Consideration 1. Of the Defence of the Church of England by some Orthodox­men, in a Method or Style which seems to some too familiar, bi­ting, and severe.

THough the admira­ble Defence of the Church of England by some of the Lai­ty (which Name may be fastened on Nobles, as well as Peasants, though a late Author hath undertaken by [Page 2] Chorah's Model to assert each person a Priest; (as it was ob­jected to Luther by a great French Historian) deserved as much Commendation as that ancient practice of drawing the Sword when Christians stood on their guard whilst they made confes­sion of their Faith; and that without imputation of Ambi­tion or Vain glory, have sup­ported the tottering Ark by their rational discourses, and seem as men from Macedonia at St. Paul's Summons to assist the Church; yet some of these en­deavouring to take off from the estimation of the authority of the Church, they seem to me to be (as Cassianus says of the se­cular [Page 3]order of Men in the Ro­man Church, Sacerdoturientes, a new kind of Gray Fryers in the reform'd Religion. Neither do other men seem less fatal to the Church who are as Mendicants, at least in their language, endea­vouring to win their designs by a cringing Supplication, I be­seech you my Fathers, which they could not obtain by Arguments. These men professing a plainess of Speech and Integrity, seem as much suspicious as the Gibeo­nites to make Leagues with clou­ted Shoos whilst Poverty pleads their cause. Neither are those altogether excusable who dis­pute against their Adversaries in a rational way without pres­sing [Page 4]the Authority of some an­cient Fathers; seeing it is possi­ble to shew, that the most valu­able Arguments which are made use of as a Battery against Atheists are not the meer products of their own inventions, but of others whose names are conceal'd by them; I know not for what reason except this is it, that they thought Authority would prejudice the humoursome Age, and that Books would be better esteem'd as Anonymous, or a New Cabala to the reformed Religion, or be­cause it seems policy in Church as well as Srate ( Arcana Eccle­siae as much as Imperii) to con­ceal the Authors from whom they had their Intelligence or [Page 5]Imformation. This Method makes men start at the citations of ancient Fathers, as the Disci­ples did at Christ's person wal­king on the Waters, supposing them as evil Spirits to seduce them.

But I pass from this to the other branch of this Consider­ation, which makes me astoni­shed to think how some Ortho­dox persons have been cavilled with for defending the Church in too severe and bitter Methods, and a charge laid on Prelates, as if they design'd the defence of the Church as St. Mallos is guarded with snarling Currs, and those who assert their Authority esteem'd as Cock Hectors, who win Battels more by [Page 6]Carlick than Strength, whilst a stinking Breath defeats the Combatant.

These need not my Vindica­tion (they have done it them­selves) but suppose some Ex­cursions not so commendable; let it be consider'd that it is as impossible for a man to mode­lize his language so when he disputes with an Adversity as shall not offend him, as it is for a man who fights a Duel, to keep up to all those rules which he prescrib'd to himself before the engagement. Polemical Argu­ments are like a Bolt or Shot which contracts Heat by flying. Laws in such cases cannot be ob­serv'd, [Page 7]and the Disputant cannot be so accurate in his Language as Hortensius in his Cown, as well as Oration, (such a one deserves to be call'd Smyrk or the Divine in mode) to be in a set accurate form without a wrinkle. He who disputes with Suarez, must make use of his language. Me­taphysical Notions which are necessarily mix'd in Divine Di­spute, cannot be so plainly con­troverted by Scripture Phrase, which in some cases cannot con­fute the Adversary any other­wise than the Idiot did Bellar­mine, by giving him the Lye. To say all Adversaries must be disputed with by their own weapons; St. Paul warrants it, [Page 8]who draws an Argument from a Poet, when he might have cited the sense out of the first Chapter of Genesis.

But this perhaps may not seem so pertinent to the present case, for the age is sufficiently weary'd out with Distinctions and terms of Art, which like dry Bones knit together, only make a Ske­leton, not a man, but that which is censur'd is the launching out the licentious phrase of Stage.

'Tis true, this is unworthy of Divine Discourse, and the Priest ought to scorn variety of humour or phancy in his language, as much as the Spaniard doth a fan­tastick Dress; his language ought [Page 9]to strike so much aw according to the Character given of Job, Though I smil'd (says he) they believ'd me not; though any thing drop which seems not of equal moment with the rest of the Discourse, the weight of the one overpoyseth the levity of the other.

This may be well suppos'd; for Gravity and Levity in di­scourse seem to be as natural and as necessary as they are in Bodys: And as no bodys are so dense or thick, but some subtile matter lurks in the Pores; so no dis­course so close but it may have its airy matter intermix'd and in imbodi'd with it. The grave Wri­tings of the Ancient Fathers are [Page 10]as a Witness of this. I could instance in some, if it were ne­cessary.

To say all Arguments like, Arrows, to which a Plume is no less necessary than a ponde­rous Metal, whilst one gives it flight, the other makes the wound. Such necessary Levity at least may be pardonable, but Scurrility is a vice in Morals, much more in Religion. How­ever a sharp and severe way of Arguing must not be omitted, for it is as necessary to the Priest as an Acid humour to the Stomach, without which the meat would not be digested: There is no new Method, Nazianzens [...] is an evidence of it, and pri­mitive [Page 11]Fathers sharply check the Gentiles for their folly. Yet all this was without Scurrilous Language, altogether unlike to Luther's railing Method, which occasion'd some of the Roman Church to call him and his Dis­ciples Mad Men. However he deserv'd well of the Church (I presume none will deny) and it may be retorted on those who object it, that some of theirs have fixed odious Names on Protestants, Dogs, Infidels, Magicians, nay worse, as a great Doctor signs their Banishments, in these words, Ut magos publica Authoritate arcemus, civitate pelli­mus, &c.

I might cite others to this pur­pose [Page 12]no less Black-mouth'd, but I forbear to do that, and shall only suggest this to the Readers thoughts. As the Church of England, though the first Reformers (if it can be reasonably imagin'd that its first Reformers, gave any credit to the Objections of some of the Roman Church) were sensible that the Reformation was be­gun as in a storm of passion and irreverent language, yet dis­owns not the consequence of it, seeing it as a Tempest cast them on a happy shore, now shall not all sincere Christians do as the first Reformers did; who when they saw Religion, well de­fended, though in an unbe­seeming [Page 13]and boysterous way (For which there is no reason of complaint in this case) would not have Religion suffer for it, for that would have argued as much folly as if a Prince should disown a Victory because got­ten by rash and imprudent means, or like casting Joseph in­to the Pit only out of spight to his Coat, if Religion suffer, be­cause not pleasingly worded. I speak not this as an Abettor of Lucians scoffs, or a Rabshekah's railing, but only to shew how prudence makes use of them. To conclude with a late obser­vation of some Anatomists, who say there is not known a certain use of the Splene, and that some [Page 14]creatures may live without it. I determine nothing in this case, but only say I am confident there is no use of a Petulant Splene in Religious Debates.

Consideration II. Whether belief, which relies and depends on the Authority of the Catholick Church, and as it is en­couraged by the Civil Magistrate, may properly be said to be forc't, and to proceed from an unwarrant­able usurpation of the right of na­tural reason.

THe Church hath not been so effectually undermined by any Method as by represent­ing its Authority under the odi­ous names of Tyranny, and cal­ling all obligation to belief un­warrantable Impositions or force. [Page 16]Wherefore it is necessary to ex­amine what is meant by force in its several acceptations, and then assert the Negative of the Que­stion.

