{illeg} Res{illeg} fundamentalls, & not fundamentals by the {history} {illeg} decide the controversy. For the {one} {illeg} what particular church which must be judges, or must they appeale to one high {Iudge}

Before the Councill of Florence it was esteemed noe Hæresy in the Church; most of the fathers not beleiving it; & those who did, not condemning those of Hæresy who did not nor did some Popes & Councils esteeme them Hereticks.

3 And though the Councell of Florence was neither Generall nor free (by reason of the dangers Greece was in &c) they onely condemned it as false not hereticall which those few Grecians in the councill afterwards recanted of when they saw the Emperors succor from Rome to faile him.

4 Though the procession may be true, yet it cannot appeare by either reason or scripture (For the spirit may be equall & consubstantiall with the sons though not proceeding from it, as well as the sons equall & consubstantiall with the spirit though not proceeding from it) & therefore not being revealed by God is noe fundamental

And as to the addition of Filioque to the Creeds. & sume in the Greeks

5 Though this article was acknowledged by some particular churches before the difference of the Greeke & Latine Churches broke out yet it was added to the nicene & Athanasian Creede but about that time by that Pope & therefore not being then received by the Catholic Church could not make the Greeks scismaticks.

6. Why did the Pope add the Filioque contrary to the former decrees of Councells can the church contradict her selfe at several times? Or if this bee noe addition but only an Explication (which there is small reason to say either in respect of the Councells prohibition extending to declarations too, or of the article it selfe being rather an addition) then the denying it is not the denying an article of faith but an explication only. & Why then made of faith. & with an Anathema to it?

7. Why did the Pope &c. without the consent of the easterne churches make this addition? The presumption therefore of the Romans was the cause of the Scisme.

Chap 2. of Fundamentalls in Generall.

By Fundamentalls are meant, points necessary to bee beleived in order to Salvation; rather then principalls from whence deductions may bee made of Theological Truths.

Quest. 1. Whither any Definitions of the Church may bee beleived as articles of faith necessary to salvation; 2. Whither they may bee imposed on others to bee beleived as such, soe that they may bee excluded Catholick communion if they doe not.

Resp: Consider 1A What are the Grounds or foundations on which any thing becomes necessary to Salvation. viz: 1a. In respect of particular persons tis Divine Revelation onely; 1. all men, upon the account of Gods veracity, being bound to beleive what they are persuaded that God hath revealed. I say not all that God hath revealed, but what they are persuaded that God hath revealed & so far as they are persuaded, bee their judgments true or erroneous, least they count God a lyar. 2 Besides this generall ground Gods veracity which makes all things, equally known to bee revealed, equally necessary to bee beleived, there is yet a more particular ground which make some things in themselves more necessary to be beleived than others: viz The end why God revealed them which makes those most necessary to bee known & beleived which doe most conduce to that end.


{Whic}h maine end will appeare both by reason & scripture to bee Gods glory & our eternall {happin}esse. The meanes being 1 an hearty assent to the doctrine of Christ & 2 a conscientious walking according to the precepts of it. But to define what parts of that doctrine are necessary & what not, is un{necessary & must} bee left to every man to gather from scripture {illeg}. Because the assent to the doctrine of Christ as revealed from God must necessarily carry in it so much as is necessary in order to salvation. And this controversy neede never brake christian societys. 2a. In respect of Christian societys To know the bonds or conditions of such communion, I consider that a Church is a combination of men together upon the beleife of such a doctrine as necessary to Salvation. And the communion of Churches is their agreement in this beleife Hence Cor. 1: The very being of a church supposeth the necessity of what is required to bee beleived in order to salvation, antecedently to its {illeg} And therefore hath noe power to make things nececssary by its definition. for if it was a Church before those definitions it then beleives all things necessary &c. Cor. 2: Whatsoever church ownes those things which are antecedently necessary to the being of a Church cannot so long cease to bee a true church as it ownes them. For it retains the foundation of the being of the Catholick Church. Noting that its being depends on the beleife of necessarys & its perfection on the exercise of all acts of communion in it according to that beleife. Cor 3: The union of the Catholick church {depends} upon the agreement of it in making the foundations of its being to bee the {magni}tude of its communion. Therefore that church as much as shee can breaks the union which imposeth the beleif of things as necessary to salvation which were not so antecedently to the being of the Cath. Church. & is to bee excommunicated to preserve the union of the rest. This premised, the bonds of communion follow: viz 1b Those things onely which by the judgment of all those societys are antecedently necessary to the being of the C: Church. (by Cor 3 & 1st). Notwithstanding nationall churches may in time of divisions reforme themselves by making articles of religion & requiring {a} subscription to them in order to peace but not as necessary to salvation (as our 27 Art). 2b Those things onely which may bee evidently propounded to all persons as things which God did require the explicit beleife of. (cor 1) For how should that appeare a necessary article of faith but what may bee evidently proved to bee revealed by God, & that to bee necessarily beleived by all men in order to salvation And are {illeg} the Popes supremacy, Purgatory, Transubst: &c as manifest as Scripture Christ our saviour Eternall life, Administration of the Eucharist &c. 3b Those things onely which have been received by the Cath: Church in all ages. (by Cor 3. 1. & 2). And to know what these things are Examine 1. Was it admitted into the ancient Creeds? And the Fathers testify the perfection of the Apostolick Creede. 2 Was it always beleived by the whole Cath: Church to bee delivered as such by Christ or his Apostles? 3 Was the denyall of it univerally opposed & condemned as Heresy by the Church.

2A Whither what was not once necessary to salvation may by any meanes afterwards become so? viz: either from the matter or expresse command of the thing. No sure: For. 1 That is contrary to the designe of Christ & his Apostles in making knowne the christian religion to the world. [Isay 11:9. Iohn 6:45. Iohn 4:25. & 15:15. Acts 20: 20, 21, 27. And If an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel let him be accursed] (Object. These things were declared by the Apostles but now they need a further declaration. Resp: Shew us then the Apostels declaration. Or is it lost? Then the church was not infallible which lost it. And a thing once necessary, was afterwards unnecessary & is now necessary againe. And how know that there was such {a} declaration). 2 It is contrary to the unanimous consent of Antiquity. See the <4> Tabula Suffr{agia}les of Mr Tho. White {a} Papist.

3A. Whither the Church hath power by any proposition or Definition to make any thing become necessary to salvation & to bee beleived as such which was not so before? And to this tis Answered no, by the precedent discourse.

Object: Hee that will not heare the Church let him bee to them as a Heathen & Publican that is as a person deserving to be excommunicated for Hæresy & Fundamentall errors. Matth 8 17. Resp: Tell us what church, what hearing, in what cases to bee heard, & what Heathen & Publican there are meant.

