BEfore I come to resolve and parcell out this impious and pernicious paragraph into severall Propositions, it is requi­site that I premise two Observations: the first is, that by Com­munion here is not meant Civill commerce, and the perfor­mance of those mutuall offices by which societies in generall, or Trading is carried on, or Humanity alone is relieved: no Re­formed Church ever denyed this to the Romanists: But the Communion here treated of is Ecclesiasticall, and consists not only in the acknowledging of such as are communicated with, to be members of the universall Church of Christ, built upon [Page 2] a right foundation, and holding either no errours, 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, & joyn in the celebration of the same Li­turgies or publike prayers, & participatiō of the same Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is more particularly termed the Cō ­munion, & was alwaies accounted the tessera or mark of Church-fellowship. The truth of this Observation appeares from that notion which all ages have had of Church-communion, which is agreeable hereunto: To owne any number or association of men to be a part of the Church Catholique, 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 exteriour Communion with a visible Church: thus when Chrysostome separated him­selfe 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 Eccle­siasticall 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 joyne 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 Civill 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 Mistresse to the Sarracen worship, and bore up her traine, but did not [Page 3] joyne 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 informe us) resolved that it was lawfull for the Protestant Princes to pay a civill attendance on the German Emperour even at Masse in the Royall Chappell. These things therefore amount not unto Church-communion: But the joyning religiously in the same Church-worship, Communio in­ter fideles, in publicis maxi­mè pietatis ex­ercitiis est po­sita: atque hoc est optatae bonis unionis vel prae­cipuum coagulū. Casaubon. resp. ad Card. Per­ [...]on. and particularly in celebrating the Lords Supper together: and this is to be done interchangeably; for otherwise onely 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 Reigne of Qu. Elizabeth, and joyned 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 Lawes then in force did prohibit the Protestants to be present at, or joyne in any publique Service (or administration of Sacraments) where o­ther ceremonies then what were inacted 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 terme of a lesser import then com­munion, then might those Reformed Churches decline all Ex­teriour communion with the Church of Rome, justly and with­out blame, and yet retain a respect and kindnesse such as Christi­ans may and ought to beare to the excommunicate, to the Hea­thens, and Publicans; and in which there is no danger of Su­perstition,; though in this Exteriour communion there be evi­dent perill not only of Superstition, but Idolatry.

• [Page 4]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 carryed on by the Historian, that to forbeare all communion with the Church, and Bishops of Rome, is represented as an extreame opinion, and consequently as culpable, Schismaticall, and damnable.
• 2. Secondly, that He represents the case so, as if some of the Reformed Churches onely did forbeare 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 Soveraigne dominion over our Faith.
• 4. Fourthly, That notwithstanding this usurped infallibility of the Bishops of Rome, & their assuming a soveraigne 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 extreame.
• 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 incurre no danger of Superstition.

The first Proposition is Impious, Blasphemous, and Offensive to all Protestant eares: It condemnes the Reformation carryed on by the Evangeliques abroad, and in the Church of England, as culpable, guilty of an extreame; and there is so much of [Page 5] Schisme 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 bayl for the first offense; 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 lesse considerable for number and authority, having onely 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 judg, and withall remember, that the Church of England is of the number of those reflected upon here.