Sometimes it is taken philoso­phically; for that Power which rests a being beyond its natural inclination or tendency, accord­ing to this account of it: the de­termination of the Will must be accounted violent so far as it is concerned in Religion, and Grace it self is not able to escape the imputation of force: for grace may as well be said to be an enforcing influence on mans nature in his corrupted state, as that power which according to philosophy diverts the natural [Page 17]course of the Elements in bodies, and imprisons them in one mix­ture, otherwise they would re­treat to their own first home. The fire and volatile parts would be always moving to­wards heaven, and the sluggish parts of earth fettered to their center. This is demonstrated in another Treatise N. F. viz. that mens thoughts are with as much difficulty composed to a settled and true notion of God and the Soul, as the Elements are commanded to comply in the composition of natural Bo­dies; Therefore I shall wave this, and consider it in another sense, as it is more directly and boldly complain'd of, and that is [Page 18]it which relates to the authority of the Church and interest of the Magistrate in matters of Reli­gion, which is look'd upon by some as a Battery to destroy all Religion.

This is the Force generally exclaim'd against by the Liber­tine, which is an unreasonable and an unjust imputation; for if the constant and universal Doctrine of the Church, which hath an obliging influence on Re­ligious minds, must be call'd force, our Reformation and Sepa­ration from the Church of Rome, must be esteem'd violent, and consequently illegal. For I can­not apprehend that Separation [Page 19]was justifiable on any better terms; but that the Doctrine of the Reform'd Church is a­greeable to the Scriptures, with the consent and evidence of Councils and Fathers. Besides, this not only condemns holy Councils and Fathers, being u­surpers of Christian Liberty by imposing matters of Faith, but makes the whole Church lyable to Error, which was never yet asserted by any sober mind. For though it may be granted that Councils and Fathers, each have been lyable to some errors, yet when there is a consent of all, it is an infallible argument of Truth, vid. N. F. The Bi­shop of Rome is so sensible of [Page 20]this, that his Assertors know not how to invest him with Infalli­bility till they have intitled him to be the Virtual Church.

Having considered Force as it relates to the Church, in the next place I cannot but take no­tice of that, as it concerns the Magistrate or Civil Power. This is the Force which the Li­bartine most complains of, for that of the Church in its dread­ful Censures, is lookt on but as [...], like a Wea­pon which hurts not, or Thunder discharg'd without a Bolt. To evade this power they alledg the plantation of the Gospel, not by force of the Magistrate, but by winning per­suasion, [Page 21]and to make this ap­pear, cite Christ's words ( John 18. v. 36.) If my Kingdom were of this World, then would my Ser­vants fight. This doth not con­clude against the authority of Kings in Ecclesiastical Cases, for the design of that in this place, was to take off the opi­nion which the Jews had of his coming, that his Kingdom was not Spiritual, but Temporal. This Interpretation is given by St. Augustin. Audite ergo Judaei & gentes: audi circumcisio: Audi praeputium: audite omnia regna ter­rena: non impedio dominationem ve­stram in hoc mundo, regnum meum non est de hoc mundo August. in loc.

To this purpose are many De­ductions from places of Scrip­ture, which I shall not largely consider by shewing how di­storted by Faction beyond the intent of them, which I shall only name, and briefly discover the crookedness of the perverse Interpretations; amongst which none seems to be prest more than that. Let every one be fully per­suaded in his own mind, Rom. 14.5. In this place the design of the Apostle is not to deliver up each man to his own private Inter­pretation or extravagant Phan­cy, as to command an attention to that which was deliver'd by him and the rest of the Apostles, which is the greatest Authority. [Page 23]For to suppose each man to rely on his own intrepretation, is to imagine him to contradict that which he advises in another place, That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorifie God, Rom. 15.6. For it seems to me to be a Paradox not intelligible, that men may be said to be at unity, with as many diffe­rent opinions of Christ (which may extend to Fundamentals) as there are Persons. So long as their Faith is terminated in Christ, as Ali­quo tertio in which they agree. By the same reason they may conclude that there is a Unity of opinion in Philisophy concerning all Creatures, whether Animate or in Inanimate, because all a­gree in this general notion of [Page 24] Substance or Animality, and that it is sufficient to know them in Gross, without more distinct knowledg of them. So that Metaphysicks and natural Philo­sophy would be esteem'd as use­less in Reason, as some Creeds or Decrees of Councils in Reli­gion. But I pass further, I cannot omit an Objection of a great Agent, for Libertinism suggested to the Parliament, in 59. shewing the impossibili­ty of the powers interposing in Matters of Religion in some cases; for ( says he) the Magistrate must be o­bey'd for Conscience sake; how therefore can a man be oblig'd to obey him, when some [Page 25]duty is commanded which his Conscience contradict. To this 'tis enough to say, that the fallacy lyes in the word Consci­ence, which in that place must not signifie each man's persuasion or apprehension of the Duty, for if it were so, some men would not be obliged to obey their Prine, and their fancies exempt them from subjection.

Thus far have endeavour'd to assert the right of Princes in matters Ecclesiastical, but I shall not undertake to define par­ticularly in what their power consists, or bound it by limits; 'Tis enough to my design, if I can but stop the mouths of a factious Multitude by breaking [Page 26]and diverting the force of their Current, by shewing that these places of Scripture conclude nothing against Princes power, to be exercised in suppressing Schism and Heresie. Neither shall I be so Dogmatically bold as some late Smyctimnians, who, as Magisterially as others, out of a consistory, declare their o­pinion of the power of the Su­pream Magistrate (as if the title of our King had been distasted by them, because once deriv'd from Rome, Proclaims him only Churchwarden of the Church; Neither shall I wildly follow their Metaphor, nor criticise the Name with which Princes are called by them, for then [Page 27]I must consider the Church as it was once represented by the Ark, so by a Chest with three Keyes, the King to have one, the Cler­gy another, the People or El­ders another: Each have their particular Suffrages; so when all agreed it was to be opened; which if it were so, it is to be fear'd it would be always shut. Neither shall I take no­tice of another, who ordains the Laity Clergy, and the King himself according to him must be a Clergy Man, else he can have no right or power in the Church, But I cease to go further in this extravagant Tract, and shall ra­ther propose these Considera­tions.

Seeing it is certain, or at pre­sent may be suppos'd that a Council and determination of the whole Church, is the most expedite means of ending Con­troversies. Is it not reasonable that the Magistrate should press the use of them. Add to this that Councils are call'd by Prin­ces power (as is confessed by all true Protestants) now is it not reasonable that the Decrees of Councils in order to be put in practice, should be as much the Princes care, as the Council was when it was call'd to Or­dain them. This consider'd, will make the Christian not to esteem this Method of searching Truth, as a piece of forc'd Ser­vitude, [Page 29]for it is no more force to Reason, than Children suffer when they are sent to School. Let not any think themselves injur'd by this Instance, as Pe­dantick for the Doctrine of the Gospel, as well as the Law, may be styl'd a Pedagogy in that sense.

But here I may expect a check from a late and not Assertor of Libertinism, who blames Con­stantine, at least pities him, as if he had an oversight for using this means to settle the Church, because it occasion'd several bloody Persecutions. This is a weak Battery against the Church, and only deserves to be confu­ted by the Poet.

Success is a very bad test of the prudence us'd in the means, for the one is not to be mea­sur'd by the other, especially by men who are not able to pass Judgment on the success, which is more intelligible and palpa­ble always, than the means. Thus the Author is mistaken, for the success of that Council cannot be said to be bad be­cause Divine Providence made use of those Persecutions for the more undoubted setling of Faith [Page 31]seal'd with so many Martyrs blood. Let this also be con­sider'd, that the same would prevail against the Gospel it self, as well as Councils, and Christ himself blam'd by this Observer as much as Constantine, because his coming occa­sion'd strife, as he says, Mat. 10.34. I came not to send Peace, but a Sword, as condemn other pi­ous means.

