of Rome, they mean only our saying, pretending or thinking to be so: then the consequence is good (for Sectaries do pretend they are convinced, and many times verily think so) but the assumption than is false; for we did not upon such bare apprehension or deceiving persuasion forsake the Communion of that Church; but upon a true and evident conviction of known Errors and Sins (which we were bound to commit in that Communion) demonstrable by Scripture and Antiquity. Which conviction Sectaries have not; nor do they at all pretend to confirm, what they say, by the practice of Antiquity. Make the Case like, and it will follow alike in both; If we had given them the like cause, as the Church of Rome gave us, they might also forsake our Communion: If they had the like conviction as we had, they might as justly do the like. But seeing the case is unlike, both in regard of our giving them cause, and of their apprehension or conviction, it will not follow they can have just cause of Division or Revolt. See of this more below, Chap. 13.  
It is not then their saying or thinking, that we imposed sinful conditions of Communion, and that they are convinced of it, which will justify them, or prejudice us. For some men's mistaking of Error for Truth, must not make other men give over to stand to truth, and plead it against Error; or persuade them, they are also mistaken, and cannot know the Truth when they do know it evidently.  
Heretics of old (as 
* Vide cap. 23. prope finem.  appears by Saint Iren. Tertul. and August.) sheltered themselves against Scripture by plea of Traditions: Now does the Church of Rome think it unreasonable to defend itself by unwritten Traditions, because Heretics pretended them? And yet I hope its more possible for us to make appear the truth of what we say, by that which is written in Scripture and Fathers, than for the Church of Rome to make the truth of what she says to appear by unwritten Traditions: the truth of which Traditions it is not possible for her to make appear.  
It is not therefore saying or thinking, that must carry it on any side, but the evidencing and proving of what is said. That we undertake to do from point to point: as the clear demonstration, that we had just cause, and were truly convinced of it, and had rebelled against Light, and grievously sinned, had we still continued in known Error, and wilful Sin: the inseparable condition of Roman Communion, to them that have means to know the Error and Sin.  
But they object also, That the way of our Reforming, and Dividing from the Church of Rome, and the plea we make for it, leaves men to their own reason and judgement to make use of it against the Church, and so opens a gap to Heresy and Schism.  
Answer. It is not any thing we have done, or yet hold, that gives them just cause to object this to us; but the challenging of Infallibility to their Church, necessitates them to lay such a charge upon all that will not blindly resign up reason, judgement and faith to the dictates of their Church. We will first speak of the use of Reason and Judgement permitted to them that can use it; then of the using it against, or dissenting from the Church.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the use of Reason and Judgement in private men.  
REason and Understanding is that Light, which he, that lightens every man that comes into the World, joh. 1.9. puts into the mind of man to see, and judge thereby, what to believe, and what to do. Now though we leave not men wholly to their own Reason, yet must we leave them the use of it, so far as is necessary to the assent, which Faith requires; and we leave it them, not in opposition to the public Judgement of the Church, but to the blind obedience of an implicit Faith, that sees no other ground or motive of believing and practising, than because the Church so commands. If the Church of Rome impose the hard condition on them that come over to her (as Nahash the Ammonite on them of jabesh Gilead, that would come out to him, 1 Sa. 11.2.) to thrust out their right Eye, the Eye of their spiritual understanding (by which they discern and judge of Spiritual things revealed of God, 1 Cor. 2.13.15.) and only leave them the eye of common sense to discern what it is the Church doth practise, or what it defines, without further enquiring about the will of God, how consonant that practice or definition, that worship or belief is to it. If, I say, she can impose this hard condition, we cannot; but must say:  
1. That no man can believe any thing truly with such a free and full assent as faith requires, nor do any thing in worship or practise of life, with that faith or due persuasion of the lawfulness of it, which the Apostle requires Rom. 14. ult. unless he be convinced of it in his judgement, as in the same chap. v. 5. Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind: concluding by the due use of his reason, that its Gods revealed will he should so do and believe. For the Apostle speaking that of persuasion in and about things indifferent shows it is much more necessary in matters of Faith and Worship. Nor can this be eluded by saying, It is sufficient for such a persuasion, that a man knows the Church saith so, & thereupon concludes that God saith so; for there is more in the Apostles saying, The Spiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2.15. For that judging is not a receiving of things propounded by the Church, without examination, but implies a discerning of them to be the things of God, before he receives them for such by true faith; and the last resolution or stay of Faith is not upon the Churches saying so.  
2. God's people are not left to themselves to seek out that revealed Will of God; but he has appointed Guides and Pastors in his Church, in every National Church to propound and demonstrate that Will of God out of his Word. To this end were Pastors and Teachers given, Eph. 4. that we should not be carried away with every wind of doctrine, ver. 14.  
These have public judgement to determine and judge for others, for they must give account for others; but private Christians have their private judgement, or, judgement of Discretion for themselves only, which is in the discerning and receiving to themselves, as the will of God, what is delivered, and propounded to them for they must answer also for themselves, and live by their own faith; which cannot be without allowing them due use of their reason and judgement, to see the evidence of that to which they must assent. Therefore we say also, the Guides and Pastors of the Church do guide and teach not Infallibly, but Morally, by way of doctrine and persuasion, by manifestation of the Truth, commending themselves to every man's conscience, as Paul saith, 2 Cor. 4.2.  
3. When that is done, They do not leave men to themselves, but as Governors of the Church do by power of the Keys judge and bind the Gainsayers, and cast the Refractory out of their Communion. So then the Guides of the Church have the power of Public Judgement, to judge and define for others in matters of faith and worship; and power of jurisdiction, to judge, censure, and cast out the disobedient; and to private men is lest only the judgement of discretion, without which they cannot come to believe, or serve God, as they ought, with reasonable service, Rom. 12.1.   

CHAP. IX. Of dissenting from the public Judgement.  
NOw for the using their reason and judgement against the Church, or their dissenting from the definitions and practice of it, we give no encouragement to that.  
We 1. teach all Inferiors, whether People or Priests, when they find cause of doubt or question against such definitions or practice, to mistrust their own reason, and rather rely upon the public Judgement than their own in every doubtful case.  
2. That they which doubt still seek refolution and satisfaction from their Superiors, modestly propounding their doubts and reasons, and conscionably using all means to rectify their judgement, and satisfy their Conscience.  
3. If they cannot find satisfaction so, as inwardly to acquiesce, yet to yield external obedience, & peaceable subjection, according as the condition of the matter questioned will bear. In a word, we require all that submission of judgement and outward compliance that may be due to an Authority, not infallible, yet guiding others by an infallible Rule, and most highly concerned to guide them accordingly, as being answerable for their Souls.  
4. We tell them the danger of gainsaying, that they are to answer it to God and his Church; That if they cannot approve the reason of their dissenting, to the judgement of the Church, they must expect to undergo the Censures of it. For the Church standing so obliged to answer for Souls, and to preserve Peace and Unity, and having therefore the advantage of Authority and public judgement above all private persons, it is also most reasonable it should have the advantage, in the contestation with private persons, and in the issue of such a business, to proceed according to its own judgement, and use the power it has, against those that stand out; And then is there a further answering it to God.  
Thus it stands between every Particular Church, and the Members of it, between Superiors and Inferiors in it: and in some proportion between every particular or National Church and the Catholic Church, in receiving and holding the Definitions of General Councils, and the General Practise of the Church. Tough here a Nationall Church hath the advantage above private persons, in the point of Judgement and dissenting. Yet where it does descent from other Churches generally erring, it arises first from the use of reason and judgement in private persons, discovering the errors (for some in all Reformations must speak first) and propounding them; which being approved by the Judgement of that Church, the Reformation follows as an Act of public Judgement, or as an Act of a National Church, which though inferior to the Catholic, yet hath it judgement within itself for the receiving and holding the Definitions and Practices of the Church-Generall, and may have possibly just cause of dissenting and reforming; and can do it regularly, according to the way of the Church by Provincial Synods, which private persons dissenting from her cannot do. And this is considerable in the English Reformation, which as it was upon public Judgement of a Nationall Church in Provincial Synods, so will it not prove a dissenting from the Catholic Church, or definite on's of true General Councils; but of that more below, when we come to trial by Antiquity: And of this respect or submission due from every Particular Church to the General, as it concerns the Act of this Nationall Church in the Reformation, more largely in the first Chapter of my later Book. For the present we are to speak of the possibility of dissent of Inferiors from Superiors, and the use of reason and judgement necessary to it.   

CHAP. X. Possibility of just dissenting.  
THe submission and obedience spoken of as due to Superiors, and their Judgement, aught to take place in all cases, where there is not something clearly against them, that confessedly excels the Authority and Judgement of the present Governors: as evidence of Scripture, demonstration of reason, and a conformable consent of Primitive Times, the pure Ages of the Church.  
Now that such a case, or such a cause of using private judgement even to a dissenting from the public, may happen, Reason and Experience tells us. Because it is possible, that such as have chief place in the public Judgement (National or General) may neglect their duty (at least the greater number of them to the overbearing of the less) and through prejudice of Faction, or other worldly respects, may fail in determining and propounding the Truth. (For the promise of guiding them is conditional upon performing duty, and that is not always certain in the greater part) to the imposing of false Belief, and false Worship; So that it comes to be Error manifestus, appearing so to be, both by the Word of God, and the conformable belief and practice of the firster Ages of the Church. Here is place for Reason and Judgement of Inferiors to descent upon such Evidence, after modest proposal, and demonstration of the Error. And to this in part accords the concession of Bell. lib. 2. the Council. Inferiors may not judge, whether their Superiors have lawfully proceeded, nisi manifestissimè constet intolerabilem errorem committi.  
Now when I speak of private Judgement dissenting from the public Judgement, or general practices of the Church, and of the preservation of Truth, and the Faith thereby, I do not speak of the Reason or Judgement of the People or Laity divided from all their Guides and Pastors, but I include these; who (of what rank soever) dissenting from the public, either definition or practice, are as men of private judgement in such a case. These, I say, I always include in such a just dissenting or falling off from any erroneous belief or practice prevailing in the Church. For it cannot be imagined that God, who promised to be with them, and guide them, should take away his Truth from all the Guides and Pastors of his Church, and preserve it by the Judgement and Conscience of Lay people; but that still, however they which have chief place in the Church prove corrupt, some Guides and Pastors (though of less number and place) shall be they that shall detect the prevailing Errors, and preserve the Truth: and this by due use of Reason and private Judgement. Experience also tells us, what they have proved that have been in chief place; that have sat in Moses Chair, and in St. Peter's; how many Heretics at several times among the Popes; how a whole succession of Monsters through the tenth Age; of which Bellarmine complains, and Baronius cries out, Quae facies Rom. Ecclesiae! when infamous Strumpets disposed of Bishoprics, yea thrust their Paramours (Amasios suos) into Peter's Chair! What Cardinals then made? what Bishops then ordained by such Monsters? and stertentibus omnibus, all in a manner being asleep,— So he. Experience also tells us how gross Errors have prevailed over the Church: as for example: The Millenary belief so generally, that justine Martyr (contra Tryph.) saith, All that were in all points, or throughly Orthodox Christians held it. So also the giving of the Communion to Infants after Baptism, as necessary to their salvation, generally held and practised in the whole Church for many Ages. I mean more generally than the Romish errors have been.  
Now if there were not place for dissenting by the use of private judgement (for some one person must speak first in the discovering such Errors) there would be a necessity of the Churches continuing in Error. But both those Errors were reform; and he that spoke first in discovering the untruth of them, did it upon the use of his private judgement, examining the belief and practice of the Church, & showing the error of it.  
It may be they will say, those two Doctrines were not defined by the Church, i. e. by any General Council. So indeed they often excuse their own Doctors, when they set their private judgement against the general stream of Antiquity: and by the like equity they might receive our plea; That the belief and practices we forsook were not Doctrines defined by the Church, i. e. by any lawful General Council.  
But what if those two had been defined? then no man (will they say) ought to have questioned them, or used his private judgement against them. But then must we say, if any thing be defined amiss, the Church must continue in error, and an after General Council cannot amend it. But if things before defined may be corrected or reversed by the like Authority, how can it come about but by the discovering of the former error, and that upon the use of private Judgement, examing the definitions, and showing the error to the Church? And that which Bellarmine grants (as I said a little before) Nisi manifestissimè constet errorem ïntolerabilem committi, supposes such error may be committed and discovered. But how can this later come about, but upon the use of private Judgement in Inferiors? and while the Council of Trent was not received in France, was it not upon the use of their Judgement against that Council, which with the Romanists passeth for General? or how can Moderate Papists think the reception of the Catholic Church to be the best confirmation of the Decrees of a Council, if not allow private Judgement in the examining and receiving them? And seeing a General Council hath its power from the diffusive Catholic Church, of which it is the representation, however the Definitions of it may have more form of Law, yet not more weight to press the judgement or conscience, than what is generally believed and practised through the whole Church, as that of Infant Communion was.  
We therefore leave men not otherwise to their reason and judgement, than reason and necessity enforceth, no otherwise than Christ and his Apostles left them. Reason enforceth it (as we heard) both in regard of the Church, which cannot else be reform from prevailing errors; and in regard of every particular Man, who is to give account of himself, is to be saved by his own Faith, and perishes upon his own score. They were not excused if seduced by their Prophets and Teachers, as Isa 9.14, 15, 16. The Leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are led are destroyed— Also, Head and Tail, rush, and branch, both cut off, and Ezek. 33.6, and 8 Those that perish through the Prophet's default, their blood notwithstanding is on their own head. Answerably, Mat. 15.14. They are not excused that blindly follow their Leaders, both fall into the ditch. The Romanists reject this, as not applicable to the Guides of their Church, answering in effect as the Pharisees (who also had chief place in the Church) are we also blind? Joh. 9 and we may reply, as our Saviour did; You say, We see, therefore your sin remaineth; therefore your blindness is more incurable.  
Again, our Saviour and his Apostles left men the use of their reason and judgement in discerning what is taught them in and by the Church: For they enjoin the use of it as a duty; as when our Saviour bids, Search the Scriptures. Joh. 5.39. And take heed how you hear, Luk. 8.18. Beware of false Prophets, and by their fruits ye shall know them, Mat. 7.15. And beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees, Mat. 16. v. 11. that is, their Doctrine, ver. 12. Now set against this last place, that which our Saviour saith, Mat. 23.2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore that they bid you observe, that observe and do: How can these be reconciled (observe whatsoever they teach, and yet beware of the Leaven of their Doctrine) without allowing the Judgement of discretion in the hearer? So the Apostle, Gal. 1. forbids the receiving of any other Gospel, though preached from Heaven by an Angel. How should the Galatians know a difference 'twixt the Gospel and Faith once delivered, and any other new one, but by using Reason and Judgement? To the same purpose he bids, Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5.21. Try the Spirit, 1 Joh 4.1. The Romanists answer, that these Precepts of Proving and Trying, are spoken to the Guides of the People. We say, that is true, to them chief spoken, and yet to the People too: to the Guides and Pastors in order to reforming and casting out Errors prevailing, (in which respect we plead for use of Reason and Judgement to be allowed, not to the people so much, but to their guides) also in order to the keeping out Errors, which false Teachers would bring in, to the seducing of the people; for their Guides are to judge for them. But still that Proving and Trying, that taking heed belongs also to the People, and implies their use of Reason and Judgement, not in order to Resorming or Judging for others, but in order to their own believing, or receiving what is taught & propounded to them. The Apostle calls to them, judge what I say, 1 Cor. 10.15. And ●udge in yourselves, 1 Cor. 11. And the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2.15. He speaks of things taught in the Church, and of the Spiritual man's judging them, in order to his own believing; to which purpose, Saint joh. 1. Ep. 2.27. The Anointing shall teach you all things, viz. so as to understand all things necessary to their Salvation.   