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 justifie the action from being cause­lesse, or culpable: though amongst all the Reasons alledged by K. Iames 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 lesse 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 [Page 8] 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 in­force us: Sove­reignty im [...]lies power; but In­fallibility doth not so. and a sovereign Dominion over our Faith, are not equipollent Termes, nor termes 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, &c. 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 Catholick should erre in a Decree of Faith, the Laiety were bound to submit thereunto: but such a Sovereignty in matters of faith, none (except some Iesuits 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 practises, or false Doctrines, are the first subjects of Disputes, and occasion the Reformation there: Transubstantiation, Com­munion in one kind, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse, Image-worship, praying to Saints, and such like Controversies, are [Page 9] the first, and most fiercely debated: In England, under Henry the VIII, the Pope's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, and ap­peals to Rome &c. 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 Councels, the power of National and provincial Churches to reforme themselves during the interval of Councels, or without dependance 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, then 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 Iesuites, tenets of that nature have been much advanced, thereby to justifie 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 Schisme. 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 [Page 10] 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 judgment: and even the present King of France hath asserted the liberties of the Gal­lick 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 &c. Da. 30. May. 1663. And Decla­ration du Roy pour l' Enregistrement des six propositions de la Faculte de Sorbonne &c. 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: at (que) 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 greatnesse 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. de pot. Eccles. sect. 1. §. 6. that the Pope may be an He­retick: I learn'd it from Franciscus Victoria in his Relections; [Page 11] Haereticus potest esse non solum Presbiter, 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. de concil. 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 Opinio verae est, posse esse Hae­reticum. it is true, the Pope maybe an Heretick: Probabile est, & piè credi po­test, haereticum esse non posse. But it is probable and godly to be thought, that he cannot be an Heretick. In the conference betwixt Dr. Raynolds and Hart, I find this passage.

This point of the fallibility of the Pope, and his subjection [Page 12] 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 defense of the Dissuasive of Bishop Taylour (pag. 40.) or the Review of the Council of Trent (writ­ten by a French Catholick, from whom the Disswader 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 earnestnesse of the Iesuits 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 Iansenists; much lesse is there any Sovereignty in matters of Faith ascribed unto them at this day. All books of the Pa­pists are subjected to the judgment of the Church, not to the Arbitrement of the Pope. The fides Carbonaria, or Colliers 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 He. 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 Scripturs against the sense which our Holy [Page 13] Mother the Church hath held, or does hold. If you enquire in-the doctrines of M ^r White, D ^r Holden, Serenus Cressy, and such others as endeavour at present (and that with great shew of wit and artifices) to seduce the English to that Apostati­call Church, there is not one of them that I knowe of who attributes any infallibility to the Pope, or submitteth his faith to the Sovereigne 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 Churches Authority, and saith that the ‘exceptions and advantages which the Prote­stants have against the Roman Church, proceed only from their mis-understanding of her necessary doctrines, or at most, that all the efficacy they have is onely against particular o­pinions & inferences made by particular Catholique writers.’He shews that D ^r Stapleton asserts that ‘ the infallible voyce and determination of the Church is included in the decree of the Church speaking in a Generall Council representatively. Ibid. c. 52. In which the Church is infallible with this restriction, viz: in de­livering the substance of faith, in publique doctrines, and things necessary to salvation. Other Catholiques, and namely Pa­normitan teach that the decrees of Generall Council are not absolutely and necessarily to be acknowledged infallible, till they be received by all particular Catholique Churches: be­cause till then they cannot properly be called the faith of the universall Church, or of the body of all faithfull Christians, to which body the promise of infallibility is made. And this was the Doctrine of Thomas Waldensis, and some other Scholmen, &c. 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 pri­viledges and liberties, that they were not obliged to the de­cisions [Page 14] of a Generall Council, till the whole body of the Gal­lican Clergy had by a speciall agreement consented to them, and so proposed them to the severall Churches there. And to this last opinion doth S. C. incline; and his book was ap­proved at Paris as consonant to the Catholique faith: He guides himselfe by the Authority of received Councils: Ibid. he acknowledges that to be onely necessarily accounted an Ar­ticle of Catholique faith, which is actually acknowledged and received by Catholiques; 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 Catholique doctrines; and by consequence, not obligatory.’ —He denies that Generall 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 faithfull 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 Catholique faith. ‘There is a double obligation from deci­sions of Generall Councils: Ibid. the first an obligation of Christian beliefe in respect of doctrines delivered by Generall Councils as of universall Tradition: the second onely of Canonicall obedience to orders and constitutions for practice, by which men are not bound to believe those are inforced as from Di­vine authority, but onely to submit unto them as acts of a lawfull Ecclesiasticall power, however not to censure them as unjust, much lesse to oppose and contradict them.’ Much more doth the same Author adde which give little counte­nance to that state of the controversie which our Author forms unto us: No Soveraigne dominion over our faith is by him [Page 15] ascribed to the Bishop of Rome, or Nationall, or Generall Coun [...]ills: and as to Infailibility, which Mr Chillingworth had impugned, he thus acquits himselfe. ‘I may in generall say of all his Objections, Ibid. c. 59. that since they proceed only against the word Infallibility, and that word extended to the utmost heighth and latitude that it possibly can beare, Catholiques, 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 widenesse 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 Catholiques vary as to that point, he sayes '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 booke is Licensed and highly commended by the French Divines, Dr Holden de resolut. fidei. l. 1. c. 9. and he himselfe a Doctor of the Sorbonne; and he thus delivers himselfe.