Another way of asserting Li­bertinism, is by invalidating the examples of good Kings. Josia, Asa, &c. who had more con­ference with God, and so their Law more obligatory to the People; but succeeding Kings have no such warrant to do the same.

This Objection seems valu­able, but hath no strength, for if the want of an immediate con­sultation with God, destroys Au­thority, or at least weakens it, what will become of other Kings under the Law, who had not such a priviledg intimately to converse with God, or at least in so high a degree. To say all, It may as well be conclu­ded that the Pastors of the Church are not oblig'd to fol­low the practice of the Apo­stles, in all actions (some of which Miraculous, others suited to the exigency of the time, the one of which cannot, the other may not be imitated) be­cause none in these days can pre­tend [Page 33]to the like Inspiration, as deny that Princes may not fol­low the examples of good Kings under the Law, because later things cannot be so much Secre­taries of the Almighty, as they were in that Oeconomy. Thus they have endeavour'd to invalidate the examples of the Jewish Kings, persuading them that the con­stitution of the Mosaical Law and the practice of Moses and the Sa­nedrim, or the practice of Da­vid and Solomon, to oblige no more to Imitation, than the lives of Numa, Lycurgus, or o­ther Lawgivers in Plutarch, or the constitution of Heathenish Priests by the Roman Senate. This is true, if it is understood [Page 34]of those Rites and Laws which were purely Judaical, but other­wise in those which were not on­ly Typical.

It is further urg'd, as the first and second Oeconomy differ in ma­ny things, and so do the Go­vernors in the several Dispen­sations; for (says he) all the Jewish Religion was in Ex­ternal Rights, Civil and Religious Acts so interwoven, that it was not easie to say whether the Church were more like a Com­monwealth, or the Common­wealth a Church. Then con­cludes that the Magistrates buisi­ness was only to compel out­ward actions, but the Christian Magistrate hath no such task, [Page 35]Christianity consisting in inward acts of the mind. This terri­fying Objection may find a check from this consideration, viz. That it is false when it says that all the influence good Kings had on the People, was only to promote outward acts, for that was not only conversant a­about the Ceremonial, but In­strumental in promoting the Mo­ral Law, which certainly respects the powers of the Mind as much, if not more, than the outward Act. Besides in the ceremonial Acts of Law, and offering of Sacri­fice, there was imply'd an Act of Faith, as well in other persons as Abraham; otherwise their Al­tars would have been no better [Page 36]than Shambles, and their Priests than Slaughtermen. Hence it ap­pears that Kings pressing the out­ward act, might be said to be in­strumental in promoting Faith or inward Piety, in which sense it may be said good Kings, as of Josiah, They made the People to serve the Lord their God, 2 Chron. 34.33. But I must meet with an Objection which may be urged thus, granting that there was acts of Faith requir'd in acts of Sacrifice; yet those being inward acts of the mind, Kings could not command or compel them.

'Tis true, no earthly King can lay claim to such Spiritual do­minion: However Christianity being not such an invisible Re­ligion, [Page 37]but that it exerts it self in several visible acts, as confession of Faith, Communion, &c. which certainly will challenge the Ma­gistrates care in case his aid is wanted; neither will this appear as impertinent to his Office so long as he hath reason to suspect that those whom the Church can­not reduce by her Methods, can­not be as good Subjects as others, when they are declar'd not to be so good Christians.

Schism and Heresie, though they do not by necessary conse­quence imply Rebellion and Schism and Rebellion not always terms convertible, yet they are such as a Prince may suspect, and seem as Vapors under the [Page 38]Earth, which do not always cause Earth-Quakes, but when they are confind to a natural Prison, and cannot break forth, for as the one doth not always put the Earth in such Convulsions, yet excite fear, so the other may have such influence on a Princes mind, which though it cannot shake him (for that supposes weakness) yet may create a pru­dential Caution.

Consideration III. Of the authority of Reason, as it stands in competition with the Church, and of Schism and Heresie according to the new account of it, and whether reformation or separation from Com­munion of the Church, can be as suf­ently [Page 39]and legally justifi'd without an appeal to the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church, as with it.

TAking it for granted, that Reason is not the last Object Faith and its principles, the Ele­ments into which it is resolv'd, as the Reasoner phrases it, it being not able to make a distinct disco­very of the nature of God, and unfit Judg of rules of his Wor­shop. I refer the Reader to a­nother Discourse, N. F. It there­fore at present seems only neces­sary that I assert Ecclesiastical Authority with its due right, a­bove private Judgment of single persons, who so far become the Proselytes of humane Reason in that sense, which a late Author [Page 40]asserted it, as they appeal to no­thing but the evidence of their own Reason conducted by its own natural Method, only ha­ving the information by reading the Scriptures; and fortifying their Opinions with mere natu­ral Arguments (without any respect to the consent or autho­rity of the Church. Many such Proselytes have appear'd in this late Age, and cloakt their Fox­ish principles with Sheeps clothing of Piety and Tenderness; yet still seem to have a reverence for the Church and its Authority, as ap­pears in late Pamphlets, which nearly lookt into, is but as an Ec­clesiastical Compliment (if it is not a Solaecism to say so) for rational [Page 41]Au­thority is not Authority pro­perly call'd, for whilst men cause other mens Opinions to be tryed by the tests of their own judgments, they cancel the au­thority of other men, and make their own as an [...].

This consideration minds men of a Stratagem or Plot to subvert the authority of the Church, and establishing their own, which is not by any way more plausible done to an unwary Multitude than by partial citations of Au­thors, without considering the Coherence, Circumstance, or Scope of the Author, which they cite. If I design'd to be large in this discourse, I might shew how some undermine the authority of [Page 43]the Church, by sinister and ma­licious application of Ecclesiasti­cal Story, as the Author of a late Pamphlet by the success of Con­stantine, would prejudice all Princes against the authority of Councils, and a partial citation of Gregory Nazianzen (afterward to be consider'd) but I shall not spend time in canvasing that Sto­ry and its application, nor shew the weakness of Reason in its se­veral particulars, only shall take a prospect of Religion abus'd by some late partial Citations by which the Church is threatned, Holy Fathers made to speak contrary to their scope, and Re­ligion expos'd to each cavil­ling Adversary.

