A CENSURE UPON CERTAIN PASSAGES Contained in the HISTORY OF THE Royal Society, As being Destructive to the ESTABLISHED RELIGION and CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
Parque novum fortuna videt concurrere, Bellum  
Atque virum.—  
Oxford, Printed for Ric. Davis, A. D. 1670.   

TO THE REVEREND Dr JOHN FELL, D. D. Dean of Christ-Church.  
SIR,  
I Offer these Papers unto you, not to implore your Patronage, but to acknowledge your Favours: Had my leisure, or abilities, qualified me for a greater performance, it had been tendered unto you with the same readiness: This veneration I bear not to the Rank you hold in the Church, or University, but to your Merit; and in you, I at once honour a Learning above this age, and a Piety becoming the best: Permit me to be just to so real worth, and grateful for your constant civilities to me, and I shall no way Interest your Person in this Quarrel: 'Tis enough, that I defend Truth, and the Church of England; and that whatever else I have achieved, I intermeddled with nothing but what 'twas necessary to be undertaken by some body: This none can dispute who understands the Politics of our Nation, & upon what foundations the public Tranquillity is suspended: Let them that will, question the prudence of this action, I am satisfied in the profession of a Wisdom that is first pure, and then peaceable. I am perfectly  
Your humble Servant, HENRY STUBBE. Warwick, Feb. 16. 1669.   

A Censure on certain passages in the History of the Royal Society.  It is Natural to men's minds, when they perceive others to arrogate more to themselves, 
Hist. of the R. S. p. 47.  then is their share; to deny them even that which else they would confess to be their right. And of the truth of this, we have an instance of far greater concernment, then that which is before us. And that is in Religion itself. For while the Bishops of Rome did assume an Infallibility, and a Sovereign Dominion over our Faith; the Reformed Churches did not only justly refuse to grant them that, but some of them thought themselves obliged to forbear all communion with them, and would not give them that respect which possibly might belong to so ancient, and so famous a Church; and which might still have been allowed it, without any danger of Superstition. 
BEfore I come to resolve and parcel out this impious and pernicious paragraph into several Propositions, it is requisite that I premise two Observations: the first is, that by Communion here is not meant Civil commerce, and the performance of those mutual offices by which societies in general, or Trading is carried on, or Humanity alone is relieved: no Reformed Church ever denied this to the Romanists: But the Communion here treated of is Ecclesiastical, and consists not only in the acknowledging of such as are communicated with, to be members of the universal Church of Christ, built upon a right foundation, and holding either no errors, or such as do not overthrow the fundamentals; but in resorting to the same Church assemblies, and celebrating devoutly the same offices, or Prayers, Ceremonies, and Sacraments: and this is to be done interchangeably, so that each (upon occasion) resort unto the Churches of the other, & join in the celebration of the same Liturgies or public prayers, & participation of the same Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is more particularly termed the Communion, & was always accounted the tessera or mark of Church-fellowship. The truth of this Observation appears from that notion which all ages have had of Church-communion, which is agreeable hereunto: To own any number or association of men to be a part of the Church Catholic, and yet not to resort to the same religious offices, amounts not to Church-Communion: since All Excommunication cuts not off from the body of Christ, but from outward or exterior Communion with a visible Church: thus when chrysostom separated himself from the followers of Meletius, and of Paulinus, though he did acknowledge both Churches to be Orthodox, yet is it said that He communicated with neither. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Socrates Histor. Eccles. l. 6. c. 3.  Neither doth it amount to an Ecclesiastical communion if a man be present at the religious Assemblies and offices of another Church, if so be he do it not upon a religious account, nor devoutly join therewith: thus when Elijah was present at the Sacrifice and worship of Baal, he did not communicate with those Idolaters, 1 Kings 18.26, 27. Thus Lyranus, Cajetanus, and other Casuists excuse Naaman for bowing (upon a Civil account) in the house of Rimmon; 
M. Fr. Wendelin Chr. Theolog. System. Mai. l. 1. c. 24.  and allow the case of a Christian slave which waited on her Mistress to the Sarracen worship, and bore up her train, but did not join in the Mahometan Service: thus the Protestant Divines, (as Sleidan, 
Council of Trent. l. 1. pag. 52.  and the History of the Council of Trent inform us) resolved that it was lawful for the Protestant Princes to pay a civil attendance on the Germane Emperor even at Mass in the Royal Chapel. These things therefore amount not unto Church-communion: But the joining religiously in the same Church-worship, 
Communio inter fideles, in publicis maximè pietatis exercitiis est posita: atque hoc est optatae bonis unionis vel praecipuum coagulum. Casaubon. resp. ad Card. Per●on.  and particularly in celebrating the Lords Supper together: and this is to be done interchangeably; for otherwise only the one side can be said to communicate with the other: not vice versâ: Thus when the Papists did resort to our Churches in the beginning of the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth, and joined in the same prayers, and participation of Sacraments with the Church of England, it might justly be said, that they did hold communion with us; but since the Laws then in force did prohibit the Protestants to be present at, or join in any public Service (or administration of Sacraments) where other ceremonies then what were enacted by the Church of England, 
5. & 6. Edw. 6. c. 1. & 3. as also the Act of Qu. Eliz. for Uniformity.  should be used: it is manifest that the Church of England did not communicate with the Papists.  
The second Observation is, that our Historian in this Paragraph doth make use of the words communion and respect as equipollent and Synonymous: otherwise there is no apodosis, no sense in the saying— Some of them thought themselves obliged to forbear all communion with them, and would not give them that respect, which possibly might belong to so ancient & so famous a Church. If respect be a term of a lesser import than communion, then might those Reformed Churches decline all Exterior communion with the Church of Rome, justly and without blame, and yet retain a respect and kindness such as Christians may and aught to bear to the excommunicate, to the Heathens, and Publicans; and in which there is no danger of Superstition,; though in this Exterior communion there be evident peril not only of Superstition, but Idolatry.  

1. These things being premised, my first Animadversion shall be, That the Comparison betwixt men denying to such as usurp too much even their due rights, and those that separate in case of religious usurpations, is so carried on by the Historian, that to forbear all communion with the Church, and Bishops of Rome, is represented as an extreme opinion, and consequently as culpable, Schismatical, and damnable.  
2. Secondly, that He represents the case so, as if some of the Reformed Churches only did forbear all Communion with them.  
3. Thirdly, That the grand occasion of the differences betwixt those of the reformed religion, and the Papists, was that the Bishops of Rome did assume an Infallibility, and a Sovereign dominion over our Faith.  
4. Fourthly, That notwithstanding this usurped infallibility of the Bishops of Rome, & their assuming a sovereign dominion over our Faith; yet we may give them that respect which possibly might belong to so ancient and famous a Church: and to decline this, is to run into an extreme.  
5. Fifthly, That the Church of Rome according to its present establishment, and under that constitution wherein the first Reformers found it, may be denominated a Church, Ancient, Famous; and that upon those accounts (for none other are mentioned) possibly there doth belong a respect unto it, or an obligation to communicate therewith.  
6. Sixtly, That such a respect or exterior communion may be entertained with Rome, and yet we incur no danger of Superstition.   
The first Proposition is Impious, Blasphemous, and Offensive to all Protestant ears: It condemns the Reformation carried on by the Evangeliques abroad, and in the Church of England, as culpable, guilty of an extreme; and there is so much of Schism justly charged on us, as there is of extremity in our procedure. It subverts all those Laws which are now in force, whereby all Communion with Popish Offices and Sacraments (celebrated in a different way from that of the Church of England) is prohibited to us upon penalty of being imprisoned six months without bail for the first offence; 
See also the Act for Uniformity premised to the English Liturgy.  for the second, twelve months; and for the third, during life: upon 5 and 6 Edw. 6. cap. 1. & 3.  
The second Proposition is notoriously false: there being no Reformed Church, no not of the Lutherans, but hath constantly held themselves obliged to forbear all Communion with the modern Bishops and Church of Rome. Besides, it carries a most dangerous insinuation in it, as if the Reformed Churches were divided upon this point, (the contrary whereof is manifest out of the Harmony of Confessions) so that such as abet this Popish compliance want not their Assertors, even to the repute of most of the Reformed Churches: and such as disclaim it, are the less considerable for number and authority, having only the concurrence of some of the Reformed Churches. How pernicious an intimation this is amongst ignorant persons, and such as are unacquainted with the state of Religion (a study much out of fashion now) let any man judge, and withal remember, that the Church of England is of the number of those reflected upon here.  
Who are they that pretend to forsake the Church's corruptions, 
Chillingworth ch. 5. §. 45.  and not her external Communion? Some there be that say they have not left the Church, but only her corcorruptions: some that they have not left the Communion, but the corruptions of it, meaning the internal communion of it, and conjunction with it by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking; for he that is in the Church, is in this kind of Communion with it; and he that is not in this internal communion, is not in the Church. Some perhaps, that they left not your external communion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily, being not fugitivi sed fugati, as being willing to join with you in any act of piety, but were by you necessitated and constrained to do so, because you would not suffer them to do well with you, except they would do ill with you: Now to do ill that you may do well, is against the will of God, which to every good man is an high degree of necessity. But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they forsook your corruptions, and not your external communion, that is, such as pretend to communicate with you in your Confessions, and Liturgies, and participation of Sacraments, I cannot but doubt very much, that neither you, nor I, have ever met with any of this condition.  

Causabon '. resp. ad Card. Perron.  Postremò addit Rex, magnum se quidem crimen judicare, defectionem ab Ecclesia: sed huic crimini affinem se esse, aut Ecclesiam suam, penitus pernegat. Non enim fugimus, aiebat ejus Majestas, sed fugamur. Scit verò tua illustris Dignitas, ut qui optimè, quam multi, quam praestantes pietate ac doctrinâ viri, ab annis minimùm quingentis, Reformationem Ecclesiae in capite & membris optârint. quam graves bonorum Regum ac Principum quaerelae sint saepe auditae, statum Ecclesiae suis temporibus lamentantium? Quid profuit? ●ihil enim eorum ad hanc diem videmus esse emendatum, quae correctionis egere cum primis censebantur. Quare non veretur Ecclesia Anglicana, nè candidis aestimatoribus, in hac separatione, Donatistis simile quid fecisse videatur. Illi gratis & sine ullâ causâ Ecclesiam Catholicam, gentium cunctarum assensu comprobatam, cujus neque fidem, neque disciplinam culpare poterant, deseruerunt. Angli ab ea Ecclesia, NECESSITATE DIRA COGENTE, Secessionem fecerunt, quam innumeri populi Christiani veram, Catholicam & universalem esse non concedunt, ut modestissimè dicam: quámque in dogmatis fidei & disciplinae formâ multùm variâsle ab antiquâ, multa assuisse nova vetustis, mala bonis, etiam è vestris Scriptores quam plurimi ingenuè dudum sunt confessi: & verò notius jam est universo mundo, quam ut possit quisquam vel negare, vel etiam ignorare. Add quod jugum Romanae servitutis ita durum per aliquot retro secula erat experta Ecclesia Anglicana, novis subinde vexationibus, & inauditis angariis atque exactionibus supra hominum fidem cruciata, ut vel illa sola causa apud Judices non iniquos à Schismatis suspicion, & ut loquitur Augustinus de Donatistis, iniquae discissionis, posse videatur ipsam liberare. Non enim pro●ectò Angli à charitate fraternâ animi causâ dissilierunt, ut Donatistae; neque ut decem tribus populi judaici, metu impendentis mali, quod nondum premebat; sed post plurium seculorum patientiam, post exantlatas inenarrabiles aerumnas, onus intolerabile, cui ferendo pares ampliùs non erant, neque permittebat conscientia, subductis cervicibus tandem excuslerunt.—  
From hence, as also from our Laws, our Thirty nine Articles, and Homilies, 'tis manifest that the Church of England is in the number of those that separate from the communion of the Church and Bishops of Rome, and that for such important reasons as justify the action from being causeless, or culpable: though amongst all the Reasons alleged by K. james in that Letter of Causabon's, or in our Laws, or other Controvertists, I do not find that reckoned for any motive of that great rupture, much less for the principal or sole one, which is represented as such by our Historian.  
The third Proposition therefore carries something of prevarication in it. So those Advocates which would betray the causes of their Clients, propose a wrong state of the Case, the vanity whereof being once discovered, renders the Plaintiff contemptible in the sight of all men, and reduces him to a necessity of complying with the injured Defendant. There is a great deal of ignorance and intricateness (the Consequent thereof) in the Proposition of our Author, as it is by him worded: for Infallibility, 
I grant that Papal Infallibility (were there such a thing) would oblige us to an assent, but not enforce us: Sovereignty implies power; but Infallibility doth not so.  and a sovereign Dominion over our Faith, are not equipollent Terms, nor terms indifferently used. No Papist did ever ascribe unto the Bishop of Rome (except some Parasitical Canonist, whose Credit is little in that Church) a sovereign dominion over our Faith. He that is Sovereign, knows not any Superior; nor any coercive Law, but his will; the objects about which his power is conversant, are liable to what alterations he pleaseth, and he rules by the Lex Regia: but what Divine did ever ascribe such a power to the Pope in matter of Faith? 