Out of all this precedent discourse 'tis manifest that Infalli­bility, and Sovereigne dominion over our faith, usurped by the Bishops of Rome, neither was, nor could be upon Catholique 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 paine 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 cōmunion with any one, that is, account him of the same Church in generall with us, and joyne 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 Superiour Gover­nours, that may have influence upon the case. As for Example▪ if the King by an Act of Parliament shall forbid us exteriour [Page 17] Communion with the Pope, whatever charitable opinion I might be induced to have otherwise of him, yet I should not thinke fitting to do it, or that such my procedure were Schis­maticall. Thus Obadiah, and the seven thousand incorrupt Iewes, together with Elijah and Elisha, did not resort to the Temple-worship at Ierusalem, by reason of the prohibition by Ieroboam, 1 Kings 12. Thus the English Papists complyed 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 Lawes of our Land, charges them with injustice, & tends to se­duce the Kings Subjects from their obedience. If we abstract frō 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 generall communion of Christians, provided that the matters wherein the communion consists be innocent, and blamelesse. I finde the Apostles to communicate with the Iewes in the Temple-worship, and in their Synagogue-worship. I finde the Communion not interrupted by the As­sertions, that the Observation of the Leviticall Law was ne­cessary to a Christian, Act. 21.20. Thus though S. Paul found very enormous errours (and such as would now be called Fundamentall, & a ground for Anathema's) in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Colossi, yet did he speake honourably of them, calls them Churches, communicates with them, but not with their errours and heresies. I finde the Arians and the Orthodox to communicate together at first in the same worship, scarce to be distinguished one from another, till the [Page 18] 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 Catholiques 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 ap­peares to mee that the bare pretense of an Infallibility is not enough to cut off Communion, if the Infallibility be restrain­ed to some limitations and explications: for as the naturall man may say he is sometimes infallibly assured of sensible objects, and consequently be so farre infallible: so the Spirituall man may be in many things infallibly assord certitudine fidei, cūi non potest subesse falsum ▪ by the grace of God, and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, so as that he is so farre infallible. Rom. 8.16. 1 Iohn 5.13. Iohn 14 20. 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Cor. 2.11, 12. And this circumstantiate Limited infallibility, if it ex­tend it selfe to some things past, whether of a morall or spiritu­all nature, is not alwaies blame worthy, much lesse a sufficient ground for to rescind Exterior Communion. It remaines 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 himselfe an absolute, and essentiall, and un­conditionate infallibility, is blasphemy, if not madnesse 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 Ie­suites avow of the Pope) or in matters of faith only (however that tenet be explicated) either in relation to the determining [Page 19] of what hath been taught by the Church of Christ; I am very irre­solute in this o­pinion of mine; because I often finde the anci­ent Fathers, & Councels, upon the account of errour & here­sie to Excom­municate, and forbid all resort to heretical Sy­nagogues, and other Acts of Church com­munion, though I do not finde that they varyed from the Catho­liques in their Liturgies: and there be some texts of Scrip­ture that may render the case doubtfull, 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 pra­ctises, determi­nations, and Texts, as 1 Co [...] 3 12. Ephes. 4, 5, 6. 1 Eliz. c. 1. [...] Calybute Do [...] ­ning, of the sta [...] Ecclesiasticall [...] here, conclus. 2▪ p. 41. or as to ad­ditionall decisions; that the profession of such infallibility (pro­vided it do not extend to the preaching of any knowne funda­mentall errour) nor impose on the communicants the beliefe of, and assent unto the reality of such infallibility, perhaps it is not enough to breake off an Exterior communion. But if such infallibility be made use of to the establishing of, or introdu­cing impious, blaspemous, and Idolatrous practises, 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 finall Iudge of controversies; I do thinke, that although the errours, and Idolatries were no part of the Church Service, nor imposed on the Communicants to hold, yet were all Communion exteriour 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 Lawes enacted in Parliament (which with the assent of Convocation) is the Supreme Judge here on earth of Heresies, & consequently of Legal Non-cōmunion, pu­nish Recusants for not cōmunicating with us in the Church-ser­vice; yet enjoynes 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, errour, and supersti­tion into the publique Offices of Divine Service, a Protestant cannot lawfully, and with any good Conscience joyne with Him, or Them in such worship: viz: No Protestant can out of Devo­tion (which is requisite to Prayer) joyne with the Papists in the blaspemies, and Idolatries of the Masse, as any man knowes that hath but lightly inspected their Missall, or receive the [Page 20] 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 grosse elements, and breaden god. This judgement I am much confirmed in by Mr Chil­lingworth, Mr Chilling­worth ch. 5. § 11. where he sayes, that the causes of our separation from Rome are (as we pretend, Ibid. § 40. and are ready to justifie) be­cause we will not be partakers with her in Superstition, Idola­try, impiety, and most cruell tyranny, both upon the bodies and soules of men.