Thus Jerome hath been repre­sented by some, an enemy to Episcopacy, as asserted by the Church of England. Thus the Church of England, whilst some of the Roman Church urgeth it with Citations out of the Fa­thers, which speak the danger of separation from the Catholick Church, they apply it to their own, as if to be Roman and Ca­tholick were all one. Thus a late Author would persuade the Unwary, that the most Puritan Protestants, Mr. Perkins, and ma­ny others, do agree with Pa­pists in several points controver­ted, which they were as far from, as we can imagine they thought the Romish Religion distant from [Page 44]the true. The Fathers them­selves are cited against them­selves, which minds me of some opposers of the authority of the Church, who make them as a Patronage to their factious Pre­sumptions. Thus Lactantius is cited, the words are these, Lib: de Orig. Error. Cap. 8. having in the former Chapter remov'd the superstitious Rites and custome of some ancient Fathers who in­stituted them in Paganism; he infers this, Quare opportet in eâ re maximè, in qua vitae ratio versatur sibi quemque confidere, suoque ju­dicio ac propriis sensibus niti, ad investigandam & perpendendam veri­tatem, quam credentem alienis erro­ribus, decipi, tanquam ipsum ratio­nis [Page 45]expertem. Now how injuri­ously this is affixed as a Preface, to authorize a factious Discourse (as it often is) against the autho­rity of the Church, may appear from the scope and design of the Holy Father in that Chapter, viz. to oppose Heathenish Tradi­tions, Dreams and South sayings, which began before Christianity had footing in the word. But let it be applyed in opposition to the defintions and impositions of the Church, all that can be conclu­ded from the Words in this, he condemns those who in a stupid observation of the Traditions of their Fathers More pecudum ducun­tur, as he phrases it, an unrea­sonable implicit Faith, which the [Page 46]Church of England doth not com­mend to her Sons, but rather op­poses its Assertors. To say all, this Holy Author, though an ac­cute Disputant, and of a peircing wit, yet is so far from disdaining Authority, that none more fre­quent than he in Citations of Heathen Authors, of Poets them­selves, to prove the weightiest matters of Religion when he disputed with Infidels, as he was, necessitated to do, as he says, Lib. de falsa Relig. Cap. 5. Sed omittamus sanè testimonia pro­phetarum, ne minus idonea probatio vidcatur esse ab his quibus omnino non creditur. He though a Father of the Church himself, lib. de justi­tia c. 4. cites St. Cyprian, arguing [Page 47]against Demetrius by Reason, only because he was not capable of being confuted by any other Me­thod, as appears by the account given in the same Chapter, Nam cum ageret contra hominem veri­tatis ignarum, dilatis paulisper divi­nis lectionibus, formare hunc a prin­cipio tanquam rudem debuit. This gives me occasion of considering what esteem Reason was in mat­ters of Religion, being esteem'd only fit to dispose Infidels for Be­lief, and to instruct Novices; but in this Age it is so exalted, that it is thought worthy of the high­est place of Judicature, to judg of all Controversies, in so much that the Smyctimnian Divines, in their late Papers, declare it to be as [Page 48]the Eye and Religion, as the Light, or the Object. Sic res ingeniosa est esse Christianum, in another sense than formerly, and that which the Author of Smyrk says of Wit, in a Jeer, may be retorted on them, for whilst they make Reason an intrepreter of Scripture, we may ask them too, if their reason is an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost.

To conclude this part of the Consideration, that those who interpret Scripture thus, may not boast themselves Lactantius his Disciples, but rather Proselytes of the authority of Humane Rea­son, and by this method of making their Reason the only Standard to measure Controversies, seem to appropriate the Preface us'd in [Page 49]General Councils (at least one) and corrupting, Visum est nobis & Spiritui Sancto by changing the terms to every particular per­son who is adjusted with equal authority, to say Visum est mihi & Spiritui Sancto, which boldness exceeds Poetical License, which seeing extraordinary acts of Pro­vidence, attributed it to the Gods whilst they said Sic visum est su­peris.

This being premis'd, I pass to the other part of this consider­ation, viz. of Schism and Heresie ac­cording to the new account of it, and how Reformation is not so justifi­able without Appeals to the con­stant Doctrine of the Church.

This Assertion must expect to find as furious a return as Water doth when cast on hot Iron. Whilst I affirm that Schism and Heresie are two of the greatest evils of the Church, and affirm (as I think I safely may) that some have abus'd Religion al­most as much by their extenua­tion of these horrid sins, giving a soft account of them suitable to the humour of the Libertine, as the Schismatick and Heretick by practice: for such Theory makes way for practice whilst they teach men that Schism and Heresie are only terms of Art which the Church hath us'd to impose on the Christian Schollars what Doctrine it pleases, and that 'tis [Page 51]the terrors of the two Greek words (which have not so dread­ful a signification as they say) af­frights the poor Christian like thundring and lightning to run to his Litany to pray for deliverance. This slight of subtile men will miss its aim if it is consider'd that the Church is not only as a Lex­icon or Dictionary, to tell the English of [...] and [...] but hath power to inflict its Censures when unjustifiable separations are attempted. This unity of the Church is as much to be en­deavour'd by the Pastors of it as the being of the Church is, and that is so necessary, that I may say of the Catholick Church in matters of Belief, unum & verum [Page 52]sunt idem, Unity and Truth are undistinguished.

Now as it is certain that with­out the Catholick Church there is no Salvation (for it is more than a Parenthesis in our Creed) so is the Unity necessary in order to it. Wherefore all Churches who at any time endeavour'd a regular Reformation, made Appeals to some beside their own private interpretation of Holy Scripture, which might be esteem'd unrea­sonable. For if it may be ima­gin'd that each man may make interpretation of the Scriptures; it is very difficult, if not impos­sible for men (especially those who will have communion with none but those of whom they are [Page 53]assur'd are of the same opinion with them in all things) to main­tain so perfect charity with a sin­gle person, much less with the whole Church. For suppose two different interpretations of some part of Holy Scripture, viz. This is my Body, and one takes the Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be only figuratively, and the o­ther corporally, and both agree in this, that the Consecrated Bread is rightly call'd the Body of Christ, and the worthy Communicants receive it. Thus supposing that these words appear in different senses to different persons, how shall one convince the other that he is of the same Faith with him, if he do not express it in the same [Page 54]words and manner of interpretation, (which the Humane Reasoner ac­cording to his account of faith esteems not necessary) except he could creep into his Soul to see the thought and the intimate motions of the mind, without which he will not conclude any man can be declar'd a Heretick, This is an unreasonable and im­possible way of discouraging er­rors in Religion, which will take away all power from the Church except it can keep Court in each mans mind, and see each mo­tion of it. Such private inter­pretations are like Visions or Ap­paritions which appear to some persons only when they are alone. Now as no man is oblig'd to be­lieve [Page 55]the History of such Appari­tions no further than the Authority of the persons obliges them to it (I speak not of Holy Visions to the Prophets) so no man will think himself bound to believe any private interpretation of a single person, any further than he is possest with the authority of the person, except he could enter into his phancy, and bor­row the whole Scene as it was re­presented to the Visor or Seer, which is impossible. Therefore it is necessary that there be an open profession of faith by plain and pertinent words, which are as Li­gaments to knit together persons in outward Communion. This minds me of the charge given by Saint [Page 56] Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. 1. v. 13.) of taking care of the form of sound words, Whilst he gives his character of them, that they were sound, he omits not the form of words, which in some cases may so alter the sense, for it seems as necessary to Religion to distin­guish the true Religion from the false, as the Philosophers form of distinguishing one being from another. An Instance in the word so oft repeated in late Pamphlets, is a great evidence of it for when by a Holy Father without superstition or Adora­tion of words (which Objecti­on some have made against the name Jesus it self, whilst, com­mended to be bow'd at when [Page 57]nam'd) which was preserv'd for the alteration of [...], would destroy the Creed, at least change its sense, the pulling out of an Iota being as dangerous as re­moving a Pin, from a curious piece of Mechanical Art.

This consider'd in its conse­quences, will further appear more reasonable for the idle con­jecture of the Humane Reasoner (thoughdrest in a Theological habit) is as much to be suspected as Jesuits Oaths, prompting men to think that equivocation in belief, as well as oaths, is to be tolerated, whilst it is concluded that an open pro­fession of the most obscure Texts of Scripture is sufficient, making [Page 58]each Man's phancy a Comment on the Text, and the rule of Faith.