Objec: Athanasius his creede is approved in the English church in which all things conteined are there expressly made necessary to salvation & yet there are some things (as the procession from the son) acknowledged not fundamentall in the matter. Is is not then the churches definition which makes them necessary?

Answer. Though the church make nothing necessary by her definitions (as shee declares in her 19 & 20 articles) & this necessity bee not from the matter yet it may bee from cleare conviction that the thing is of divine revelation. As Leo 3d said of procession from the sonne, to such as can apprehend it tis necessary, to others not.

Object: The churches Definition alters not the thing in it selfe but onely quoad nos.

Resp: Then the church makes new articles of faith quoad nos.

Quare. Why may not the Church diminish as well as increase the number of things to be beleived fundamentally?

Chapt 3 The absurditys of the Romanists Doctrines of Fundamentals

Arg 1 If the sentence of the Church in faith is fundamentall tis because her authority is divine; (for what can bee fundamentall if not knowne to bee revealed by God, & how known so but by divine authority? are there fundamentalls which have no Divine authority for them? It may bee the churches infallibility sufficeth; but whence infallible if not by the assistance of Gods spirit? and if that assistance bee divine, why not the authority also which flows from it which is divine infallibly? was the Apostles infallibility more then what you pretend is); But noe church authority since the Apostles is simply divine. Ergo.

Arg 2. Fundamentalls in faith are Fundamentalls of the Churches being (for it is one by the unity of faith) But the Church (not being a church before her foundation is laid) cannot lay her owne foundation, Therefore her definitions are not fundamentall.

Object. The definition of the Church teaching is the foundation of the Church taught. Or the definition of the church representative is the foundation of the church diffusive.

Answer. If these Churches bee the same fundamentally the argument is still good, & the church teaching & representative will lay her owne foundation too. Otherwise the Church teaching, not beleiving what shee teaches, beleives not all things necessary to salvation & is therefore noe true church. Or if shee is not obliged to beleive what shee teaches & nothing is fundamentall but what shee teaches, then shee is not obliged to beleive any thing A rare church!

Arg 3. If at the moment of the Churches defining any thing necessary, she beleives it to bee so then it was so before her definition & depends not upon it, but if shee beleives her definition will make it necessary then shee beleives it not to bee necessary till shee hath defined it, & therefore defines that to bee infallibly true & necessary which shee infallibly beleives to bee untrue & unnecessary. And so defines contrary to her owne judgment & beleife


Chap 4. Protestants doctrines of Fundamentalls indicted

A Catalogue of Fundamentalls to {private} persons cannot bee had by reason of the severall capacitys, prejudices, of education &c for which God may make an allowance. Are all men found to beleive those things & those onely necessary to salvation which I thinke to bee so?

A Catalogue of Fundamentalls, as to Church communion is conteined in the {illeg} Creede, adding moreover that the scriptures are word of God: for this is the foundation of that creede.

The Church of Rome's Excommunications (being upon pain of damnation for not beleiving all shee defines to bee fundamentall & therefore aginst the internall acts of the mind) if usurped is more unreasonable than the English Churche's excommunications for opposing her articles. For her determinations not being made fundamentalls, but onely in order to her peace (for shee is not infallible) men may injoy theire judgments soe they breake not her peace & shee excommunicates onely for the externall breach of peace, not for refusing an internall assent to her determinations.

Children are to bee baptized because 1 Not uncapable of the subject 2 Not forbidden by Christ &c.

Chap 5. The Romanists way of resolving faith

The resolution of faith into the churches infallibility is 1A: Vnreasonable. 1a: Requiring an {assent} to her as infallible from probable grounds or motives of credibility onely. & hath not scripture such? 2a: This runs upon the absurditys it would avoyd, viz 1 A better account of faith may be given without them from infallibility, there being sufficient motives of credibility to scripture but not to infallibility. 2 Then noe divine faith but on motives of credibility. 3 Every mans reason herby becomes his judge in choyce of his religion in judging what is a credible motive; & why may hee not judg his way too as well as his guide? 3a: It makes way for scepticism 1b In making that necessary to faith which was not so when the gospell was revealed. Whence did Christs disciples at his passion beleive the old testament? Was the woman of Samaria infallible when shee told the discourse twixt Christ & her? &c. seeing, hearing, feeling, report by credible persons was then sufficient, & the onely arguments used by the apostles who were as infallible surely as the church. 2b In asserting things which destroy the evidence of christian Religion. 1c: as the fallacy of sence in Transubstan &c: noe certainty of the grounds of faith but from the Churches infallibility. Noe Cæsar nor Pompei if Rome say not so? And if the church once erre, or her infallibility cannot be proved, farewell religion. 3c: This granted, yet 1 what Church is this? Essentiall? Representative? or virtuall? all christians? all sound christians? Papists? their ecclesiastick governours? their Bishops? {in} the Pope? & whither any of these collectivly, or representatively as in a Counsel? 2 What is the subject of this infallibility? The pope? or Counsell? or both together? but when? in Cathedrâ? whats that? with some or all his cardinalls about him? These things being controverted among themselves what must wee trust to? OR! say you these are not de fide because not yet {defined}. But then how shall wee yet know what is de fide what not? Why should wee make any thing de fide untill the foundations of it bee settled & agreed upon among you? Why is her infallibility de fide not being yet defined so by the Church? & if wee may beleive that, why not other things too without her attestation?


3. What kind of infallibility is this? you {may} prove it the same way that Moses, Christ, & his Apostles were proved infallible, but yet it is not the same kind of infallibility that they have Tis supernaturall but not {illeg}: precise but not absolute; by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, but not by immediate Revelation. Rarely distinguished! by the Holy G yet but in a sort divine {illeg}nd is the Pope spared from fallibility but not from wickedness? Or is the spirit of truth a spirit of holinesse?

4 When doth your church define infallibly? How shall that bee known by one who having passed through the many things to bee first known & beleived arrives at last to faith in her infallibility? The person infallible must bee a christian, Priest, & Lawfull pope but who can bee assured of this since (according to your principles) the intention of the priest is necessary in the administration of the sacraments in order to effect them so. By the Bull of Pope Iulius 2d (which the Cardinalls sweare to at Elections) hee is no Pope nor can by any means after that become one who hath beene simonically elected but is to bee opposed by the Cardinalls & avoyded as Magitian, Heathen, Publican, or the founder of Heresy. Yet such was Sixtus the fift. Promising to Cardinall d'Este never to create Ierome Matthew, d'Estes enemy, a Cardinall which yet doeing, d'Este sent the Instrument subscribed by Sixtus his owne hand to Philip 2 K of Spain who (1589) sent the Pope notice by the Duke of Suisse that hee intended to call a Generall Councell, according to the said bull, for declaring this simonicall Election whereupon Sixtus for greife dyed, & so ended the business. Was this Pope lawfull or the Cardinalls elected by him, or the Pope Vrban 7 elected by them, (viz: by Cardinall Montollo his nephew entring the Conclave with 40 votes) or any Pope ever after? To passe by the Simonical bargaines of Paul 5t. Then where is the infallible person? Yet supposing this, & that also we may know when hee defines in Cathedrâ, may they that never saw him doe it beleive hee did it? why may they not beleive the Gospell on the same account? Nay, may they beleive that see since their sight is fallacious in Transubstantion.