Let a man but inquire into the Papal power, to nature and management in Cajetan, Victor a, Panormitan, Tur●ecremata, Gerson, and others, that write about the power of the Pope's briefs in France or Spain, etc. and he will find that the Papacy is no Sovereignty either in matters of faith, or of lesser importance.  Place the Chair where, and how you will, none of that Church ever assumed so much, nor did that Church ever attribute so much to the Bishop of Rome. There have been those that have taught, that if (by way of supposal) it could be imagined, that all the Pastors of the Church Catholic should err in a Decree of Faith, the Laiety were bound to submit thereunto: but such a Sovereignty in matters of faith, none (except some jesuits and Parasites) ascribe unto the Pope's person; his Briefs, and Decretals have not that credit amongst the Romanists as to authenticate such Assertions, nor is the belief thereof a necessary condition to communicate with that Church upon. If we look upon the contests in Germany that introduced Protestancy at first, we find the erroneous doctrine about Indulgences to be the primary occasion there: In Switzerland, and in France, and Holland, abuses, and Idolatrous practices, or false Doctrines, are the first subjects of Disputes, and occasion the Reformation there: Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, Image-worship, praying to Saints, and such like Controversies, are the first, and most fiercely debated: In England, under Henry the VIII, the Pope's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, and appeals to Rome etc. give the the first occasions of discontent, and that change, which was afterwards carried on to a total Reformation of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England: then came in question the power of the Bishop of Rome, the nature of his Primacy, the Authority and Fallibility of General Counsels, the power of National and provincial Churches to reform themselves during the interval of Counsels, or without dependence thereon: whether the Scripture were the sole rule of faith, how obligatory were Traditions: the interest and influence of the Civil Magistrate in ruling Ecclesiastical Affairs, these came next into agitation. The usurpation of Infallibility, and a pretended Sovereignty in matters of faith to be lodged in the Pope, 
It is true that long before the Reformation, when the Guelphs and Gibellines contested, there were some, especially Canonists, that did attribute to the Pope, and some Popes challenged a Sovereignty over the Christian faith, to make new Creeds and Articles of faith, even such as might contradict the old: but these were not agitated at the Reformation, and are no more to be imputed indefinitely to the Bishops of Rome, than the extravagant claims of some Princes are to the Monarchies they hold.  was neither the occasion of the Protestant separation, nor a material part of the first controversies: though perhaps some Italianated persons and Canonists might assert some such thing; and since the growth of the Jesuits, tenets of that nature have been much advanced, thereby to justify their Vow of blind obedience to the Papal commands. The memory of the Councils of Basil, and Constance, was fresh in the minds of men, 
See the conference betwixt Raynolds and Hart. c. 9 divis▪ 4. pag. 582. where you will find, that before the Reformation, the consent of the Doctors and Pastors throughout all Christendom (except the Italian faction) had condemned the usurped Monarchy of the Pope. The Lateran Council never gave it him; and whatever for his Supremacy (not Infallibility) were defined or acted at Trent, yet it was opposed there; and the Authority of that Council (together with the tenet) rejected in France at this day without a Schism.  and the superiority of a Council above the Pope a common and authorized tenet in that Church. The personal infallibility, and the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome had of old received too great a check in the cases of Vigilius and Honorius, and in the declared sentences of the Councils of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and of the Universities of Paris, Loven, Colen, Vienna, and Cracovia, (not to mention particular Writers) to be the occasion of that rupture. The Sorbone to this day continues its former judgement: and even the present King of France hath asserted the liberties of the gallic Church in that point. See Arrest de la Cour de Parliament portant que les propositions contenues en la declaration de la Faculte de Theologie de Paris etc. Da. 30. May. 1663. And Declaration du Roy pour l' Enregistrement des six propositions de la Faculte de Sorbonne etc. A Paris 4. d' Aoust. 1663.  
What the Popish Church now holds and requires, amounts not to any such Authority as our Author asserts, if you will believe Cardinal Perron before our Virtuoso. 
Casaubon. resp. ad Cardin. Perron.  — Scribis de Romano Pontifice nolle te verba facere: quum vel mediocriter in Historiâ Ecclesiasticâ versatis compertum sit, primorum seculorum Patres, Concilia, & Imperatores Christianos', primas illi semper detulisse, & praecellentis dignitatis praerogativam, in omnibus negotiis, ad religionem aut Ecclesiam spectantibus: atque hoc solum exigere Ecclesiam vestram pro articulo fidei credendum ab iis, qui communioni suae se adjungunt.— If this Cardinal understand any thing, the Romish Church demands no more of her Members then that they own the Pope's primacy, not Supremacy, or Infallibility: nor have the the books of such as derogate from the excessive greatness of the Papal power been ever called in, or censured in that Church, or communion denied to the Assertors of the infallibility of Oral Tradition, or of General Councils, in opposition to the personal Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. It was, and is still a common opinion amongst the Papists, 
Fr: Victoria relect. 5. the pot. Eccles. sect. 1. §. 6.  that the Pope may be an Heretic: I learned it from Franciscus Victoria in his Relections; Haereticus potest esse non solum Presbyter, sed Pontifex etiam summus; ergo caput Ecclesiae. 
Davenant. de judice & norma fidei. cap. 21.  And Bellarmine himself doth not assert the Infallibility of the Pope, no not though He be assisted with a provincial Council. In libr. 2. the council. c. 5. fatetur hanc propositionem, scilicet, Concilia particularia, à summo Pontifice confirmata, in fide & moribus errare possunt, non esse fide Catholicâ tenendam: ejus tamen contradictoriam temerariam & erroneam pronunciat. Nay the same Writer in his solemn Lectures at Rome teacheth, that 
a Opinio verae est, posse esse Haereticum.  it is true, the Pope maybe an Heretic: 
b Probabile est, & piè credi potest, haereticum esse non posse.  But it is probable and godly to be thought, that he cannot be an Heretic. In the conference betwixt Dr. Raynolds and Hart, I find this passage.  Raynolds. 
The Pope may not only err in doctrine, 
See the Conference ch. 7. divis. 2. pag. 236.  but also be an Heretic; which (I hope) you will not say that Peter might.  Hart. 
Neither by my good will that the Pope may.  Raynolds. 
But you must: no remedy. It is a ruled case. Your Schoolmen and Canonists, 
a In dialogo part. 1. lib. 6. cap. 1.  Ockam, 
b In summa lib. 5. tit. de haereticis.  Hostiensis, 
c sum: de Eccles. l. 2. c. 93. & 112.  Turrecremata, 
d de Schismate Pontificum.  Zabarella, 
e de concord. catholicâ. l. 2. c. 17.  Cusanus, 
f sum: part. 3. tit. 22. c. 7.  Antoninus, 
g adv: haereses l. 1. c. 2, & 4.  Alphonsus, 
h locor. Theolog. l. 6. c. 8.  Canus, 
i de visibili Monarch. l. 7.  Sanders, 
k controv. 4. part. 2. q. 1.  Bellarmine, and 
l Canonistae in didst 40 c. si papa. Archid: & Ioann● Andr. c. in fidei. de haereticis. in Sext. Cajetan. de authoritate Papae & Concilii c. 20, & 23.  others, yea the 
m Distinct. 40. c. si Papa.  Canon Law itself, yea a Council, a 
n Synodus Romana quint. sub Symmach●.  Roman Council, confirmed by the Pope, do grant it.  Hart. 
They grant that the Pope may be an Heretic perhaps by a supposal: as many things may be, which never were, nor are, nor shall be. For you cannot prove that any Pope ever was an Heretic actually, though possibly they may be, whereof I will not strive.  
This point of the fallibility of the Pope, and his subjection to a Council, is so notorious with every man, that is acquainted with the more ancient and modern Writers; so known to any one that hath either read the determinations of Bishop Davenant (qu. 5.) or the defence of the Dissuasive of Bishop Taylour (pag. 40.) or the Review of the Council of Trent (written by a French Catholic, from whom the Dissuader borrowed his allegations) or that hath so much as read over the History of the Council of Trent, that I need not insist on it any longer. Notwithstanding the earnestness of the jesuits under Laynez in the Council of Trent, yet neither was the Pope's superiority over a Council, nor the Infallibility of the Bishops of Rome, defined there directly, as appears out of the Review of that Council, lib. 4. c. 1. and out of the English History pag. 721, 722. Neither is there to this day amongst the Papists any thing enacted or determined in that Church, which obligeth a man under pain of Excommunication to hold any such thing as the personal Infallibility of the Bishops of Rome, the contrary being daily maintained there by more than the jansenists; much less is there any Sovereignty in matters of Faith ascribed unto them at this day. All books of the Papists are subjected to the judgement of the Church, not to the Arbitrement of the Pope. The fides Carbonaria, or Collier's faith, so famed amongst the Papists, was not established upon the infallibility or sovereignty of the Bishops of Rome; no, he told the Devil, that He believed as the Church believed, and the Church as Herald And how necessary soever they make the communion with the particular Church of Rome, how great influence soever they ascribe to the Pope over Councils, yet the Decrees of the Council of Trent run in the name of the Holy Synod, not Pope, and there it is determined sess. 4. that none dare interpret Holy Scriptures against the sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held, or does hold. If you inquire inthe doctrines of Mr White, Dr Holden, Serenus Cressy, and such others as endeavour at present (and that with great show of wit and artifices) to seduce the English to that Apostatical Church, there is not one of them that I know of who attributes any infallibility to the Pope, or submitteth his faith to the Sovereign decisions of the Bishop of Rome.  
As for Serenus Cressy, 
S. Cresseyes' Exomolog. c. 51. Edit. 1.  he very judiciously deserts the School-terme of Infallibility for that of the Church's Authority, and saith that the exceptions and advantages which the Protestants have against the Roman Church, proceed only from their misunderstanding of her necessary doctrines, or at most, that all the efficacy they have is only against particular opinions & inferences made by particular Catholic writers. He shows that Dr Stapleton asserts that the infallible voice and determination of the Church is included in the decree of the Church speaking in a General Council representatively. 
Ibid. c. 52.  In which the Church is infallible with this restriction, viz: in delivering the substance of faith, in public doctrines, and things necessary to salvation. Other Catholics, and namely Panormitan teach that the decrees of General Council are not absolutely and necessarily to be acknowledged infallible, till they be received by all particular Catholic Churches: because till then they cannot properly be called the faith of the universal Church, or of the body of all faithful Christians, to which body the promise of infallibility is made. And this was the Doctrine of Thomas Waldensis, and some other Scholmen, etc. An opinion this is which though not commonly received, yet I do not (saith S. C.) find it deeply censured by any: yea the Gallican Churches reckoned this among their chiefest privileges and liberties, that they were not obliged to the decisions of a General Council, till the whole body of the Gallican Clergy had by a special agreement consented to them, and so proposed them to the several Churches there. And to this last opinion doth S. C. incline; and his book was approved at Paris as consonant to the Catholic faith: He guides himself by the Authority of received Councils: 
Ibid.  he acknowledges that to be only necessarily accounted an Article of Catholic faith, which is actually acknowledged and received by Catholics; and since contradictions cannot be actually assented unto, it will follow that whatsoever decisions of Councils may seem to oppose such articles, are not necessarily to be accounted Catholic doctrines; and by consequence, not obligatory.— He denies that General Councils can make new articles of faith: they are witnesses of what hath been delivered, not Sovereigns to determine of new truths, either by way of addition to the former, or in opposition thereunto. Their Infallibility is limited to Tradition, and spiritually assisted in the faithful reporting of what hath been delivered: what ever reports or decrees they make of another nature, they are to be received with a different assent from what is Catholic faith. There is a double obligation from decisions of General Councils: 
Ibid.  the first an obligation of Christian belief in respect of doctrines delivered by General Councils as of universal Tradition: the second only of Canonical obedience to orders and constitutions for practice, by which men are not bound to believe those are enforced as from Divine authority, but only to submit unto them as acts of a lawful Ecclesiastical power, however not to censure them as unjust, much less to oppose and contradict them. Much more doth the same Author add which give little countenance to that state of the controversy which our Author forms unto us: No Sovereign dominion over our faith is by him ascribed to the Bishop of Rome, or national, or General Councils: and as to Infailibility, which Mr Chillingworth had impugned, he thus acquits himself. I may in general say of all his Objections, 
Ibid. c. 59  that since they proceed only against the word Infallibility, and that word extended to the utmost height and latitude that it possibly can bear, Catholics, as such, are not at all concerned in them, seeing neither is that expression to be found in any received Council, nor did ever the Church enlarge her authority to so vast a wideness as Mr Chillingworth either conceived, or at least, for his particular advantage against his adversary, thought good to make show as if he conceived so.— As to the subject wherein Infallibility or Authority is to be placed; since Catholics vary as to that point, he says 'tis evident thereby that they are not obliged to any one part of the Question: only they are to agree in this Tridentine decision▪ Ecclesiae est judicare de vero sensu Sacrae Scripturae. It belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense of holy Scripture.  