— ‘you mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, only, or principally for your errours and corruptions: for the true reason is not so much because you maintaine errours 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 Infallibilitie of the Bishop of Rome, yet ought we to hold exteriour 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 weake Arguments to sway us into an impious Communion. Nor is the imputation of Schisme so horrid, nor exteriour communion so amiable and inviting, that to pursue that we should either a­bandon, or endanger the truth. So King Iames in his reply, ‘Neque ignorat Rex multa saepè veteris Ecclesiae patres [...] fecisse, Causabon. resp. ad Cardin. Perron. pro bono pacis, ut loquebantur, id est, studio conservandae unitatis, ac mutuae communionis ab­rumpendae metu. Quorum exemplum se quoque paratum esse profitetur aemulari, & sectantium pacem vestigia persequi [Page 21] 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, Ioan. 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, charitatis (que) 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 [Page 22] discedat à regula fidei, pluris facturam amorem veritatis, quàm 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 Concil. Con­stantin. Quod autem in Ecclesia futura esset aliquando necessaria hujusmodi separatio, cùm 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 priùs fuisse legitimam Ecclesiam, cum qua pii piè communicarent; postea verò quàm 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 salvâ doctrinae coelitus revelatae integritate.’ Out of which words (and they seem to be the words not of Casaubon, or K. Iames, but the Church of England) if I am able to de­duce any consequence, vide praef. ad D. Tho. Edmundū. 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 desireable soever Unity be, yet the regard thereto ought never to transport us so far, [Page 23] 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, quantum (que) lice­at. Alioqui Chri­stus ipse non pa­cem in mundum attulit, sed gla­dium. Quare si nos Papa secum in gratiam redire velit, ipse priùs 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 Godlinesse. I am sure I am by the tenor of that Letter ju­stified, if I dare not joyn with a Church service, wherein Tran­substantiation, and the sacrifice of the Masse, 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 complyed with, to the dishonour of God, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21, 22. the detriment and offense of the weak Christians, 1 Cor. 8.10, 11, 12. and the strengthning 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 entermeddle with; as having alled­ged enough in opposition to what our Virtuoso layes down. I should proceed now to enquire 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 Christendome being then, and at the first calling of the Council of Trent inclined to the contrary te­net, of the Pope's being inferiour 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 lesse authenticated in those dayes: and since that now, neither the one or other tenet can justly be [Page 24] charged upon that Church, nor is a condition of their Commu­nion at present: since the Controversie would be large, and in­trigued with distinctions, I leave the debating thereof as inu­tile, and content my self with having sufficiently refuted our Virtuoso already, in what hath been alledged, 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 evill. 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 fabrick 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 learn'd 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 offense 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 my self) 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 [Page 25] 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 The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duely ministred, according to 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 head­corner stone. And it hath alwaies three notes or marks, by which it is known. Pure and sound doctrine: The Sacraments ministred 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 odde, 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 Keyes, 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 Bloud: they have changed it into a Sacrifice for the quick [Page 26] 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 Baptisme, but onely water, whereunto when the word is joyned, 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, unlesse they use Conjuration, unlesse they hallow the water, unlesse there be Oyl, Salt, Spittle, 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 Keyes 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 Lifes. 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 Commandements 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 lesse 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 [Page 27] 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'E-Strange about the Liturgy. the Rubrique in the Common Prayer, and the Preface to them shews: and the Preface saith, they were set forth for the expelling of erroneous and poysonous Doctrines. More fully tis said in the Orders of K. Iames, Ann. Dom. 1622. the Ho­milies are set forth by Authority in the Church of England, not onely for the help of non-preaching, but withall as it were a pat­tern for preaching Ministers. Neither is Bishop Iewel, in his Apology for the English Church, any more favourable to the Pope and his Adherents. Iuell. Apolog. Latin. pag. 139▪ 140. edit. Lon­dini. 1591