2A It effcts not what it was brought for, it runs in a circle, {illeg} divine or infallible faith cannot bee builded on prudentiall motives whence then with a divine faith doe you beleive the churches infallibility, if not from infallible Testimony of Scripture? an {illeg}thete must know there is a spirit, & that you have its assistance promised & how this without scripture testimony? 2a. You say you onely urge Scripture against others as arguing ad hominem ex concessis princpijs. But 1. the question is what are the grounds of your owne faith, not of your arguments to others. 2. But how will you convince those adversarys that your interpretation of the scriptures you urge against them (as Super hanc petram, pasce oves, dabo tibi claves &c) is infallibly true if not from church infallibility. 3a: Had you used prudentiall motives to prove divine Revelation in the church, you would have proved her infallibility independently on scripture. but they being onely to prove divine assistance of the Church in delivering former revelations, this is dependent on it; for why is such assistance necessary in or to bee expected from the church, if not divinely revealed to bee so, viz: if not promised in Scripture

Object. The Roman Church will appear infallible by the same motives of Credibility whereby Moses, Christ & his Appostles did so. viz by miracles & holy life

Resp. Then the disbeleife of her infallibility being against the same evidence is as sinfull & damnable as the disbeleife of Christ. Do good & vertuous lives make men the more infallible? Infallibility can only proceed from Gods immediate directing the mind, that is communicating the notions of truths to it imperceptibly to other men; which wee call inspiration & so far a man may bee infallible as hee is inspired Now how shall one inspired make it appeare to others that it is so unlesse by the Testimony of one beleived to be inspired, or by some supernaturall signes which suffice considering that God is good, & will not therefore deceive men either by false inspirations or by assisting them with miracles which declare what they are not inspired with. Nor suffer men to bee deceived by such signes in confirming what may bee to their destruction. But where are your miracles? Let your infallible popes shew them, & not in a corner but where the people to bee convinced may see them as their end imports. Are not yours the lying wonders foretold to bee at the coming of antichrist? how shall I know they are not.

But some prophesys are fullfilled in your Church; so shall their bee an Antichrist. Your Popes yet cannot prophesy.       Your other prudentiall motives are rather the markes of a true then infallible church as efficacy purity & Excellency of doctrins, & some of them not soe much as the marks of a true church, as sanctity of life, succession of lawfully sent pastours, unity, Antiquity, & the very name of Catholick. But are these to bee found in the Roman Church onely?


Arg: If from Church Tradition onely wee beleive the Trinity Saviour Resurrection, Gospell &c much more must wee then beleive the infallibility of the Church in her Tradition & testimony.

Resp: Science depends & is proportioned to evidences but faith is a free & voluntary act proceeding rather from the consent of the will than evidence {illeg} {illeg} Rarely distinguished! Beleive with our wills? And wee know not why but because we will do soe. And yet may wee not bee deceived? Surely evidence is Evidence, be it from Testimony aswell as if it bee from the {nature} of the object.

Arg: Church Infallibility must then bee the formall object of Divine Faith. 1. Because its onely Foundation can you {illeg} your faith into divine Revelation Q Where is the Revelation extant? And then what need of your Infallibility. now what is the object & {illeg} for infallibility 2. {Can} you make the same motives of Credibility to your Infall: as to Div: Rev: & yet there is that same reason for both being formall objects of D. Faith. 3. What but infallibility makes any thing the object of faith?

Arg. All the Authoritys of Fathers Councells & Scriptures must bee finally resolved into the Roman Churches authority. Scripture say you is obscure & wants an Infallible living Iudge; Surely not so as to hinder Gods designes in it, noe more than {Os stots} hinders its light. But why have wee not a Catologue of these determinations? But if wee had; how must wee know theire sence, being in writing too? as to the holy Ghosts assistance of the Church, what is it but inspiration though onely to the church declaring what was before revealed. If God supernaturally assisted the understanding of any prophet in declaring a prophesy before revealed, would not this bee a new prophesy? Shee is not divinely infallible but in a manner, in a sorte, then shee is fallible in a manner too

Chap 6. Of the Infallibility of Traditions.

1 Not the Infallible Testimony of the Church as to unwritten traditions, 2 Nor the resplendent light of the Scripture as such, 3 Nor (in this case, evidence being required that others {illeg} notice of as well as wee) the Testimony of the spirit either by speciall revelation or by an act of Divine infused faith, is a sufficient motive to faith. But 4 Reason may inform an Infidell that Christian Religion founded on the Scriptures stands upon surer grounds of mature reason, Common equity, & justice than any naturalist hath or can attaine to {illeg} as far as to the matters of fact, or any such morall evidence as the nature of the thing is capable of, which is sufficient for the assent required. Nay is not reason judge of the evidence from Tradition, & Scripture light &c. Rationall motives may persuade a man to reade the scripture & the reader may thence deduce more rationall motives for it.

Obj: If the Church bee fallible then so are particular persons in their faith, & how can I bee assured shee erred not in defining what is scripture & delivering it down to us.

Resp: By infallibility do you meane Impossibility to bee deceived? That is not congruous to humane nature. Or impossibility of reasonable doubting arising from the sufficiency of the evidencce of the Scripture canon? That every man & the church too may have though shee bee fallible in your sence. As to the Constitution of that Canon, When the Church upon a strict enquiry found that the bookes passing under such & such titles were truly authentick & written by persons who gave the greatest rationall evidence of their inspiration, Thereupon (& not because she was infallible) they being received & acknowledged as such by the Vniversall Church were entered into the Canon, some sooner, others a greate while | divers yeares after (as Saint Iames Saint Iude, The Epistle to the Hebrews, & the Apocalyps) for as the coppys were more or lesse quickly or publickly dispersed, occasion was ministred to the church of examining them. But why must you make the Canon, larger than it was in Ruffinus his time?


Chap 7 The Protestant way {of} Resolving faith.

Lemma 1. Wee here inquire not why wee assent to Divine Revelation (viz: because of gods Veracity) but why we assent that any thing is a Divine Revelation. 2 By faith wee meane a Rationall & discursive act of the mind. For Faith is an assent of the mind caused by reason Or evidence whereof wee may give an account to others: And the giving this account why wee beleive is the resolving of faith. Wee meane not heare the testimony of the spirit & infused habits of grace but rationall inducements to beleive, without which the spirit of Revelation would not bee the spirit of wisdome & religion would bee exposed to the contempt of unbeleivers. 3 According to the different acts of faith there must bee assigned different resolutions of faith. viz

Quest 1. Why I beleive those things to be true as to matter of fact which are contained in the Booke called the Scriptures?