CHAP. XI. How far the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement.  
SEE we now what use of Reason and Judgement the Romanists allow to Men. They speak to the Reason and Judgement of Men, whom they would bring in unto them, use Motives and Arguments to persuade their Religion, and the Authority of the Church of Rome. But if they suffer themselves to be persuaded to embrace that Authority upon such Reasons and Motives, they must then resign up their Reason and Judgement wholly. Thus have they leave to use their sight in finding out that Church, but when they have found it, than they must follow it blindfold, or look but one way, that way only that that she directs, and take all upon trust of her Infallible guidance. They will say they commend the Definitions of the Church to the judgement and consciences of the people, alleging Reasons, and Testimonies from the Scriptures and Fathers; and this in order to better persuasion; so far it is well. But then their Reason and Judgement is absolutely bound to look that way only, and to see nothing against the definition of the Church: No, though she defines it is not against christ's institution to allow the people the Sacrament but in one kind: or that it is lawful to adore Images, as she has done in her Council of Trent. A man had as good spare his labour in using his Reason and Judgement to examine their proofs, as having done all, to be absolutely concluded and bound up. Which no question goes very hard with many of their more learned Men, who see more reason and evidence against, than for what they are bound by the Church to believe and practice; and so are ground between the Definition of their Church, and the Judgement of their Conscience, as between the upper and nether Millstone. Hence that conscionable cunning of the Belgic Inquisitours, who in their Index Expurgatorius, 1571. confess, when they meet with the Ancients speaking otherwise than their Church, quovis comment— they use any shift to remedy it.  
We read how it fared with some Divines in the Council of Trent. Who (while their Articles were under deliberation undefined) honestly proposing their doubts and arguments against the common sense of the prevailing party, were cried out on as Lutherans; and some of them not suffered to speak more, were sent away: so free was that Council! What shall we think now after the definitions are made, but that men's Consciences, judgements, tongues are bound up, not to doubt, think, or modestly propound any thing against them without the note of Heresy, and danger of the Inquisition?  
But see we what follows upon their Concessions: To find out the Church they allow (as we heard) the use of Reason and Judgement. Now that must be by examining her marks; and seeing a chief mark of the Church is Sanctitas doctrinae (as Bellar. and others do truly acknowledge) it implies a judging of all her Doctrines, before a Man can truly know by the purity of them, that this is the Church.  
Again, when the Church is found out, yet still the question remains, whether it be Infallible? there also must the use of Reason and Judgement be allowed; for no reason it should be taken upon her own word, that she is the only Infallible guide. Therefore Bellarmine was enforced to say (though untruly) that the Infallibility of the Romish Church, Councils and Popes, stands upon apertas promissiones, 
Of this at large below; Chap. 27.  naming Act. 15. Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, and Luk. 22. Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides, lib. 3. de verbo Dei, cap. 14. Now if these places, and all other they bring to that purpose, be acknowledged so plain, that it is easy for any man, using his Reason and Judgement to see this privilege of the Roman Church in them (when as indeed no reasonable consequence can draw it out of them) who cannot but justly say, the places of Scripture we bring against their Errors are more open and plain to him that will duly use his Reason and Judgement?   

CHAP. XII. Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminency, Perpetuity, etc.  
CArdinal Perron, in his first book, cap. 5. and 6. against the King's Letter, seems to cut the business shorter, and to leave men the use of Reason and Judgement in knowing the Church, not by examining her Doctrines, but by considering her external, and more sensible marks, such as are easy and proportionable to every man's capacity, viz. Eminency, Amplitude, Perpetuity, or Succession, and the like. And when the Church is known by these, than a man is to know by her the sense of places of Scripture, which need interpretation. But what he saith for this easy discovery of the out of Scripture, A City on an Hill cannot be hid, Mat. 5. was spoken by our Saviour of the Apostles, and their preaching of the Gospel; and if applied to the Church, it does not prove she can always be known by these marks. Nor does St. Austin's application of that Scripture, to the knowing of the Church in his time, imply the Church shall always be so. Not so now, when it stands divided by East and West, the Eastern Church challenging these marks as well as the Western; Unless it come short of the Romish Church in Eminency of outward splendour, when as it is more Christian— like to continue under pressures so many years; the Romish Church may be eminent for pomp, and have more of the world in it, but the Greek Church is eminent for sufferings, and has had more of the Cross. Now seeing the Greek Church, which has these marks, is in the Roman account heretical, and the Roman Church likewise condemned by the Greek, how shall a man know which of these to join to, but by examining their Doctrine, and judging of it?  
The Cardinal's similitude of a Testator (●ordaining one to be the Interpreter of his Testament, that has a name common to others, and therefore assigning marks to know him by, so clear that they need no Interpreter) clears not the business. For did ever any hear of an Executor, or Interpreter of a Testament marked out by his grey head or antiquity, by tallness of stature, amplitude, or eminency of person or estate, when his proper name and habitation would readily and sufficiently distinguish him from all others? So had God marked out unto us in his Testament, that Church, which should in all Ages be the infallible Interpreter of his Will, by the name Roman, and place of habitation, and in stead of a City built on a Hill (the Scripture so oft repeated by the Cardinal) said, a City built on seven Hills, there needed no more to do, but submit Reason and Judgement to all which that Church commanded.  
But seeing he has not done it, no not when occasion of mentioning such a privilege, had any such belonged to that Church, (I mean when St. Paul wrote to the Romans:) it is plain he has left us to know his Church by her Doctrine agreeable to his Word; for so must we hear the voice of the Shepherd, especially when Churches of several Communions may challenge the former marks, the Greek as well as the Roman.  
Now what hath been said against knowing the Church by these marks, is not spoken, to deny the Roman (which challenges them) to be a Church, but that they mark her out for such a Church as the Cardinal would have us take her for; such a Church as Saint Augustine speaks of, viz. the Catholic Church, the Church, in which only the Pastor's voice is to be heard, for what she pretends to by these marks alone, she must allow to the Greek Church also. It is not these barely without consideration of doctrine, that could mark her out for a true Church, but that she still together with these holds the foundation. And in regard of that we acknowledge the Pastor's voice was still heard in her, yet so that the voice of false Shepherds have often out-cryed him, yea, cried him down in many points of high concernment to his sheep. Yet by God's providence his voice was still heard, and his Word or Scripture still preserved, whereby the voice of false Shepherds might be discerned from the true one, the Errors and Superstitions prevailing known from the Truth and faith once delivered.  
When the voice of the great Pastor (except ye eat the flesh, etc. Joh. 6.) was generally mistaken in the Church, and misapplyed to the communicating of Infants, there was enough of his voice and word still heard in the Church to discover the Error, and restore the Truth. When Image-worship was cried up by the second Nicene Council, and advanced in the West by the Romish Bishops, yet was there enough in the word and voice of the Shepherd (known in the Church) to condemn it in the Council of Frankford, and elsewhere. When Pope John 22. defined the place of faithful Souls to be out of Heaven till the Resurrection, and enjoined it to be professed by those that took degrees in the Universities: yet was there enough still in that Church to condemn it in the Council of Florence. When the voice of the Shepherd in those places, Feed my sheep, Joh. 21.16. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock— Mat. 16.18. I have prayed for thee— Luk. 22.32. was mistaken, and mis-applyed for some Ages, to advance the Pope's Infallibility, and power over all, there was enough seen by the Council of Basil and Constance to define the contrary, and conclude a Council to be above him. And however the noise again is greater in the Church of Rome, for the Pope than a Council, yet is there enough still heard in that Church by the French generally, and all moderate Romanists, to know the untruth of it. So we say, whatever becomes of the Cardinal's marks, Eminency, Antiquity, etc. (by which he would have her marked out for the only Church, in which the Pastor's voice is to be heard) the Romish Church hath failed in her doctrine, cried up Errors and Superstitions, yet so, that the Pastor's voice hath been heard, and his word so preserved there, that enough to discover them.  
And now to some applying of what hdth been said touching use of Reason and Judgement, to our Case of Reforming. We examined the Church of Rome by the Marks, Eminency, Antiquity, Succession; We see they agree not to that alone, nor that in Saint Augustine's purpose, as he applied the like Marks to the Catholic Church: Nor do they imply that Church, where barely found, to be a Church designed by God, to remain uncorrupt, much less to be the Infallible Interpreter of his Testament.  
Also we examined that Church by that main mark of Sanctity of Doctrine (using our Reason and Judgement (which they allow in this point) and that the judgement of a National Church) and found her so far from being Infallible, that she was grossly corrupted in her Belief and Worship: Of which we had apparent conviction from the evidence abovesaid, to wit, Scripture and Primitive practice, either of which excels the judgement and authority of the present Church of Rome.   

CHAP. XIII. Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries.  
NOw to the last part of the Objection, The opening hereby of a Gap to all Heresy and Schism.  
Answ. Due use of Reason and Judgement does it not; Sectaries that are gone out from us, cannot, 1. Pretend to such a way of Reforming the Church, or to such a Judgement as our Reformation was brought about by; they wanting the Authority which is needful to it in every National Church. They as Members of this Church owed obedience and subjection to the Government and Governors thereof, by divine precept; and could do nothing as to a Reformation more than private men; whereas the Church of England (if under the Patriarchate of Rome, according to Ecclesiastical Canon; which would not have been contended about; yet) stood not bound to the usurped power thereof; but being a National Church, might justly eject that Usurpation, and make Reformation within itself of all Errors, maintained by that pretended Power and Authority.  
2. As for that, wherein they descent from this Church, they cannot pretend to such Evidence we spoke of; they do not at all pretend to the practice and consent of the first Ages, nor have they plain and evident Scripture, but places unlearnedly wrested. The Evidence required in dissenting from Authority, is such as by express words, or direct consequence is apparent to all that can use their Reason without prejudice of self-interest or faction. But we must note a different evidence in regard of things propounded by the Church, as matters of Faith and Worship— and things enjoined, as circumstantials of Worship, or pertaining to Order, Discipline. In the first sort the Church indeed stands bound to show them evidently out of God's Word, to be such, before they can be received by faith and full assent for such; because it is the office of the Church, or Governors thereof, not to make such, but to declare and propound them: But they that will charge the Church in those Proposals with Heresy, Superstition, or Idolatry, must have the full and apparent evidence aforesaid. In the second sort, Things Circumstantial, and of Order, and propounded only for such by the Church, they that descent and refuse to yield obedience, must have most clear evidence that such things are unlawful and forbidden by God's Word, because that Word of God most evidently gives power to the Church, to make, constitute, and ordain such things, and expressly commands obedience to Superiors. Now for the things which the Church of Rome propounded and imposed as matters of Faith and Worship; as she had not evidence for them out of God's Word, which was enough for our refusing them as matters of Faith and Worship, so we had sufficient evidence of Scripture and Antiquity against them. Whereas all that this Church of England propounds as matter of Faith and Worship, is most clear by Scripture, and consent of Antiquity: So that it is most unreasonable for our Sectaries to deny it, and impossible for them to have evidence against it. Much less is it possible for them to be convinced out of God's Word of the unlawfulness of circumstantials and matters enjoined, as of Order, and to have as apparent evidence for that conviction, as God's Word gives them for obedience to their lawful Governors.  
3. Their pretending to be convinced in their judgement, hinders not the Church of which they were members, to use her own judgement, and accordingly to proceed by censure and excommunication, as i● said above, cap. 9 And hereby was this Church held together in Unity, no Sect or Heresy breaking forth which was not presently crushed, till force of Arms bore down the free use of Ecclesiastic Authority, and emboldened men to contemn it If therefore Sectaries shall say to us, you allow us to use our Reason and Judgement in what you teach us. True, say we, for your own satisfaction, but not to abuse it against the Church. But we do not, say they, abuse it, but have consulted our Guides, and used all means we can for satisfaction. We tell them, you must bring evident Scripture and Demonstration against public Authority of the Church, & having modestly propounded it, attend the judgement thereof, to which if you cannot assent inwardly, yet yield an ex●erhal peaceable subjection, so far as the matter questioned is capable of it, (which I add because the matter questioned may be not so much in belief and opinion, as in worship and external practice:) For that must necessarily discover itself: and if it be such in any Church, that a man cannot in conscience comply with, and therefore cannot yield external subjection so far as to do or perform the same worship or practice; yet ought he still to yield a peaceable subjection, in not resisting or reviling, but quietly suffering (if need be) for the same under Authority. But you that descent from the Church of England have no such cause for any thing belonging to the substance of Worship: And as for Circumstantials and matters of Order, ye ought to show as direct Scripture against the particulars, as that which commands you to obey them which are over you. And if your misinformed conscience bade you forbear to submit to the doing of things enjoined, yet should you have had so much conscience of the express precept commanding obedience to Superiors, as to forbear resistance and force, and to have rather quietly and peaceably suffered under the censures of the Church, and power of Authority set over you; and you cannot but think it reasonable, that the Church, which is entrusted with others as well as you, and hath the advantage of Authority and public judgement, should upon the not-appearing of your pretended evidence, maintain her Judgement and Authority, and proceed against you, as the preservation of Peace and Unity requires. And think not because you are allowed to use your Reason and Understanding in order to your believing and reasonable serving of God, you are therefore allowed to use force in order to the maintaining of your dissent from, and disobedience to Authority: For that God whose Truth and Service ye so much pretend, is the God of Order and Peace (1 Cor. 14.33.) not the Author of Confusion; such as your violence has wrought in this Church and Land.  
No other means or remedy has the Church to preserve Unity, than by demonstrating the Truth to every man's conscience, and censuring or casting out the Refractory. Nor other fear can she cast upon her children to keep them in obedience, than the loss of her Communion, and their Answering it to God. Nor was there any other Remedy in the Ancient Church, while destitute of help from the Secular power, I mean no other Remedy proper to the society of the Church, to keep men in her Communion.   

CHAP. XIV. Their vain pretence of Infallibility.  
HEre the Romanists lay hold on a seeming advantage by pretence of an Infallible guidance in their Church, telling their Proselytes, that the Protestants acknowledge their Church fallible in her Proposals, and therefore must leave men to their own reason and judgement, but our Church is infallible in her Definitions. How we Protestants leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement, rather than leave them to their Reason & Judgement, has been shown already; and to the Romish pretence of Infallible guidance, we say still, could it be made good, there would be no more to do, but every man upon understanding the terms and sense of her Definitions, to submit his Reason and Judgement without farther enquiry, how consonant they are to Gods revealed will, and what warrant he has from thence to assent and believe them. But here's the weakness and vanity of that pretence: This Infallibility which is pretended as the ground of all their belief, has no ground itself to be believed (
* See below Chap. 27. etc.  as we show by many most evident arguments) and that which is alleged to take away men's Reason and Judgement, must allow every man his Reason and Judgement in the examining of what is brought to prove it, as was shown above, Chap. 11. etc. Whereupon it will be harder to make men believe that pretence of Infallibility, than to believe the proposals of Truth, from Guides that pretend not to it, but only to the demonstration of that Truth by an Infallible Rule.  
Hence it is easy to see, which is more reasonable and likely to keep men in obedience to the Church; Open and plain dealing with them in the business of their salvation, or false pretences? The demonstration of Truth to every man's conscience, or the Imperious dominion over other men's faith and consciences, under pretence of Infallibility?  
We say to men, If you will be with us, you shall see what you do: we require your obedience to what we demonstrate to be Gods will, for you to believe and do, yet know your salvation is concerned in such obedience, and be it at your utmost peril to gainsay.  
The Church of Rome saith to men, If you will come to me, you must put out your Eyes, resign up your Reason and Understanding, and with implicit Faith give absolute submission and obedience to my Definitions.   

CHAP. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholic.  
ANother of their main Objections upon our division from them, is, That, whatever the Doctrine or Faith be which we retained, we divided from the whole Catholic Church, holding Communion with no part of it. To the same purpose is that which Cardinal Perron (in his Letter to M. Casaubon, and in his first book against the King's Letter) allegeth, That to be Catholic, and avoid the note of Schism, is not sufficient to hold the same Faith with the Catholic Church (for so did the Donatists) but to hold Communion also with it; which the Donatists not doing, were Schismatics: And in like manner he would conclude us to be.  
Our Answer in general is briefly this, That we did not divide from the Catholic Church, and that to a Communion with it is not required a full agreement in belief and practice with other parts of it: No nor an actual Communion with them always, and simply necessary: and that our Case and the Donatists is different, as St. Cyprian's and their case was.  
Now to clear these more fully. We say first: It was neither our intent (when we reform) to divide from the Catholic Church, or any part of it, neither did we. We only sought to reform ourselves, leaving them to themselves. We had indeed to do only with the Roman Church, which being a particular Church, as it may utterly fail, without failing of the Catholic Church, so may it surely be in such a measure corrupted, that it deserves to be divided from. Yet our aim and intent was only to leave the Errors and Superstitions we practised with her, and so to leave her no farther than her Communion was mixed with those Superstitious practices, i. e to leave her no farther than she had left herself (as we can prove) or receded from what she was for belief and practice in the more ancient and purer Times.  
Now here's the usual mistake, and upon the Romanists part the common prejudice against us; that they still take the Roman Church and her Communion for the Catholic, and what they meet with in the Father's touching the Catholic Church to this or like purpose (that Communion with it is necessary, that there is no salvation out of it) they apply to the Roman, or touching Communion with the Roman Church or Bishop, to the proving any man Catholic thereby: They appropriate it to that Church as a special prerogative, when as the Fathers did also prove the like by communion with other Churches and Bishops, confessedly Catholic, although not so frequently, because Roman Church and Bishop of it was then of all other most eminent. Upon this double misapplication, those many Testimonies which Cardinal Perron (in his Epistle and Answer) has heaped up out of St. Augustine, and others, come to no purpose: For to be Extra Ecelesiam Romanam, is not presently to be Extra Catholicam. For though it was a good argument of old, when that Church was eminently and confessedly sound, to conclude affirmatively, as the Fathers often did) such were good Catholics, because in Communinion with that Church; yet now since Rome is notoriously corrupt and unsound, the argument will not hold, to conclude Affirmatively. Much less will it hold Negatively, to argue, such are no Catholics, because not in Communion with Rome. Nay when Rome of old was sound in Belief and Doctrine, it did not always conclude the Negative (as will appear by the Instances below of the Asian and Afriean Churches out of Communion with the Roman) much less can it conclude Negatively now.   