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 judgment of Dr. Heylyn) received her establishment, and when her Sentiments were best known: but I shall content my self 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 Elogies then 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 confesse 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 erres in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even upon pain of Damnation, to forsake her in those Errors; — that is, whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that the Church of Rome erres, 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 professe 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 additiō whereof renders all simple predicati­ons to be false) those restrictions of a Schismatical, Heretical, idolatrous, and superstitious Church. They com­par'd her to a man mortally wounded: nothing can be argued from their [Page 29] Writings to condemn the Protestant separation of Schisme: 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 judgment 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 Antient or Famous. The Homily aforerecited allowes it no greater antiquity than of a­bout one thousand years: and tis an avowed Truth, that whate­ver is not primitive and Apostolick, is an innovation. The transactions betwixt the Emperour Phocas and the first of the Universal Bishops are too recent, and too infamous to give unto the present Romanists any repute. It hath alwaies 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 truely ancient; and the Church of England is re­ally, what the Papists pretend to be: this Iewell declares in his Apology more than once: Iuell. 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 mention'd formerly, shews that we reformed our selves from their errours and impieties, to conforme with the genuine Antiquity. The Homily against peril of Idolatry, Hom. against I­dol▪ part. 3. allowes scarce of any Anti­quity but within the first three hundred years. Others extend a fair respect as far as the dayes of the Emperour 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 [Page 30] longiùs producere, & Marciani Imperatoris, sub quo Chalcedo­nense Concilium est celebratum, tempus complecti. If our Hi­storian can shew, 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 acknowledgments unto him beyond what his present performances deserve: yet really He merits very much from the Romanists, in charging all the Schisme upon the Protestants who made a causlesse separation: and whilst he condemnes the Pope onely 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 adde this passage out of K. Iames, 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 potiùs 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, inferre 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 [Page 31] probata fuisse & sancita: hoc verò neminem posse facere, aut un­quam facturum; neminem certè hactenus fecisse, tam liquidò Regi constat, & Ecclesiae Anglicanae Antistitibus, quàm Solem meridie lucere. But, to gratifie our Historian, to yeild up the utmost of Antiquity to the Church of Rome, to ascribe all that renown which so charmes 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, Gnosticks, 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 dismist him with an A­page Satana: and must we kisse 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 concernes 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 it self 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 splendor 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 Iews were thought novell 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 cùm ex professo scri­beret adversùs Christum, ut ejus Evangelium novitatis nomine per contemptum eluderet, An, inquit, post tot secula nunc tandem [Page 32] 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 my self, and pursue this controversie no longer, it having a thousand times been handled succesfully 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 Chur [...]h, 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 exteriour Communi­on: much lesse can I, or any else assent to the subsequent Pro­position.