Resp: 1. The Bookes being writ while the story was new, & when multitudes were willing to have contradicted them if, written amis, & some of them writen by persons acquainted with the person & life of him they writ of; Their authors could not bee Ignorant of what they writ. 2 By their simplicity & candor in their actions & writings, their contempt of the world, the hazards they incurred for attesting what they writt; They could have noe intent to deceive us. 3 The matters in them being of greatest moment would make men inquisitive about it, & they were received unanimously for theirs from the very first time of their being written (except some few Iames, Iude, Hebrews, Apocalyps) being cited (as we find) by learned christians under their names when it would have beene noe difficult matter to have found many of the originall coppys themselves. Therefore these Bookes were written by those men whose names they goe under. How can a thing of this nature have greater evidence? And to require more is unreasonable. For morall certainty is onely weakened by the want of some evidence which the nature of the thing is capable of

Quest 2. Why I beleive the Doctrine conteined in these bookes to be Divine. Resp: 1. Granting the matters of fact (by Resp 1) to bee beleived; In that age when the doctrine was delivered there was sufficient reason to beleive it Divine, from the unparalleld miracles of Christ, & his resurrection from the dead. The greatest Infidell, had hee beene an eye witnesse of these things, must have beleived his doctrines to be from God. 2 And therefore in our age too. Tradition being to us what sense was to them; not the motives but the meanes of conveying the motives for beleife. Wee have all the same motives to beleive but not the same conveyance of those motives to us. Our case is like theirs in the same age but in remote countrys. They could not heare & see Christ being so distant in place nor wee being so distant in time. And if their bee any advantage wee have it; for though Tradition it selfe give no credibility to the doctrine, yet its circumstances may facilitate our beleif above theirs; viz: Such continued Tradition evidences the efficacy of the doctrine that could engage in it so many in all ages. [Heb 2.3, 4. There sence, without the inward testimony of spirit, or externall Church infallibility, sufficed: & so proportionally Tradition now.

Object. All this is no more than morall certainty, which being fallible wee cannot from thence bee assured that Christian religion is infallibly true.

Resp. 1a: What greater evidence than this had they who lived in the time of christ & his Apostles but saw not their miracles? 2a: As mathematicall Evidence in Mathematicall things so morall Evidence in morall things may remove all suspition of doubt & then there may bee as firme assent in the one as in the other. Morall evidence then being a sufficient ground for the most firme assent, if the matter to bee beleived bee the infallible truth of a doctrine upon suitable evidence, though wee have now but morall certainty of that Evidence the assent may bee firme to such a doctrine as infallible. The mistake lys here, as if our faith was to bee resolved finally into this morall certainty, into eyes & eares & not into miracles. 3a. the greatest assurance wee can desire that any Religion is Infallibly true is from morall certainty, because 1 The grounds of Religion are capable of noe more. viz: the being of a God & Imortality of the soule; without supposing the 1st of which there is noe infallibility in any thing. 2 The highest evidence of any religion must depend upon it Tell mee why there is not as greate a possibility of deception in Physicall certaintys (hearing, seeing, & their objects &c) as suspicion of doubt in morall certaintys. Also Gods designe in Religion is not onely for those few which heare & see &c: But also for other far greater numbers distant in age & place. & I would know <9> what they can have more than morall Cetrainty. That {illeg} what 3 {illeg} true {illeg} {gives} us sufficient assurance that christian religion is infallib{illeg} the credibility of Christian Religion. And 1 From the {illeg} in {illeg} upon men an obligation to beleive, for that is the end of credibility {illeg} though possibly the (thing it selfe) matter bee false. 2 god haveing {the power and} {illeg} to credibilitys; so here there is such obligation to beleive, wee have {illeg} that the matter to bee beleived is infallibly true? Because God {cannot} Now this obligation would bee from God 1 who made us of such a {illeg} & assent to evident credibilitys. 2 who gave us such credibilitys, or suffered us to {have such} credibilitys which wee cannot detect to bee erroneous nor dissent from.

Quest 3 Why I beleive those particular bookes of Scripture to bee the {illeg}

Resp 1 Why I beleive the doctrine conteined in those bookes to {bee} the word of God is already answered. 2 Why I beleive the books containing those Doctrines to bee Gods word, is {illeg} 1 the Last Resolution of Faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance but of the infallibility of the doctrine thereby conveyed to us. For many beleived before the word was written, & thus may illiterate persons resolve theire faith. Note that materiall object is the Doctrine, the formall object is the evidence of the infallible Testimony of those who delivered this doctrine & the Rule of Faith is the scriptures which limit & bound the materiall object of our faith. 2 They who beleive the Doctrine of Scripture to bee divine have noe reason to question the infallible conveyance of that doctrine to us in those bookes. For 1 If they bee Divine then all the promises of Christ were accomplished. As Iohn 16.13. Therefore the Apostlells had the infallible assistance of the spirit of God, in delivering this doctrine to the world by writing & preaching, which they also by miracles testifyed. [Whither in things of no {conce}rnment (as Iohn 16:19), in lighter circumstances, or meer historicall passages needed the same spirituall assistance that things propheticall & Doctrinall did, is not here needful to bee inquired, for what danger if they were not]. 2 these bookes were owned for Divine by those persons & ages who were most competent Iudges whether they were so or not. The age of the Apostells might easily discerne what was written by Christ & his Apostells & thence wee derive our knowledge of these bookes by a most unquestionable & universall tradition. Would the Christian world bee soe besotted as to suffer the records of what they conceived to concerne their eternall welfaire to bee corrupted? when tis notorious how diligent & venterrous they were to preserve them & communicate them to their freinds & posterity.

Arg. Sixtus 5 & 2 years after Clement 8 set forth 2 vulgar latin Bibles differing in 2000 places which editions they commended too for their corrections by the originall.

show us any Tradition so universall as to time & extent as that of Scripture is & wee will beleive you but the voyce of your present particular church & ambiguous testimony of 2 or 3 Fathers will not do.


Parte the 2d. Of Scisme

Chap. 1 Of the Vniversall church & {of} schisme in Generall.

1   The whole number of men professing one Religion which they know truly tending to Gods glory & their happinesse & being thereby obliged to socyety (or acts in common) in the profession & exercises of it as tending to those ends; wee call the Catholick Church.

2     For the performance of particular acts of Communion there must bee lesser socyetys or particular Churches. The conditions of & obligations to communion with these being the same that they are in the Catholick Church, as being from the same ends & on the same grounds (viz: the churches foundation). Noe true Christian should bee barred any Christian society.