Dr Holdens book is Licenced and highly commended by the French Divines, 
Dr Holden de resolute. fidei. l. 1. c. 9  and he himself a Doctor of the Sorbonne; and he thus delivers himself.  
Statuendum est, quod quicquid à Theologis Catholicis in utramque partem, etiam cum maximâ acerbitate, disseritur ac disputatur, dum vel propriis suis adhaerent nimis Sacrarum Scripturarum interpretationibus, vel patronorum suorum opinionibus, vel tandem consecutionibus deductis ex fidei principiis, certissimum est neutrum contentionis seu concertationis extremum, posse Divinae & Catholicae Fidei rationem habere.  
Quo sequ●tur Summum Pontificem nullatenus posse in suâ solâ personâ disceptatas hujusmodi quaestiones ita decernere, ut vi solius sui decreti pars definita sit fidei divinae & Catholicae articulus. Disputant siquidem Theologi, an si quando Summi Pontifices hujus●emodi argumenta, in Scholis utrinque agitata, definiverint, sintne eorum decreta ex institutione Christi ab omni errere libera. Imò an Decretum aliquod à solo Pontifice Summo emanans, sit ex hoc tantùm capite divinitùs infallibile. Haec inquam, in utramque partem ventilata videmus à piissimis quamplurimis & doctissimus Catholicis Autoribus tam antiquioribus quam recentioribus, quorum neutram partem audivimus unquam fuisse Censuris aliquibus authenticis prohibitam, aut improbatam. Quapropter evidentissimè constat Catholicum neminem astringi aut huic aut alteri part adhaerere tanquam Fidei Catholicae & divinae articulo: tametsi Summorum Pontificum definitionibus debitum obsequium sit praestandum.—  
Out of all this precedent discourse 'tis manifest that Infallibility, and Sovereign dominion over our faith, usurped by the Bishops of Rome, neither was, nor could be upon Catholic principles, and amongst men of common understanding, the cause of Separation betwixt the Reformed Churches, and the Romanists: since neither the one, nor other branch of that assertion is defined in that Church, or so censured as not to be held upon pain of Excommunication.  
The fourth Proposition as it is conjunctive or copulative (to which it is necessary that both parts be true) must admit of a distinction before it be censured. To assert that we may hold communion with any one, that is, account him of the same Church in general with us, and join with him in the celebration of the same Church worship, and participation of Sacraments, 'tis necessary that we consider what it is He professeth, and what it is wherein he and we communicate, and what relation we stand in, in relation to the Actings of our Superior Governors, that may have influence upon the case. As for Example▪ if the King by an Act of Parliament shall forbid us exterior Communion with the Pope, whatever charitable opinion I might be induced to have otherwise of him, yet I should not think fitting to do it, or that such my procedure were Schismatical. Thus Obadiah, and the seven thousand incorrupt jews, together with Elijah and Elisha, did not resort to the Temple-worship at jerusalem, by reason of the prohibition by jeroboam, 1 Kings 12. Thus the English Papists complied in England with the Actions of H. 8. Now 'tis notorious that by our Laws the English are forbid in England to be present at any other rites or communion, then what are authorised by the Church of this Nation, and that upon penalties very great: upon 5. and 6. Edward. 6. and 23. Eliz. 1. so that in reference to this particular, the Assertion of our Virtuoso is contrary to the Laws of our Land, charges them with injustice, & tends to seduce the King's Subjects from their obedience. If we abstract from this consideration, and reflect upon the persons to be communicated with, and the things wherein the communion is held: I say it is a difficult thing to determine what those tenets are which cut a man off from the general communion of Christians, provided that the matters wherein the communion consists be innocent, and blameless. I find the Apostles to communicate with the jews in the Temple-worship, and in their Synagogue-worship. I find the Communion not interrupted by the Assertions, that the Observation of the levitical Law was necessary to a Christian, Act. 21.20. Thus though S. Paul found very enormous errors (and such as would now be called Fundamental, & a ground for anathemas) in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Colossi, yet did he speak honourably of them, calls them Churches, communicates with them, but not with their errors and heresies. I find the Arians and the Orthodox to communicate together at first in the same worship, scarce to be distinguished one from another, till the Gloria Patri, came to be said: and after the determinations of Nice, when the Arians had gained the advantage at Ariminum, though there were some Catholics so scrupulous that they would have no communion with such as received the Council of Ariminum, yet S. Hilary thought it best to converse with them, and to call them to such Councils as were frequently held in France upon such occasions. And where this sort of communion is to be carried on, and when to be interrupted, I am not learned enough to understand out of Antiquity. It appears to me that the bare pretence of an Infallibility is not enough to cut off Communion, if the Infallibility be restrained to some limitations and explications: for as the natural man may say he is sometimes infallibly assured of sensible objects, and consequently be so far infallible: so the Spiritual man may be in many things infallibly assord certitudine fidei, cuni non potest subesse falsum▪ by the grace of God, and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, so as that he is so far infallible. Rom. 8.16. 1 john 5.13. john 14 20. 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Cor. 2.11, 12. And this circumstantiate Limited infallibility, if it extend itself to some things past, whether of a moral or spiritual nature, is not always blame worthy, much less a sufficient ground for to rescind Exterior Communion. It remains then that we inquire into the nature of the pretended infallibility, what it proceeds upon, and what it interferes with. For any man to assume to himself an absolute, and essential, and unconditionate infallibility, is blasphemy, if not madness in an humane creature; and undoubtedly rescinds all communion, if it do not rather entitle to Bedlam. For any man to assert that he is by the particular favour, and promise of God infallible, either in omnibus quaestionibus tam facti quam juris (which some Jesuits avow of the Pope) or in matters of faith only (however that tenet be explicated) either in relation to the determining of what hath been taught by the Church of Christ; 

I am very irresolute in this opinion of mine; because I often find the ancient Fathers, & Counsels, upon the account of error & heresy to Excommunicate, and forbid all resort to heretical Synagogues, and other Acts of Church communion, though I do not find that they varied from the Catholics in their Liturgies: and there be some texts of Scripture that may render the case doubtful, as 2 John 7, 8, 9▪ 10, 11, 12. 1 Cor. 8.10. & 1 Cor. 10.20▪ 21, 22. Tit. ●▪ 10. yet may th' 〈◊〉 cogency of these and other texts be eluded by contrary practices, determinations, and Texts, as 1 Co● 3 12. Ephes. 4, 5, 6.  
1 Eliz. c. 1. ● Calybute Do●ning, of the sta● Ecclesiastically here, conclus. 2▪ p. 41.   or as to additional decisions; that the profession of such infallibility (provided it do not extend to the preaching of any known fundamental error) nor impose on the communicants the belief of, and assent unto the reality of such infallibility, perhaps it is not enough to break off an Exterior communion. But if such infallibility be made use of to the establishing of, or introducing impious, blaspemous, and Idolatrous practices, if it frustrate the tenure of the Gospel, and render the Word of God (as suspended upon that Authority) of none effect as to being the rule of our faith, and the final judge of controversies; I do think, that although the errors, and Idolatries were no part of the Church Service, nor imposed on the Communicants to hold, yet were all Communion exterior to be avoided with such a person and his adherents, so that none ought to resort to their assemblies after sufficient & due detection of that Antichristian monster: But agreeably to the practice of the Church of England (our indulgent mother) I do think that the resort of such men to our Church-worship & Communion ought to be allowed, & not scrupled at. Thus our Laws enacted in Parliament (which with the assent of Convocation) is the Supreme Judge here on earth of Heresies, & consequently of Legal Non-communion, punish Recusants for not communicating with us in the Church-service; yet enjoins them not to relinquish their opinions. But in case such Infallibility in matters of faith be pretended to by any, or owned, as introduceth Blaspemy, Idolatry, error, and superstition into the public Offices of Divine Service, a Protestant cannot lawfully, and with any good Conscience join with Him, or Them in such worship: viz: No Protestant can out of Devotion (which is requisite to Prayer) join with the Papists in the blasphemies, and Idolatries of the Mass, as any man knows that hath but lightly inspected their Missal, or receive the Sacrament in one kind, (contrary to the divine institution) as an Expiatory sacrifice availing the quick and the dead (which is repugnant to the primary intention of Christ) and this paying a religious veneration to the gross elements, and breaden god. This judgement I am much confirmed in by Mr Chillingworth, 
Mr Chillingworth ch. 5. § 11.  where he says, that the causes of our separation from Rome are (as we pretend, 
Ibid. § 40.  and are ready to justify) because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition, Idolatry, impiety, and most cruel tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men.— you mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, only, or principally for your errors and corruptions: for the true reason is not so much because you maintain errors and corruptions; as because you impose them; and will allow your Communion to none but such as will hold them with you: and have so ordered your Communion, that either we must communicate with you in these things, or nothing. Thus much may suffice for that part of the Proposition, that notwithstanding the usurped Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, yet ought we to hold exterior Communion with that ancient and famous Church. For supposing the case to be as I (agreeably to the Church of England) have stated it, the Antiquity, Grandeur, and Fame of the Church of Rome are too extrinsecall and weak Arguments to sway us into an impious Communion. Nor is the imputation of Schism so horrid, nor exterior communion so amiable and inviting, that to pursue that we should either abandon, or endanger the truth. So King james in his reply, Neque ignorat Rex multa saepè veteris Ecclesiae patres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecisse, 
Causabon. resp. ad Cardin. Perron.  pro bono pacis, ut loquebantur, id est, study conservandae unitatis, ac mutuae communionis abrumpendae metu. Quorum exemplum se quoque paratum esse profitetur aemulari, & sectantium pacem vestigia persequi ad aras usque; hoc est, quantum in hodierno statu Ecclesiae per conscientiae integritatem licet. Nemini enim se mortalium cedere, aut in dolore quem capit gravissimum é membrorum Ecclesiae distractione, quam pii patres tantoperè sunt abominati: aut in cupiditate qua tenetur, communicationem habendi cum omnibus, si possit fieri, qui membra sunt mystici corporis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Haec, quum ita sint, existimat nihiloseciùs Rex, justissimam habere se causam, cur ab iis dissentiat, qui simpliciter sine ulla penitus distinctione, aut exceptione, hanc communionem sine fine urgent. Inter proprias Ecclesiae notas hanc fatetur esse cum primis necessariam: non esse tamen autumat veram ipsam Ecclesiae formam, & quod Philosophus appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Didicit Rex é lectione Sacrae Scripturae (neque aliter Patres olim sentiebant ad unum omnes) veram & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae formam esse, 
joan. 10.3.  ut audiant Oves Christi vocem sui Pastoris, & ut Sacramenta administrentur ritè & legitimè, quomodo videlicet Apostoli praeiverunt, & qui illos proximè secuti sunt. Quae hac ratione sunt institutae Ecclesiae, necesse est ipsas multiplici communione inter sese esse devinctas. Uniuntur in capite suo Christo, qui est fons vitae, in quo vivunt omnes quos pater elegit pretioso sanguine ipsius redimendos, & vitâ aeternâ gratis donandos. Uniuntur unitate fidei & doctrinae, in iis utique capitibus quae sunt ad salutem necessaria: unica enim salutaris doctrina, unica in coelos via. Vniuntur conjunctione animorum & verâ charitate, charitatisque officiis, maximè autem precum mutuarum. Uniuntur denique spei ejusdem communione, & promissae haereditatis expectatione; gnari se ante jacta mundi fundamenta praedestinatos esse, (de electis loquor) ut sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ephes. 3.6.  quod divinitus ait Apostolus. Sed addit Rex, eandem tamen Ecclesiam, si aliquod ejus membrum discedat à regula fidei, pluris facturam amorem veritatis, quam amorem unitatis. Scit supremam legem esse in domo Dei, doctrinae coelestis sinceritatem; quam si quis relinquat, Christum relinquit, qui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Ecclesiam relinquit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
1 Tim. 3.15.  atque eo ipso ad corpus Christi desinit pertinere. Cum hujusmodi desertoribus nec vult, nec potest verè Catholicus communicare. 