The most valuable Objection which comes to my thoughts, at present, is this, That Jesuites equivocate in their Oaths on design; but the other, if they appear such, it is on necessity: let charity believe this and sup­pose them sincere; yet let it be consider'd that the Jesuit will plead this, that he uses this art in swearing, only to evade the force of some Obligations which the Magistrate would bind him to, and this he will tell us he doth that he may guard and not vio­late his conscience, and what can [Page 59]the Libertine say more, (I speak not this to patronize either, rather conclude them both worthy of censure) who refuseth some Creeds, or at least part of them, be­cause they descend to particulars to prevent all Equivocation. To say all, the only difference of the persons practice is this, the one useth his art to impose up­on Man, the other on God him­self; I cease to start more Ob­jections, but rather pass to that which is granted by all who are not Enthusiasts, viz. that in all Disputes there must be a third to appeal to. When the Heathen is disputed with, reason must be pitcht upon as the Umpire, and the Jew appeals to the Prophets, [Page 60]and the Christian to the Scriptures, interpreted by the Catholick Church, without which Tertul­lian's question may be askt. Qui­estis vos? under & quando venistis? ubi tamdiu latuistis? &c. Tertull. de Prae­scrip. Con. Haer.

Besides, to make each man's reason judg of Controversie, is to make it both judg and party too, which may be retorted on the Church, which is a party too in deciding the Controversie. Let this be granted, yet the reason is not the same of private per­sons as a party, and the whole Church, and let the Libertine pitch upon any third Interpreter, wherein the Objection will not return and make it the party. [Page 61]This so generally obtains in most cases, that a man's own mind is not past possibility of having par­ties, for an interested reason may assert that which true reason will deny; and a man may by ha­bit so frame his mind to tell lies, and believe them himself. But let it be granted that the Church is a party, yet not such as to be suspected. It is a prodigious kind of distrust to think the whole Catholick Church should pass a par­tial sentence. That Fathers will not design to deceive their Sons in matters of Divinty, is so true, that some have made use of it to prove the existence of God, and shall the ghostly Fa­thers be esteem'd such Mon­sters, [Page 62]to deceive their Sons in matters of such moment. To say all, that which a Roman Doctor asserted of their Church so pe­remptorily, may be said of the whole, that it ought to give testi­mony of it self.

Before I conclude this Consi­deration, I cannot but take no­tice that some who have extenu­ated Heresie in its name, would also make it impossible that a Heretick should be discover'd, because to an obstinate opposing the true Doctrine (in which the nature of Heresie consists) it is requir'd that the intimate mo­tions of mens minds be seen. This is illustrated by an instance from Murder, to which I shall only [Page 63]oppose this, that he may as well conclude it is impossible to dis­cover Murther. Besides, that si­militude fails in the main part of it, for a Heretick hath oppor­tunity of recanting, and must be an obstinate Opposer of the Truth three time before he is de­clar'd so. Now the Murtherer is not capable of such respite or pausing, and opportunity of sti­fling his fault, or making it ra­ther to be none, except he was capable of committing the act three times (as well as the Here­tick opposing truth) which cannot be except a man had three lives.

Consideration V. Of Creeds and Impositions, with some Reflexions on the Apostles and other Creeds, and of the ex­tent of Creeds, how necessary for deciding Controversies.

ALthough there is no abso­lute necesity imply'd in the nature of Religion, that there must be Creeds or a symbol of Faith, yet it may be safely concluded they are not su­perfluous. It is convenient that we have an Enchiridion, and ne­cessary for the well being of the Church, though the substance of [Page 65]the Doctrine may be but as an Index to direct to its fuller Ex­planation in particulars; and a good mean to preserve the true Faith. Though Christ did not immediately draw up his Do­ctrine in such Articles, it is past doubt he directed the Church to do it, and that perhaps that he might create reverence to the Pastors of the Church, that they should not be only as Library-keepers, but Authors too in that sense, that a Publisher of an Epi­tome may be call'd so, whilst they compose the contents of Scripture in a short abridgment by Divine Direction. It is ob­serv'd that Christ did some things to create a Reverence to his E­vangelists [Page 66]and Apostles, by com­mitting the charge of the pu­blishing of the Gospel in wri­ting, when he himself could as easily have done it, as wrote on the ground with his finger, and shall not his Apostles Successors be e­steemed worthy to interpret these holy Writings. To deny them this Authority, and only allow them such a mere Ministe­rial office, and that to be only understood as if they were only Mercuries, with a hand stretcht out with a Scrol for the People to read, it seems rash: And to confine them only to be judg of Circumstantials, is to mino­rize their Authority, and makes them but Registers to keep the [Page 67]Divine Books. 'Tis true, this is honour enough to be but Door-keepers; and Saint Paul said the Jews might glory because the Ora­cles of God were committed unto them, which may not be restrained to the bare letter of the Law, ac­cording to each mans apprehen­sion; but in doubtful cases Ap­peals were to be made to the Sanedrim, which hath no small affinity with the proceedings of Councils, though some disputes set them at further distance; be­sides. I do not remember that Christ taxes in general the Jewish Doctors for Exposition of the Law, but when they either clearly perverted the sense and meaning of the Law, or plain­ly [Page 68]altered it by sinister Inter­pretations, making the word of God of none effect. For if all Illustrations of the Law by Jewish Doctors must be laid aside (though we know and avoid the fabulous In­terpretation of the Thalmudist, many parts of the Old Testament would not be so plainly under­stood, even those which relate to the coming of Christ, and the manner of his Kingdom. If it is said that the Jewish Doctors often err'd, so their Authority suspi­cious, if not invalid, the same will be granted (I presume) of Councils and Church, when their Assertions (if it may be supposed) are manifest contra­dictions to plain Scripture. This [Page 69] Bellarmine confesseth, when he says Councils may not be op­posed, Nisi manifestissime constet intollerabilem errorem, Committi lib. 2. de Concil. But more of this in its proper place. In this only I shall take notice that the au­thority of the Church hath been rendered odious to weak minds, whilst some part of it (I do not mean the Catholick) run into ex­treams in Creeds, as some men in habits or cloaths; sometimes the humour of the Age is such that men affect to appear in the large size of Primitive Ages, others desirous to appear as small as Nature will admit, one time as Gyants, another time as Pyg­mies. This vanity hath crept [Page 70]into the Church, some will only own the Apostls Creed, others not content with those which the Church hath received, but must make it larger by Phylacte­ries of Decretals.

The Roman Church will have each Article of the Creed (as Astronomers say of the Planets) each must have its Assecla or Page attend it. They will scarce believe that they ca satisfie the first Article of believing, in case it is not represented by Images, neither will they believe the Communion of the Catholick Church, except Rome may pass for it, and the Resurrection, and day of Judg­ment not to be explained without Purgatory, some run in another ex­tream, [Page 71]tream, they will admire nothing so much as the Eunuchs Creed to be imposed on as matters of Christian belief. However they magnisie the Creed of the Apostles at the same time, decrying o­thers allowed by the Church of England, which gives just occa­sion of suspicion, that those ve­ry persons who own the Apostles Creed in words, if prest by the ge­neral interpretation of the whole Church, would boggle at that as much as at the Athanasian Creed, for though they commend it (as it justly deserves it) for its plain­ness of matter, and the phrase (so esteemed by the Fathers) yet it is certain there are doubts in some Articles which are not [Page 72]agreed on, so as to be past di­spute, for instance, the Commu­nion of Saints, the belief on the Ca­tholick Church, and the manner of Christ's descending into Hell, not yet agreed on by all parts of the Catholick Church, besides those who will have nothing in other accompts of Religion, but in Scripture phrase, must be con­tent with other Language in this. That word Catholick hath lately been as much controver­ted, as the threadbear word [...], which word was so hard to Luther, that he went about to translate it into the German Lan­guage, and alter the phrase; for which boldness he was justly charged by Tanner the Jesuite; [Page 73]for I am of nazianzens mind, not to have a word changed, for as he says, One drop of Poyson may corrupt a great mass.