3.     Any one particular Christian society may impose some things to bee beleived or practised repugnant to the generall foundation of Christian society

4.     The Obligation to Communion with any Church is not absolute & indispensable, but onely so far as shee requires noe such unreasonable conditions of communion as are distractions to the ends & grounds of Christian Society. Schisme is a wilfull violation of the bounds of Christian societys, i.e. Seperation upon insufficient grounds, or causing seperation by imposing too hard conditions of Communion. The schisme is the causers.

5.    The society imposing conditions of Communion is not to bee Iudge whither they bee just or no. In matters of peace conveniency & order (which touch not her foundation) shee may overule particular persons. But when her foundation, (her church hood) is questioned, why should the party accused bee judge & that against greate bodys of christians.

6.      Scripture Reason & Tradition must bee Iudge.

7.       By how much the greater the societys are which agree in not communicating with a Church imposing such conditions, By how much the power of those overuling those societys so agreeing together is greater. By so much the more justifyable is the Reformation of any Church from these abuses & the setling the bounds of Christian Communion without them.

The Roman Church not the Catholick Church

Papist. Catholick church is taken either 1 Formally, for all particular churches united in one communion under one head. 2 Causally, for the Roman church which as the center of Eclesiasticall communion infuses unity (which is the forme of Vniversality) into the Catholick Church & thereby causes her universality. 3 Participatively, for every particular church participating of the doctrine & Communion of the Catholick church.

Protest. The Fathers made the Vnion of the Cath: Church to consist 1: in Doctrine, shee was called Catholick from the Vniversall spread of its Doctrine & agreement of Particular churches in it. 2: in Government as being a whole (Cath: Church) consisting of Homogeneall parts (particular churches of equall Authority, without subordination or dependence on one head church)

Chap 2. Protestants not Guilty of Schisme.

Pap: If the Roman Church was once the Right Church it is so still. When was the change made?

Prot. She was once a but never the Right Church, the Catholick church. And as to the time of her change I answer 1 Tis an unreasonable question. Math: 13:25. The Tares were sown by the enemy when the men slept. When began many things you esteme errors; as necessity of Communicating Infants, no soul departed sees God till the Ressurection, Rebaptizing Hereticks &c? When ended many customs of the primitive church, as the orders of penitents & the rites about them, Communicatory Letters betweene churches. &c? 2 Without knowing this wee may judge which are errors by the Rule of Faith brought downe by an uninterrupted tradition & by the practise of the first ages. 3 They who assert their doctrines & practises Apostolicall should rather shew the continued succession of them from the Apostles time. Infallibility with the rest. 4 You confesse many of your Doctrines & Practises to be of no greate Antiquity. Prayer in an unknown tongue was not in use till the latine tongue was out of use with you; nay your Church you say may declare that infallibly necessary in one Age which was not soe in the age before. 5 There are sufficient reasons why the beginings of your errors & corruptions have beene so obscure. As because they came in 1 not all at once, 2 Gradually, 3 at first upon good designes, 4 by persons of esteeme whos Example was more regarded than their doctrine, 5 by persons in power, which hindred them from being, as others had beene, excommunicated for them. 6 being freely practised at the first though now made necessary. 7 the state of the Church altering in severall ages made mens judgments alter too, as to the suitablenesse & necessity of things. 8 being as first the private opinions & practises of a faction not vehemently opposed at the first, because done either by a party inconsiderable or very prevalent in the church. 9 By being accompanied by Barbarisme. 6 The time when many of your errors & corruptions were first publickly owned & received may bee traced out by any man who will take the paines to doe it.


Papist. If in Luthers time the Romane Church was {Corrupt 1 There was noe} one visible particular Church uncorrupt. 2 nor any {illeg} times. 3 Then it was necessary to seperate from the externall con{secration} of the whole Church.

Prot: 1. Any particular church may erre. Why may not severall nay all of them erre successively? Why not all at once in severall points? Nay why {may} not all at once in the same point? that is, why may not the Catholick Church erre? There are {illeg} to the contrary. Onely though particular churches may erre fundamentally so as to {illeg} their being, the Catholick Church cannot soe erre For Christ hath promised that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it. 2 Why might not a Church retaining the Faith long after the Apostells time faile before Luther's? 3 Should every Church bee in some or all in the same Error wee need not seperate from the Communion of the Catholick Church 1 Becaus perhaps they may not make their errors conditions of Communion & then wee may joyne with them if thereby wee approve not of theire errors. 2 If they doe wee separate not {from them} as Catholick but as corrupt & erroneous. Every Church hath some things Essential which are its being, & other things accidentall to it as it is a particular church; Hee that seperates by reason of something Essentiall seperates from the Catholick church, but not hee that seperates from the Communion of some or every particular Church by reason of some accidentalls to it: Because hee would willingly rejoyne with them after fit reformation or with any other Church he finds not so erroneous. And hee may rather bee said to suspend his communion with them than separate. Thus if all my acquaintance were leprous & I therefore leave them, I (though alone at present) divide not my selfe from mankind, but take care for my present safty till I find healthfull persons with whome I may associate.

Chap 3. Of keeping Faith with Heretick

Though the Negative is not acknowledged lest that should frustrate its ends, yet it appeares to bee the Iesuits & Grandees tenent by the burning Iohn Hus, contrary to the Emperors safe conduct, & Ierome of Prage contrary to the Concell of Constance's safe conduct & by their salvo-distinctions, & testimonys of theire owne party.

Chap 4 The Reformation of the Church of England justifyed.

Wee departed not from Rome, but returne by the Communion of the primitive & Vniversall church. shee first became guilty of Schisme by departing from the Communion of the Catholick Church (As hee violates the union with his neighbours, & their publick & common right in their common feild, who incloses parte of it without his neighbours consent & deprives the dissenters of their right therein. Or hee who puts more stock thereupon then of right hee should, & therefore deprives his neighbour of all because hee will not loose some of his right) by narrowing its bounds of Communion, & then thrust us from her for disowning such inclosure. Wee differ not as shee is Catholick but as shee is schismaticall. [If a King founds a Society upon certaine indispensable conditions, or Statutes, in order to their communion, A Breach of it can onely bee defined by those Statutes. If the whole socyety transgresse, & one at last perceive his error, & bee reformed without the rest, the breach is theirs not his.]