2 Cor. 6.15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; fugiet igitur horum communionem Ecclesia, & dicet cum Gregorio Nazianzeno, 
De pace orat. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nec dubitabit cum eodem beato Patre, si opus fuerit, pronuntiare, esse quendam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
In Orat. habita in Council. Constantin.  Quod autem in Ecclesia futura esset aliquando necessaria hujusmodi separatio, cum aliis sacrae paginae locis clarè docemur; tum illa apertè declarat Spiritus sancti admonitio, non temerè profectò Ecclesiae facta, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inquientis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quaenam sit illa Babylon, unde exire▪ populus Dei jubetur, non quaerit hoc loco Rex, neque super eo quidquam pronunciat. Hoc quidem res ipsa manifestissimè ostendit, sive privata quaedam Ecclesia eò loci intelligitur appellatione Babylonis, sive universae pars major: eam prius fuisse legitimam Ecclesiam, cum qua pii piè communicarent; postea verò quam longiùs processit ejus depravatio, jubentur pii exire, & communionem abrum pere: ut facile fit vobis intelligere, non omnem communionem cum iis qui de nomine Christi appellantur, fidelibus esse expetendam; sed illam demum quae sit saluâ doctrinae coelitus revelatae integritate. Out of which words (and they seem to be the words not of Casaubon, or K. james, but the Church of England) if I am able to deduce any consequence, 
vide praef. ad D. Tho. Edmundun.  I am sure this is one, that it is not at any time lawful to hold with any Church a communion with her ènown defaults and impieties: and that how desirable soever Unity be, yet the regard thereto ought never to transport us so far, as to mix the service of God with that of Belial; 
Neque nos consensionem & pacem fugimus: sed pacis humanae causâ, cum Deo belligerari nolumus. Dulci quidem, inquit Hilarius, est nomen pacis: sed aliud est, inquit, pax, aliud servitus. Nam ut, quod isti quaerunt, Christus tacere jubeatur, ut prodatur veritas Evangelii, ut errores nefarii dissimulentur, ut Christianorum oculis imponatur, ut in Deum apertè conspiretur non ea pax est, sed iniquissima pactio servitutis. Est quadam, inquit Nazianvenus, pax inutilis, est quoddam utile▪ dissidium. Nam paci cum exceptione studendum est, quantum fas est, quantumque liceat. Alioqui Christus ipse non pacem in mundum attulit, sed gladium. Quare si nos Papa secum in gratiam redire velit, ipse prius in gratiam redire debet cum Deo. Juellus apolog. Eccles. Anglic. pag. 194.195. edit. latin. Londin. 1591.  that some circumstances do legitimate an holy war, and that a bad agreement is not to be chosen before a contest and separation in the behalf of real Godliness. I am sure I am by the tenor of that Letter justified, if I dare not join with a Church service, wherein Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, and prayers for the dead, and to the Saints (not to mention the mutilation of the Communion, and Image-worships must be owned, or hypocritically complied with, to the dishonour of God, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21, 22. the detriment and offence of the weak Christians, 1 Cor. 8.10, 11, 12. and the strengthening of the party communicated with in those errors and Blasphemies. How far further I am warranted by that Letter, and the practice of the primitive fathers to rescind a Communion (not otherwise erroneous or faulty) upon the account of errors, Idolatry, or conceived Blasphemy in the practice or speculative tenets of a Church, or person, what private men, what a particular Bishop, or national Church may do, I shall not intermeddle with; as having alleged enough in opposition to what our Virtuoso lays down. I should proceed now to inquire whether that we may hold communion with the Bishops of Rome, supposing that they challenge a Sovereign dominion over our faith? But since there was no such thing pressed upon the English Church to occasion the first rupture, the generality of Christendom being then, and at the first calling of the Council of Trent inclined to the contrary tenet, of the Pope's being inferior to a Council General, denying his Sovereignty and Dominion over the faith of the Church; and his personal Infallibility being an opinion scarcely to be mentioned, or insisted on, much less authenticated in those days: and since that now, neither the one or other tenet can justly be charged upon that Church, nor is a condition of their Communion at present: since the Controversy would be large, and intrigued with distinctions, I leave the debating thereof as inutile, and content myself with having sufficiently refuted our Virtuoso already, in what hath been alleged, though seemingly to another purpose. Undoubtedly there is no conniving or complying with such a person, for one that is to avoid the appearance of evil. It is a dethroning of Christ whom God hath appointed to be the head of the Church, and by him all the body furnished and knit together by joints and bands, 
Ephes. 1.22.  increaseth with the increasing of God. 
Coloss. 2.19.  It is the introducing of another Cornerstone, and another foundation; the creating of another fabric then what is built upon Christ, and the Apostles, and Prophets; at least it is a compliance with all such unchristian Monstrosities, a silence, that is equivalent to an Assent in such high cases: I have learned it from Dr. Raynolds. Seeing that to exercise this rule and dominion, 
Raynolds conf. with Hart. c. 1. divis▪ 2. pag. 6.  is a prerogative Royal, and proper to the King of Kings; to give it either in whole, or in part, cannot be a lesser offence than High Treason.  
Fifthly, that the Church of Rome, according to its present establishment, and under that constitution wherein the first Reformers found it, may be denominated a Church, Ancient and Famous; and that upon these accounts (for none other are mentioned) possibly there doth belong a respect unto it, or an obligation to communicate therewith.  
The first part of the Proposition is false, and notoriously contradicts the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles, and Homilies of the Church of England. For although it be granted that even those Articles, the Homilies, and our Writers (and I myself) do bestow vulgarly the appellation of a Church, yet is that an impropriety of speech, and not to be justified otherwise then by professing, that when the name of Church is attributed to Rome, and England, the predication is equivocal; since that the definition of a true Christian Church, which makes up the Ninteenth Article, cannot be accommodated to the Romanists: viz Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. This Definition is asserted and enlarged upon in the second Homily for Whitsunday, in these words.  
The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, 
Ephes. 2.  Jesus Christ being the head-corner stone. And it hath always three notes or marks, by which it is known. Pure and sound doctrine: The Sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution: and the right use of Ecclesiastical Discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the Ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault with it. Now if you will compare this with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is presently, and hath been for the space of Nine hundred years and odd, you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true Church, that Nothing can be more. For neither are they built upon the foundation of the Apostles, retaining the sound and pure Doctrine of Jesus Christ; neither yet do they order the Sacraments, or else the Ecclesiastical Keys, in such sort as he did first institute and ordain them; but have so intermingled their own Traditions and inventions by chopping and changing, by adding and plucking away, that now they may seem converted in a new guise. Christ commanded to his Church a Sacrament of his Body and Blood: they have changed it into a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Christ did minister to his Apostles, and the Apostles to other men indifferently under both kinds: they have robbed the Lay-people of the Cup, saying that for them one kind is sufficient. Christ ordained no other Element to be used in Baptism, but only water, whereunto when the word is joined, it is made (as S. Augustine saith) a full and perfect Sacrament: They being wiser in their own conceit than Christ, think it not well, nor orderly done, unless they use Conjuration, unless they hollow the water, unless there be Oil, Salt, spital, Tapers, and such other dumb Ceremonies, serving to no use, contrary to the plain rule of St. Paul, who willeth all things to be done in the Church to Edification. 
1 Cor. 14.  Christ ordained the Authority of the Keys to excommunicate notorious Sinners, and to absolve them which are truly penitent; They abuse this power at pleasure, as well in cursing the Godly with Bell, Book, and Candle, as also absolving the Reprobate, which are known to be unworthy of any Christian Society: whereof they that lust to see Examples, le them search their Lives. To be short, look what our Saviour Christ pronounced of the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel, the same may be boldly and with a safe conscience pronounced of the Bishops of Rome, namely they have forsaken and daily do forsake the Commandments of God, to erect and set up their own Constitutions. Which thing being true, as all they which have any light of God's word, must needs confess, we may well conclude according to the Rule of St. Augustine, That the BISHOPS OF ROME, AND THEIR ADHERENTS, ARE NOT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST; much less to be taken as chief Heads and Rulers of the same. Whosoever, saith he, do dissent from the Scriptures concerning the Head, although they be found in all places where the Church hath appointed, yet are they not in the Church. A plain place concluding directly against the Church of Rome.  
These Homilies are of such Authority with us, that the Clergy must subscribe unto them. That they are a part of the Liturgy, 
See H. L'estrange about the Liturgy.  the Rubrique in the Common Prayer, and the Preface to them shows: and the Preface saith, they were set forth for the expelling of erroneous and poisonous Doctrines. More fully 'tis said in the Orders of K. james, Ann. Dom. 1622. the Homilies are set forth by Authority in the Church of England, not only for the help of non-preaching, but withal as it were a pattern for preaching Ministers. Neither is Bishop jewel, in his Apology for the English Church, any more favourable to the Pope and his Adherents. 
jewel. Apolog. Latin. pag. 139▪ 140. edit. Londini. 1591.   
Nam nos quidem discessimus ab illâ Ecclesiâ, in qua nec verbum Dei purè audiri potuit, nec Sacramenta administrari, nec Dei nomen, ut oportuit, invocari; quam ipsi fatentur multis in rebus esse vitiosam: in qua nihil erat quod quenquam posset prudentem hominem, & de sua salute cogitantem retinere. Postremò ab Ecclesia eâ discessimus quae nunc est, non quae olim fuit: atque ita discessimus, ut Daniel è cavea Leonum, ut tres illi pueri ex incendio: nec tam discessimus, quam ab istis diris & devotionibus ejecti sumus. 
ibid. pag. 191  And in the conclusion that pious Bishop thus delivers himself again. Diximus nos ab illâ Ecclesiâ, quam isti speluncam latronum fecerant, 
Mark this, tha● the great Apologist (who lived and acted in th● transaction) no● only professeth that there was no resemblance of a Church in Rome, but als● that the Separation was made not out of a violent heat and transport, as our Historian says, but in obedience to the precept of God.  & in qua nihil integrum, aut Ecclesiae simile reliquerant, quámque ipsi fatebantur multis in rebus erravisse, ut Lothum olim è Sodoma, aut Abrahamum è Chaldaeâ, non contentionis study, sed Dei ipsius admonitu discessisle, & ex sacris libris, quos scimus non posse fallere, certam quandam Religionis formam quaesivisse, & ad veterum Patrum, atque Apostolorum primitivam Ecclesiam, hoc est, ad primordia atque initia, tanquam ad fontes rediisse.  
I might prosecute this point with an infinity of Citations out of such Divines as were eminent Writers and Actors in the beginning and throughout the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth, when the Church of England (even in the judgement of Dr. Heylyn) received her establishment, and when her Sentiments were best known: but I shall content myself with Dr. Whitaker alone. 
Whitaker controv. 2. qu. 6. c. 1▪  Romanam Ecclesiam Catholicam quae nunc est, quaeque recentioribus hisce temporibus floruit, eam nos non solam Ecclesiam Catholicam, sed ne omnino quidem Catholicam esse dicimus; nec tantùm non Catholicam, id est Vniversalem, sed nè veram quidem Ecclesiam Christi particularem esse contendimus. Quare deserendam esse dicimus ab omninibus, qui servati volunt tanquam Antichristi & Satanae Synagogam— Nullam in ea salutem sperandam esse, imò damnandam illam dicimus tanquam barathrum haereseos & erroris— Si quando ex animo de Ecclesia illa loquamur, eam semper Romanam, Papisticam, Antichristianam, Apostaticam Ecclesiam vocamus. Other Eulogies than these no true son of the Church of England did afford unto the Romish Church at first: and they who afterwards began to speak more mildly of her (in which number were Bishop Hall, 
Dr. Potter pag. 81. saith, Although we confess the Church of Rome, in some sense, to be a true Church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable; yet to us who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even upon pain of Damnation, to forsake her in those Errors;— that is, whosoever is convinced in conscience that the Church of Rome errs, cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of those Errors: and the reason is manifest, for otherwise he must profess what he believes not, and practice what he approves not. Chillingworth ch. 5 §. 104.  and Dr. Potter) they allowed her the name of a Church, but with those termini minuentes (the addition whereof renders all simple predications to be false) those restrictions of a Schismatical, Heretical, idolatrous, and superstitious Church. They compared her to a man mortally wounded: nothing can be argued from their Writings to condemn the Protestant separation of Schism: they make her so a Church, as to interdict all communion, and all peace with Her. And if it be thus difficult to procure from any man, that regulates his judgement according to the established doctrine of our Church, any manner of grant that the Romanists are a Church; I am sure it is impossible to extort from any such person a confession that the Church of Rome, in that condition wherein our Reformers found it, and wherein it still continues, is either Ancient or Famous. The Homily aforerecited allows it no greater antiquity than of about one thousand years: and 'tis an avowed Truth, that whatever is not primitive and Apostolic, is an innovation. The transactions betwixt the Emperor Phocas and the first of the Universal Bishops are too recent, and too infamous to give unto the present Romanists any repute. It hath always been the profession of the Church of England, and of all Protestants, that they deserted the Church of Rome, because she was apostatised from what was truly ancient; and the Church of England is really, what the Papists pretend to be: this jewel declares in his Apology more than once: 
jewel. apol. pag. 117.  Nostra doctrina, quam rectiùs possumus Christi Catholicam doctrinam appellare,— nova nemini videri potest, nisi sicui aut Prophetarum fides, aut Evangelium, aut Christus ipse videatur novus. The passage I mentioned formerly, shows that we reform ourselves from their errors and impieties, to conform with the genuine Antiquity. The Homily against peril of Idolatry, 
Hom. against Idol▪ part. 3.  allows scarce of any Antiquity but within the first three hundred years. Others extend a fair respect as far as the days of the Emperor Marcianus, in whose time the Council of Chalcedon was held. 