I would not have this which is said of the Creed, as to be said in derogation from its reverence due to it above other Creeds, which are but Comments on it, yet there are two questions I hope may be started without vio­lence done to it. How it ap­pears to be a sum of Funda­mentals. This is well Answer­ed by some late Authors, That the Apostles wrote the whole sum of what is to be believed, for if they had omitted any part of it, they might have as well omitted all.

Then it must be inquired how [Page 74]far this Creed as Apostlical de­pends on the Churches testimony or authority; on this latter que­stion the present Controversie depends; therefore it must be considered what it is to be called Apostolical. Apostolical is that which is agreeable to the Apo­stles practice and doctrine. So the title Apostolical is fastned to some Churches and several per­sons whose piety had, hath al­liance to that of the Apostles, but when it is given to any Do­ctrine as the rule of Faith, Ubi­que semper, & ab omnibus, obtains in this sense the Apostles Creed cannot be called Apostolical as to all its parts, for all were not re­ceived at the same time, as it is [Page 75]observed that St. Austin, Origen, and Tertullian, commenting on the Creed, make no mention of the Articles of the descent into Hell, though 'tis confest Saint Austin owns it as Catholick in other places. 'Tis true, Rufsinus an ancient Do­ctor makes mention of that Ar­ticle, but says the Roman Church did not receive it at that time, but since generally received; I speak not this out of any irreverence or light esteem to the Creed, as an Author I heard of, who wrote a scurrilous and malicious piece a­gainst the Creed meerly in op­position to another opinion.

That which I infer from what is said, is only this; All Doctrines [Page 76]if they are not immediately re­ceived by the whole Church, not rashly to be rejected. This also I could infer, that seeing it is not certain the Apostles wrote it themselves, but in several Ages it had its Ratification, at least the compellation of Apostolical from the Church, its plain that the au­thority of the Church, which makes it above other Creeds, and to be the sum total of all that is to be believed, makes it depend on that authority of the Church, which gave it its compella­tion, which (I hope) though borrowed from the authority of the Church, which since the Apo­stles time hath been abused, will be no greater a prejudice to [Page 77]discerning minds, than the title of the King, though first derived from the Pope can minorize the honour due to him. This which is said, perhaps may be retorted by an instance in Books of cano­nical Scripture, by saying we may as well conclude that the Gospel owes its name of Gospel to the Church, and the Law its name of the Law, as conclude that the Creed as to its denomina­tion, or being Apostolical, depends only upon the Church which calls it so.

This Objection may find an Answer from this consideration, that although the Church is Mi­nisterial, in both holding out a Light to declare unto us that the [Page 78] Gospel is the Gospel, and the Law the Law, as much as it doth evi­dence that the Creed is the Creed; yet there is this difference, the Books of the Law and Gospel its probable had their compel­lation or name written by the same Authors that wrote them but the Creed owes its title to the restimony of the Church so far as it is call'd the Apostles Creed. By this limitation I hope I have pre­vented another cavil which might conclude, I make the Doctrine of the Creed to depend on the Church, when I only speak of the com­pellation as being borrowed from the Church, which compellation is the only hinge on which the present Controversie turns, for [Page 79]take away the name (the Apostles Creed) and it can be no more said to be the sum of all Religion, than other Doctrines, or Theses generally received by the Church.

If it is further urged that all Titles of the canonical Books bear not (without doubt) the Authors names as several Psalms and the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it is not certainly known who were their Authors. This may be granted, yet the case is not the same with the Creed and some parts of the canonical Scrip­ture; for the latter it may be safe­ly said that the Church gave no new Titles to those Books, but delivered them as they found [Page 80]them waitten, or were assured of their Titles by infallible Tra­ditions, but the same cannot so certainly be said of the Apostles Creed. From all that is said it is easie to observe how some men are ready to own the Authority of the Church when serviceable to their designs, and disowns it when it thwarts private Opini­ons.

It may be granted that the Apostles Creed is Regula fidei Tu­tissima, as a Rule though but a foot in length, may discover the crookedness of the greatest quan­tity, and is useful in thousands of cases, so the Creed may mea­sure and discover though not so accurately, the many Volumi­ous [Page 81]errors in Religion, but not in direct terms but by conse­quence. To illustrate it by In­stances, Christ sums up all the Commandments in one word Love, which, modo implicito, con­cludes against all Vice, other­wise it could not be an abridg­ment of the whole Law, this must be granted, but it is rash­ness to say that this Command alone is able to check all Vices, and conclude against each parti­cular Sin. It is also said of Manna (a fit Emblem of the Creed, al­ways to be kept in the Ark of the Church) that eminently con­tains all savours to gratifie the Tast and Smelling, and the Opall and Iris have a lovely commix­ture [Page 82]of all colours. Now as a man who would pass an accu­rate Judgment of a sweet body would not appeal to Manna which hath it mixt with others, but to some particular object of the same kind, and he who would pass judgment on Colours, Yellow, or Blue, &c. will not compare them with that in the Rainbow, but some other Object of the same complexion or tincture; the same may be said of the Articles of Faith, which are severally comprehended in the Creed, yet are not to be an exact measure of their numerous Errors implicitly condemned by it. It hath been doubted by some, whether the principles of Chymists, Salt, Sul­phur, [Page 83]&c. are really in the Bodies, or whether they were as matter fitly prepared, and by Extraction made such. I shall not presume to determine any thing in this, but only apply it to the present case, by saying there are the Semina or Principia in the Creed but particu­lar Articles which confute parti­cular Errors, though they have their Foundation from it, yet their whole Superstruction cannot be said to be taken from it.

It is impossible it should be done, therefore weakness to at­tempt it, for it argues as much weakness in those men who un­dertake to assert the Creed the sum of all to be believed, and to confute all Errors, as some when [Page 84]urged by some of the Roman Church, to shew how the Sacra­ments were contained in the Creed, have answered out of A­quinas. 2.2. q. 1. a. 8. Eos Ar­ticulos continueri & includi in Articu­lo fidei quo Credimus unam sanctam Ecclesiam, Sanctorum Communio­nem, Remissionem peccatorum, that they are contained in the Articles, where we profess a Belief in the Catholick Church, Communion of Saints, remission of Sins. And being urged particularly to shew how Bap­tism was included there, run for Sanctuary to the Athanasian Creed.

This seems to be a far fetcht and an unnatural deduction; for though it may be concluded that the Sacraments are necessarily [Page 85]implyed in the Remission of Sins, as he gives his reason, Ibidem, nam per Sacramenta peccata remittuntur, it will conclude the necessity, but says nothing of the nature; wherefore that great Doctor, with all the subtilties of his School-companions, could never extract any thing thence of the nature of them; so if Transubstan­tiation could not find any other confutation than from those Ar­ticles, it would be to little pur­pose to dispute against it.

Thus one of our Church, who being urged by a Papist how he shewed in the Creed that Doctrine of the Devils forbidding Marriage, was exprest in the Creed, answers that neither meats, [Page 86]nor marrying of any persons could be unlawful, because a Christian believes in God in his Creed to be maker of all thinks good, so not to be forborn, and all his Institutions holy, therefore not to be abstain­ed from by any persons: This seems to me as vain an Attempt, and as far fetcht a way of Argu­ing as those men use, who will undertake to shew there is no­thing New, but demonstrate all new Philosophy to be taken out of Aristotle. I would not have that which is said so understood, as if I did imagine there were to be Virtuosos in Religion as well as Philosophy, and that this Age made new discoveries of Doctrines as the Astronomers have of the [Page 87]Stars, and that new Creeds in Divinity are as necessary as new Systems of the World. I am not so ignorant to think that No­velty can commend Religion though it may Philosophy, and that for this reason, the one is God's work and command, fully revealed at once after Christ's coming. But the product of Humane Observation suffers no­thing in its Reputation by being new. Neither doth Religion suffer, but is rather honoured whilst new Arguments, for they must needs be so at the first springing up of Heresie against new Hersies. This therefore which is said will not minorize or lessen the esteem of the Creed, [Page 88]which the Ancients had of it, for I cannot but own the com­mendation which Cyril of Hie­rusalem gave of it, [...], Catech. 4.