Pap. You seperated not from Rome but from the whole world. Prot. 1 From every particular church but not from the whole World because not in any thing wherein the whole world was agreed. 2 Not therefore from the Catholick Church, for wee retaine whatever she is Catholick in, that is her Fundamentalls which gives her being & therefore wee still remaine a true church. A man is a man still though hee vary from all the world in accidentalls, as cloths, dyed &c: so long as hee consists of the Essentiall soule & Body

If the Generall Church will not reforme particulars may. Iudah might doe it without Israel Hosea 4.15. Israell was a church (many in her being saved) as well as Iudah & both then wanted Reformation <12> Hosea {illeg}:3. Hos 1:1. 2 Kings 15;4, 35.10 & 17:19

Particular Churches may as well reforme doctrines amisse if not Catholick as publish & promulgate Doctrines not Catholick, as you did the filiall procession.

Pap. your Reformation was against fundamentalls, because in things generally held by the whole Church at the Reformation. Prot: Then 1 wee might reforme in things not generally held as Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, necessity of Cœlibate in the Clergy, Communion in one kind, prayer in an unknown tongue, Indulgences &c: 2 All your doctrines were not universally held, for then the Greeks & Abyssine Churches &c were, with you, orthodox; Nay the Church of Rome did not then hold any thing Catholick in which wee reformed. Some of them were private opinion of some factions in her, & it may bee owned by such prevailing factions that the opposers durst not appeare publickly against them (as Transubst: Purgato &c) which might make them seme generally held, but never were they defined, or generally held to bee fundamentall till Trent Councell. And what made the reformation so ready but that there were many which wanted rather power than will to oppose them. 3 What if they were generally held then, were they soe up to the times of the Apostells?

Pap: Your Reformation was not done by a lawfull power nor in a lawfull manner.

Prot: In the 1st yeare of Eliz: II seas were vacant. There being but 15 Bishops then living in England & 26 sees. And those 15 Bishops were lawfully deprived all but Kitchin of Landaffe of their Bishopricks too in that yeare for refusing the oath of Supremacy, which they as Bishops or preists had before taken to Henry 8. (some or all of which refused to assist her at her coronation, & some threatning her excommunication, instead of disputing at Westminster as they had solemnly engaged). Now then the sees being thus lawfully voyd, their successors were noe intruders, but lawfully (having also canonicall & just vocations, mission & jurisdiction) Governors of the English church. Then why might not that bee a lawfull nationall Councell which was called by the Queene Eliz, anno Regni 5, 1562, Consisting of a Synod of Bishops with the lower house of Convocation to settle the church. What Articles were confirmed by acts of state & Royall assent. If there have beene any errors not so much in opinion as fact (Sacreledg too often pretending to reforme Superstition that is the crime of the Reformers not of the Reformation, & they are gone to God to answer it.

Chap 5. Of the Roman Churches Authority

Particular Churches may so far condemne others of errors in faith as is necessary to their owne Reformation

The 3d Canon of the Councell of Nice [sicque præest Patriarcha ijs omnibus qui sub ejus potestate sunt, sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romæ caput est & Princeps omnium Patriacharum, &c] Or rather the 39th canon in the Arabick Edition of that counsells Canons is a fourgery for that Counsell made but 20 Canons.

All Patriarchs were equall in authority in in the first ages (see the 6t canon of the Nicene Councell [Let the ancient customes prevaile: according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Egypt Lybia & Pentapolis; because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch & other Provinces let the privileges be preserved to the Churches.], & other testimony.

The Popes confirmation of new Elected Patriarchs was noe token of Iurisdiction, but of his receiving into communion, & consent to the consecration already performed, & the like was done to new elected Bishop{s} of Rome by the communicatory letters of other Patriarchs. Nor had they power to depose or restore Patriarchs.

See the Case of the Donatists. The 100 yeares schisme twixt Rome & the Affrican Bishops for opposing Appeals to Rome. Wilfride Arch Bishop of Yorke's Appeale to Rome proves nothing. The Primacy in England not from Augustine the Monke.

When the Emperor became Christian, for setting the Vnity of the Church, it was agreed that precedency of honour in the Church should follow that of the state. This gave advantages to the B: of Rom{e} & Alexandria, The Popes watchfulnesse raised him by degrees, stiling themselves Vindices canonum being therefore called arrogant by the Easterne Bishops. At last Pelagius 2d by the necessity of the times tooke the Popedome without the Emperors leave & sent St Gregory a Deacon embasador to excuse it. Anno 579 when Italy was on fire with the Lombards. And, these broyles making the Emperors protection & popes Homage useless, the Pope was left to play his owne game till A.D. 710 hee was able to confront the Emperor. But the Lombards pinching close the Pope desires the aid <13> of Charles Martell, who drove them out of Italy & whose sonne {illeg} X {illeg} his father tooke from the Lombards (whose kingdome had stoode 204 yeares in Italy) Now was the Pope greate indeed & (when Charles the greate set up the Western Empire) he assumed the Emperours power of governing the Church, calling Councells, ordering Papall Elections, which the Emperor enjoyed in Greg 7's time. For Greg 7 was confirmed in the Popedome by Henry 4, whome he afterwards deposed.

Chap 6 Of the Title of Vniversall Bishop.

An Vniversall Bishop denotes either, 1: a Generall care & solicitude over all the Churches of the Christian World & Thus is Every Patriarch an V: B: & may interpose in other Seas for preserving the churches unity. 2: A pecuciall dignity over the churches within the Empire (as of Rome &c). Thus when Constantinople flourished its Patriarch Nestorius was stiled (by Theodoret Hæret: Fabul: l 4. c 12. p 245 To 4. ope.) Governour of the Catholick church of the Orthodox at Constantinople & thereby of the whole world. the like of others. 3 Vniversall Iurisdiction over all churches. And this no Patriarch ever had. Mauritius the Emperor gave this title to Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople being sowerly opposed by Pelagius & St Gregory. But Mauritius being deposed & murdered by Phocas, hee gives Boniface 3d that same title which his two predecessours had declared against as monstrous & Blasphemous if not Heretical. Ireneus opposed Victor in Excommunicating the Asian Bishops.

Severall of the Popes decrees have contradicted each other (see Vigorius com: in ep: synod consil: Basilis c. 7 p: 63). Boniface 8 decrees, De necessitate salutis est subesse Romano Pontifici. Innocent the 3d, that The King of France hath no superior on Earth.

Peeter had noe preeminence in power but order onely over the other Apostles, Nay Iames is rather preferred in the chaire, Epiph Hæres 29. p: 199. & 78. p: 1039. Hee is there called 1st if not cheife Bish & the lord committed to him Θρόνον ἀυτου ἑπὶ τῆς γῆς, the principality of the church [Ierusalem (after his ascension) is never called his Throne on Earth]

Chap 7. The Popes Authority not proved from scripture.

Luc 22.32. Against this, Vigorius in ep: Synod: consil: Basil: c. 7. sec 3. sayth, that those Canons decreed that Popes might bee deposed for Hæresy. (Twas a Counsell of your owne). Iohn 21:15, 16, 17. Tis noe commission but exhortation to his duty. Is this a commision for King Killing? Butchers? or Shepherds.