CHAP. XVI. The Greek Church, a Church, and part of the Catholic.  
FUrthermore, besides the Roman we acknowledge other Christian Churches parts of the Catholic, and we say we are not out of Communion with them, as the Church of Rome is by an actual declaring of Non-communion to each other: For though we agree not with those Churches, in all doctrines and practices (which is not De facto, necessary to the holding of Communion 'twixt parts of the Catholic) yet we holding them still parts of the Catholic Church, and they us, and not pronouncing Non-communion to each other, we both remain in the Unity or Matrice (as Cyprian phrases it) of the Catholic Church.  
Now as to our opinion of the Greek Church, we conceive, their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost to be from the Son, but yielding it to be by the Son, to be only a difference in form of speech, not of any Heretical meaning, as they are acquitted by some learned Romanists.  
And for their opinion and judgement of us, we say, that Censure of Jeremias one of their Patriarches, (which the Romanists object against us as condemning the Protestant Doctrine in many points) is not found to be warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church: and to it we may oppose the judgement of Cyril their late Patriarch, who approves our Church and doctrine.  
But they ask, seeing we left the Roman, why did we not join to the Greek, or some other Church, or part of the Catholic?  
Resp. We were joined with them in the Catholic Church, (as said before) but if by joining ourselves to some other Church, they mean holding and practising as that Church doth, we say again (as above) such agreement between the parts of the Catholic, is not necessary too Catholic Communion. 2. We say, it was not necessary for us. First, because we were a National Church, and therefore not bound to join so, as to put ourselves under any particular Church of one denomination. Private persons indeed are bound so to be joined to one Church or other which are parts of the Catholic. Secondly, because our work was Reformation, and casting off the Romish Errors, and we saw no particular Church, but needed Reformation very much; and therefore we could not join to any so as to agree with them in all doctrines and practices.  
These considerations show, the many Testimonies brought out of the Fathers by the Romanists, for necessity of Communion, come not home to our case. For as they are abused when applied to the Communion of the Roman Church (as above noted) so are they not altogether applicable to the Catholic Church now, as it stands in a condition far different from what it was in St. Augustine's time. At the time of the Reformation, it was found divided in two parts, accusing each other of Error and Schism: It was our part then to consider, what Errors we had received by communion with the Romish Church, and finding them to be many and great, it was not for us to make any other part of the Catholic Church a rule or pattern of Reformation, but to look to God's Word, and the Primitive practice, when the Catholic Church was in such an entire estate, that the above mentioned Testimonies were truly appliable to her. Which Church is by both sides confessed and acknowledged to have been so right and sound, that none could have cause to leave the Communion of any part of her; Which Church also must be acknowledged to be of more Authority than the present Romish or Greek Church. From that Word of God was our Rule, from that Primitive Church was our pattern, and by holding to that rule, and pattern, as near as we could, if we cease to believe and practise many things as the Church of Rome doth, or not agree in all doctrines and practices with other parts of the Catholic Church, we cannot be said for that to have no Communion with the Catholic Church.   

CHAP. XVII. Of agreement and external Communion twixt the parts of the Catholic Church.  
BUt further to clear this point of actual communion and agreement between the parts of the Catholic Church by some Instances. In the points of keeping Easter, and Rebaptisation, it is evident,  
First, that the Asian and Roman in the one, and the African and Roman in the other, did not agree for doctrine and practice.  
Secondly, that they could not communicate one with the other, not only in the keeping Easter, or in the very practice of Rebaptisation; but those that held Rebaptization necessary, could not at all communicate with any of those members of the Catholic Church, which had been received from heresy, without being baptised again.  
Thirdly, that upon the heat of the Romish Bishops (Victor and Stephen) in these two businesses, it came to an actual denying of Communion with the Asian and African Churches.  
What Cardinal Perron concludes upon those Churches so standing out, as to the point of Schism, he has not expressly declared, notwithstanding he treats of both their oppositions against the Bishops of Rome then being. lib. 3. cap. 2. & 3.) He seems indeed to leave the Asians under Schism: but that is to take the Crown of Martyrdom from many of those godly Asian Bishops. And we read, that as Irenaeus and others reproved Victors Excommunicating of them, so they held them not cut off from the Catholic Church, and professed they would not deny to communicate with them, as Eusebius witnesseth Lib. 5. Hist. Eccles. After-ages also have excused them: And the like charity (if the Romanists had it for us) might excuse us; or rather commend what we have done.   

CHAP. XVIII. The want of that does not always make guilty of Schism.  
YEt hence appears, that which the Cardinal often presseth, that all the Members of the Catholic Church must communicate one with another) is only true of duty, so they ought to do and keep themselves; not of fact, or under necessity of being guilty of Schism, or cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church. For we see, that neither want of agreement in all doctrines and practices does it; nor yet all want of actual or external Communion does it; as when Communion is forborn, or denied by one Church to another, without uncharitable denying of one the other to be parts of the Catholic. And the Testimonies of Fathers speaking of Communion, upon occasion of the case between the Donatists and the Catholic Church, are not to be extended to all actual Non-communion, which often happened between eminent persons denying it to each other, and between several Churches doing the like, yet both remaining in the Catholic.  
To these two Instances out of History, let me add two other upon supposal. The error in the belief and practice of Communicating Infants prevailed in the Catholic Church generally, and for many Ages, and was reform without a General Council. It must be supposed some one National Church did reform itself, in that belief and practice; and it must be acknowledged justly done; for the whole Catholic Church did accordingly reform. Now suppose it had not, but still persisted in that belief and practice; that National Church which first reform, must either have returned to the error it had justly left, or stood divided in Communion to the rest of the Catholic Church, at least from those parts of the Catholic Church, that held Infant communion necessary, upon the like place of Scripture, Joh. 6.53. answerable, as they thought, to that other, Joh. 3 3 concerning Baptism, which persisting in the belief, that one Sacrament was necessary to children as well as the other, could not have admitted those, that reform, as good Christians, no more than those that should have de●yed Baptism to their children. Now there did not follow a division, because the rest of the Church followed in the Reformation: But suppose they had not, I would then learn of the Cardinal, whether he would have accounted that Nationall Church guilty of Schism, o● of the division of Commuon, which had followed upon their doing that which they did justly, & through the default of other Churches in not doing that, which they saw good cause to do.  
He that will apply this to the Reformation of this National Church, and the default of the Roman Church in not doing the like, will see that want of external Communion does not always cut off from the Catholic Church, and will see cause also of excusing us.  
My second Instance upon supposal, is from that which was intended in France. The League had divided the Roman Catholics there; but that being broken, the King and his party endeavoured reconciliation with the Pope; and finding him averse, and ill to be dealt with, it was determined to set up in France a Patriarch, and to have no more to do with the Court of Rome; and the Person was designed for it, as the History of those Times assures us. I would now learn of the Cardinal (who was at length the King's Proxy in his reconcilement to Rome; and its like was privy to his design) had this been executed, with what part of the Catholic Church had they communicated? or had they been guilty of Schism? If it be said, it was not done, yet it was resolved on, and so near to the execution, that a Cardinal told the Pope, As Clement the seveth had lost England, so Clement the eighth would lose France. And as it was resolved on, so it was thought reasonable and just, by the more considerable part of Roman Catholics in France (viz. those that adhered to the King) and to be maintained, if done. So here's the difference, they in France had approved it, we in England did it.   

CHAP. XIX. Our case and that of the Donatists not alike.  
ANd now, that which was objected above by the Cardinal, that it's not enough for Catholics to hold the same faith with the Catholic Church, but must hold Communion with it too: we grant most true; but then is that rule broken, when men hold not the Communion, or forsake it, as the Donatists did: who as they had no cause in regard of the faith (by reason of any dangerous doctrines or practices imposed on them) to cease from communicating with any part of the Catholic Church, so they divided from the whole through the breach of charity, condemning it for no Church, and drawing the communion wholly to themselves. And in some of those sentences the Cardinal alleges out of Saint Augustine, the breach or want of charity is expressed as the reason of condemning the Donatists. Now as for us, we had just cause in regard of the faith once delivered, to free it and ourselves from errors and superstitions, not confining the Church within our Communion, or condemning other Churches as no parts of the Catholic. Therefore the case of the Donatists cannot concern us, who offended not, either by breach of the Faith, or of Charity. But the cause of Division, or breach of Communion must rest upon the Roman Church, which had neither will to reform as she ought, nor yet charity to bear with them that did; and the case of the Donatists does most fit that Church, which uncharitably condemns all other, and confines the Communion to herself. For, as to the Cardinals making the case of the Donatists and ours the same, I would learn of him: Whether, if the Donatists had only used their liberty and judgement in that practice of rebaptising Heretics, leaving other Churches to their liberty, and (though thinking them in error for admitting Heretics without baptising them, yet) willing to have Communion with them, as parts of the Catholic Church (saving the practices wherein they differed) whether then had they been guilty of Schism? If he say, Yea: then must he condemn Saint Cyprian, and all the African Bishops: For they went so far, yea farther, to an undervaluing of Pope Stephen's heat against them; who had sent out the sentence of Excommunication against the Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia and Galatia (who were in the same cause with Saint Cyprian) and forbade Communion with Saint Cyprian, and the Africans, and all that held rebaptisation.  
What ever the Cardinal judges of them as to the point of Schism, (for though in his third Book, third Chapter, he treats of the oppositions of Saint Cyprian against Pope Stephen, and speaks of the Pope's condemning him, yet says nothing directly, as to the judging of him in Schism, or out of the Communion of the Church) Saint Augustine did not judge them so, no not when often pressed by the Donatists with St. Cyprians example, he might with a ready answer have turned off the weight of Authority by leaving the person under guilt of Schism, as one out of Communion of the Church: but this he did not always speaking honourably of him, as of a worthy Martyr, and only disproving his reasons for Rebaptisation Nor did after-Ages judge him and the African Bishops, though out of Communion with Rome, to be therefore guilty of Schism, condemning notwithstanding the Donatists, as notorious Schismatics, because in the one there was a bare want of external Communion with Rome, without an uncharitable breaking with, or condemning of either the Roman or the rest of the Churches, tha●●id not rebaptize; but ●n the other (viz. the Donatists) there was a will 〈◊〉 breaking with, and uncharitable condemning of the Church.  
By all which may appear: our case is different from the Donatists, is like that of St. Cyprian and his African Bishops, wanting communion with the Roman, but not therefore out of communion with the Catholic.  
And we have so much more advantage in the case, that the occasion of their non Communion was the maintaining of an Error, though tolerable; the occasion of ours, the casting off intolerable Errors.   

CHAP. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church.  
ANother general Objection they make against our dividing from them. If, say they, it was for such damnable Errors and Superstitions, as the Protestants charge the Roman Church with, then had the Gates of Hell, contrary to our Saviour's promise, prevailed against the Church.  
We answer, by denying the consequence. For from the charging of the Church of Rome, (which is but a part of the Catholic Church) with such errors, it does not follow that Hell-gates have prevailed contrary to our Saviour's promise; for they might have totally prevailed against the Roman Church to an utter subversion of it (as of other particular Churches) and yet our Saviour's promise stood firm. How far they have prevailed against that Church, the examination of her doctrines for belief and practice makes appear. We acknowledge indeed, that Hel-Gates did not prevail against the Church of Rome to a subversion of the Faith in it, or to a total infection of the members of it, with all the errors and superstitions that prevailed in it, and were advanced from time to time, chief by those that had chief place in that Church.  
But as to the Catholic Church we acknowledge that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail to a subversion, either of all the parts of it, or of saving Faith in it: There shall always be a Church, and that a Church wherein saving Faith shall be preserved, and may be had. And so Saint Augustine de Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. c. 5. seems to render the sense of that promise, when he repeats it thus; The Gates of Hell shall not overthrow or conquer it. And the Council of Trent seems plainly to acknowledge what Faith it is, against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail: Not the now Roman Faith (for by that the Gates of hell have far prevailed upon the Church of Rome) but the ancient Apostolic Faith once delivered, in all Ages professed, and by us Protestants retained. For being met at Trent to establish their new Faith, they begin their meeting (as the Ancient Councils did) with the confession of the Christian faith, repeating only that Ancient Apostolic Faith or Creed; and then adding, This is the firm and only Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Sess. secund. Concil. Trid.  
Unto this passage I had in private this Reply, or cavil rather, returned; If the words of the Council import so much, then may the Church of Christ cast off Baptism, and return to Circumcision, and yet hold the foundation, because professing that Faith. But this cavil, or inference, is,  
First, inconsequent, as to the particular Instances, Baptism and Circumcision: For the one, the Nicene Creed tells us what a necessary conjunction it hath with the belief of Remission of sins in rendering the Articles, thus, I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins; and for the other, the Apostle tells us, how inconsistent it is with the Faith of Christ, Gal. 5.2.3.  
Secondly, it is impertinent, as to my application of that Confession at Trent: for I alleged it not to ground any such Inferences upon it against the whole Catholic Church, as if the Gates of Hell could prevail against it wholly, in all sorts of Errors, saving the Verities and profession of those Articles of the Creed; but seeing they made that Creed the confession of their Faith at Trent, according to the manner of Ancient Councils; and acknowledged it in plain words to be the only foundation, etc.  
I infer first, That a Church holding that Foundation, may grossly err in other things not so immediate to it, and yet be a Church. And indeed the Romish Church for these many Ages has had no tolerable Plea to the title and being of a Church, but so far forth as has held that foundation, however clogged with many Errors.  
Secondly, that according to this their confession, their New and additional Faith of Trent is not that Catholic Faith against which, as pretended, the Gates of Hell cannot prevail.  
And lastly, it shows, the intolerable boldness of the Romish Church or Court, which after the Tridentine meeting feared not to add their new Articles to that former Creed, (which they had confessed to be the only foundation) as making up one entire Catholic Faith, and to subjoin Athanasius his Clause to it all, Haec est fides Catholica, extra quam, etc. This is the Catholic Faith, without which no salvation— as appears by Pius quartus his Bull, and the Oath which every Bishop in that Church takes.  
But that the Catholic Church has a promise in that large sense Cardinal Perron speaks it (lib. 1. cap. 18.) to continue perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine, we cannot say. We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense, for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine, he means it of such a privilege and freedom from Error as the Church of Rome challenges, which is not necessary to the preservation of the Catholic Church and Faith; or if we speak of the Catholic Church, he takes it as most visibly appearing in the chief Pastors, and their adherents, binding that privilege and freedom to that succession or those that are chief in it: Whereas we grant the Catholic Church wholly according to all the Pastors and Members of it, shall not be infected with any destructive or dangerous Errors, but that purity of saving Doctrine shall be preserved in it: Yet not bound as a Privilege to any one Church (as to the Roman) or to those that are for Number most, and for Place chief in the Church; but that in some part or other of the Catholic Church, and by some Pastors it shall be preserved and propagated: They that dream of a Church always so gloriously visible, and so apparently holding out Purity of Doctrine and Saving Truth (as the Romanists do) to the end all men may readily find out the true Church, and easily come to the knowledge of that Truth, do not consider, that God doth sometimes for the sins of Christians, turning his grace into wantonness, make his Word precious (as 1 Sam. 3.) and his saving Truth not to be found without difficulty, and diligent search after it. We see the Fathers interpreted that promise (the Gates of Hell shall not—) of the not failing of the Church, never of the not erring of it; and we see by experience the contrary. As for example, the Millenary belief, and the excommunicating of Infants (both which the Church of Rome acknowledge errors) did as generally prevail in the Catholic Church, as any error of their New Faith can be said (which they boast often) to be the general belief and doctrine of the whole Church.  
We say then, The Gates of Hell cannot prevail to the overthrowing of the Fundamental saving Faith, or to the corrupting and extinguishing of the Purity of saving Doctrine absolutely through the Catholic Church: but may prevail very fare and generally over the visible face of the Church Catholic; viz. as it shows itself in the parts of it, all particular Churches holding the Foundation: For these, considered, as above, according to their more visible, and conspicuous appearance in those that are chiefest in them for place, and most for number 〈◊〉 lose the purity of Saving Do 〈…〉 though holding the Foundation, admit of the Superstructions of hay, stubble, and worse: Errors in belief and practice: And though Hell-Gates may prevail very fare and generally by Superstructures, yet are they such (at least in some particular Churches) as the foundation may bear: Such as may still be convinced by the Doctrine of Saving Truth preserved still in the Church. For the Pastor's voice (as was said above, cap. 12.) will be so heard always in the Church, that the strange voice of false Teachers and false Doctrines may be discerned, and will by them that have ears to hear, and their senses exercised to put a difference between good and evil, true and false.  
Now the Romish Church (with which we had to do) had not preserved the Faith entire without mixture of many Errors and Superstitions; had not kept the foundation clear from such burdensome and dangerous Superstructures: yet has the fundamental Faith in express terms been delivered down in that Church, and such saving knowledge, as was sufficient to discern the Foundation from the Superstructures; the true and ancient Faith, from the new erroneous Belief; the true Pastor's voice, from the strange Doctrines of unwritten Traditions. To follow that voice, to cast off those Superstructures, to contend for the Faith once delivered, and clear it from adventitiall errors, that was our duty, and the work of our Reformation.  And thus far against their general plausible Pretences. Now to some Trial of their particular Doctrines of Belief and Practice, which we have cast off, as erroneous and superstitious. 
For the way of Trial, The Affirmative in those Doctrines being theirs, it lies upon them to prove the Doctrines (affirmed by them) to be true and Catholic, by such Rules as are allowable.  
The Rules admitted by both sides, though not in equal rank, are Scripture, and consent of Antiquity, gathered by the Writings of the Fathers, and the Acts of ancient Councils. We say, they cannot by these make good what they affirm, but show that both make against them.   