Casaubon: ep. ad Perron.  Rex & Ecclesia Anglicana, quatuor prima Concilia Oecumenica quam ad mittant, eo ipso satis declarant, verae as legitimae Ecclesiae tempus non includere se uno aut altero demum seculo, verùm multò longiùs producere, & Marciani Imperatoris, sub quo Chalcedonense Concilium est celebratum, tempus complecti. If our Historian can show, that the present Church of Rome, and the Tridentine model is so ancient as to come within this period, I shall admire him, and the Congregatio de propaganda fide multiply their acknowledgements unto him beyond what his present performances deserve: yet really He merits very much from the Romanists, in charging all the Schism upon the Protestants who made a causeless separation: and whilst he condemns the Pope only for usurping an infallibility, and sovereign dominion over our Faith, without so much as imputing unto him any abuse of that pretended power and infallibility, without fixing on him any error, superstition, Idolatry, or other temporal retrenchments upon our Monarchy, which alone would have justified a separation from the Papal Church. But to resume my former Discourse, I shall add this passage out of K. james, thereby to manifest how much more knowing our Virtuoso must be, than all the Prelates of the Church of England were then, if he can assert this Fame and Antiquity of the Romish Church. Fatetur Rex, Ecclesiam suam à capitibus non paucis ejus fidei & disciplinae, quam hodie Romanus Pontifex probat, & omnibus tuetur viribus, discessionem secisse; verùm eam Rex & Ecclesia Anglicana non defectionem à fide veteris Catholicae interpretantur, sed potius ad fidem Catholicam pristinam, quae in Romana novis inventis fuerat multipliciter mirè deformata, reversionem, & ad Christum, unicum Ecclesiae suae magistrum, conversionem. Quare siquis doctrinâ hujus observationis fretus, infer ex illa velit Anglicanam Ecclesiam, quia Romanae placita nonnulla rejicit, à veteri Catholicâ discessisse; non hoc illi prius Rex largietur, quam solidis rationibus probaverit, omnia quae à Romanis docentur (illa praecipuè quae volunt ipsi ut necessaria ad salutem credi ab omnibus) antiquae Catholicae à principio probata fuisse & sancita: hoc verò neminem posse facere, aut unquam facturum; neminem certè hactenus fecisse, tam liquidò Regi constat, & Ecclesiae Anglicanae Antistitibus, quam Solem meridie lucere. But, to gratify our Historian, to yield up the utmost of Antiquity to the Church of Rome, to ascribe all that renown which so charms our Virtuoso, and which is not to be found in the Narrative of that Papacy, which contains nothing almost but what is ignominious, base, and detestable; to do all this, signifies nothing to Communion, unless I also grant that the Romanists are a true Church, and that there is not any thing in the constitution of that Church which may give a pious Christian just occasion to avoid or rescind Ecclesiastical Communion therewith. Imagine them as ancient as the Manichees, Gnostics, and Simon Magus, or even the old Serpent: as flourishing and renowned as ever were the Arrians, 
When the Devil (who wanted not the pretence of Antiquity) tempted our Saviour, by proposing (and pressing) unto him the Kingdoms of this World, and all their Glory; he would not worship or communicate with him, but dismissed him with an Apage Satana: and must we kiss the Pope's pantafles, and give him the right hand of fellowship, or bid God speed him, upon no grater motives, if so great.  or Saracens: all this concerns not the little flock, them whose portion and kingdom is not of this world, whose calling is of another nature. There was a time when Christianity itself must have been slighted justly, and the Scribes and Pharisees were in the right, if to make one Orthodox he must be fortunate, and that Antiquity and outward splendour must be the Characteristical discoveries of Truth: 'tis better to be Master of the treasures in the Castle of S. Angelo, than to be endowed with the Holy Ghost, if Peter must also say, Gold and Silver have I none. The Laws of the jews were thought novel by Haman: what S. Paul preached at Athens was not endeared with the most material circumstances of Antiquity, 
Juell. Apolog. pag. 115.  and Fame. Et Celsus cum ex professo scriberet adversùs Christum, ut ejus Evangelium novitatis nomine per contemptum eluderet, An, inquit, post tot secula nunc tandem subiit Deum tam sera recordatio? Eusebius etiam author est, Christianam religionem ab inition contumeliae causâ dictam fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, peregrinam & novam. But I shall silence myself, and pursue this controversy no longer, it having a thousand times been handled successfully in opposition to the Papists by Protestant writers of our Nation, and others beyond the Seas, who have treated de signis Ecclesiae. It is evident that the Romanists are not ancient, nor famous, nor a true Church, according to the doctrine of the Church of England: Or if in any limited sense it may be called a Church, Ancient and Famous, none of these attributes can give it such a repute that any obedient and true Son of our Church can say, that such respect is due thereunto, as infers any Ecclesiastical exterior Communion: much less can I, or any else assent to the subsequent Proposition.  
6. That such a respect, or exterior Communion, may be entertained with Rome, and yet we incur no danger of Superstition.  
To censure this Proposition, it is necessary that we consider it in a twofold sense: either as it relates to that original mistake of our Historian about the Infallibility and Sovereign Dominion over our faith assumed by the Pope: or as it relates unto the real condition and constitution of the Romish Church in its Offices, and religious Doctrines.  
Upon the first consideration ariseth this Question; Whether a Protestant of the Church of England can entertain communion with the Church of Rome, (supposing no material Errors in the worship wherein the Communion is maintained,) the Bishop thereof assuming, and the Church allowing of an infallibility in him, and a sovereign dominion over our Faith, and not only over theirs; and this without danger of Superstition?  
Upon the second Consideration ariseth this Question; Whether it be possible for any Protestant of the Church of England to hold Communion with the present Church of Rome, in its Ecclesiastical Offices and Doctrines, without danger of Superstiton?  
The first Question is easily decided against our Virtuoso, from that those Churches who have held communion with the Pope when those pretensions were on foot, have been involved in superstitious and idolatrous practices: which is notorious out of all Church history, and the exorbitancies of the Pope in that kind (when the Canonists and other abettors ascribed unto him a Sovereignty over the Christian faith) have introduced all the Superstitions of the Gregorian Missal, and Blasphemies, and Idolatries: nor doth it appear that any thing ever contributed so much to the advancement of all those superstitious, and Idolatrous practices and Tenets as some unwary expressions and respects of Communion, which have been indulged to the Pope by the Fathers, and others of succeeding Ages: which is notorious to any man that considers the pretences upon which the Dominion of the Pope, and his Supremacy is founded, by the Roman Courtiers. For though neither did the French Church, nor other Bishops ever intent to submit unto several superstitious and destructive tenets that the Papacy and Canonists urge, yet into what dangers some are fallen and ensnared, and others are threatened to be involved, is manifest; and all this from too great tenderness in point of Ecclesiastical Communion. It is manifest from the mutability and frailty of humane nature, and the usual effect thereof upon temptations, that where such a power or Sovereignty is lodged, it may be applied to the introducing of Superstitious and Idolatrous practices. Thus jeroboam the son of Nebat made Israel to sin: they perhaps innocently complied with that Sovereignty, when Orthodox; and he misemploying it, diverted them from the true worship of God. So Nebuchadnezar one day erects an Idol, and appoints all upon pain of death to worship it; by and by commands all to worship the God of the three children. Thus Darius makes a Decree, that none shall put up any prayer or petition to God, but only to the King for thirty days; the transgressor being to be cast into the Lion's den. How many, think we, by holding Communion with a Prince owning such a power, were by those Caprichio's engaged not into the peril of, but actual Superstition and Idolatry. Nor are the Papal pretences less, the Canonists and Decretals ascribing unto him a power even to alter the Christian faith, and not only to enlarge it; that He and Christ have but one Tribunal, that He is God; that if He vary from the Scripture and Christianity, 'tis to be presumed that God Almighty hath changed his mind: with such expression heretofore the Papal Letters and Canonists were stuffed; and what danger there is from our Historian's communion of Superstition and Idolatry, appears from the Determinations that have been made about Transubstantiation, and the consequent worship and superstitions about that Breaden God. In fine (for I will not insist upon so notorious a point) since the Council of Constance could determine, and involve others in a superstitious and impious compliance, that non obstante, notwithstanding any thing in the Scripture to the contrary, the Communion in one kind should be celebrated: 'tis strange for any man to say, that there is no danger in communicating with one pretending to such a power, (though not yet abusing it) there being so evident instances of fact to the contrary. If there were no other argument for the continuance and advancing of the study of Philology, and all ancient Learning and Church History, the horror of this Assertion of our Virtuoso is such, that no Protestant of the Church of England can otherwise but assent thereunto now. Any man that understands the controversies betwixt the Papists and Protestants, and contests about Image worship, and several other Papal Superstitions and Idolatries, which have happened in Greece, Germany, France, Spain, and England, of old and later days, betwixt those of the Roman. Catholic Communion, will never assent to our Author's opinion, or free him from the imputation of gross and intolerable ignorance.  
The second Question, Whether it be possible for any Protestant of the Church of England to communitate with the present Church of Rome in her tenets and Ecclesiastical offices, without danger of Superstition? is easily determined, by considering the nature of Ecclesiastical communion, which I explained in the beginning, and the nature and grounds of our separation from Rome, and Reforming ourselves. No man can hold such an assertion, but he must desert the Thirty nine Articles, wherein the invocation of Saints, and Image worship, prayers in an unknown Tongue, the five additional Sacraments, Communion under one k●nd, Transubstantiation, worshipping of the Host, are all condemned. Nay the last additional Rubrique declares it to be express Idolatry to worship the Bread. Now the actual acknowledging of all these superstitions and errors, the actual complying with such as relate to practice, is so required of all such as hold communion with the Church of Rome, that none can remain therein without being sensible thereof: so that either our Virtuoso understood not what it was to communicate with the Romanists, or was ignorant what Superstition and Idolatry are, when he writ this passage.  
But so much hath been said by me in the foregoing passages, in vindication of our Church for departing from the Romish Communion; and our Laws, together with other Ecclesiastical constitutions are so positive and severe against all such Communion, that I need not insist hereon further: but leave it to the Consideration of my Superiors, and of those that are skilled in the Laws of the Land, How consonant this passage of our Historian is thereunto, how pernicious towards the subversion of the established Religion, and how far punishable; it being a notorious endeavour to withdraw the King's Majesty's subjects from the Religion established to the Romish Religion.  Histor. R. S. pag. 349. 
He [the Natural and Experimental Philosopher] will be led to admire the wonderful contrivance of the Creation, and so to apply and direct his praises aright: which no doubt, when they are offered up to Heaven from the mouth of one that hath well studied what he commends, will be more suitable to the Divine Nature, than the blind Applauses of the Ignorant. This was the first service that Adam performed to his Creator, when he obeyed him in mustering, and naming, and looking into the nature of all Creatures. This had been the only Religion, if men had continued innocent in Paradise, and had not wanted a Redemption.  
THe former part of this passage is contrary to the Analogy of Faith and Scripture, in that it makes the acceptableness of men's prayers to depend more or less on the study of Natural Philosophy. Whereas the Apostle suspends the acceptableness of all Prayers unto God, in being made unto him in the name, and for the mediation of Christ jesus, applied by faith: Hebr. 10.19, 20, 21, 22. Having therefore, Brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say his flesh; and having an High priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Here is not any mention how that Experimental Philosophy doth render any prayers more suitable to God, than those of the less curious: this knowledge is no where in the new or old Testament so far recommended unto us, as that without this qualification the Saints should be said to offer up the blind applauses of ignorant persons. Particularly, I do not find this circumstance endeared unto us by that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13.2. Though I have the gift of Prophecy, and understand all Mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove Mountains, and have no charirity, I am nothing. Certainly no prayers were ever more suitable to the mind of God, than those which the first Christians poured out, when it was true to say, Ye see your calling Brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. 1 Cor. 1.26, 27. It was not intended of the Virtuosos: Except ye become like one of these, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
It may not be perhaps amiss to insert here the Article of our Church concerning works before justification, this new way of rendering our praises (I do not perceive that our Experimentator is ever likely to say any prayers) more acceptable to God being not mentioned in the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
Works done before the grace of Christ, 
Ar●ic. 13.  and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, for as much as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ: neither do they make men meet to receive grace (or as the School-Authors say) deserve a grace of congruity: yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.  