Pap: But 1 A living Iudg is requisite in states, 2 & Monarchy is the best government.

Prot: 1 Bishops & counsells answer to judges & Parliaments. 2 The church is too large for one Monarchy, nor was it so by Christs apointment or primitive practise as their communicatory letters testify. Nehat history of a Monarchy mentions noe acts that denotes Royalty? Eph 4:11. No Monarch there. Soe that Aristocrasy is the proper Government of the church. Besides Vniversall church Monarchy would but weakly bee united out of severall state Monarchys.

The civill power may bee supreame in the Church too: Custodes utriusque Tabulæ. Rom 13:1 Deutr 17.18. Hezekiah & Iosiah Reformed & commanded the Priests to it. Theodosius, Iustinian, Charlemaine &c medled not now & then onely but enacted laws to the great settlement & increase of Religion

Chap 8 Of the Councell of Trent.

The Councell of Trent was not legall. 1: making present Tradition as well as Scripture its Rule of faith, contrary to the foundation of Ancient Councells, whose Rule was the Scriptures. 2: In that the Pope the cheife person to bee reformed sate as President & Iudge in his owne case &c with what right? for it was not so in the 3 first Generall councells nor manifestly in the 2 next.

Nor was it a free Councell, for 1 the place Trent was too neare the Popes dominion, amidst the Alps in a barren & woody soyle. 2 None had suffrage but who were sworne to the Popes & Roman interest & <14> against all Reformation; whereas tis not apparent any oaths were primitively imposed, & when they came into use (as is first mentioned of the 4th Councell of Toledo AD. 675) they onely bound themselves to observe the Cath: Faith & onely their superiours. 3: The Pope declared the Appellants Hereticks before the Councell condemned them. 4 the Number of Bishops was too small , the Greek & English Church having no representatives {5} the Popes party was too numerous 187 Italians to 83 of all other Nations, & votes went by the number of persons, not of churches as anciently. 6: All things were first consulted on at Rome, 7 Nothing might bee propounded but by the Popes Legats, though formerly every Bishop had the Liberty. 8 When nothing else would doe they flouted & scoffed the spanish Bishops & all that durst speake freely, & created fresh swarmes of Italian Bishops to out vote them

Object The Arrians may say as much against the Councell of Nice. Resp: Nay That was called by the Emperour, who sat in person in it to regulate disorders, this by the Pope who presided in it by his legats that ordered all things by his directions; the Arrians had free votes, not wee. There the Bishops debated here they gave theire placet to the divines debates; There none dyed for greife of checks; &c:

Object. The French Spanish & Greeks differed from the Protestants as to what the Counsell defind Resp: That Cannot bee knowne without a free & faire debate: And the Patriarch Ieremias & much more Cyrill declared their likings of almost all the Articles of Faith presented to them by theProtestants.

Object: In the 1st 4 Generall Councells the most were Roman Bishops & but few in all, & the Popes summons at Nice was Generall. Resp: Not the multitud of Bishops nor Generall summons make a Generall Councell, but a generall acknowledgment of its decrees in all Churches upon Publication; as in the 1st Councell

Part 3. Of Particular controversys. Chap 1. Of Infallibility of Generall Councells

1 If they bee Infallible, what signifys that to the Churches peace without evidence that 1. They may bee so? 1 Not because they are representatives of the church. For they were not instituted by the same divine Authority: being but the Emperor Constantines invention. And then they can have noe more infallibility than shee, which they may have without the Popes confirmation. 2 Not by Resoning (for so they are men) nor by Divine Assistance in their Conclusions: For what is Revelation if that bee not, & then what need of debating? 3 Is the Councell in determining or Pope in confirming infallible if the Coun: then what need confirmation? but if the Councell may erre without P's Confirmacion, then the Pope is infallible & what neede of a Councell?

2 They are so? 1 Was it a Lawfull Counsell? Lawfull Pope & Bishops? who knows the intention of the Preists at their Consecration? 2 What decrees past & did the Pope confirme them? who infallibly knows it? 3 Did the Councell proceed lawfully & orderly? 4 What meane the decrees? May not, may have not theire sense (even of Trent Councel) beene doubted as well as Scripture{?} 4 Did the Pope & Bishops determinations agree with their infallible judgments, or interests? They have beene wicked & some Hereticall. & why may not such bely their knowledg for advantage?

Chap 2 Of the Vse & Authority of Generall Councells.

The Determinations of any Councell (called & ordered lawfully, proceeding freely & without wiles, & according to Gods rule) binds no man in his judgment & faith, but onely to externall obedience. And if it happen there bee really or pretendedly some scripture or Demonstration urged against the former councells proceedings by any church, Let there bee a new councell moved for to consider of it & repeale what was before amis, In the meane while so far submitting to the 1st councell as not to breake the churches peace by opposing it. Now then though a counsell may erre yet it can rarely erre if guided by the premises, yet where it hath evident scripture or demonstration for what it determins, or rectifys of another Councell, wee may bee certaine it did not erre. And if shee doe erre it obligeth onely to peace, & because a church may erre, may shee not therefore governe? If you ask who must Bee judg of the Lawfull calling & proceeding in the counsell? I answer, If it bee such, there will not want sufficient morall certainty of it; as an universall acknowledgment, without complaints, of it; & submission to it.

Tis like the supreme civill power in a state: The both may erre in acting, revoke former acts, exact obedience to them &c: Both have the same conveniences & inconveniences.

The Church collective cannot in reason give more power to its body Representative than a binding power upon it selfe & all particulars: with this reservation that it would call againe & reforme or <15> {illeg} whatever its representative failed in either as to trust or tr{uth} and the rather {illeg} shee is as infallible as her representative, & more surely so.

To erre in supposing a Fallible Councell to bee infallible, takes away all hope of reforming her errors which must needs make irreconcilable rents in the Church, but to suppose an infallible councell fallible, can only occasion the calling of new councells to rectify the supposed errors of former ones, & if they bee infallible they will never clash.

Chap 3. Of the Errors of pretended Generall Councells

That of Constance & Trent decreed the necessity of the Preists intention in the Sacraments (viz: Generall Intention (though his thoughts may waver. Which being wanting or expressly contrary to what it should bee 1 you adore the bread in the Eucharist in stead of christs body which is Idolatry, 2 None can bee sure that they are baptized or did communicate, or that the Pope is so & therefore Peeters infallible successor

If Noe Counsell bee secure from error till the Pope confirme & hee cannot confirme what they may erre in Then hee alone is infallible.

The Counsell of Lateran 1st decreed Transubstantiation, contrary to sense, nor with consent of the Fathers or Scripture. As, This [bread] is my (real) body. Is that sense?