6. That such a respect, or exteriour Communion, may be entertain'd 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 Errours 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 onely o­ver theirs; and this without danger of Superstition?

Upon the second Consideration ariseth this Question; Whe­ther [Page 33] 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 abettours 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 intend 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 threatned to be involved, is manifest; and all this from too great tendernesse 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 Ieroboam the son of Nebat made Is­rael to sin: they perhaps innocently complied with that Sove­reignty, when Orthodox; and he misimploying it, diverted [Page 34] 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 onely to the King for thirty dayes; the transgressor being to be cast into the Ly­on's denne. How many, think we, by holding Communion with a Prince owning such a power, were by those Caprichio's ingaged not into the peril of, but actual Superstition and Ido­latry. Nor are the Papal pretenses lesse, the Canonists and Decretals ascribing unto him a power even to alter the Christi­an faith, and not onely 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 Councill 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 [Page 35] 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 hapned in Greece, Germany, France, Spain, and England, of old and later dayes, betwixt those of the Roman. Catholick Com­munion, will never assent to our Author's opinion, or free him from the imputation of grosse 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 determin'd, 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 our selves. 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 Hoste, 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 errours, 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 [Page 36] Consideration of my Superiours, 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 Majesties sub­jects from the Religion established to the Romish Religion.

THe former part of this passage is contrary to the Analogy of Faith and Scripture, in that it makes the acceptablenes of mens prayers to depend more or less on the study of Natural Phi­losophy. Whereas the Apostle suspends the acceptablenes of all Prayers unto God, in being made unto him in the name, and for the mediation of Christ Iesus, applied by faith: Hebr. 10.19, 20, 21, 22. Having therefore, Brethren, boldnesse to enter into the holiest by the bloud of Iesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vaile, that is to say his flesh; and having an High priest over the house of God, let us draw neer [Page 37] with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Here is not any mention how that Experimental Philosophie doth render any prayers more suitable to God, than those of the lesse curious: this knowledg 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 Prophesy, and under­stand all Mysteries, and all knowledg; 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, Yee 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 Virtuosi: Except ye become like one of these, ye shall not enter in­to the Kingdom of Heaven.

It may not be perhaps amisse to insert here the Article of our Church concerning works before Iustification, this new way of rendring 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.’

[Page 38]Thus, for ought 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 Hymnes 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 Iesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousnesse, and sanctification, and redemption. 1 Cor. 1.30. Who thinks that though the Heavens declare the handiworks of God, and that rains and fruitful sea­sons may witnesse 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 perform'd to his Creator, consisted in naming (for it is contrary to the text that Adam mustered them together, The Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the ayr, 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 commandement relating to the forbidden fruit: nay tis unima­ginable that it should be otherwise. The subsequent clause, if it relate onely 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 [Page 39] Experimental Philosophie: 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 my self 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 acknowledg elsewhere, that there are principles of natural Religion, which consists in the acknowledgment 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 per­form'd to his Creator, when he obey'd him in mustering, and naming, and looking into the nature of all creatures. This had been the onely 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 Philosophie, 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 Philosophie, not Natural Theology, had been the Religion of Paradise: nor doth he mention any thing of the obligation Adam had to fulfill the Moral Law, or obey the positive occasional precepts, or to believe the incident Revelations with which his Creator might acquaint him.