And having before shew'd the concise and compleat A­bridgment of it, says, [...], compares it to Mu­ster-seed, more fitly and perti­nently than the Eunuchs is by Smyrk.

Consideration V. Though the Apostles Creed may main­tain Charity and Union between members of the Catholick Church, whether it can preserve charity in a particuler Church, and in what sense short Professions of Faith so much insisted on by late Refor­mers, and commended to the Par­liament as the full matter of Christi­an Belief, and in what circum­stances they must be, and what persons they are to whom they are sufficient.

IT may be said of matters of Faith in Religion, as Aristo­tle distinguishes in Philosophy, [Page 90] [...] principles of Do­ctrine, and that which comes by deduction, the first which are as the grand Ligament or Tye, which knit the parts together, or as a foundation to support a building though the root and other parts of it are demolished. This is enough to denominate the Church a Church, but if there be disa­greement in other Doctrines which may indanger Man's Sal­vation, though not so imme­diately as those in the Creed, it takes off from the beauty of it, and makes it look as in the former instance, like a Skeleton knit to­gether by the Articles of one Creed, as sinews not agreeing in any other parts, or like a frame [Page 91]or case of a house without a Roof or Ornament. I speak not this as uncharitable to the Catholick Church, but to shew how the want of Unity in all Doctrines disguise it. By this Assertion the Catholick Church is not condem­ned for those Divisions, which destroy not the Internal communion with it (though External may be wanting) but to shew Chari­ty beautifies it. Wherefore those who separate themselves from another Church, must have some other reasons of their separation than are in the Apostles Creed, otherwise the Reformation can­not be justifiable, for the Ro­man Church professeth to be­lieve the fame Creed as a late [Page 92]Author pleads; therefore Sepa­ration not altogether founded on that. Wherfore it remains there must be Doctrines which justifie Separation from other measures than the Creed, &c. This may unite in the Catholick Church, but not a National or par­ticular Church; for the Church cannot be minced into Individu­als without being destroyed, at least breach of Charity, and that for this Reason. God under the Law and Gospel was never since Adam's Innocency worshiped a­lone. Elias was mistaken when he thought he was left alone, the only votary of the true God. I am sensible of an Objection which may be this; That Luther [Page 93]in the beginning of the Refor­mation was the only open profes­sor of the Protestant Faith, which being granted (as it need not) must suppose some critical time of Luthers Protestation, in which he had no followers, which with preciseness will conclude that Christ himself Head of the Church, was without any votary at his first birth, except his Mo­ther was one; and there must needs be a certain time when the Apo­stles were without a Church or Converts: But Religion takes notice of no such Niceties; and as the Common Law takes that to be done immediately, which is done in the same day appointed in some cases, taking no precise [Page 94]notice of the hours; I am sure the Divine Law doth not distin­guish such critical moments. But to wave these niceties, it was always the method of Refor­mers to make profession of their Faith. Thus did the Lutherans in their Augustane confession; for without this, Charity would not have been maintained within themselves: So then what would the Reformation signifie if there may be as many, and as dangerous and different Opinions among themselves, as there was between them and the Church of Rome; their Reformation sig­nifies little more than a Change, not for the better, but worse; their dissenting from the Roman [Page 95]Church might be justifiable, but amongst themselves (especially in matters absolutely necessary to be believed) such separa­tion intollerable, for though the Catholick Church like Josephs coat, may have, and be of divers co­lours and parts, but particular, must be like Christ seamless coat, or to speak the Apostles Langu­age, like minded, and speak the same thing.

Now this Unity of the Church is not better preserved by any means than by Appeals to seve­ral interpretations of places of Scripture (which are ambiguous) by the Councils, Fathers, and Pastors in several Ages. Thus the Champions of the Reforma­tion [Page 96]always owned that Autho­rity as the best means to win Re­formation, and the best subsidy to support it. The necessity of this seems to be implyed in the Apostles Advice to submission to Pastors, and the Pastors be­ing to give an accompt for the Peoples Souls. I know these words may occasion a volumi­nous Dispute.

But I shall take them in their plaine acceptation, and only de­sire the Reader to observe that in case this submission to Pastors, is only to circumstances confin'd, as some will have them, and yet Pa­stors give an accompt, it is like a Man who is invested with the power of a Tutor, yet only to [Page 97]take care of his Pupils Cloaths.

This must be restrained to pla­ces which have a doubtful sense, and the definitions or interpreta­tions, such as the words will bear, for I am not so bold to con­clude with some of the Church of Rome, that it hath a power to command a Doctrine, which hath no probable foundation in Scrip­ture (as Doctor Stapleton con­cludes that some things are to be believed, and the Church pro­pound them as matters of Faith, Etiamsi nullo Scripturarum evi­denti aut probabilis testimonio comfir­metur, though he at the same time concludes the Church in its definitions is, Suo modo Divina.

It fares with the Church in its desiring matters of Faith, as it doth in prospects, for though Telescopes and Perspections help the Sight, yet there must be a rude discovery of the Object by the naked Eye, thus the Milky way is discerned without the help of a Glass to be a bright tract of Hea­ven, by the Telescope which disco­vers that troop of small Stars from which it borrows its Lustre. The case is the same between Scrip­ture and the Church (I mean obscure places of it) the one gives an ambiguous Twilight pro­spect, the other shews it more di­stinctly.

Thus I have endeavoured to commend the Churches Autho­rity [Page 99]as a necessary Supplement to the Apostles Creed, or in order to maintain Charity amongst mem­bers of particular Churches (for I do not design in this Paper to answer all Objections that the former discourse may be lyable to.

I now pass to the other branch of the Consideration.

In what sense short professi­ons of Faith so much insisted on by the Reformers, and commen­ded to the Parliament, can be said to be the full matter of Chri­stian Faith, and in what circum­stances they must be in to whom they are sufficient. And whe­ther [Page 100]such curtilizing Creeds do not again introduce that implicit Faith, which this Church com­plaineth of whilst under Papal im­positions.

For further demonstration of the necessity of the extent of the Apostles Creed, by Explanation it seems convenient that I suggest that usual distinction of Funda­mentals in respect of their mat­ter, and the persons to whom they are offered as objects of Be­lief. To the first 'tis enough that I say one Assertion may be a Fun­damental though not primarily so, which in respect of another, is but as a corrollary or branch of it, as it is easie to instance in the Apostles Creed. To the second it [Page 101]will be sufficient to say that all Doctrines are not pressed on all persons with the same necessity or upon peril of Salvation, which will plainly appear from the con­sideration of the Requisites ne­cessary to make such necessity. The first of which is this, viz. A conviction of the mind, that what is proposed as matter of Faith, must be commended to Man by God, for there is no hu­mane dictator can command any matter of Belief to Man merely as Humane. Thus the Apostles themselves doubted of the Re­surrection, or at least were not sufficiently convinced of it till matter of fact convinced them of their Masters being God as well as Man.