CHAP. XXI. Of the Trial of Doctrines by Scripture.  
FIrst for Scripture. Whatsoever is revealed in that Scripture, which both sides admit as Canonical, is likewise admitted by both sides, as of divine Authority. But such Scripture is not acknowledged by them as a sufficient Rule for the trial and judging of the controverted points; therefore they are necessitated to fly to Tradition; not that which delivers down to us the sense of any Scripture, by the consent of all Ages of the Church, but to unwritten Traditions, which deliver Doctrines of Belief and Practice that have not footing in Scriptures. This I note, because they are ready to abuse the unwary, by urging sometimes the former sort, to make them swallow unwritten Traditions upon the same pretence. For the former sort we grant, as appears by the points of Christianity not controverted between us, because these points as they are grounded on Scripture, so are they brought down to us by the profession and tradition of all Ages, as the confessed sense of those Scriptures on which they are grounded, and this not derogatory to the sufficiency of Scripture. But to their other sort of Traditions, viz. unwritten (on which they generally ground their Doctrines rejected by us) we cannot admit as any ground of Faith or Worship: such Traditions being uncertain, not possibly to be proved Apostolical, but received upon the Testimony of their present Church, and indeed generally inconsistent with Scripture. Yet are we to note, that in all the controverted points they pretend Scripture, and allege several places in every point; yea in those points which they themselves confess (as most of the controverted points are by the most ingenuous Romanists confessed) to have no ground or footing in Scripture. To let pass the want of candour and plain dealing in this, we must observe,  
First, that their labouring to pretend Scripture for every Doctrine, is a  acknowledgement that doctrines of Faith and Religion should have their ground there. For instance; Invocation of Saints they acknowledge not used in the Old Testament, yea and give us reason for it, because the souls of the Patriarches were not then in heaven, and so not to be Invocated, yet do they allege very many places for it out of the Old Testament to make a show of Scripture. So for the New Testament. They acknowledge Invocation of Saints departed was not commanded or taught by the Apostles, or in their time; yea and give us reasons why it was not published at first; because (say Eckius, Copus, Salmeron.) It had been unseasonable and dangerous for Jew and Gentile at first to have heard it, lest they might think the Christians set forth and worshipped many Gods: or that the Apostles were ambitious of having such honour done them after their death.  
It is then acknowledged not to have been so much as taught in that first Age, and yet will they again (when they come to maintain it) make the world believe it was also written then, and bring many places of the New Testament for a seeming proof of it. So of Image-worship, Purgatory, Indulgences, and most of their Sacraments, the more ingenuous among them acknowledge (as our Authors have gathered their Testimonies) they have not ground in Scripture: and indeed if they truly had, why should the Romanist so earnestly contend for unwritten Traditions to hold them by? yet must Scripture be alleged for them all by every Controversie-writer. Which consequently (as was observed) does acknowledge that Doctrines of Faith and Religion should be grounded there.  
Secondly, that the necessity they have of resting upon unwritten Traditions equalised in Authority to the written Word of God, is a plain confession, they cannot stand by the undoubted Word of God, nor have any certain ground of their New faith which rests upon pretended unwritten Traditions, and these you must take upon the word of their own Church.  
Thirdly, that the same necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions, forces them to lay upon Scripture Imputations of Imperfection and Insufficiency, of darkness and obscurity, very unbeseeming the Testament of God; written by the dictate of God's Spirit, and left us as a signification of his will, and a Rule for the direction of his Church.  
Let us then take leave a little more largely to speak to these two points: of the sufficient perfection of this written Rule, then of the sufficient perspicuity of it. The one casts off the necessity of their unwritten Tradition; the other, the pretence of their Infallible Judge or Interpreter. And upon these indeed rests the whole frame of the New Roman faith: and therefore worthy, of all other points, to be a little insisted on.   

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

CHAP. XXIII. Of Traditions which we allow.  
FOr Tradition, We allow,  
1. That Universal Tradition which brings down Scripture unto us, through the consent of all Ages, for that Tradition is supposed in the reception of the Scripture. But we say, the Scripture contains all material objects of Faith necessary to Salvation, i.e. all things that had been necessary for Christians to believe and do for Salvation, though there had been no Scripture.  
Secondly, we allow that kind of Tradition which brings down the sense of Scripture to us through all Ages of the Church. So the Creed may be called a Tradition, and other Catholic Declarations of the Church bringing down the sense of Scripture in any point of Faith. Now as the Scripture does suppose the former Tradition, so this kind supposes the Scriptures for its ground, delivering nothing but what is contained in them, and neither of these sorts derogatory to the sufficiency of them.  
Thirdly, we allow some Traditions that bring down matters of practice touching Order, Ceremony, Usages in the Church, as of Fasts, or Festivals, or Rites about Sacraments, and the like: But such if they be not contained in the Scripture, so neither are they within the limits of the question; which concerns necessaries to salvation: such we deny those to be; and such things as are necessary to believe to salvation, we deny to come down to us by unwritten Tradition: and what Traditions the Romanists pretend for the controverted points, we deny that they contain such things necessary, or to have been delivered down in all Ages; and therefore can be no ground for necessary faith, whether we consider the matter of them, or the uncertainty of them. Our Arguments briefly are,  
I. Such as show the Scriptures sufficient for Salvation; as Joh. 5. ver. 39 for in them ye think ye have salvation. Where our Saviour supposes, they thought true in it, or else his reason had not been good— for because they might have Salvation by them, i. e. know all things necessary to it, therefore he bids them search the Scriptures, and they should find, they testified of him— So 2 Tim. 3.15. expressly, they are able to make wise unto salvation, etc. They have two shifts here;  
1. That Scripture is profitable to that end; for that word (Profitable) (the Romanists lay hold on) because the Apostle saith there, All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc. and so (say they) is every book profitable to that end, though not sufficient, and so they will have the whole Scripture but partially profitable.  
But we answer, Sufficiency belongs to the whole Scripture, though in proportion also to every Book. And the other expressions of the Apostle there, show this to be only a shift. For he said before, that Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation; can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose, and only to do it in part, and imperfectly, teaching him only some knowledges to that purpose? Also he saith after, ver. 17. by the Scripture, The man of God is throughly furnished, or perfected to every good work, i.e. to Doctrine, Instruction, etc. such as he spoke of before; which must needs imply a sufficiency to that end.  
2. Their other shift is, That the Scripture is said to do this, because it contains many things plainly in itself, and shows from whence we may have the rest, i.e. from their Church. We answer, Had it shown us that (which it does not) yet could not this shift be reasonable here: For so the Law might have been said to make us perfect, because it shows us Christ, and was a Schoolmaster to him, Gal. 3. and John Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples, by showing them Christ.  
II. Such Arguments as forbid and exclude all Additions to the Scripture, and so imply the perfection and sufficiency of it, and condemn their superadded Traditions, as, Deut. 4.2. and cap 12.32. against adding to his precepts. And Rev. 22.18. a Woe pronounced to him that adds. And Gal. 1.6. an Anathema to them that bring in another Gospel beside what they had received. And Gal. 3.15. to a man's Testament none adds, much less to Gods. And Mat. 15. our Saviour expressly condemns the Pharisees that taught for Doctrines of Worship, the Traditions and Commandments of men.  
Now see, what shift they make with these places. One is, that the prohibition of adding concerns the whole Word of God written and unwritten, no man may add to that. We answer, that the places of Deut. and of Rev. are expressly of the written Word. Also that of Gal. 1. and Gal. 3. must be meant of the written: for that which is written bears the name of the Gespel, and of the Testament of God, and can we think it bears it partially? Saint Aug. lib. 3. contra Lit. Petil. and elsewhere expressly applies that of Gal. 1. to the Scripture, thereby excluding all doctrines of Faith not received from Scripture. And Saint Hier. upon 1. of Hag. relating to that place, saith, Percutit Dei gladius— that sword of God, or Anathema, strikes through all those doctrines, which absque authoritate & testimonio scripturae quasi traditione Apostolicâ confingunt; without the authority and testimony of Scripture they hold forth under pretence of Apostolical Tradition. And for that other of God's Testament, The Romanists must suppose that God Almighty has done, as it fares with many men, who intending to write their Will, and having begun, and prefixed the Title (This is my Will and Testament) and proceeded far in it, being prevented by hastening death, leave the rest by word of mouth: so will they have God to make a Will partly Written, partly Nuncupatory. Now how derogatory this is to the providence of God, who sees not?  
Another shift, That those Traditions are only forbid, which are contrary to what is written, and so no man may add. We answer, The Apostle saith, Gal. 1. praeter, beside that which ye have received, and Bell. expressly interprets that praeter by contra; but in the judgement of Saint Aug. and St. Hier. in the places above cited it is enough to incur the Anathema, if they teach any thing of faith, which is besides that which is received from Scripture saith St. Aug. and absque authoritate & testimonio Scripturae, the authority and testimony of the Scripture, saith St. Hier. to which add Tertul. against Hermogenes, Non est scriptum, timeat vae illud ad●icientibus, It is not written, Let him fear that curse which is denounced against them that add. It was then enough to bring a man under the woe pronounced against them that added, if the thing they added was not written; and not only because it was contrary to what was written. But our Saviour's speech, Mat. 15. taken from Is. 29.13. Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men; shows that all Traditions, though not contrary to what is written, yet if they teach for Worship or Faith necessary to salvation, that which is not commanded or written, they are to be condemned. For though the Pharisees Corban was directly against the written command, yet their superstitious washing was not. And upon that occasion our Saviour condemns them as to this point. To this very purpose is one of St. Basil's Ethick Rules, Quicquid extra Scripturam est, cum non sit ex side peccatum est. He says not contrà, against; but extra, besides, or without Scripture; and being so, it cannot be of Faith, and therefore sinful, if so propounded and imposed: And this excludes the Romish Traditions from being rules of Faith or Worship; besides that they are to be challenged of contrariety and repugnancy to Scripture for the most part.   

CHAP. XXIV. Their Arguments against Scriptures sufficiency, and for Traditions.  
THeir Arguments for their Traditions and against the sufficiency of Scripture, are so many aspersions cast upon the undoubted Word of God, not without derogation to the Providence and Wisdom of God, nor (for the most part) without some contradiction to themselves.  
Their first concerns the purpose of God in it, That he did not purpose it to contain a perfect Rule, because the Penmen of holy Scripture had no command to write, but did it upon occasion, or as Belgiosa (necessitate quadam coacti) upon occasions ministered, and urging them to write.  
We answer,  
1. If the necessity of the Churches called for Scripture, and urged them to write, it shows of what concernment it is to the Church.  
But 2. though the necessity of the Church ministered the outward occasion to some books, it supposes the purpose and special providence of God in applying them to the work. Hear Bell. himself acknowledging, lib. 4. c. 3. Deo volente & inspirante Aposelos scripsisse quae scripserunt, That the Apostles wrote what they did write, by the will and inspiration of God. This is well, but this amounts not to a command, faith he: Being then pressed with Saint Aug. saying, Quicquid ille (Christus) de suis dictis & factis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus imperavit, Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his say and deeds, that he commanded them to write. lib. 1. de consens. evang. c. ult. He is forced to confess they had mandatum internum, an internal command to write— And now what needs more? for if they had had all of them as express outward command as Saint John had to write his Revelations, or as Moses had to write what he had from God, it would not have made it more the purpose of God, than did the inward command: Nor would it have made Bellarmine any whit more granted the Scripture of the Apostles to be written for such a Rule; for he does not grant it of Moses Writings, though he had such a command, and therefore we may leave it as a vain reasoning.  
But see what he saith of Scripture as written for a Rule, That it is a Rule, and Regula fidei Catholicae the Rule of Catholic Faith; and Regula credendi certissima, & tutissima, The Rule of Belief, and that most certain most safe. Bell. affirms l. 1. c. 2. and this is well towards a perfect Rule; and there he infers upon it, seeing it is so, sun●● profecto non erit, qui eâ neglectâ spiritus interni, semper incerti, saepe fallacis, judiciose commiserit, He is not well advised, who neglecting Scripture, rests upon the judgement of a private spirit, which is always uncertain, often deceiving. How well might the inference been made so against unwritten Traditions, seeing the scripture is Regula fidei Catholicae, & regula credendi certissima, tutissima, sanus profecto non erit, etc. He is ill advised, who neglecting Scripture commits himself to unwritten Traditions, which are often deceitful, always uncertain. But in his fourth Book cap 12. Scripture is with him but a partial Rule, unwritten Tradition is the other part: Nay, he denies in the same Chapter, that it was the proper and chief end of Scripture to be a Rule, but to be utile quoddam commonitorium ad conservaudam doctrinam ex praedicatione acceptam; A profitable means to admonish and remember them of the doctrine they had heard preached: That profit indeed the Scripture did afford, but the end of that remembrance, and conserving of the Doctrine preached was, that the Scripture should be as a standing Rule, or Guide to them, and so to us, that did not hear what the Apostles preached: To us it is not properly a Remembrancer, but a Guide and Rule; and that must be the chief end wherefore it was written.  
But this to note, how this engagement for unwritten Tradition in h●s fourth. Book, would not let him be constant to what he had fairly spoken of Scripture in his first. So it fares with most of them, Truth forces much from them, till they come to be confronted with an adversary in defence of some point of their New Faith.  
Their second sort of Reasoning against the sufficiency of Scripture, is by enumeration of some things necessary to be believed, which are not contained (say they) in Scripture. As first, That Scripture is the Word of God, is necessary to be believed, but not contained, or shown by Scripture: This is in every of their mouths. Among the rest, Bell. thus, lib. 4. Scripture cannot show itself to be the Word of God, for the Alcoran affirms also of itself the same, that it is the Word of God.  
We answer,  
First to the Impertinency of this Cavil, That (as it was said above in the stating of the Question) to believe Scripture to be the Word of God, is not of those material objects of Faith which we say are contained in Scripture, and are such as had been necessary for Christians to believe, though there had been no Scripture; also that the Scripture being received upon Universal Tradition (as we said) does not derogate from the sufficiency of Scripture, for that is a Tradition which Scripture supposes, does not exclude in this question. For had the Scripture been never so full and sufficient according to the Papists mind, i. e. had it plainly confirmed (if we may suppose such a thing) all that they say is necessary to be learned by unwritten Tradition, yet would it not have contained this (that it is the Word of God) otherwise than it doth, but must suppose that universal Tradition still to bring it down to us. But we also say; that although Scripture is so brought down to us, yet being received upon such Tradition, it discovers itself to be divine by it own light, or those internal arguments (as they are called) which appear in it to those that are versed in it.  
And now see what Bellarmine does here acknowledge, lib. 1. cap. ●. he makes the title of the Chapter, Libri● can●ni●is verbum Dei contineri, among other arguments, he proves it excellently well by some reasons drawn from Scripture itself, as by the conspiration of the parts, the event of Prophecies, and the like, and there saith, Sacris-Scripturis nihil notius, nihil certius: Now, when he comes to contend for unwritten Tradition against Scripture: Scripture cannot show itself to be the Word of God more than the Alcoran It had been well if Bell. had sat down with his own dishonour in contradicting himself, and not used this odious instance of the Alcoran to God's dishonour.  
But as I noted at the beginning, their Necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions, forces them to cast many aspersions upon the undoubted Word of Almighty God. Hear what others say upon the same score, the Jesuit Bailius in his Catechism, Without the Testimony of the Church, I would believe the Scripture no more than my Livy; no more than Aesop's Fables, saith another. And how can it prove itself to be no Fable (saith another Romanist) more than any other writing that is mixed with Fables? To this purpose are those other reproaches, that shall from them The Scripture, a mute letter, as if no sense in it, but as the Church gives it, a nose of wax, as if appliable of itself any way.  
This the language their Disciples must learn, to speak reproachfully of that Word which was written by the Holy spirit of God, given them to salvation, and must judge them at the last day.  
Another of their Instances of things necessary, but not contained in Scripture, is Baptism of Infants. This generally objected by them all: And amongst them I single out Bell. to answer himself, or (as I may say) contradict himself in it. For lib. 1. de baptis. c. 8. he proves it by places of Scripture, and saith, the argument is strong and effectual, and cannot be avoided, and that the thing is evident in Scripture. Now when he contends for Tradition against Scripture, This thing of children's Baptism must be one of them that is necessary, and not contained in Scripture. This is not ingenuous nor conscionable, but enough to answer the objection.  
We say further, that Baptism of Children, as to the practice of it, is not contained expressly in Scripture, i. e. it is not where commanded to be done, or said, that they did do it: But the grounds and necessity of it are sufficiently delivered in Scripture, and that's enough for the doing of it; and that the Arguments from Scripture by Bel. and others alleged do sufficiently show. And these are their chief Instances.  
Their third and last sort of reasoning is from places of Scripture expressly naming Traditions, as 1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Thes. 2.15.  
Answ. The whole Gospel was Tradition till it was written: Now if they will have these places make for them, they must show those Traditions mentioned, did contain things necessary to salvation, and no where written. It is plain they did not. The first concerns Rites and Orders in their Assemblies; and the other, if unwritten, concerned the coming of Antichrist, the falling away before it (the things spoken of in that Chapter, and not of necessity to know unto salvation) and that Tradition, if any more than was written touching those points, being lost, it appears how well the Church of Rome is to be trusted in this business of unwritten Tradition, that cannot show those which were, nor prove those she has, to be delivered by the Apostles.  
Also from places of Scripture, which they will have to imply Tradition, as joh. 16 1●. I have yet many things to say to you, etc. 1 Cor. 2.6. We speak wisdom among the perfect: and that to Timothy, Custodi depositum— That good thing committed to thee keep— 2 Tim 1.14.  
Answ. These prove no more than the former place, unless they can also prove and demonstrate to us, that they concerned things not written, and yet necessary to salvation.  
2. We must tell them that Heretics of old did usually pretend these very places for their unwritten doctrines, and made the like Inferences as the Papists do St. Aug. upon John shows they would say, their doctrines were of the multa which Christ had to say, and Tert. de prescript. c. 5. tells us, Heretics alleged, the Apostles delivered some things openly to all, some things secretly to a few (the very thing the Papists say) and they proved it (such he) by St. Paul's saying to Timothy, Custodi depositum. St. Iraen l 3. c. 2. shows Heretics alleged the scriptures were obscure, not to be understood by those that know not Tradition; alleging for it, that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. we speak wisdom, etc. Terp. in his Book de resur. tells us, Heretics cannot stand if you bind them, de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas sistere, to be judged by the Scriptures alone: and in the same book calls all Heretics, Lucifugas scripturarum, such as fly the light of the scripture.  
And now we must say in the last place, their usual objection of Heretics always alleging Scriptures and shunning Tradition, is most vain, as appears by the former Testimonies. As for their alleging scripture, it made for the dignity and sufficiency of scripture; Heretics well knowing the Authority Scripture had in the Church, and therefore that it was in vain to use other proofs without it, and so the Romanists are necessitated (as was said above, Chap. 21.) to pretend it for the proving of those points which they know, and sometimes confess are not grounded on scripture. As for Heretics shunning Tradition, it is most true, they carefully shunned that Tradition which delivered down the sense of scripture in the points of Faith through all Ages of the Church: for to shun that, was to shun the evidence and light of scripture. But as for unwritten Traditions (such as we and the Romanists contend about) they shelter themselves under the darkness of them, made great advantage (as we saw) by pretence of them, alleging the very same reasons and places of scripture for them, as the Romanists do, and so we leave them both well agreed in this point.   