THis Paragraph is a congeries of grosse 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 intellig [...]nt 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 tels 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 [Page 41] done, and so as to oblige the party concern'd 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 Parlament, 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 Arianisme 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 Iewish 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 Chancellour of Paris, There was a time, when without any rashness or prejudice to faith, the controversies of faith were referred to the judgment of [Page 42] 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: Iam. 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 Iesus Christ, the father of glory, Ephes. 1.17, 18 19. might give unto them the spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledg of him, the eyes of their under­standing being enlightned, 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 Latine? 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's? 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 [Page 43] 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 implicitely, 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 asking questions? why did he argue with the Sadduces about the resurrection? why did Paul dispute at Athens with the Iews 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 Iohn 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 Ioh. 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 [Page 44] Revelation, so that it necessarily involves in it this Syllogisme,

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 sayes, 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, firme, 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 glasse; the consequent of which mixture of light and shade, knowledg 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 fabrick 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 condemnes 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 [Page 45] Countries, towards the obeying of which there is no need of Syllogismes, 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 Countries Tem­poral Laws; to the obeying which there is no need of Syllo­gismes 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 English-man, nor one that understands the Civil Law, or that even of the Iews. No Lawes in a Government not Despotick ever were so contrived to all circumstances, that to the obeying of them there would not need any Syllogismes 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 Lawes: 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 expresly, do abrogate any Statute? An in­finite of Controversies daily arising, shew that Syllogismes and Distinctions are necessary to our Temporal Laws being under­stood and executed. But perhaps our Virtuoso may propose a new regulation of Law, and Gospell 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 [Page 46] solicitous about their Religion, or Spiritual Lawes, 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 righteousnesse: Math. 6.33. and rather to fear him that can kill the body and soul, than him that can onely 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 ought to be our concernes about these two obligations. For what is a man profit­ed if he shall gain the whole world, and loose 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 Syllogismes Distinctions, Humility, and Prayer) soberly search into his heart, and exa­mine that he erre 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 lawfulnes of each action: a bare Imperial com­mand, though promulgated, will not ingender 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 [Page 47] a sufficient Rule of action (for then the Command of an earthly Sovereign were alwaies to be obeyed actively: and a disobedience to the decrees of Ieroboam, Manasseh, and Nebu­chadnezzar, were criminal) though we do submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to King as supreme, or unto inferiour Governours. 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 Superiour, and paying him an Obedience meerly passive, where he cannot act without sinning against God. No Chri­stian was ever obliged to think every Decree of his Iudg 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, ne (que) Cassianus, ne (que) Nigrianus, He is of a passive temper, his Eye is alwayes fixed on his Lord, that compliance which he permits and enjoyns he readily payes, and in other cases patiently submits: but still considers, still acts, or suffers out of a principle of faith and holynesse, without which it is impossible to please God, without which every performance is sinful. Hebr. 11.6. Rom. 14.23. True Religion is not onely directed to God and the Father, but seeks an interest in Christ Iesus, who pronounceth, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man commeth unto the father but by me. Iohn 14.6. Through him we have accesse by one spirit unto the Father. Ephes. 2.18. A general knowledg of a Deity will not satisfie God, where a [Page 48] man is not sollicitous about further discoveries, or where acces­sional improvements may be attained: we ought not to acqui­esce in the first rudiments, not alwayes to be Babes, and pur­sue milk in stead of stronger meat. [...]. Me­ditate upon these things, give thy self 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 Gospell, 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 perillous considerations who can wonder, if Men be more scrupulous about Divine than Hu­mane Laws, and the active complyance 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 alwayes be the mind of God, who may use Greek words Hellenistically, or as Hebraisms; and use the lan­guage of one Countrey 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 alwayes (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 joyned 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 condemnes the Original of the Gospel, and the propagation of it where [Page 49] a different Religion is setled: it justifies the Turks & Paynims (as well as forreign 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-termes, & yet to be scrupulous about the Scholastick and Transcendental notions, [pag. 354.] nor to think Christianity injured by being carried into the Schools of our Divines any more then 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 qualifie him for that work: Shew us how the Divines of the Church of England have carryed 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 layity of the Scriptures, & binde their Church to the Latine 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 shew that the constitu­tion of the R. S. will not prejudice the established Religion and Church of England. Shew me the de­faults of our Liturgy, Articles, Homilies, Canons, where­by it should appear that our Divines have very much [Page 50] 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 Arke 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 Arke and the Religion of the Israelites, so as that the absence of the former, should extinguish the later. They were religious before the Arke 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 Arke, ap­pears by the History. Besides, the Prophets and other Israelites that were not Idolaters in Samaria, were de­prived of the Arke, yet 'tis manifest they did not loose 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 Catholick 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, &c. 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 justifie [Page 51] the Church of England in her Articles, in her Liturgy, and in her Scholastick 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, quàm 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 Emperour 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 Heresie; & the restoring of those tran­scendental notions, & Scholastick 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 medicamentorū comparationes, Nolo adversum novos hostes nova bella, Nolo adversum novas insidias con­silia recentia. Si enim Ariani haeretici ideò idcirco [...] hodie evitant, quia priùs negaverunt: nonne tu hodie idcircò refugis, ut hi nunc quoque denegent? [Page 52] Novitates vocum, sed prophanas devitari jubet Apostolus. Tu cur Pias excludis?’ It is but too apparent, that those in our dayes, who joyn 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 Atheisme and Socinianisme; 'tis manifest that they overthrow 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 Heresie, which hath been adjudged, ordered, and determined, to be Heresie by the Authority of the Canonical Scripture, or by the first four General Councils. The same is averr'd 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 Catholick 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, repugnes to our Laws, and whatever he subscribes unto, or professeth, is no true Son of the Church established in England.