Thus, for aught I can find by our Church, and the Scripture, though our Experimental Philosopher study the Creation never so much, and never so well, and so, that is from those contemplations, form his Hymns and Panegyriques, He will not come to be more acceptable to God, than another, who with humility and reverence studies well the Scripture, and seeks to be accepted in and through the merits of Christ jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. 1 Cor. 1.30. Who thinks that though the Heavens declare the handiworks of God, and that reins and fruitful seasons may witness for him: yet that the Divine nature will be still incomprehensible, all humane language, and thoughts, beneath his Majesty; that the word of God is that whither Christ sends us to search; that God best speaks concerning himself; that a Psalm of David, the Te Deum, or Magnificat, in a blind and ignorant, but devout Christian, will be better accepted than a Cartesian Anthymne.  
In the latter part, 'tis something more than is revealed in Scripture, to say, that the first service Adam performed to his Creator, consisted in naming (for it is contrary to the text that Adam mustered them together, The Lord God form every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he would call them, Gen. 2.19.) and looking into the nature of all creatures. 'tis very probable, that there passed some other acts of worshipping and glorifying his Creator before, upon his first original; and when he received that positive commandment relating to the forbidden fruit: nay 'tis unimaginable that it should be otherwise. The subsequent clause, if it relate only to the study of the nature of all creatures (as it seems to do) is an assertion such, as never fell from any Divine. No man ever taught, that Adam's fall (which was a breach of his religious duty towards God) was a deficiency from the study of Experimental Philosophy: or that he was not ejected paradise for the breach of a positive command, but for not minding the cultivation of the Garden, 
See the Article about Original sin.  and natural curiosities. I never heard that this was that sin for which death passed upon all men, nor this the transgression wherein Eve was the first. I would willingly have constrained myself so as to carry on the relation of these words beyond those immediately preceding them: but I find it too far a fetch. 
pag. 346.  It is true, our Author doth acknowledge elsewhere, that there are principles of natural Religion, which consists in the acknowledgement and worship of a Deity: 
pag. 349.  and also, that the study of Nature will teach an Experimentator to worship that wisdom, by which all things are so easily sustained. But these passages are too remote from this place to have any influence upon the text; and the words that follow next argue for me herein. viz. This was the first service that Adam performed to his Creator, when he obeyed him in mustering, and naming, and looking into the nature of all creatures. This had been the only Religion, if men had continued innocent in paradise, and had not wanted a Redemption. Of this the Scripture makes so much use, that if any devout man shall reject all Natural Philosophy, he may blot Genesis, and Job, and the Psalms, and some other books out of the Canon of the Bible. From whence it seems manifest, that our Virtuoso so represents the matter, as if Natural and Experimental Philosophy, not Natural Theology, had been the Religion of Paradise: nor doth he mention any thing of the obligation Adam had to fulfil the Moral Law, or obey the positive occasional precepts, or to believe the incident Revelations with which his Creator might acquaint him.  Histor. R. S. pag. 355. 
Religion ought not to be the subject of Disputations: it should not stand in need of any devises of reason. It should in this be like the temporal Laws of all Countries, towards the obeying of which there is no need of Syllogisms, or Distinctions; nothing else is necessary but a bare promulgation, a common apprehension, and sense enough to understand the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words. Nor ought Philosophers to regret this divorce, seeing they have almost destroyed themselves, by keeping Christianity so long under their guard: by fetching Religion out of the Church, and carrying it captive into the Schools, they have made it suffer banishment from its proper place, and they have withal very much corrupted the substance of their own knowledge. They have done as the Philistines by seizing of the Ark, who by the same action, deprived the people of God of their Religion, and also brought a plague amongst themselves.  
THis Paragraph is a congeries of gross untruths, tending to the dishonour of God, and the destruction of the Protestant Religion, as introducing of a Popish implicit faith, 
Pontificii per fidem implicitam intelligent eam fidem qua Laici ignota & nondum intellecta ●idei dogmata eredunt implicite in illo generali, Quod vera sin● omnia quae Romana Ecclesia credit, & p●o veris amplectitur▪ ●●uae ●ides non est divina, sed humana, id est, non ●ilitur Dei, sed hominum tes●imo●●o; non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed levis & ●aliax conjectura, quae non Dei verbo, sed hominum judicio per se parùm firmo, atque adeò fragili admodum & ruinoso fundamento nititur. Rob. Baronius exercit. 3. de fide & scient. Art. 5.83.  or something which is in effect the same, but attended with more ridiculous circumstances. For our Historian would oblige us to receive our Religion upon trust, or bare promulgation, but neither tells us what promulgation is, nor what opinion we are to have of the Promulgator. I have met with disputes amongst Polemical Divines about the proposal of things to be believed, when that is sufficiently done, and so as to oblige the party concerned unto assent and belief: but Promulgation, bare promulgation, is a new term, and such as never was heard of in the Divinity-Schools. It is a Law-terme, and very dubious: sometimes Acts are legally promulgated, when passed in Parliament, and recorded there. Sometimes they are also printed, sent to the Sheriffs, and posted up in the Market-places. Sometimes they are read in the Churches by the Ministers. There are many circumstances required by Canonists, and Casuists, and Lawyers to determine of promulgation, which no man ever applied to Scripture, (which is the formal object of our Faith) and to the particular doctrines which compose our Religion. If bare promulgation, a common apprehension, and sense enough to understand the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words, were sufficient requisites to make a Religion accepted, what Religion almost could be false? Or how was not Arianism of old, how is not the Council of Trent now true? If Grammatical meaning in our History be equipollent to literal, and opposed to figurative, how then is not Transubstantiation (not to mention other tenets) how is not it credible? If a common apprehension, and sense enough to understand the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words be the standard by which faith is to be regulated, or measured, is not the Natural man capable hereof, though incapable of the things appertaining to God? 1 Cor. 2.14. In a Synod holden in a Council before Constantine & Helena, 
Review of the Council of Trent, l. 1. c. 8. §. 5.  where it was disputed whether the jewish law or the Christian should be preferred, Craton the Philosopher, who would not possess any worldly goods, & Zenosimus, who never received Present from any one in the time of his Consulship, were appointed for judges. With which doth accord that saying of Gerson, the learned Chancellor of Paris, There was a time, when without any rashness or prejudice to faith, the controversies of faith were referred to the judgement of pagan Philosophers, who presupposing the faith of Christ to be such as it was confessed to be, however they did not believe it, yet they knew what would follow by evident and necessary consequence from it. Thus it was in the Council of Nice, as is left unto us upon record. So likewise Eutropius, a pagan Philosopher, was chosen judge betwixt Origen and the Marcionites, who were condemned by him. Is it not recorded, that the Devils believe and tremble: jam. 2.19. they are qualified with all our Virtuoso requires to be Religious, yet sure He will not say they are so. Where is that exceeding great, and hyperbolical grace of God, by which true converts are induced unto, and fixed in the Christian Religion? what needed the Apostle to pray for the Ephesians thus, That the God of our Lord jesus Christ, the father of glory, 
Ephes. 1.17, 18 19  might give unto them the spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him, the eyes of their understanding being enlightened, that they might know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints▪ and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us ward, who believe according to the working of his mighty power. Why did he pray of God for any more, then that he would make them good Grammar-scholars, and give them a common apprehension? In what language must this promulgation be made? In the vulgar Latin? If none but ordinary words must be the ingredients of our Religion and Symbols, what must become of the words Essentia, Persona, Hypostasis, the first, second, and fifth Articles of our Church, and the Athanasian Creed? what of justification, mediator, imputed righteousness, Grace, new birth, and regeneration, and many such words, that have a place in our Confession? Must we all turn Nicodemus'? who must be the judge of words ordinary; some words being ordinary with the learned, which are not so to the ignorant and illiterate? where is the Authority of the Church in controversies of faith, (avowed by our Church Artic. 20.) if a common apprehension be that according to which controversies of faith must be decided? Should a man demand of our Virtuoso, according to what is here laid down, what is the formal object of his faith, or why he believes the Protestant religion here in England established? I doubt the Answer would not be satisfactory, nor agreeable to the Church of this Nation, which should be shaped thereupon. If Religion must not be the subject of Disputations, we must receive it implicitly, we must not try any thing, nor in order to our holding it fast, consider and dispute what is good, but what promulgated: such an Assent is the reasonable sacrifice which we must offer up, and this that reason of our faith which we must be ready to give to all that ask us. Oh foolish, and not more generous Beraeans, that durst controvert this Religion, and searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether those things were so, which the first missionaries promulgated, and therefore believed, because they found the truth of the doctrine confirmed by the holy writers. Act. 17.12, 13. Why did Christ dispute with the Doctors in the temple, both hearing them, and ask questions? why did he argue with the Sadduces about the resurrection? why did Paul dispute at Athens with the jews and devout persons, and sometimes in the school of Tyrannus? what mean those argumentations in the word of God, by which the principal points of our Religion are evinced? Besides, if Faith be not a blind assent; if we must hear and understand, Math. 15.10. if we must search the Scriptures, John 5.39. if an understanding (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) be requisite, that we may know him that is true, 1 john 5.20. If we must take heed how we hear, Luc. 8.18. If we must prove all things, 1 Thes. 5.21. and try the spirits whether they be of God, 1 joh. 4.1. If the very nature of faith be such, that it cease to be what it is if it be not discursive, it not being an adherence to principles self-evident, 
Robert. Baronius exercit. 3. de fide sc●eliâ, & opin. Artic. 16.  but an Assent grounded upon Divine Revelation, so that it necessarily involves in it this Syllogism, 
Whatsoever God revealeth is true;  
But God hat revealed this, or that,  
Ergo.  If this be true, how can it be said, that Religion ought not to be the subject of disputations, but by one who thinks the owning thereof to be needless, and that faith is but empty talk? If it be certain, Christiani non nascuntur, sed fiunt, if there be any such thing as Conscience, (which is a Syllogism, and defined Applicatio generalis notitiae ad particulares actus) if there be any such thing as those practical argumentations, by which Believers apply unto themselves particularly the general promises of the Gospel: it is manifest that there must be Disputes.  
Whereas he says, that Religion should not stand in need of disputes; me thinks it is a reflection upon the Divine Providence, which so ordered the condition of mankind, that disputes are unavoidable, as Heresies are: who introduced Faith amongst the intellectual Habits, and made it an Assent, firm, certain, but destitute of scientifical evidence: who made us but to know in part, and to see even that but as it were in a glass; the consequent of which mixture of light and shade, knowledge and ignorance, is disputatiou and fallibility. Alphonso King of Portugal professed, that if he had assisted God Almighty at the Creation, he could have amended the fabric of the world: Our Historian in this passage insinuates almost as much; had he been amongst the first Promulgators of Christianity. I cannot also conceive, but that He condemns all Sermons, Expositions, Homilies, Ceremonies, and all those rational contrivances by which the Church hath endeavoured gently to gain upon the Affections and Opinions of men: in that he asserts, that Religion should not stand in need of any devises of men.  