CHAP. XXV. The evidence of Antiquity in the point.  
NOw for the evidence of Antiquity. Though we are to speak more generally to that trial by the Fathers afterward, yet here in brief to this particular point. There is scarce one Father, but we bring him expressly witnessing (as we affirm) the fullness and sufficiency of scripture in all things necessary. Bell. in l. 4. c. 11. sets down very many of them, and admits them for the say of those Fathers, how then does he decline them?  
1. One of his General answers (and it is what others answer to) that the Fathers speak of omnia omnibus necessaria to be contained in scripture. This the express testimonies of those Fathers have extorted from him, which is no little prejudice to their cause (who equal tradition to the written Word, and plead the necessity of what is conveyed to us thereby) for if all things necessary for all be contained in Scripture, then surely the doctrines and faith delivered in unwritten Traditions are not necessary for all. They indeed that have given up their belief to all the dictates of that Church, are consequently necessitated to believe them, but we may be good Christians and yet not believe them, because not written, and not necessary it seemeth to all. That which they can pretend to say here, is, that such unwritten Traditions become necessary to be believed upon the proposal of the Church, and to be by all believed, to whom they are sufficiently propounded or made known. Indeed, of Scripture, we grant, All things there revealed become upon sufficient proposal of them necessary to be believed as true; yet not all to be believed, as necessary in themselves to salvation. But of unwritten Traditions, we cannot say, Men are bound to believe them as true, upon the proposal of their Church, unless they can demonstrate the testimony of their Church to be Infallible, or that she propounds them upon full Catholic, or Universal Tradition, and consent of all Ages; which they cannot do: Much less can we say, Men are bound upon the proposal of their Church to believe them, as containing things necessary in themselves to salvation, unless they can prove the contents of those Traditions to be so, which is impossible; or that their Church can make new Articles of Faith, or those things necessary to be believed to salvation, which were not so in themselves before. This the sober and moderate Romanist must and will deny.  
2. He shifteth off their Testimonies, by restraining them to the particular thing there spoken of, as if they only meant, the scripture was full to that point only. When as indeed upon occasion of some particular point, which they were proving, they speak in general of the sufficiency of Scripture, saying, it contains all things necessary. Therefore to take away these, and all such shifts which they bring to restrain what the Fathers spoke generally, We show they spoke so generally of the sufficiency of Scripture, that they left no room for unwritten Traditions to come into the rule of Faith. This we show unanswerably, by the Fathers (alleged above, chap. 23.) arguing negatively (as Tertul. sometimes) Non est scri●tum, therefore not to be received: and speaking exclusively to all things not written, as, that we must not say or teach any thing of faith, praeterquam quod scriptum est, saith Saint Augustine lib. 3. contra Lit Petil. Sine his Testibus, saith St. Chrysost. and citra Scipturam, in Psal. 95. and absque authoritate & testimonio Scripturae, saith St. Hier. in 1. cap. Hag. and, Quicquid extra Scripturam est, cùm non sit ex fide, peccatum est, Basil. in Regulis Eth. Such exclusive words (praeterquàm, sinè, citrà, absque, extrà) they use against admitting of unwritten Tradition for a Rule of Faith; which words and speeches are not any way to be eluded.  
That they bring many say out of the Fathers for Tradition, it is true, and Bellarmine boasts in the number; but to what purpose? when they do but beat the air, strike us not. For they either mean the Scripture itself, or Evangelical Doctrine contained in, and delivered to the Church by the written Word, to which the name of Tradition is often given by the more ancient Fathers, Iraen. Tertul. Cyprian; or else they mean the form of Doctrine and Belief delivered down in the Church, which though they often call Tradition, yet is it written and contained in Scripture, and is but the explication of it, or the Traditive sense, nothing to the unwritten Traditions we speak of; or else by unwritten Tradition (as they often mention that too) they imply things of Practice, and Rites, and Festivals, or Fasts and the like, not matters of Faith necessary to Salvation. And among these some Fathers avouch such for Apostolical Traditions which the Romanists will not allow, as standing at Prayer between Easter and Whitsuntide, and every Lord's day, and the Trine immersion in Baptism. In a word, where the Fathers say, the Apostles left some things to us unwritten, let the Romanists show us, if they can, among all the particulars the Fathers speak of, as so left us, any point of Faith necessary to salvation. Indeed some of the more ancient Father's mention one, which (with some consent) they held a point of Faith, and received by Tradition, viz. the Millenary belief: but that was not a mere unwritten Tradition, but rather a Traditive sense of Scripture (Rev. 20.) and that a mistaken one, and by the Romanists rejected; who know the Fathers were deceived in that Tradition by Papias, and we know the Romanists are deceived, or may very well in theirs. But let them show, as I said, in all the Testimonies of the Father's one of their necessary points of Faith among those particulars, which the Fathers have mentioned (with any consent) as delivered by unwritten Tradition: which seeing they cannot do, all their boasting of Antiquity in this point is vain, they meet only with the Name of unwritten Tradition, not the Thing.   

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture.  
THus much of the Sufficiency of Scripture. Now of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of it. Scripture being the Rule of Faith, must in all reason, be both sufficiently perfect, as we have heard, and also sufficiently clear and perspicuous (as we shall see.) Their pretence of obscurity and difficulty in Scripture (such as they fasten on it) serves them to two purposes. To keep people from Reading it, and to set up an Infallible Interpreter of the sense of it, or visible Judge of all controversies arising.  
Bellar. handles this business in lib. 3. de verbo dei, and proposes two questions, neither of them stated aright. His first, Sintne Scripturae sacrae per se facillimae & apertissimae, an verò interpretatione indigeant? cap. 1. His second, An ab uno visibili communi judice Scripturae interpretatio petenda sit, an uniuscujusque Arbitrio relinquenda? Whereas we neither say, the Scripture needs no Interpretation, nor do we leave it to every man's pleasure, or judgement. But we acknowledge, there are many hard places, and obscure passages, which need Interpretation; yet is there not such a general obscurity in Scripture, but that private persons may read it with profit: which both Scripture itself and all the Fathers exhort the people to: because what is necessary to life and faith, is for the most part plainly set down; therefore it is called A light to our feet and paths, Psal. 119. and to make wise the simple, Psal. 19.7. and Saint Peter bids Christians attend to the word of Prophecy as a light shining in a dark place, 2 Epist. 1.19. Bell. answers to such places, that the Scripture is a light when it is understood: And this is as much as if he had said, a light is a light, if it be seen: For a light, if it be not put in a dark Lantern, or under a Bushel (as the Church of Rome serves the Scripture to hid it from the people) will show itself: so will the Scripture, being a light, and a light shining, as S. Peter said. Certainly it was the intent and duty of all the Apostles so to speak, and so to write as to be understood. And St. Peter notes but some places in Saint Paul's Epistles hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrist— 2 Epist. c. 3. Sure then those that are not so, but come with minds and endeavours answerable, may read with profit, seeing his Epistles are for the most part, not hard to be understood.  
That which they reply here comes to this, that those Churches to which the Apostle wrote, were instructed aforehand by word of mouth, and so might more easily understand what was written after: We grant, they were praeinstructed, and that it made them more fit to understand what was written: but as they had it, so Christian people want it not now; and albeit their praeinstruction might prepare them to a more easy understanding of passages relating to some particulars concerning things not necessary to salvation, as was that of Antichrist, 2 Thes. 2. Of which we may be ignorant, and of which the Church of Rome is ignorant notwithstanding all her Traditions: yet f●r things necessary delivered in the Apostles writings (of which the question proceeds) our people have as fitting and sufficient means to understand as they had: For seeing their praeinstruction was the first preaching of the Gospel to them, the laying of the foundation, the delivering chief of things necessary for them to know unto salvation: I hope we are not destitute of such fore-instruction to fit us for profitable reading of the scriptures, we are taught the principles of Christian Religion, the Catholic Faith into which we and all Christians are baptised: besides, we have the help of the Gospels and all other writings of God's Word; and therefore why may not our Christian people so premstructed understand Saint Paul's Epistles (in all necessary points) as well and profitably as the people to whom they were written?  
Again, take the Scripture as a Rule of direction, it argues that it must be clear and plain in what it is to direct us in. All men give such Rules, as near as they can, evident and clear; and shall we deny it to the best of Rules, the Rule of Gods making and giving, the Rule of greatest concernment to us? Bell. could say (when he meant to give Scripture its due, lib. 1. cap. 2.) that it was Regula credendi tutissima, certissima: And again, because it was a Rule, therefore it must be nota & certa, which indeed is very good reason, both for the knowing of it to be our Rule, and for the evidence of it in those things it is to direct us in. In regard of which things, it was necessary a Christian should have sufficient evidence: as in the harder places of Scripture he has his exercise, to set an edge upon his endeavours, and keep him humble. And these very reasons we find given by the Fathers for the obscurity we meet with in Scripture; that it is not such, as to deter any from reading (for the Fathers frequently exhort all unto it) but to stir up the more diligence in searching the Scriptures, and to keep down Pride and self-conceit, that people should not trust too much to their own understanding: but have cause to repair upon all occasions to their Guides and Pastors, whose mouths preserve knowledge now, as the Priests did under the Law.  
As therefore we said, Scripture was a sufficiently perfect rule of all things necessary to salvation, containing them expressly, or deducibly, so we say it is a sufficiently clear Rule, not only in regard of what it delivers expressly, but in regard of all necessary truths deducible; because they may sufficiently by evident and clear consequence be deduced thence.  
This clearness then which (we attribute to Scripture) does not exclude Interpretation, or the skill and industry of the Guides of the Church for the deducing of many necessary divine Truths. All things necessary, we say, are there contained expressly, or thence deducible; and deducible, not all by every one that reads; but it is enough, if done by the Pastors and Guides, which God appointed in his Church, to that purpose, using the means that are needful to that purpose: such as is Attention and Diligence in search of the Scripture, collation of places, and observing the connexion's: also sincerity and impartiality in the collection or deduction they make: also prayer and devotion for assistance in the Work.  
Now Bellarmine propounded the question very carelessly, or enviously, as if we denying their visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter, left the Scripture to be interpreted according to every man's pleasure. There was enough said above concerning the use of Reason and Judgement, which we leave to private men, in order to their own assent or believing; a private Judgement of discerning what is propounded to them, and manifested out of God's Word. Which Judgement of theirs, as it supposes the help of, so it stands subordinate to the public Judgement of the Guides and Pastors, God has set in his Church to judge for others, deducing out of Scripture, and manifesting the truth to every man's conscience, as 2 Cor. 4.2.   