Another Requisite, is, that there must be a sufficient propo­sal of matters of Faith, otherwise it is insignificant to a man, for what is Revelation to him to whom it is proposed, for matter of Faith is like Objects which are in their own nature visible, yet the Eye doth not always actually see them, neither can it in some ca­ses till more conveniently situa­ted or impediments removed. Thus Apollos ignorance and im­perfect Creed, excusable till he was more fully instructed of Saint Paul for the Doctrines of which he doubted before, al­though as the Sun they always shin'd, yet as the one cannot be seen till above the Horizon, [Page 103]though it is obvious to other eyes, so the ot her not assented unto till sufficiently explained. If this seem not opposite, take an In­stance more Divine. As none could see the City of Samaria (though it was naturally as visi­ble to other persons) but the Pro­phet, so none discern Divine Truth till Grace makes the discovery.

The last is a disposition of mens minds fit to receive such Divine impressions; thus Mad men and Fooles are not to be expected Converts to Religion, who are Aliens and Strangers to their own Reason; and in this sense that applauded conclusion of the vanity of holding a Candle, and attempt to make one see whom nature designed for darkness, [Page 104]and to this head the citations out of St. Chrisostom (afterward to be consider'd) and others must be reduced leaving such Idiots, to the censure of God himself.

This being promis'd, I hope I may more fairly conclude against those conclusions which factious heads have drawn from thence, for all that can be inferred from such charitable censures, is only the modest censure of the Church, whilst it respects God's Judica­tute; so that those persons who have so formally made address to Authority for tolleration of short Creeds, must plead their cause in the same circumstances they thus indulg'd were, which is impossible, except they can An­tidate [Page 105]time and be as the Apostles were then, or men now, who are uncapable of Divine Myste­ries, wherefore I may ask those men this Question, whether they speak for themselves, as of the Clergy, or for other persons, if for others (which I presume they will be ready to own as officious Advocates, they bring in the Doctrine of the Author of Hu­mane Reason, the Reasoner sup­posing it to a sufficient assent to Christian Doctrine if Scripture is commented on by a private in­vention.

This part of the considera­tion (if I design to be tedious, would lead me to examination of the several cavils against [Page 106]Councils as to the quality of per­sons, &c. and to answer an Ob­jection of Nazianzen, who saith he never saw a happy event of a Council; which words concor­ding to all I have met with, con­demns not Councils, but rather is a complaint of the want of free and general Councils, as is ob­vious to any who considers that Author's drift and design. But I pass from this and other curious cavils by considering that such niceties in Religion are like que­stions about the Stars, whose Nature and Influence we are sensible of, and can probably demonstrate their Natures, but not in such a way as can answer questions that a roving brain can [Page 107]start, and can shew greater pro­bability that they are such, than the extravagant invention can, they are not, but I shall not con­tinue this Digression rather return to the former case.

This being granted, it must be considered that these persons with their slender stock of Faith, are admitted into the Church as men into an Hospital, and cha­rity rather than Reason, con­cludes them in a safe state of Salvation. Now is it not un­reasonable to propose that as a Model or measure of Faith to all which is only indulged to Mad men and Fools, or at least men of weak capacities, and that on no better ground than that tender [Page 108]one of extensive charity, suitable to which are the accounts of the Church given by the Ancients whilst it is thus described, [...], a certain num­ber of the Elect in which may be babes in Christ, foolish as well as wise, and compared to the Ark, when there was a universal recep­tion of Creatures, which were clean.

If these Zealous Petitioners speak for themselves, then that small measure of Faith and nar­row capacity, will be an argu­ment against them in the opini­on of their own party. But if it is alleadged that Rahab had but a small measure of Faith, and [Page 109]yet Sainted by St. Paul (at least) in the catalogue of eminent Be­lievers) and the Centurion with his slender knowledg of Christ had no less commendation from Christ himself. Let it be consi­dered that this is not applicable to Pastors of the Church. What a medley and ill favoured being of a Church would that be in which a Rahab or Convert-Har­lot, 2 Centurion or Souldier, should assume a Clerical power. The Records of late times, the odi­ous face of the Church (if it may deserve that compellation of the Church) prevents me in saying more.

This which is premised will make way for this conclusion. [Page 110]That the exacting of necessary Oaths, Subscription, &c. and other means of Comformity are no otherwise an intrenching on Liberty than the exigency of Christian Society requires, and the Savage may as well complain of Policy, which reduced them from their wilde and natural ex­travagancy, as the Libertine of a Test or tryal of his conscience so far as it concerns the Magi­gistrate.

This perhaps may appear too Magisterially said, if I do not give the Reader the plea for Li­berty, and suggest this as a con­clusion.

Before these considerations are closed, I cannot but add [Page 111]this, That some who disdain all Auxiliaries and Aid from the authority of the Fathers and Councils, seem to press them into service of the Church, when they find any clause that may aid them in their wild and arbi­trary Model of Ecclesiastical Government.

Thus I find Saint Chrisostome among the Ancients, cited as an enemy to the Method which seems to force Religion, and Grotius amongst the latter, which practice seems like that of In­terested Politicians, who will let Statutes lye as an old Armory (fit for service) but not to be used till occasion furbishes them and gives the rusty Iron an edge. [Page 112]That this may not seem gratis dictum. Let the former Author be considered, whose Paternal Indulgence and Instruction to the Priests speaks favourably of weak Christians, his words are these, Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. [...].

And Grotius his favourable words extend only to the not propagating of Christian Reli­gion by force, not contradicting the use of the Civil Power in set­tlement or well composing a Church already planted.

This I presume will be gran­ted, that the Church of England hath endeavoured to reduce re­fractory [Page 113]men, by all imagi­nable means, and when that takes not effect the Civil pow­er begg'd to assist them, which contradicts the sense of the Holy Father, who only de­signs to shew that Clerical power proceeds not in the me­thod of a Temporal Prince; and another citation of Sal­vian, is to this purpose, whilst he says they are to be tenderly handled, Qui bono animo. Errant; or as a late Author says, Ill Believers. For speaking of the Arrians, he makes this Plea for them, Non Odio sed affectu dei ho­norare & se Dominum & amare cre­dentes.

This plea cannot be made in this Age, for it may well be supposed that the Arrians (of whom he speaks) had not the same opportunity of being confirmed in Religion, the Question debated being only confirmed by one Council, but that in dispute now by many. So that Refractory Pa­trons of factious Zealots may be askt Tertullian's Question, Interea perperam Evangelizabatur tot millia millium perperam tin­cta, tot opera fidei perperam ad­ministrata, tot virtutes, tot Cha­rismata perperam operata, tot Sa­cerdotia perperam functa, tot de­nique Martyria perperam Corona­ta.

To say all, time which blots out other characters, makes Religion more legible, and Martyrs blood as a Rubrick to each clause of the Divine Law so plain, that Man may rnn the course of his Tem­poral life, and read his ti­tle to Heaven.

But if this unhappy Age gives instances of those which cannot, and desire to be tol­lerated in their ignorance, their only plea must be their weakness, which in matters of Religion can have no o­ther way of process than Sub forma pauperis (if I may bor­row the Lawyers term) as [Page 116]men of weak apprehension; and the defect of their narrow Faith must be supplyed or re­lieved from Heaven, not Earth, from God (who alone knows how to rate the poverty of Spi­rit according to its true value) not Man. And such a Tole­ration (if its term may be al­lowed as it concerns God him­self) must have its compleat Ratification, not only from the Princes and Churches Cle­mency, but God's highest and last Judicature.

To conclude all, it seems a more pertinent way for such to address themselves to the Di­vine rather than humane Judica­ture, and endeavour that God [Page 117]may incline his ear to their Prayers, and increase their Faith rather than attempt to supple and bend the Magistrate to complyance by fervent petitions.