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, then 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 relie 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 alwayes rational, and that the assent we yield to any thing, is never so blind and implicite as to be destitute of all motives and inducements thereunto: so that we resign our selves up to Authority upon the score of Reason: If he meant no more then 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 [Page 54] 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 phansies and imaginations of prejudicate & 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.

Thus K. Charles I. in his third Paper to Mr. Henderson. In the fifth paper his Majesty says also, that the Vnanimous consent of the Fathers, and the universal practise of the primitive Church, is the best and most authentical interpreter of Gods 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.’

It is to be observed that this passage is inserted into a discourse concerning Wit, as it discovers it selfe in the ordinary conversation and writings of the Railleurs, and is founded on certaine 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 lesse 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 relaxe & 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 [Page 57] 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 Gods word, and one who is concluded by what is expedient, what is of good report, for the honour of God, and without scandal or offense, not only of the stronger Christians, but sometimes of the weaker sort, and not onely by what is in its selfe 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 guiltlesse, when his Word is vainly made use of, or prophaned. I find not this qualification of a sober and reverent Railleur, amongst the requisites of a Churchman in Saint Pauls 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. [Page 58] 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, &c. 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, &c. 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) then 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 ought to do) the Bible: if they had had it, 'tis probable [Page 59] they would not have applyed it to jeasting, 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 phansies, 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, &c. And how cautious they were against these exorbitant Railleurs, we may learne from these instances.

It may not be amiss, as to the Papists, in this place to shew how tender they are in this case of applying the holy Scripture unto Raillery, and accommodating the expressions thereof to flattery, jeasting, &c. by relating this Decree of the first Provincial Council in Milaine under Cardinal Borromeo in 1565.

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 Fathers 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 reformed; and that they may in­nocently [Page 62] 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 vitiousness of acting; that this Holy Raillery hath given occasion to most prophane Bur­lesque, and that 'tis the subject matter, not words which hallow a conversation. (Oh! that any Divine should be ignorant of this! or expect a contrary issue!) It is time that publick Authority interpose, and that our Church concern her self; 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, then 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 Mistresse; such as this, where he detests long life without enjoying his Mistress.

These and such like Instances, as they frequently oc­curre in those Poems, so they are to be allowed by our Virtuoso for a Treasury of magnificent & sober innocent Wit: for when Mr. Cowly died, he desired him to re­vise his Works, and to blot out whatever might seem the least offence to Religion or good manners.