Religion should in this be like the Temporal Laws of all Countries, towards the obeying of which there is no need of Syllogisms, or Distinctions; nothing else is necessary but a bare promulgation, a common apprehension, and sense enough to understand the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words. That there may be, & have been in some Country's Temporal Laws; to the obeying which there is no need of Syllogisms or Distinctions, I am ready to grant: but to say it hath been so in all Countries, is such an Assertion as becomes not an Englishman, nor one that understands the Civil Law, or that even of the jews. No Laws in a Government not Despotic ever were so contrived to all circumstances, that to the obeying of them there would not need any Syllogisms or Distinctions. In our Nation 'tis notorious; nor is it so facile a thing to determine what is included in the extent of a Law, what influence the preamble and title have upon the subsequent Act; a Common Apprehension, and sense enough to understand the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words will not carry a man through without Cowel's Dictionary, Spelman's Glossary, and many other Law books, so as to understand the meaning of our Laws: and as to their being in force, how many Arguments are there about that? when the obligation of the Law ceaseth? whether discontinuance, or the ceasing of those motives which give being to a Statute, or the introducing of a contrary Law without repealing the former expressly, do abrogate any Statute? An infinite of Controversies daily arising, show that Syllogisms and Distinctions are necessary to our Temporal Laws being understood and executed. But perhaps our Virtuoso may propose a new regulation of Law, and Gospel too: but till that be effected, I am sure his Assertion is false. But if the case in Temporal Laws were such as 'tis represented, (as it is not, but in Seignoral Monarchies) yet were there great reason for men to be more solicitous about their Religion, or Spiritual Laws, than about the Civil and Municipal. That Scripture which subjects us to the Civil Magistrate for conscience sake. Rom. 13.5. bids us first to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness: Math. 6.33. and rather to fear him that can kill the body and soul, than him that can only kill the Body. Matth. 10.28. Luc. 12.4, 5. If the person whose Majesty is offended be greater, if the penalties be more horrid upon the violation of the true Religion, than upon transgression of the Civil and Municipal Laws; men are to be excused for being more solicitous, inquisitive, and disputatively searching into the will of God, to see what enterferes with, and what is conformable to the will of the Magistrate: where their Commands are repugnant, it is better to obey God than Man. Act. 4.19. As much as God is above any ordinance of man, and an Essential underived Majesty above secondary and communicated power (1 Pet. 2.13.) as much as the soul and its welfare is above the body, so different aught to be our concerns about these two obligations. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matth. 16.26. He that a sinner hath to do with, is a jealous God, and a consuming fire: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; Heb. 10.31. He must be worshipped in spirit and in truth: John. 4.23, 24. Therefore a Christian must (with Syllogisms Distinctions, Humility, and Prayer) soberly search into his heart, and examine that he err not in the Object of his Religion, or the manner of his worship and obedience, or in the frame of spirit which is requisite to them that worship the true God. He must be satisfied about the lawfulness of each action: a bare Imperial command, though promulgated, will not engender in him a pious plerophory, who knows that such Edicts have no direct and immediate influence upon the conscience, that they are not in themselves a sufficient Rule of action (for then the Command of an earthly Sovereign were always to be obeyed actively: and a disobedience to the decrees of jeroboam, Manasseh, and Nabuchadnezzar, were criminal) though we do submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to King as supreme, or unto inferior Governors. 1 Peter 2.13. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. But this hinders not a Christian from disputing piously the commands of his Superior, and paying him an Obedience merely passive, where he cannot act without sinning against God. No Christian was ever obliged to think every Decree of his judge to be just, or every penalty inflicted righteously: but since a Christian's concern is not much in this world, either as to life or goods, since his stay on Earth is but a deprival of greater and more stable happiness; since whatever any Humane Law can bereave him of, a thousand casualties may take from him; since he is forbid to set his heart on things below, to turn the other cheek being buffeted on the one, and to give up his coat after his cloak is taken away from him; he is very indifferent in the transactions of this world, neque Cassianus, neque Nigrianus, He is of a passive temper, his Eye is always fixed on his Lord, that compliance which he permits and enjoins he readily pays, and in other cases patiently submits: but still considers, still acts, or suffers out of a principle of faith and holiness, without which it is impossible to please God, without which every performance is sinful. Hebr. 11.6. Rom. 14.23. True Religion is not only directed to God and the Father, but seeks an interest in Christ jesus, who pronounceth, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father but by me. john 14.6. Through him we have access by one spirit unto the Father. Ephes. 2.18. A general knowledge of a Deity will not satisfy God, where a man is not solicitous about further discoveries, or where accessional improvements may be attained: we ought not to acquiesce in the first rudiments, not always to be Babes, and pursue milk in stead of stronger meat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all. 1 Tim. 4.15. No more will a general intention to serve God content Him, if his worship be not celebrated in a right manner: Since the Gospel, 'tis impiety to serve him according to the Law, Galat. 4.9, 10, 11. or to worship the true God by way of Images. Rom. 1.21, 22, 23. Amidst such nice, difficult, and perilous considerations who can wonder, if Men be more scrupulous about Divine than Humane Laws, and the active compliance therewith? who can blame the sober disputers, who work out their salvation with fear and trembling, who cannot rest in a bare Promulgation, who fear least sometimes the Grammatical meaning of ordinary words may not always be the mind of God, who may use Greek words Hellenistically, or as Hebraisms; and use the language of one Country with relation to the Idioms, customs, sentiments of another? who can conceive that the course of our Historian will produce in a Christian that Faith which must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or that 'tis fitting for us to neglect and slight all those means, which our Divines have always (agreeably to S. Austin) inculcated for the discovery of the will of God in holy Scripture, 
Raynolds against Hart. ch. 2. divis. 2. pag. 45, 46.  the knowledge whereof joined with Obedience constitutes the Religion of a Christian.  
But further: it is observable that our Virtuoso passeth in this Paragraph ab hypothesi ad thesin, and having spoken before of Christianity, he here speaks indefinitely, as if no Religion were to be the subject of Disputations: which condemns the Original of the Gospel, and the propagation of it where a different Religion is settled: it justifies the Turks & Paynims (as well as foreign Papists) in their sentiments, though they be without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, without God in the world. Ephes. 2.12.  
To conclude the Censure upon this place, I desire our Historian not to introduce Law-terms, & yet to be scrupulous about the Scholastic and Transcendental notions, [pag. 354.] nor to think Christianity injured by being carried into the Schools of our Divines any more than of old into the Schools of the Prophets: the Church and Schools are not opposite, though distinct amongst us: a Divine may be, and is found in holy places, without doing unseemly, much less apostatising: 'Tis his duty to be able to convince gainsayers, and the Schools do but qualify him for that work: Show us how the Divines of the Church of England have carried Religion captive, from the Church, into the Schools: Is not the Word of God there the Rule, and formal object of faith? Are the Scriptures so immured up there, that they are banished from their proper place? However this Objection might be made against the Papists, who deprive the laity of the Scriptures, & bind their Church to the Latin version, yet 'tis a Calumny to impute this to the Church of England; and yet that seems touched in this insinuation, if not only aimed at: for all that discourse of our Vertuoso, is to show that the constitution of the R. S. will not prejudice the established Religion and Church of England. Show me the defaults of our Liturgy, Articles, Homilies, Canons, whereby it should appear that our Divines have very much corrupted the substance of their own knowledge: as yet I as little believe it, as I do that the Israelites lost their Religion with the Ark unto the Philistines, and that Samuel and others, not Idolaters, had lost all Piety as long as that discontinued. I read how a Woman said, That the Glory of Israel was departed, 1 Sam. 4.21. But I never heard that all their Religion was lost at that time, before now: nor do I understand what connexion there was betwixt the Ark and the Religion of the Israelites, so as that the absence of the former, should extinguish the later. They were religious before the Ark was made; and there is not any ground in the Text to imagine that Samuel lost all sense of Religion during that Interval, but rather to the contrary: The generality of the Israelites had been wicked and Idolatrous, serving Baalim and Ashtaroth after the decease of Joshuah, Judg. 2.11. 1 Sam. 7.3, 4. but that they did rather amend, than grow worse during their overthrow, and the seven months' absence of the Ark, appears by the History. Besides, the Prophets and other Israelites that were not Idolaters in Samaria, were deprived of the Ark, yet 'tis manifest they did not lose their Religion, 1 Kings 19.18.  
I shall conclude this Animadversion with one Note, that the Arians long ago, to overthrow the Council of Nice, and the Catholic faith, made use of this pretext which our Virtuoso pursues here, and elsewhere more than once in the History. They desired that the uncouth words of Homousios', Hypostasis, etc. might be forborn, as not to be found in Scripture, 
Hilarius de Synodis adv. Arianos id. ibid.  nor to be understood: Evitant Homusion atque Homoeusion, quia nusquam scriptum sit. And because the answer of S. Hilary will justify the Church of England in her Articles, in her Liturgy, and in her Scholastic controversies, I shall set that down. Oro vos ne ubi pax conscientiae est, ibi pugna sit suspicionum. Inane est calumniam verbi pertimescere: ubi res ipsa, cujus verbum est, non habeat difficultatem. Displicet unquam in Synodo Nicena Homusion esse susceptum? 
Malo aliquid novum commemorâsse, quam impiè respuisse. id. ibid.  Hoc si cui displicet necesse est placeat quod ab Arianis est negatum.— Si propter negantium impietatem pia tum fuit intelligentia confitentium: quaero cur hodie convellatur, quod tum piè susceptum est, quia impiè negabatur? Si piè susceptum est, cur venit constitutio pietatis in crimen, quae impietatem piè per ea ipsa quibus impiabatur extinxit?— Under the Emperor Constantius, there was a Decree made, that the word Homusios', and such other terms as fill the Athanasian Creed, should be laid aside and disused, as which with their novelty and difficulty, did very much distract and puzzle the Church: this the Arians gained, and it proved an infinite advantage to the growth of that Heresy; & the restoring of those transcendental notions, & Scholastic terms, did resettle that Peace in the Church, which could not be effected by the prohibiting of them, and acquiescing in the Grammatical meaning of plain words. Nolo verba quae non scripta sunt dici. 
Hilarius contra Constantium jam vitâ defunctum.  Hoc tandem rogo quis Episcopis jubeat? & quis Apostolicae praedicationis vetet formam? Dic prius si rectè dici putas: Nolo adversum nova venena, novas medicamentorum comparationes, Nolo adversum novos hostes nova bella, Nolo adversum novas insidias consilia recentia. Si enim Ariani haeretici ideò idcirco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hodie evitant, quia prius negaverunt: nun tu hodie idcircò refugis, ut hi nunc quoque denegent? Novitates vocum, sed prophanas devitari jubet Apostolus. Tu cur Pias excludis? It is but too apparent, that those in our days, who join with the Arians in decrying new words, and such as are not in Scripture, who think that Christianity ought not to be confined to any Methodical Creeds or Articles, but be left in that latitude of phrase wherein the Scriptures have delivered it; 'tis manifest that they look with indifferency on the things signified by those words and forms; 'tis manifest that they make way for growing Atheism and Socinianism; 'tis manifest that they overthrew the Constitutions of the Church of England, whose Articles make use of those significant terms, transmitted from the Fathers to our Schools; and subvert the Basis of our Religion, as it is represented in our Laws, to consist of an owning of three Creeds and four Councils, besides the Holy Scripture. Thus primo Elizabethae cap. 1. The four General Councils are mentioned after the Scripture Canonical, and that is to be adjudged Heresy, which hath been adjudged, ordered, and determined, to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scripture, or by the first four General Councils. The same is averred by King James in his Letter. 
Casaubon. respons. ad Card. Perron. — Rex & Ecclesia Anglicana, quatuor prima Concilia Oecumenica quum admittant.— And that King challengeth the Title of Catholic as due to him, Qui tria Ecclesiae Symbola, Concilia quatuor Oecumenica prima agnosceret. This is evident to all that know any thing of our Church: and 'tis as manifest, and whosoever writes otherwise, repugns to our Laws, and whatever he subscribes unto, or professeth, is no true Son of the Church established in England.  Histor. R. S. pag. 362. 
The grounds whereon the Church of England proceeds, are different from those of the Separists, and also of the Church of Rome: and they are no other but the Rights of the Civil power; the imitation of the first uncorrupt Churches, and the Scriptures expounded by Reason.  
This last clause is so far from being true, that 'tis directly contrary to the constitutions of our Church, and better becomes a Socinian from Poland or Amsterdam, than a Divine of our Church: not that I say, that our Church did ever expound the Scripture against Reason, but that our Church did never rely upon Reason, as it is opposed to Authority of the Ancient Fathers in the determining of the will of God revealed in Scripture. If the Historian meant nothing else but that the actions of men are always rational, and that the assent we yield to any thing, is never so blind and implicit as to be destitute of all motives and inducements thereunto: so that we resign ourselves up to Authority upon the score of Reason: If he meant no more than this, why doth he speak in the language rather of a Socinian than a Protestant? This expression is dangerous as it is worded, because the Socinians may derive advantage from it, and the Orthodox may think and find themselves injured (especially in these times, when the Socinians multiply upon us) by it amongst the unwary: as if there were no use of the Fathers, but that we were (without researching of Antiquity) to consult the grounds of Reason, such as are commonly found in men, and bred in them either Naturally, or from the contemplation of the ordinary course of things Physical and Moral in this World. Whence what confusion will arise, when all holy Sobriety is cast of, any man knows who hath but inquired into the controversies of these last Centuries, when the Scripture hath not been made by men the Rule of Faith, or formal object thereof, but only accommodated to the fancies and imaginations of prejudicated & prepossessed men. Upon this account the Church of England hath by her Canon, in which she follows the Council in Trullo, tied her Doctors as much as the Council of Trent does, to expound Scriptures according to the sense of the Ancient Fathers: This Bishop Taylor avows in the Introduction to his second Dissuasive: This Doctor Heylyn in his Cyprianus Anglicus (pag. 52.) doth aver: and I shall here set down the Canon of our Church.  Concilium Trullanum (sive Synodus quinisexta, Canon. 19 edit. per Francisc. joverium Parisiis, A. D. 1555. 