CHAP. XXVII. Of a visible Infallible judge or Interpreter.  
NOw the question is, Whether besides the forementioned Guides and Pastors, there be One visible Judge or Interpreter for all the Church, to whose sentence all men's Judgements must subscribe, and every man's conscience must acquiesce without further enquiry? i. e. a Judge or Interpreter Infallible.  
Indeed such a Judge or Umpire of Christendom would (if to be had) be a ready means to compose all differences, and restore truth and peace. But seeing it is only a pretence and not a reality, we have no such remedy left us: Nay, seeing it is pretended to by a Church which may err as well as other particular Churches, and has erred as grossly, or more than any other, it is the greatest hindrance now of restoring truth and peace among Christians: For that Church which pretends to the Infallibility cannot amend any Error, and must uncharitably condemn all others which do not acknowledge her for such, as she pretends to be. So that which the Romanists would make the stay of Christianity (the Infallibility and unerring privilege of that Church) is the very bane of Christendom.  
But to come to the examination and decision of this Controversy. We say the Catholic Church of Christ is, and will be Infallible in Fundamentals and saving Truth necessary to the being and continuing of a Church of Christ; and that is no more than to say, The Church shall not fail in being, or in saving Truth, but that in one part or other that saving Truth or Faith will be preserved and professed: But that there is, or shall be a Church of one denomination (as the Roman) Infallible in all her definitions, which she proposes de fide, is that we deny, and they cannot prove.  
We are next to observe, that although the Romanists would usually shroud themselves in this point of Infallibility, under the name of the Church Catholic, yet when brought to the trial, they must, and do fasten the Infallibility upon the Roman Church; endeavouring to show by general marks that the Catholic Church is not to be found but in the Roman Communion (which was observed above, chap. 12. to be the drift of Cardinal Perron) and here they would willingly stay, and hold forth their Infallibility under the name and privilege of the Church, being loath to be put upon the Contestation 'twixt the Pope and a General Council. But seeing their Church cannot speak, or do the office of a Judge or Interpreter, but by a Council or the Pope, therefore their Infallibility must rest upon the one or other.  
And here we must observe how they stand d vided, and disagree about the very foundation of their Faith, where to state that Infallibility, upon which they profess to believe all they do believe; and for want of which they usually reproach us Protestants, that we cannot have any certainty of belief, or means of agreement: when as they that pretend to such unity and certainty in their belief, differ in the groundwork of it, one side destroying and confuting the reasons and motives of the other.  
Now to say, as they usually reply, that they are certain of the Definitions of their Church, being from Councils confirmed by the Pope, and so they have both agreeing. This does not salve the business. For it is not certain, they shall always agree, nor have they always agreed. Where then must the Infallibility rest? What certainty of such definitions as the Council makes without the Pope (so did the Councils of Basil and Constance) or that the Pope makes without a Council? The Romanists stand divided about the Definitions of those two Councils. Again, if they do agree, what certainty is there of an Infallibility? For still that must accrue to the definitions, either upon the unerring judgement of the Council, making them, or of the Pope confirming them; and so it returns to the former difference, and thereupon to the former uncertainty, one side destroying the reasons of the other. The Sorbonists and moderate Papists on the one part asserting, a Council is above the Pope, may judge and depose him; on the other part, the Jesuits and more rigid Papists maintaining the contrary. And this opinion of stating the Infallibility upon the Pope, is the more general among them.  
But that we may come to a nearer trial of this Infallibility of Judgement in the Church of Rome, and see what the certainty of their belief (which by reason of that pretended Infallibility, they boast of, and deny to us) will come to: Suppose then, they are all agreed that in their Church there is such a privilege of Infall bility, or not erring: Let us consider what is brought against it, what pretended for it.  
Their part being the Affirmative, ours the Negative, we challenge them, that they cannot prove it either by Scripture, or any convincing demonstrative reason: Notwithstanding they are bound to show us it (according to their own concessions) expressly contained in Scripture: For, they grant all things necessary for all to believe (and such they hold this point of Infallibility) are so contained in Scripture, it being one of their prima credibilia, and necessary for all to be believe. vid. c. 22. We, as Negatives, are proved, show it is not imaginable, that a belief of that consequence (the groundwork of all Faith, the stay of the Church, as they will have it) should be so ill provided for. That,  
First, the four Evangelists writing the Gospel of Christ for the use of the Church, and all Believers, should, if they knew it, be so silent of it, and yet record many things of far smaller importance.  
Secondly, that Saint Paul, when he had occasion to speak it, as when he wrote to the Romans, should not give the least hint of this privilege, no not when he told them the privilege of the Jews, cap. 3. that to them were committed the Oracles of God: How convenient had it been to have spoken this privilege of the Romans, that to them were entrusted the Oracles of Christ, and the interpretation of them? Again, when writing to the Corinthians, he had occasion to tell them of some, saying, I am of Paul, I of Cephas, I of Apollo, in stead of telling them, All must hold of Cephas (as the Roman Church has defined it of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop the successor of Cephas) he chides them for such faction and division. Or when he and Saint Peter agreed upon a distribution of their Ministry, that one should apply himself to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles, nothing should be acknowledged of Saint Peter's Universal Jurisdiction, Gal. 2. Or when he reckoned up the several Orders as God had set them in his Church, Ephes 4.11. it should not been said, First Peter, than the Apostles, but First Apostles, Secondarily Prophets, and after for ordering Ministers of the Church, it should be added, some Pastors and Teachers, without any insinuation, that the Lord had given the Bishop of Rome to be supreme Pastor, and Doctor of the Church.  
Thirdly, that St. Peter himself giving all diligence (as he saith Epist. 2. cap. 1.) to mind them of what was needful before his departure, should not tell them whom they were to follow after he was gone.  
Fourthly, that we should have so often warning of false Teachers (both in the Gospels and Epistles) and nothing of this Remedy: So much of Antichrists, and nothing of the Vicar of Christ.  
Fifthly, that the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor, or that Cyprian and the African Bishops in their opposition to Pope Stephen, should not know this privilege of the Church of Rome, or not acknowledge it. If it be said, Both Victor and Stephen judged right: Be it so, and let Cardinal Perron cry, Oh Providence, that after-Councils judged the same! (as he lib. 3. against the King's Letter) yet does it not follow that they were infallible, or had Univerfall Jurisdiction to judge for the whole Church; Nor yet did they judge altogether right; for Victor did not judge aright, when he concluded excommunication against so many famous Bishops and Churches, upon a different time of observing Easter; For albeit Irenaeus and other famous Bishops and after-Councils acknowledged the truth of the thing itself, viz. The observing of the Time of Easter, yet did they not approve his judgement in proceeding to an Excommunication of, or rather a pronouncing of Non-communion with those Churches: And if Stephen did generally without exception, as it seems he did, conclude all Heretics to be received without rebaptisation; after-Councils did not judge the same, but concluded the contrary upon some Heretics; for some there were, that did not observe, but destroyed, what was essential to the Form of Baptism, and could not therefore be received without being baptised at their admission. Furthermore, that Saint Augustine, and the Council of Carthage should be so ill instructed in their Faith, as not to know or acknowledge this, but to hold so long a contestation with the Bishop of Rome in the business of Appeals; or that the than Romish Bishops, and their Proctors in that Cause, should be so ignorant of this point, that in the former business they should neither allege Infallibility of judgement belonging to the Pope of Church of Rome, nor produce any Scripture for what they pleaded for, but only pretend a Canon of the Council of Nice, which upon strict examination could not appear: for the true Canon of that Council, which concerned the Pope, did not come home to the business. But the wits of later ages, especially of this last which hath produced Jesuties, have found out Scripture and reason for this Pretended Visible Universal Infallible Judge. We shall examine them, but I must tell them (which I hinted above) that they are bound to show us it expressly in Scripture.  
For in the former controversy, of the sufficiency of Scripture, they grant (and must needs do it) that the Prima Credibilia, or the Omnibus Necessaria, are contained expressly there. Now this of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome being the first thing to be believed by them, the ground and formal reason, upon which they believe all things else, they are bound to show it expressly set down in Scripture. And doubtless had there been such a thing intended by our Saviour, he would have left it distinctly set down, that all might be directed to that Infallible Guide or Judge.  
Bellar. to show the certainty of their belief above the Protestants, delivers, the Proposition of Faith (as he calls it, l. 3. c. 10. de verbo Dei) in such a syllogism. That which is revealed in Scripture is true, But this is revealed in Scripture,— The first proposition is granted on both sides: of the second (that this or that is revealed in Scripture) We, saith he, are certain. Why? because of the testimony of the Church, Council, or Pope, of which we have apertas promissiones, plain, and clear promises in Scripture, that they cannot err. But the Protestants know this or that to be revealed in Scripture by conjectures only, or the judgement of a private Spirit. So he.  
This proposition of Faith we shall speak to bleow, chap. 28. Here I mention it, that to show according to the Argument above, they hold themselves bound to produce clear Scripture for this groundwork of their Faith; therefore he is forced to call them apert as promissiones. He names two in that place; the First is from Acts 15.28. Visu est Spiritui sancto & nobis.  
Answer. This if it concerns any thing, belongs to a Council, (therefore Bellar. put them all in together, Church, Council, or Pope, for, as I noted above, they are not agreed where to fix) but what promise is here to Church or Council? It is but a relation of what the Apostles said, and might say it in their privilege of Infallibility: and I hope none of the after-Councils presumed to say it, as they said it. Bellarmine was ill advised to give us this for a clear promise, which is neither promise, nor yet clear: for how does it appear by any thing in the Text, how after-Councils might speak so? Nay it is clear they could not speak it upon a privilege of infallibility. For Counsels (as Belgiosa ackdowledges, l. 2 the Concil.) nec habent, nec scribunt revelationes, sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones. Neither have, nor propound revelations, but draw their Conclusions out of the word of God by discourse. Now no men ever undertook to deliver Truth infallibly, which they beat out by reasoning, and concluding upon discursise means: Indeed if Bellarmine instead or this (Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis) had givien us that of Mat. 28. I am with you to the end, or that of John 16. The spirit of truth will guide you into all truth; he had given us a promise, but not clear: a promise of guiding into all truth infallibly; so to them that received it then: but not clear for infallibility to after Counsels or Guides of the Church: a promise indeed of assistance to them, for all necessary Truth, but yet conditional, upon their doing their duty in using the means; which that all or the major part in every Council will do, is not certain.  
His other clear promise is our Saviour's praying for Peter, Luk. 22. ver. 32. Rogavi pro te nè deficiat fides tua; This may seem to concern the Pope or Church of Rome; yet is there nothing in it of a clear promise to them, whether we consider the thing prayed for, or the person; The thing prayed for is the persevering or not failing of the saving faith by which Peter was rooted, and built upon CHRIST: which cannot agree to all the Bishops of Rome, for they may want that Faith, or fail in it, as they acknowledge. Bellarmine grants this perseverance was personal as to Peter; but saith he, there is another thing promised which belongs to his Successors, viz. That none in his Chair should teach against the Faith. So lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. or that the Bishop of Rome, docens è cathedra, cannot err. So lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. But how is this a clear promise now? or how can this be wrested out of that our Saviour prayed for to Peter, by any force of reason? For thus the one must follow on the other. Peter had assurance to persevere in Faith, therefore all his Successors (Bishops of Rome) have assurance infallibly to teach nothing against the Catholic Faith, which is most incohaerent. For if that which was directly prayed for (Peter's perseverance) does not descend to his Successors, how shall the consequent of it? Nay how shall that which is altogether inconsequent to it, therefore descend unto them? For were it granted that they should persevere in saving-faith (the thing assured to Peter) yet would it by no means follow they could not err: No more than it is true of every regenerate man perservering, that he is infallible; but now it is granted they have no assurance of such perseverance in the faith, yet must it follow they have assurance of teaching nothing against it. Thus far then it is so clear a promise, that nothing seems more unreasonable.  
Again, if they would make it any way agree to the Bishops of Rome, it must be thus, Our Saviour prayed for Peter, that his Faith should not fail, though he denied him thrice, therefore Peter's successors, though they deny the Faith in mouth, yet it shall not fail in heart (as they say it was with Pope Liberius, when he subscribed to the Arrians.) But then this is clean contrary to what they would have out of it, which is an outward Professing or declaring of the Faith by definitive sentence, whatever the persuasion of the heart be: this they contend not for; yet this is that which was promised to Peter, this he had; the other (viz. outward profession) he failed in. So clear yet is this promise. But now look at the person, were there any thing here prayed for which might fit the Infallibility which the Bishops of Rome would have, yet what clear consequence can make that belong to them which St. Peter had? can they give us one place of Scripture to assure us infallibly that Peter was at Rome, and governed that Church as the Bishop of it, and died in that Sea? Is it not admirable that this groundwork of all their faith should no where appear in all Scripture? The Ecclesiastical Writers indeed took him to be as Bishop in that Sea, and so the Fathers generally speak of him. But this amounts only to a humane Testimony; and besides they ascribe the foundation and Government of that Church to Saint Paul, together with Peter; and Saint Paul we find in Scripture to have written to the Church of Rome, to preach to them, and dwell among them, yet must the pretensions made from S. Peter be clear notwithstanding. Well, were this clear by Divine Testimony, that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peter's peculiar successors; yet still there is no ground for their belief of Infallibility, unless they can show it clearly, that what belonged to Saint Peter (as to this point) is derived to all his successors; and that the successors of other Apostles in the Churches they founded and governed, must not enjoy what belonged to those Apostles.  
So much of these two clear promises of Bell. had he had clearer, we should doubtless have heard of them. One place there is, which is often in their mouths, and serves for all purposes: for the Headship and universal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, for the Infallibility of Pope, Councils, and Church of Rome: and that is, Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock— here the Church must be built upon Saint Peter, that's it they contend for. Cardinal Perron is much upon it (lib. 4. cap. 3.) and though that which he would there work out of it, is not expressly Infallibility, but universal Jurisdiction or Headship, yet because they both have the like foundation upon this place, it will be worthy to observe how he raises his work upon it, by a witty indeed, but mistaken fancy. Thus it is, The Fathers at first did for the most part speak of the Church here as built upon Saint Peter, afterward they did generally interpret it of the Confession of Peter, that the Church was built on that. Now the Cardinal will have these interpretations not to exclude, but infer one the other, thus. The Church was built causally on the Confession of Peter, formally on Peter himself, or the Ministry of his person, i. e. Peter's Confession was the cause why our Saviour chose him to lay the Foundation of the Ministry of his Church upon him. Now judge of the mistake, in running upon Peter's confessing, instead of Peter's confession, i.e. the Faith which Peter confessed and uttered. For Peter's confession (as the Card. takes it in the notion of a meritorious cause) was a single and transient act of that Faith which was in Peter, a Grace or Virtue; it was a confessing; but Peter's Confession, as the Fathers take it, when they say the Church was built on it, is understood materially, for the thing or truth confessed by Peter, viz. Christ the Son of God; the Confession, or Faith required of the Eunuch at his Baptism, Act. 9 That he thus mistakes, it appears also by his illustrating of it by the saying of St. Hierome, that Peter walked not upon the waters, but Faith; which (saith the Cardinal) is not to deny that Peter did formally in person walk, but to show the cause of his walking, viz. Faith, which he gave to the word of Christ; where plainly Faith is taken for a Grace, Virtue, or Act of Peter. Now if we say the Church is built upon Peter's Faith, will he say that Faith there is an Act or Virtue in Peter, or not rather taken for that Catholic truth believed and confessed by Peter? Peter's confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time: but that on which Christ says there, He will build his Church, was Peter's Confession, i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him; and so its plain the Fathers took it, for they opposed this Faith or Confession (as the Cardinal acknowledges) against the Arrians, That Christ was the Son of the living God.  
Bell. applies the promise following (I will give thee the Keys, etc.) to this business of the One visible Interpreter or Judge, and will have (whatsoever thou losest) to signify not only the relaxation of sins, and their censures, but nodos omnes legum— & dogmatum— the dispensing with the ties of Laws, and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversy, lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him without further proof. Now when this promise of the Keys is applied to judgement about sins and offences, we know what binding is as well as losing; but when it is thus stretched to universal judgement in the interpretation of Scripture, defining points of faith, dispensing with Laws we cannot tell, unless we thus infer, that as losing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture, so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it; if losing be again the power of dispensing with Laws, which bind men (as in point of marriage or the like) then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawful, as for Clergy to marry, or what he has commanded, as people to receive the Sacrament in both kinds. And the Pope it seems by virtue of this promise or power of Keys may thus lose, and bind, and not err: yet these are their chief places of Scripture. Now let us come to their Reasons.  
First is from God's providence, who was not ignorant how many difficulties, and controversies would arise about the faith, and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge. Answ. This is to measure the wisdom of God by the model of our Reason: but the same reason may also tell us, it would have been more convenient for the Church to have had such an Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation, than one for the whole Church, which was to be spread over all the Earth; yea reason may further tell us, it had been suitable to his providence, expressly to have told us, who that Infallible Judge was, and where we should find him. And it cannot be imagined in reason, but he would have done it, had he appointed any such; for he was not ignorant, that many & the greatest controversies would be about this Judge.  
He tells us plainly, There must be Heresies: and the end wherefore; that they which are approved may be manifest, 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withal this remedy of an Infallible Judge; we must think it is, that approved faith may be of more price, and worth; gained with more earnest enquiry, and diligence in searching the Scripture, & using the like means: so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulness; all which would have fallen and grown remiss in the hearts of men, if to trust all their belief upon an Infallible Guide, without any further enquitie.   