Quod oportet eos, qui praesunt Ecclesiis, in omnibus quidem diebus, sed praecipuè Dominicis, omnem Clerum & populum docere pietatis ac rectae religionis eloquia, ex divinâ Scripturâ colligentes intelligentias, & judicia veritatis, & non transgredientes jam positos terminos, vel divinorum patrum traditionem. Sed & si ad Scripturam pertinens controversia aliqua excitata fuerit, ne eam aliter interpretentur, quam quomodò Ecclesiae luminaria & doctores ex suis scriptis exposuerunt: & majorem ex iis laudem assequantur, quam si quae à se dicuntur componant.  Liber Canonum quorundam Londini 1571. Concionatores. 
Inprimis verò videbunt, nequid unquam doceant pro concione, quod à populo religiosè teneri, & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae veteris aut novi Testamenti, quodque ex illâ ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Patres, & veteres Episcopi collegerint.  
Thus K. Charles I. in his third Paper to Mr. Henderson. 
In the fifth paper his Majesty says also, that the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the universal practice of the primitive Church, is the best and most authentical interpreter of God's word.  If the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal consent of the Fathers, be not a convincing Argument, when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtful, I know nothing: for if this be not, then of necessity the interpretation of private spirits must be admitted, the which contradicts S. Peter, (2 Pet. 1.20.) Is the Mother of all Sects, and will (if not prevented) bring these Kingdoms into confusions.  Histor. R. S. pag. 414, 415. 
The Wit that may be borrowed from the Bible is magnificent, and as all other Treasures of Knowledge it contains, inexhaustible. This may be used and allowed without any danger of Profaneness. The ancient Heathens did the same; They made their Divine Ceremonies, the chief subject of their fancies: By that means their Religions had a more awful impression, became more popular, and lasted longer in force than else they would have done. And why may not Christianity admit the same thing, if it be practised with sobriety and reverence? What irreligion can there be in applying some Scripture-expressions to Natural things? Why are not the one rather exalted and purified, than the other defiled by such applications? The very Enthusiasts themselves, who are wont to start at such wit as Atheistical, are more guilty of its excesses then any other sort of Men: for whatever they allege out of the Historical, Prophetical, or Evangelical writings, and apply it to themselves, their Enemies, or their Country, though they call it the mind of God, yet it is nothing else but Scripture-comparison and similitude.  
It is to be observed that this passage is inserted into a discourse concerning Wit, as it discovers itself in the ordinary conversation and writings of the Railleurs, and is founded on certain images (as our Historian phraseth it) which are generally known, 
Pag. 413.  and are able to bring a strong and a sensible impression on the mind. It is an Humour that hath generally possessed the Gallantilloes of this age, whereby they endeavour to recommend themselves as agreeable company to the empty or less serious part of mankind upon all occasions: 'tis no other humour then the Romans put upon their Slaves, when the graver persons had a mind at Banquets, and other divertisements, to relax & entertain themselves with Pantomimes: 'tis the Buffone of Ben. Johnson turned into a Gentleman; and thus what these men cannot make out in solid or learned discourses, they supply with Comical Wit, and prove or refute every thing by similitudes, and turn the most serious and pious things into ridicule. Commonly such entertainments are composed of what is irreligious, and Atheistical, or obscene; but though our Historian design not the encouragement of that humour, yet it seems too much for a Divine to give any countenance to those at best but Idle words, especially where the Sacred word of God is the subject to be alluded unto. A greater veneration would become a Minister of God's word, and one who is concluded by what is expedient, what is of good report, for the honour of God, and without scandal or offence, not only of the stronger Christians, but sometimes of the weaker sort, and not only by what is in its self lawful. The Papists in the Council of Trent, as little as that party regard sometimes the Scripture, antecedently unto that Decree, did make a severe Canon against that irreverent use of holy language: not are the Jews less severe in their sentiments (though they frequently practise the contrary) as the learned and reverend Dr. Pocock informs me. I profess, to wonder why a man should apprehend the indignation of God, when his Name is taken in vain, and yet can think he should be guiltless, when his Word is vainly made use of, or profaned. I find not this qualification of a sober and reverend Railleur, amongst the requisites of a Churchman in Saint Paul's instructions to Timothy: and this magnificent, this inexhaustible treasure of Wit is no part of those useful discoveries wherewith the Apostle acquaints his Disciple. From a Child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. But this is a Post-nate discovery, not practised in the primitive times, however our Virtuoso say that this delightful wit hath in all time been raised from the Bible, 
Pag. 314.  as well as other subjects. It is true that there were by the holy Writers and Fathers frequent uses made of the Tropological & Anagogical sense of the sacred Scripture, in their pious advertisements and Sermons: Of this nature are those allusions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Matthew, viz. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, and In Ramah was a voice heard, Rachel weeping for her children, etc. both which (as many other passages) were rather accommodated unto Christ in this manner, then intended at first of him, 
Dan. Heinsii Exerc. Sacr. in Matth. c. 2.  as Heinsius observes. In imitation of those primitive Authors, and the Fathers all along, many since may have used sometimes, by way of illustration, the Scripture in the like senses, but always where at least their general intendments were to serve God, or advance Piety, by instruction, reproof, etc. which procedure, if discreetly done, and in order to edification, is not to be condemned, or termed holy Raillery, or the like, by a Son of the Church of England: (though the way be not argumentative, 'tis pious) and where a parity of reason justifieth the application of threats or promises made to one sort of men, unto others in resembling circumstances, whether it be out of Historical, Prophetical, or Evangelical writings, 'tis something more (if I understand any thing) than Scripture-comparison and similitude.  
As for the ancient Heathens, what they did is not very material to this purpose, because they had no sacred Writ, penned by Divine inspiration, at least not what they reverenced equally to what the Jews and Christians do (or aught to do) the Bible: if they had had it, 'tis probable they would not have applied it to jesting, or allowed the use of it in their Fescennines, & Fabulae Atellanae, or the like: 'Tis well known how they kept the Sibylline Oracles, and with what veneration they consulted them. And though some of their Pontisical words are used by their Poets, and other Writers, though the Ceremonies of their Religion, and their Gods, have been the subjects sometimes of their fancies, yet how disadvantageous this proved to their Religion, (introducing it into contempt amongst themselves) and what advantages the first Christians drew therefrom to inodiate or vilify it, appears from the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, etc. And how cautious they were against these exorbitant Railleurs, we may learn from these instances.  Sam. Petitus in leges Atticas, pag. 33. 
Siquis arcanae mysteria Cereris sacra vulgâsset, lege morti addicebatur.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Qui Mysteria vulgârit, capite luat. Meminit hujus legis Sopater in Divisione Quaestionis, nosque ex eo descripsimus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aliunde namque constat nobis Capitale Athenis fuisse vulgare haec initia: eâ quippe de causâ proscriptus fuit ab Atheniensibus Diagoras Melius, ac propositum talentum unum ei, qui Diagoram interfeciss●t, duo, qui vivum adduxiss●t. Interpres Comici ad Aves, & ex eo Suidas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Etiam Aeschylus in vitae discrimen veni●, cum in Tragaediis nonnulla, quae haec initia spectabant, e●ulgâsse credit 〈◊〉 C●emens Alexa●d●inus Stromat. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●wordthius in cap. 1. lib. 3. Ethic. Nicomach. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Itaque siquod judicium de rebus quae ad haec Mysteria referrentur esset reddendum, cancellis fori arcebantur, ne judicio interessent, qui non essent Epoptae.  
It may not be amiss, as to the Papists, in this place to show how tender they are in this case of applying the holy Scripture unto Raillery, and accommodating the expressions thereof to flattery, jesting, etc. by relating this Decree of the first Provincial Council in Milan under Cardinal Borromeo in 1565.  De abutentibus Sacra Scriptura. 
Nefaria est eorum temeritas, qui sacrae Scripturae verbis vel sententiis ad jocum, ostentationem, contumeliam, superstitionem, impietatem, aut ad quos vis profanos sensus abutuntur. Quamobrem Episcopi in hos qui in hoc genere deliquerint, ex sacrorum Canonum, & Tridentini Concilii decretis graviter animadvertant. Et ut detestabilis haec licentia prorsus tollatur, fidelem populum per concionatores, parochos, confessores de hujus peccati gravitate frequenter admonendum curabunt.  Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. 
Sacrosancta Synodus temeritatem illam reprimere volens, qua ad prophana quaeque convertantur & torquentur verba & sententiae sacrae Scripturae, ad scurrilia scilicet, fabulosa, vana, adulationes, detractiones, superstitiones impias, & diabolicas incantationes, divinationes, sorts, libellos etiam famosoes, mandat & praecipit ad tollendam hujusmodi irreverentiam & contemptum, ne de caetero quisquam quomodolibet verba sacrae Scripturae ad haec aut similia audeat usurpare, ut omnes ejus generis homines, temeratores & violatores verbi Dei, juris & arbitrii paenis per Episcopos coerceantur.  
What there is amongst the ancient Canons, 
If I have in the Preface against Glanvil, said, that the Canon was ancient in this case, 'tis a mistake I think. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  what in the Father's prohibiting this usage, I do not now remember after so great a discontinuance of those studies; but that Dionysius Areopagita (or whosoever Writ those works) is as severe in some places, as if he had continued the Court amongst Christians, and that the mystery of Christian Godliness were as much to be reverenced as the Eleusinia Sacra, this I am sure of. Whether there be any prohibition amongst the rules of our Church, I know not: perhaps it may be in this case the Church of England is silent, and with as much of Prudence as that State was, which made no law against Parricides; being not willing to think any humane creature capable of such barbarity, or by inhibition, to put them in mind of such an horrid fact. But since the Railleurs have met at last with an Advocate, who teacheth them that they may boldly take the sacred Word of God into their mouths, though they hate to be reform; and that they may innocently apply it to their civil entertainments & discourses, though it be notorious that it is a vain talking, neither for the glory of God, nor edification, nor decency, nor without great scandal (and yet the precaution of the latter; and a constant regard to the former, 
But speak thou the things that become sound doctrine Tit. 2.1.  is an indispensable Command, and at all times obligatory) though it be manifest, that whosoever useth the utmost extent of his Liberty, approacheth very near to a viciousness of acting; that this Holy Raillery hath given occasion to most profane Burlesque, and that 'tis the subject matter, not words which hollow a conversation. (Oh! that any Divine should be ignorant of this! or expect a contrary issue!) It is time that public Authority interpose, and that our Church concern herself; seeing that our concern for the sacredness of Scripture ought to be much greater in point of Prudence, then that of the Papists, with whom the Canonical Books are but a part of Sacred Tradition, and no further a Rule of Faith and Authenticate, than their Church delivereth and expoundeth them, (so that if the repute thereof were extinguished, yet would not their Church fall) we have no foundation but the Apostles and Prophets; upon this we are built, this is our hope, in this we doubt not to find Eternal Life. And how this foundation will be sapped and undermined by the project of our Virtuoso, I do submit unto the serious consideration of the Church of England.  
If any one would understand, what is particularly meant by this application of Sacred Writ, to vulgar discourse, and the manner of this Holy Raillery deduced from Scripture: let him read Mr. Cowley's Poems, especially his Mistress; such as this, where he detests long life without enjoying his Mistress.  

Th' old Patriarches age, and not their happiness too,  
Why does hard fate to us restore?  
Why does Love's fire thus to Mankind renew,  
What the Flood washed away before?   

Resolved to be Beloved.  
Thou shalt my Canaan be, the fatal soil,  
That ends my wander and my toil:  
I'll settle there, and happy grow,  
The Country does with milk and honey flow.   

The Welcome.  
Go, let the fatted Calf be killed;  
My Prodigal's come home at last;  
With noble resolutions filled,  
And filled with sorrow for the past.  
No more will burn with Love or Wine;  
But quite has left his Women and his Swine.   

My Fate.  
Me, mine example let the Stoics use,  
Their sad and cruel doctrine to maintain,  
Let all Praedestinators me produce,  
Who struggle with eternal bonds in vain.  
This Fire I'm born to, but 'tis she must tell,  
Whether't be the Beams of Heaven, or Flames of Hell.   
These and such like Instances, as they frequently occur in those Poems, so they are to be allowed by our Virtuoso for a Treasury of magnificent & sober innocent Wit: for when Mr. Cow died, he desired him to revise his Works, and to blot out whatever might seem the least offence to Religion or good manners.  
FINIS.