CHAP. XXVIII. Of certainty of belief, and whether they or we have better means for it.  
THe Second reason is from certainty of belief, which they say the Protestants cannot have for want of such Infallibility: but we are certain (saith Bell: in his Proposition of Faith  §. 27.) that this or that is revealed in Scripture, because of the Testimony of the Church, Council, or Pope, which cannot err:  
Now would I ask, first, whether they believe, that Christ is the Son of God, Saviour of the world, that He suffered, and now sits at the right hand of God, or the like; because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture, or because they see it evidently there themselves. If they say, because the Church testifies it; than it seems they cannot (which is false) or may not (which is worse) believe God immediately, when he speaks as plain as the Church can. If they say, because they see it evidently there, then have they two formal reasons of their belief, One, the immediate evidence of Scripture: The other, the Testimony of the Church. And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture, than so may we also. And so we do, not excluding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture, where it needs; which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe, but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture, and make it more evident to us.  
Again, I would ask, how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture, that the Church is Infallible? because of the Testimony of the Church? No, that they cannot say here, but must allege for it plain Scripture (apert as promissiones, clear promises, as Bellar: called them) and must allow men the use of their reason & judgement, upon the evidence of them. Well, if they may believe that great point, of the Infallibility of their Church, upon immediate evidence of Scripture, why may not we believe other points so too? or why do they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground, on which they themselves lay all their faith at once? for they believe the Church's Infallibility revealed in Scripture, because they see it, as they say plainly promised there. Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture can have certainty of belief: why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence? if they cannot have certainty in that particular, then can they not have any certainty in any thing else, which they believe, upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church. Only this they get by it, and must answer for it one day, that believing all things else upon the supposed Infallibility of their Church, they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture, and to be the will of God, which are not; yea, to believe contrary to that which is revealed, as the half communion for the people.  
Again, they that understood and believed what the Apostles preached, and wrote to them, did it without the external means of an Infallible Interpreter, upon the evidence of what was spoken or written: and therefore so may we. Now to say, They that spoke and wrote were Infallible, and the other knew it to be so, is no more than what we say, Scripture is Infallible, that speaks to us the same which they spoke and wrote, and therefore we way as well understand and believe it upon the same evidence.  
We do not here (as I insinuated before) exclude the exterior helps & means which God has appointed for interpreting and clearing the Scriptures, such as definitions of Counsels, the judgement and practice of Primitive Ages, the skill and labour of the present Guides of the Church, which make for the clearing and evidencing of that which is contained in Scripture; but upon the evidence of that, or manifestation of the truth, out of that, is the stay or last resolution of our Faith. Waldensis, a learned writer in the Church of Rome many years ago, with divers others, do well apply that of the Samaritans to the Wowan (Now we believe, for we have heard him ourselves, Joh. 4.42.) unto this last resolution of Faith beginning in the Testimony of the Church, as the first motive, but ending and staying upon Scripture; As they were first moved and brought to Christ upon the Woman's saying, but believed indeed when they heard him themselves: So the saying and judgement of the Church at our first coming and after is a great motive, and light to us; but then indeed we believe when we hear him ourselves; when we hear him speak thus and thus to us in Scripture.  
Now he that upon careful and impartial using the means God has appointed, does search for the Truth, shall find what he seeks, or not err inpardonably: whereas the Romanist, receiving all upon a supposed infallible Testimony, seeks no further comes not to (audivimus ipsi, we have heard him ourselves) blindly casts his faith upon a false ground, and so is led to believe (as I said) many things as revealed of God, which are not, and sometimes the contrary to what is revealed.  
Their third Reason is from pretence of Unity; which they say is preserved amongst them by this means, but lost among the Protestants for want of it; and they instance in the breaches, and confusions of these our Times. Answ. We had the same means for Unity which the Ancient Church had (as was said above, ch. 13.) and so long as we could freely use them (having the secular power to friend) heresy and schism was prevented, and Unity preserved: but when the sword of violence prevailed, no marvel if Licentiousness grew bold, and cast off the cords of obedience Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil. And we see this pretended Infallibility could not keep Bourbon and his Army in order, but that they sacked Rome, made the Pope their prisoner, and forced him to unworthy conditions. And we read that Heretics of old (as Arrians, and others) when they had the Emperor's favour, bore down all before them: so that this means of Infallibility either could not keep them from breaking out, and prevailing, or else (which indeed is the truth) there was no such belief of an Infallibility in the Church of Rome in those better Ages: nor was it ever made use of, or alleged against Heretics to repress them. The judgement indeed of the Bishops of Rome was often alleged, as was also the judgement of other Churches and famous Bishops, but this without implying an Infallibility in judging.  
Nay this pretence of Infallibility is so fare from being cause of Unity in the Catholic Church, that it has been the chief cause of division, and of losing more than they retain by it. The Greek Church stands disjoined from the Roman, because of her challenging Universal subjection and Infallibility; and therefore no more to be dealt with. And this has lost all those that in these later Ages have been divided from the Communion of the Roman Church, because the pretence of Infallibility made her incorrigible, and cut off all hopes of her amending the errors they complained of, and desired to have reform. So that let them cast up what they have lost, and they will have no cause to boast of what they hold by it.  
Nay did the Romanists truly confess what belief they have of this Infallible Judge, it would in all probability be found, that not the faith of such Infallibility, but the fear of Inquisition, fire and faggot, keeps those they have in obedience, at least external.  
But some of them have said, This Rule or way, if followed, does produce Unity: but the Protestants Rule of belief is not apt to do it, but rather begets division. Answ. It is true that their Infallibility (though not Real but pretended) where it is followed, i. e. indeed believed, will produce, according to the strength of erroncous persuasions, an answerable effect in those that are drawn to believe it: for such must needs submit to all things else. But being only pretended, not real, it cannot be apt to produce the effect, or hold men to them, but as we said, has lost many. Our Rule of believing upon evidence of Scripture, (gained by due use of the means appointed thereunto, (as above mentioned, in this Chap.) if conscionably followed, will produce the effect of Unity and peaceable submission, and is more apt to do it. For therefore was Scripture given, that there might be one Faith: and certainly not given with such obscurity, as to make men quarrel, but with such evidence, as men not wanting to themselves, may thereby come to know that one faith, without such a visible Infallible Judge. And when any will deceive themselves and prove obstinate, the Church proceeds to restrain them by Ecclesiastical censure, even to excommunication, for preserving Unity in the rest. And other means the Ancient Church had not, nor can the Roman go farther in the way of the Church: for as for fire and faggot, it was the way of the Adversaries of the Churcith.  
The Testimonies they cite out of Fathers are all not concluding; They are such as send Heretics to the Church in general, as S. Augustine doth the Donatists often: but this does not argue, that we shall find any where in the Church a Visible Infallible Guide. Otherwise we say, in every Church there are Guides and Pastors of public judgement, to whom inferiors must submit, and the consent of the Catholic Church is above that. Or else they are such Testimonies, as report the judgement of the Bishop of Rome given in such or such causes, and required by other Bishops or Churches. But this comes not home neither. For we find the judgement of other Bishops, and learned Fathers alleged, and required, and that by Popes themselves. So was Atha●asius his judgement, desired by Liberius, and Hieromes often by Pope Damasus; and that in matter of doctrinal points, and with a great deal of submission to their judgement, as to be guided by it; (as appears in Pope Liberius Letter to Athanasius, and Damasus to Hierome.)  
One place of Irenaeus is much cited by them, Ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem, etc. lib. 3. cap. 2. which ●ndeed makes against them: For this implies neither Universal jurisdiction, nor Infallibility in the Romish Church: Neither did Irenaeus mean so much as the words by reason of the ill Latin Translation, may seem to imply. For the Greek had it, (as I have met with it, and as the whole Context avouches it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is ill translated potentiorem principalitatem, but rather sounds propter convenientiorem institutionem, seu principium; That Church being from Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and therefore the most convenient example to show the succession of Pastors and Doctrine. For from thence he fetches his argument to confute those Heretics, that being pressed with Scripture did accuse it (as he saith) of obscurity, as not to be understood of them who were ignorant of Tradition; therefore he confutes them by the undeniable succession of the Churches, and because Longum est (saith he) omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, therefore he singles out the Roman, as that which was maxima, omnibus cognita & à gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro & Paulo fundata & instituta, (there is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a more convenient beginning of succession in that, than in other less famous Churches) and by the doctrine received from the Apostles, and delivered down in that Church, he confounds the Heretics. Now (saith he) with this Church (because of such a beginning and succession) every Church ought to agree: and so they did then, and therefore it was needless for him to instance in any other Church.  
Thus are we also willing to deal with the Romanists at this day. They being pressed with Scripture, accuse it of obscurity, and say, (as those Heretics that Irenaeus had to deal with) It is not to be understood by them that are ignorant of Tradition; We therefore tell them of the Doctrine of Faith delivered down in all Churches, and bring them to the Ancient Roman Church, which was glorious then for its foundation and preservation of true doctrine, and tell them, because of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they ought to agree with it now: which they do not in the main points between us and them controverted (as abovesaid) and in this particular of an Infallible Universal Judge for the whole Church.  
¶ Thus fare we have proceeded upon the first and chief Rule of Trial, Scripture; the Sufficiency and Evidence of it, Now to the other.   

CHAP. XXIX. Of Consent of Antiquity.  
OUr second Rule of Trial, is, Consent of Antiquity. We say, the Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by that, as they ought to do, if they will have them pass for Catholic; for then according to Vincentius his Rule, semper & ubique, they must be always and generally held in the Church. Yet is there a pretence made to it, and great confidence and boasting among them of the Fathers: not that they know, they have indeed advantage by them, as to the due proving of their cause, but because the Protestants have freely and ingenuously spoken their Judgement of the Fathers and their authority. Therefore the Romanists make advantage of it with their own Proselytes, as if the Protestants declined all Trial that way. Now should we speak with that liberty of the Father's writings, as they do of the Scripture, loading it with imputations of obscurity, imperfection, corruptions, etc. it might I hope be so much more justifiable in us, as the divine authority of Scripture surpasses all humane writings,  
But this we profess, however they are obliged to disparage the written Word of God (and a miserable cause it must be which obliges men to such a plea) yet are not we obliged to detract any thing from the due worth of the Ancient Fathers: for, take their Writings as they are, we aver that the Popish faith cannot prove itself to be Catholic by them.  
Yet if we say, the Fathers were men, and subject to error, which the Scripture is not, we do but say, what they  acknowledge themselves. If we say, they have erred in several Ages, and that many of them together with a general consent (as in the Millenary belief, the Infant communion, and the place of faithful Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgement) we do but say, what the Romanist cannot deny, who do acknowledge the Fathers erred in these.  
If therefore we say, they are no Rule of Faith to us, we do but say, what they of the Ages following thought, that they were not bound to follow them in these errors, after they were once detected, and what the Romanists must acknowledge, for they also have forsaken them in these.  
If again we say, the Writings of the Fathers have come through ill hands unto us, which have corrupted or maimed the true, and patched false and supposititious writings to them, the Romanists cannot but acknowledge, we have great cause to think there was more providence of God in the preserving of Scripture entire, than the Writings of the Fathers. Only here is the mischief again, they are obliged to speak any casualty that happens to Scripture, and to make a noise of corruptions, obscurity, etc. because they find it too plain against them, and are afraid the people should see it too; but of the Father's writings more rarely do they acknowledge any such thing, not because they have cause to joy of them, as plain and full for the Romish faith; but because their advantage is by their forged writings, and the corruptions of the true ones; also because those writings came through their hands for several Ages, and so the false dealing, that has been used, becomes chargeable upon the professors of their cause: False dealing I say, what by the cunning of Monks that had those Writings in Manuscript, what by their several editions of the Fathers, what by their expurgatory Indices. In all which it is easy to see what labouring there has been, to make the Ancients speak the Language of their present Church. Hence have they advantage, not truly, by the Writings of the Ancients, but such as serves to their purpose, especially when to deal with those that are less learned; whom they can turn to this or that place in such or such a Father, knowing they are not able to judge whether the writing be supposititious, or the place corrupted, or whether the same Father elsewhere expresses himself otherwise, or be contradicted by other Fathers, and there speaks only his private opinion.  
This caution Vincentius gives us in his Rules for Catholic doctrine, cap. 39 Whatever any, quamvis sanctus, doctus, Episcopus, Martyr, praeter— vel contra— though holy, learned, though a Bishop or Martyr, holds beside or against the rest of the Fathers: id inter proprias & privatas opiniunculas— it must be severed from the Public doctrine, and placed among private opinions.  
Well, though all this makes for the disadvantage of the Protestants, that they have not the Father's writings, as they came from their own hands and pens, but as through the hands of many Adversaries: yet take them as they are, with all the difficulties of finding what is truly theirs, and what is the sense of it, the Protestants never doubted to enter this kind of trial by Antiquity; not standing or falling by every thing we meet with in one or more Fathers, (for the Romanists will not so) but maintaining:  
1. That the Romanist cannot prove his Affirmative by a full and sufficient consent or Testimony of Antiquity.  
2. That we have enough in the writings of Antiquity to discover the novelty of the Romish doctrines, which may generally appear upon this evidence.   

CHAP. XXX. Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several points.  
FIrst, the great silence in the writings of the firster Ages, touching the points of Romish faith; which cannot be imagined would have been, if such had been the doctrine of the Church, or the faith that all Christians were to learn and hold; they call to us, to name Professors of the Protestant doctrine in all Ages, but that is unreasonable we should be bound to it (our part being the Negative of what they erroneously affirm) yea, and impossible too, because the errors we deny, were not affirmed or thought of in many Ages; and how then should any expressly appear against them? But it is most reasonable and just, to exact of them, who affirm Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, half Communion, Image Worship, etc. for Catholic doctrines, to show and prove them professed in all Ages: at least so profound a Silence as we find in the first Ages, is sufficient argument against them, yea and Silence when there was occasion to vouch and defend them, had they been the doctrines of the Christian Church.  
As when we see so many Apologies written and declaring the faith and practice of the Church; so many Books purposely written on that subject, Epiphanius wrote two, his Ancoratus de fide Christiana, and his Compendium fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae, S. Augustine wrote three, one De vera Religione, where he says at the beginning, haec est nostris temporibus Christiana Religio, Another De doctrina Christiana, and his Enchiridion to Lanrentius, of which he saith, ibi diligenter mihi videor complexus quo modo colendus sit Deus; in which only he has one thing sounding to the Popish doctrine, & that is about helping the dead by Alms, or Sacrifice, and that was but his private opinion grounded upon a false supposal, not of Purgatory, but of common receptacles of all men's souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgement, in the 109 Chapter of that Book. For that which he saith in the 70 Chap. Per Eleëmosynas de peccatis praeteritis propitiandus est Deus, he qualifies himself in the same place, and excellently speaks of the free reward of Good works in the 107 Chap. Now can it be Imagined that in such Books purposely written, there should be such silence and pretermission of the Romish doctrines of Faith, had they been the Doctrine of the Church?  
Again, in the first 300 years, when there was such occasion to urge and hold up their public Penance and Satisfaction by it, also so much written and spoken about it; had they believed a Romish Purgatory after this life, can we think but they would often have mentioned it also, and told the people of the pains they should undergo there, if not careful to perform due Penance and Satisfaction here?  
Also when occasion was given by Adversaries to aslert such doctrines, had the Church known and professed them: can it be imagined those Fathers that answered those Adversaries should be silent in the Cause? As for example, In the point of Transubstantiation, when Martion affirmed CHRIST had a body fantastic or in appearance only, how obvious had it been for him (had Transubstantiation been the doctrine of the Church) to have objected, that the sign of his Body in the Eucharist, was but a body in appearance, the show of bread only, and his body there under any shape, figure, etc. how necessary had it been for the Church to have maintained that point against him? it could not have escaped the disputation, had it been any doctrine of faith in the Church. Whereas on the contrary, Tertullian takes it for granted, that the bread (which was the figure of his body) was a true body, and thence infers that Christ's body (of which bread was the figure) was also true and real, l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. So when the Eutichians affirmed the conversion of the Humane nature into the Divine, and drew some phrases of the Doctors of the Church (which seemed to imply a conversion of the bread after consecration) to the proving or illustrating of it: had the doctrine of the Church been so, could they have declined the express maintenance of Transubstantiation against that argument? whereas on the contrary we see the Eutychians confuted by Theodoret, Gelasius and others, by denying plainly a substantial conversion of the bread, and so taking away the ground of the argument, and all belief of Transubstantiation.  
So in the point of Invocation and Worship of Saints, when it was objected to Origer by Celsus in defence of the Heathen Invocating their Daemons & Heroes (whom they held to be Internuncios & intermedios, betwixt the supreme God and themselves) that the Christians also allowed the ministry of Angels, and that their Saints departed were Amici Dei. Had the Church then held Invocation of Angels or Saints departed, Origen had been bound to assert and maintain it, and not to answer as he doth, that Christians invocated God only by their high Priest JESUS CHRIST, and they that do so, want not the Ministry or help of Angels, in his 8 Book against Celsus, and elsewhere. The very like does S. August: speak of the Heathen Daemons and Heroes in his 8, & 9 books the Civ: Dei. Showing, the Christians did not so to the Martyrs. And when it was objected to him by Faustus the Manichaean, that instead of the heathen Idols they had set up the Martyrs, because they resorted to their Monuments, and there offered up prayers and sacrifice: Had the Church then held the Romish belief and practice of Saint-Worship and Invocation, could he have declined the maintenance of it? whereas he there and elsewhere disclaims it in express terms, and shows Faustus his mistake, in the end and purpose of the Christians resorting to Martyr's Tombs, which was to offer up the Sacrifice, and worship and prayers to God only, lib. 20. contra Faust.  
Lastly, when the Invocating of Christ was used by the Church as an argument for his Godhead against the Arrians, would it have been good, if Invocating of Saints also had been the doctrine and practice of the Church? and if that shift of the Romanists had then been allowable, that they do not invocate Saints as God, or with invocation which is due to God, but as friends of God and excellent instruments of his glory, had not the Arrians had a pat answer to the former argument, viz: That Christ was to be invocated, yet not as God, but as the Son of God, after a more excellent way than any other creature is? But they that used the former argument feared no such answer, because Invocation and worship of Saints was then no doctrine of the Church.  
Thus much for the silence of the Fathers when occasion was given them to defend those points, had they been doctrines of the Church.  
Secondly, we have Evidence against the Roman faith, by that which we meet with in the Father's appliable to some points of it.  
1. Sometimes we meet with the Name indeed which the Romish point bears, but not the Thing; as for example, in some few Fathers, there is mention of a purging fire after this life; but neither do they agree upon the same thing among themselves, nor any of their conceits with that thing the Romanists call Purgatory. So we meet with the name of Oblation and Sacrifice in the Eucharist but in senses we admit of, not the Roman thing of a proper Sacrifice. So we meet with prayers for the dead, which indeed was the doctrine and practice of the firster Ages, but it was not for relief of any Souls in a supposed purgatory, to which the Romish doctrine and practice of praying for the dead is bound. So for private confession, we allow it in the sense and way the Ancient Church did persuade and sometimes practise it, not as imposed and practised by the Roman.  
2. Sometimes we meet with phrases in the Father's favouring some Romish doctrine, but then we show by argument and reason from the same Fathers, that those phrases do not speak indeed the Romish sense. As for Transubstantiation, many hyperbolical expressions, many speeches founding the change and Transelementation of the Bread; but we show they could not mean a substantial change, because we find them use like phrases of the change of a Man in regeneration, of Water in Baptism, of Oil in the Chrism after consecration; in all which no substantial change or conversion. Also because many of the Fathers in plain terms acknowledge, This is my Body, to be a figurative speech; and because it is clearly evinced out of them, that indeed they held the Bread remained in substance after consecration. One instance whereof we had above, in this Chap: in their answer to the Eutychians. Another we may have from their saying, our bodies to be nourished by the Body of Christ, and to receive increase by it. Bellarmine here acknowledges an hyperbolical improper speech, and that they meant our bodies ex contactu corporis Christi did receive a disposition to immortality; a figurative speech indeed, taking the body of Christ sacramentally, and speaking of it what the sacramental element does indeed: for our bodies are indeed nourished and receive increase by the Elements, and this implies necessarily the substantial remaining of them. But for Bellarmine his explication, it is too impertinent; as if receiving a disposition to immortality, could satisfy their saying, that our bodies are nourished and receive increase, which we find to be real upon the receiving the Elements as well as any other Bread or Wine; and to say they receive that disposition ex contactu corporis Christi, is to say Christ's body is touched by ours, when as this manner of the Romish real presence enforces them to say, Christ's body in the Sacrament is impalpable, and cannot be touched or felt.  
Let me add here how Cardinal Perron in his Letter to Master Casaubon, waving as it were Transubstantiation, lays the whole Importance of the Sacrament on the real presence, viz: our Communion or substantial Union to the Body of Christ; citing S. Cyrill, who calls it the Knot of our Union with God. Observe first, that Transubstantiation it seems is not necessary to this importance of the Sacrament, our Union with Christ: see we if their real presence (which divided from Transubstantiation must needs fall in with the Lutheran Consubstantiation) will be necessary to it. It is true that the importance of the Sacrament is our Union with Christ, and for that Union we acknowledge there must be a real presence of Christ's body to those it is united to in the Sacrament; and so a real presence or Communication of the Body of Christ, we hold, and a real Union: but as this Union is spiritual, so is the Presence too: yet real, yea most real, as when our Saviour said, My flesh is meat indeed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John 6. it was really so, did really nourish, yet spiritually.  
Now secondly, would I know, how such a real presence as they contend for (viz: a corporal, carnal, or contradistinct to spiritual) can be necessary to the importance of the Sacrament: for that real presence being the bodily communication of Christ's body, as it is not the thing of the Sacrament, or the importance of it, viz: our Union with Christ, (for all unworthy receivers have that bodily communication of his body into their mouths and stomaches) so cannot it be any help to, or pledge and assurance of our substantial and true Union with Christ: for their real presence communicates his body to our bodies, without any sense and feeling nay against sense, and so cannot be any pledge or sacramental confirmation to us of receiving him spiritually: also it conveys his body through the mouth without any real eating, and so cannot be any representation or assurance of our spiritual eating: Lastly, it makes his body stay a while in the stomach, without any union or incorporation, and so cannot make any way to the working or assuring our real Union with Christ, our nourishing by his body and blood. Of such importance is their real presence or bodily communication, that it makes for nothing but to destroy the Sacrament, and to take away the real eating of the Sacramental bread, the real incorporation of it into our bodies, the real nourishment received by it: all which are necessary in the Sacrament, to testify and help our spiritual eating of Christ's body, our nourishing by it, our Union with him, which is the importance of the Sacrament. And this of our spiritual eating and union is well set out by the Fathers, that have written upon John 6. especially by S. Augustine, yea and well expressed by the Council of Florence; Hujus Sacramenti effectus (or as the Cardinal, the importance of this Sacrament) quem in anima operatur dignè sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum, The effect of this Sacrament which it works upon the soul of the worthy Receiver, is the uniting of a man to Christ, (and this I hope is a spiritual communication) and then further, Omnem effectum, quem materialis cibus & potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem, hoc Idem quoad vitam spiritualem & hoc Sacramentum operatur, Every effect, which material meat and drink hath, as to the bodily life, the same doth this Sacrament work as to the spiritual life. What Protestant could have spoken better, to set out the spiritual communication of Christ's body and blood, our incorporation into him, union with him, signified and wrought by the sacramental communication, incorporation and nourishment of the Elements?  
Again, we oppose in some points the deeds of the Fathers against their phrases. Phrases may be carelessly (at first) or figuratively spoken, and may in time be altered and corrupted, but deeds remain in History, and deeds upon controversy speak the judgement indeed of the persons interessed: such we allege. As for example, against those many Eulogies and high expressions which the Fathers used to the magnifying of the Church of Rome and S. Peter's Chair (abused now to prove that this Infallibility, Universal Jurisdiction, and exorbitant power, challenged by the Bishop of Rome, was acknowledged by Antiquity) we bring deeds, and those upon contestation: as the standing out of Polycrates and all the Asian Bishops against the sentence of Pope Victor: also in the contestation between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, it is easily seen that Cyprian by all those speeches he had used to the magnifying of the Roman See (and many they allege out of him) meant nothing less, than to ascribe to that See, what of late Ages they have challenged. So in the contestation between the Roman See and the African Bishops (among whom S. Augustine was one, and one that used to speak sometimes very high of the Roman Church) in the business of Appeals, we see their judgement by their deeds.  
We see also by this, how that which is spoken by the Fathers, may prove but uncertainly and unwarily spoken, when it comes to the Trial, and fare short of that the Church of Rome would have us believe they meant. For it cannot be denied, but the Fathers often speak with a Latitude, and apply things to the present advantage. As when they had to do with Heresies newly sprung up, they usually opposed the eminency of the Church of Rome (as then indeed it was eminent both for succession and doctrine) setting it out with glorious Titles: or when the Fastern Bishops needed relief, (for the West enjoyed peace for the most part of the four first Centuries, when the East was much troubled) and applied themselves to Rome for help (as Athanasius, chrysostom, and others) that their cause might be judged in the West by the Pope and his Council, when they could have no justice in the East: no marvel if by such applications, the Church and Bishop of Rome gained many high Titles and acknowledgements from such distressed persons, and their Wellwishers. But when it came to a contestation with Rome itself (as in the cases , wherein Cyprian, Augustine, and others, were engaged at several times) it is plainly seen that those Testimonies which Cyprian, Augustine, and others had given in so high a strain, meant not what they seemed at first sight to attest, or what the Cardinal and other Romish writers bring them for.  
Now they must acknowledge this used sometimes by the Fathers, to apply their speech to the present advantage, (not indeed contradicting what they meant, but moderating what before they spoke more unwarily) for the Cardinal observes the like of them, l. 4. c. 3. That before the Arrians arose, the Interpretation of that place of the Rock, Mat. 16. run upon the person of Peter: but afterwards the Father's finding the advantage of the place against the Arrians, interpreted it of the Confession which Peter made, that Christ was the Son of the living God: to this purpose he there. And it comes all to this. The Fathers before spoke unwarily, but afterward spoke as they saw they had reason. Yet thus it fared in this great point of Rome's greatness, for which they pretend the Fathers.  
Therefore to conclude the second point: the Romanists have the shadow, the shell, the name, the phrase many times, but we carry the substance, show the thing, the sense, the judgement, the deeds of Antiquity.  
3. Sometimes we meet with beginnings of opinions and practices in the compass of the first four Ages, which the Church of Rome did after form into a fixed belief and practice; but it was not so then. Then indeed the seeds were scattered, out of the which by degrees sprang some of this forbidden fruit, which the Roman Church now holds forth. As for Example, The opinion of a purging fire was then but in the wand'ring conceits of some few (as above insinuated in this Chap.) and which is to be further noted, those few into whose conceits it first entered, were of the Greek Fathers; yet so little did it prevail in that Church, that to this day it is not improved into a doctrine or belief of the Church among the Greeks. Which shows it rested but in the conceit of some particular men.  
So for the point of Invocation, we find beginning given to that practice in the fourth Century, by Rhetorical Apostrophe's used in their Orations for the Dead, by the excess of devotion and honour that some were carried with towards the blessed Martyrs, breaking out sometimes into compellations of them, and uttering their desires to them, as if they had been present.  
Here we have a private practice begun by some few, not grounded upon any doctrine of the Church. And long time after it was, ere it crept into the Litanies or public offices of the Church. So in the point of the half-Communion, we meet with some private practice, some receiving the bread only in a case of necessity, but publicly it was ever administered in both kinds, and also privately, where and when it could. And many express declarations we meet with against receiving it in one kind; and when it was received so, it was held an imperfect, and not full Communion; This is most plain in Antiquity for above 1000 years.  
And now whoever will examine well the flourish of Card: Perroun in his first book, cap. 18. (where running through all the points of Romish faith and practice, he affirms the ancient Church to have held and practised so) will not question find, that, what is there alleged, falls short of proving the doctrine or practice of the ancient Church, and that the Card. often gives us the Name without the Thing, or the Phrase without the Romish sense, or some private opinion for the doctrine of the Church; or some beginning practise for an established one; or a private practice for the practice of the Church. Besides, there is no consent of Fathers given in that Chapter upon any point.   

CHAP. XXXI. Card: perron's two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholic according to Antiquity.  
ANd here it will not be amiss to take a view of two of his Rules or Observations, which in his Letter to Mr. Casaubon he gives us, to show what is required to make a man or Church Catholic now, according to the doctrines and practices of the ancient Church. By which I cannot see how himself or his Church can stand, or challenge the name of Cathelick He there saith (in his second observation) That any should pass for Catholic, it is needful they be conformable to the integrity of the belief of the Fathers, i.e. to believe all things they believed, according to that degree they believed them in, viz: to believe as necessary to salvation the things they believed to be so, and as profitable to salvation, the things they believed to be so, and as not repugnant to salvation, what they held so. This is one of his Rules.  
Here are strict conditions; yet let us see how they or we stand bound to them. For the first, Things believed necessary to salvation. The Romanists cannot challenge us Protestants for not believing what they of the ancient Church did so believe, with a due and full consent. And for the points controverted (which they challenge us for not believing) let them, if they can, give us so general a consent of Fathers for them, as we find in those former Ages agreeing in the Millenary belief, in the place of faithful Souls (out of Heaven) till the Day of Judgement, in the Communion given to Infants, as necessary for their salvation, and some other: and yet neither the Cardinal nor any Romanist holds himself bound to believe in these things (put them in what rank they will, as necessary or profitable) as they more generally did of old for some Ages. If they say the Millenary belief was rejected within the compass of the four first Ages, For that is the compass of Time the Cardinal is pleased to allow in this trial; True. But than it tells us, the succeeding Ages did not hold themselves bound to believe all things as they before them did, nor do the Romanists hold themselves bound to believe either that error, or the two other of the place of Souls, or Infant Communion, which continued after, even to the end of the Ages fixed by the Cardinal. And will they have us Protestants bond to believe either what the Fathers did believe erroneously, or what the Romanists please to say the Fathers did believe, when we know they did not, or generally did not?  
And as for the other two points of believing things profitable to salvation, and things not repugnant, How will the Cardinal possibly give us a consent of Fathers in those points? or if he had the confidence to have undertaken it, seeing so many things of opinion, of Rites, and of Ceremonies fall under those conditions of profitable or not repugnant to salvation, shall any Church be therefore not Catholic, because it does not hold or practice in every such thing, as the Church in those Ages did? as for example, Trine immersion in Baptism, standing in public prayer betwixt Easter and Pentecost, and some other, not only held and used by the Church of those Ages, but affirmed by some Fathers of those Ages to be of Apostolical Tradition, yet are they not held or practised by the Romish Church.  
The Cardinal his other Rule is in his fourth Observation in the same Letter, Let that be held (saith he) as truly ancient, and to have the mark of the primitive Church, which is found to be believed and practised universally by the Fathers of the Times of the four first Counsels; and when it appears, that the things testified by them, were not held for doctrines and observances sprung up in their time, but as perpetually practised in the Church from the Age of the Apostles; and that there is not found in the former Author's testimony against them, but in all places (where there is occasion to mention them) agreeable and favourable. So he. This indeed is reasonable fair, as to the trial between them and us: yet not this of itself to give a sufficient ground for belief; for how will it hold in the forementioned instances of Infant-Communion, and the places of men's Souls till the resurrection, in which both they and we reject what was generally believed and practised in those Ages? where still by Generally, is meant, more generally believed or practised, and so the Cardinal's word Universally, in his Rule is to be understood. But as to the points controverted: How can the Church of Rome hold to this, or stand by it, when she is never able to show her doctrines so attested, believed, practised? nay when as we are able to show the beginning of many of them but springing up in, or after those Ages, as Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Image-worship, Transubstantiation, half-Communion? Nay when their own Authors give us reasons why the Apostles, and those of the first Age did not teach (as Chap. 21. was noted above) Invocation of Saints and Image-worship, to the first Christians; yet must these pass for Catholic doctrines, universally believed and practised from the Age of the Apostles. A cause this, that needed the great wit of that Cardinal, to make Antiquity appear for it in so fair a show, and then to persuade men so far out of their wits, as to believe it did so indeed; Whereas these general Hints, that have been given from the beginning of the 30 Chap: may suffice to let any man, that hath reason, know, it can be no good appearance, which is made of Antiquity, but a cunning disguise: and that the Trent Articles can be no Catholic or perpetual doctrine of the Church, but Novel-points of Romish persuasion, creeping at first, (some in one Age, some in another) into Opinion or practice, and so by degrees gathering strength, till they were asserted by the most and chiefest in that Communion, and defended for the doctrine of that Church, and at length coined into Articles of. Faith, as the Catholic doctrine of all Ages, and of the whole Church.   
The End.   

The Contents.  

OF the Division of the English and Romish Church, upon the Reformation. 1  
Chap. I. We set not up a new Church, but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation. 4  
Chap. II. The demand of Professors in all Ages. We can show it better than they. 9  
Chap. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials. 12  
Chap. IV. Particular Churckes may reform; Especially when a General Council cannot be expected. 15  
Chap. V We not guilty of Schism. The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists. 20  
Chap. VI How necessity of dividing Communion arises. 24  
Chap. VII. Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we do. 28  
Chap. VIII. Of the use of Reason and Judgement in private men. 31  
Chap. IX. Of dissenting from the public Judgement. 35  
Chap. X. Possibility of just dissenting. 39  
Chap XI. How fare the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgement. 47  
Chap. XII. Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminency, Perpetuity, etc. 51  
Chap. XIII. Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries. 57  
Chap. XIV. The Romanists vain pretence of Infallibility. 63  
Chap. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholic. 66  
Chap. XVI. The Greek Church, a Church, and part of the Catholic. 69  
Chap. XVII. Of agreement and external Communion betwixt the parts of the Catholic Church. 73  
Chap. XVIII. The want of that does not always make guilty of Schism. 75  
Chap. XIX. Our case and that of the Donatists not alike. 78  
Chap. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church. 82  
Chap. XXI. Of the Trial of Doctrines by Scripture. 91  
Chap. XXII. Sufficient perfection of the Scripture, as a Rule. 95  
Chap. XXIII. Of Tradition, which we allow. 96  
Chap. XXIV. Their arguments against Scriptures sufficiency, and for Traditions. 103  
Chap. XXV. The evidence of Antiquity in the point. 114  
Chap. XXVI. Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture. 119  
Chap. XXVII. Of a visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter. 125  
Chap. XXVIII. Of certainty of belief, and whether they or we have better means for it. 146  
Chap. XXIX. Of the other Rule of Trial, by Consent of Antiquity, and the Romanists vain boasting of the Fathers. 157  
Chap. XXX. Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several p●ints. 161  
CHAP. XXXI. Card: perron's two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholic according to Antiquity. 179   
The end of the Table.   

¶ A Catalogue of some Books printed for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane,  
By H. Ferne, D. D. Episcopacy and Presbytery considered, in 4ᵒ.  
A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight, before his Majesty, in 4ᵒ.  
Now in the Press,  
A Compendious Discourse upon the Case, as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one side; and again between the same Church of England, and those Congregations, which (of what persuasion soever) have divided from it, on the other side. Part I. in 12ᵒ.