That of Constance decreed the Communion in one kind, contrary to the Practis of the Apostles Church for 1000 yeares & more, & contrary to Christ's Institution, For Christs Celebration of it was not arbitrary but obligatory to the Apostles not as such but as beleivers & therefore to all Belevers also: And the things commanded [Take, eate, drinke, doe this in remembrance of mee] doe equally oblige. The meaning of [this doe as oft &c set after the cup] is explained by comparing 1 Corinth 11:25, 26 together; see also Luck 22:19.      But you say that [Luck 22:19] (doe this) make them Preists, which is twixt the Bread & Cup. Soe that they had not the cup till they were preists. But then 1 why doth the consecrating Preist onely receive the cup. 2 What power have they to consecrate the cup. &c Some make Doe this to relate to the sacrifice not sacraments But then 1 by what authority doe they administer the Sacrament. 2: why is not (Doe this) set last, both bread & wine being necessary to the Sacrifice. Others say tis but a Positive Comand in Generall & bind onely in cases of necessity. And the Church thinks it not necessary. Then 1 may shee prohibit it? 2 may shee not dispence with Baptisme too?

The counsell of Trent decreed the Invocation of Saints that wee may have the assistance of their merits as well as prayers to God for us, (as the Trent=Roman=Chatechisme shews t 3. p: 504, & also consil: Trident: Sess: ult:). Whereas in the 3 first centurys there is not the least shew for it & the answers of christians to Pagans objecting it doe wholly make against it; denying any kind of worship as well inferiour & Relative as cheife & absolute to any but God when as the Pagans (like the Papists) would have the cheifest worship given to the supreme Deity, & inferior worship to Deifyed Emperors & Hero's & other inferiour Deitys. And why the worship of inferior beings should bee Idolatry in a Heathen & not in a Papist I know not. After the first 300 yeares when Persecutions ceased, devotion abated; which made the Fathers (Basil Gr Naz: Cypr: Athan: Gr Nyssen &c) use their Rhetorick largely to perswade the people to imitation of the Martyrs, for which end they perswaded them to frequent their memorialls which in time rather caused honour to the Martyrs than devotion to God: which at length (by reason of some pretended extaticall dreames or visions or occurances in those places) turned to superstitious Devotion, & at last to solemne Invocation. The Fathers at the first countenancing small miscarriages in hopes that all would end in zeales which at the end of the 4th century was a faire tendency to invocation. When any prayer was made in the name of Abraham or David &c (as, Psal 132:10, 11. & Exodus 32:13 &c) it was with respect to Gods covenant & promis to them. Christs divinity is proved (by Athanasians) by worship done to him. Is not the Invocation derogatory to Christs merits? As if his merits were not sufficient. Nay the saints themselves must surely receive a full reward for their owne merits, & what more can bee desired on that account.

The Counsell of Nice 900 yeares since & that of Trent decreed the worshiping of Images. Whereas in ancient churches the very art of Painting was therefore condemned, saith Clem: Alexandinus. And Heathens place no more Divinity in Images than Papists doe.


Chap 4. Of the Possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church.

Wee grant a Possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church not as Roman but as Retaining something fundamentall & Christian (as the Creed) not to mean retaining its errors against their knowledge resolving {no laws made} in that church but to such who her superstitions abolished which they know & pray God to forgive their errors they know not (if such bee Papists) not by her sacrament of Pennance &c: but a Christian godly life faith, hope, repentance &c. They deny salvation to us, all but invincibly ignorants, & that cheifly for wanting the sacrament of Pennance at our death,(Oh uncharitable faction!) which is noe fundamentall point to their church. Thus it was twixt the Donatists & Church of old. Nay you grant a possibility of salvation to Heathens, they deny it to you by Christ, therefore Hethenisme is safer than popery. But this principle, tis safest choosing that in which both partys are agreed is but a contingent proposition & guided onely by the matter as, all men grant one god & that christ is a man the church adds there are 3 persons, & Christ is God, which notwithstanding is the safer side. Nay this principle will make for us more than them. As thus: wee both agree in Christs reall presence in the Eucharist, in his descention into hell, christs institution of who{illeg} Sacraments, matter & forme of Sacraments that there is no positive error in our Liturgis. Truth of Scriptures &c: Wee deny Transubstantiation assert noe particular Explanation of the Descention, we deny maimed Sacraments, the Preists intention, & wee assert the grosse & dangerous Errors of your masse. Therefore tis safest holding with us in these.

The Possibility of Salv: in the Ro: Church, Not being made a fundamentall nor so much a doctrine of the English church but onely the charitable opinion of some private men can bee noe ground of dissenting from her, because it may bee false though shee bee true

Chap 5 Of the Safty of the Protestant faith.

Papist. The Protestants rather than the Catholicks are to prove their Religion agreeable to the Primitive Church. Because the Papists are in full & quiet possession of their faith, Religion & Church, by immemoriall Tradition & succession &c.

Prot Right depends not on possession but title, Therefore 1a: hath noe antecedent law determined contrary to what you possesse? If you say Church possession argues it was the will of christ; I aske can the Church come into noe possession but what was first given her by the Legislator? Is the present voyce of the Church an infallible oral Tradition from our Saviours days? Then 1 How may I bee sure that present Church obliges its members to beleive nothing but what & so far as it received it from the former Church nay I see things made now de fide which were not so before. 2 What security have I that in noe age of the Church noe new practises should come in. Though it may bee, they could not bee deceived in knowing their fathers practises, yet did they think themselves obliged to do nothing but what their forefathers did? 3 There is sufficient evidence that many of her Traditions are neither uninterruptedly continued from the Apostells times nor universally beleived by the present Roman Church. And men strive in vaine to demonstrate the impossibility of motion so long as wee see the Contrary.

2a: What meane you by your possession? that you beleive your owne doctrins? You may still keep in that possession. Or that you would have us beleive them? But why so? are wee bound to beleive as you doe? Wee must first know what this Possession is whither of truths or fictions. When wee understand it to bee of truth wee will consent with you: But if it bee of fictions, why do you tell us of Possession? can there bee a possession of meere nothings? (of Infallibility, Purgatory, Transubst: &c)

Chap 6. Of Purgatory.

Some of the Fathers assert a receptacle for Soules till the day of Iudgment & therefore pray for the mitigation of their tedious, vehement & tormenting expectation of the day of Iudgment to perfect their felicity (Thus doe the Greek Church) Or supposing the 1000 yeares of Temporall Reigne on Earth to bee the day of Iudgment, in the beginning of which the most perfect Christians shall rise & so gradually untill the most imperfect arise at the latter end of it. They therefore pray for the earlier ressurection of the dead in that day. Thus perhaps through Tertullian.


And that the Moneyers p{illeg} shall be appointed them by the said Master & Worker

920 or 921 Atreus moritur.

929 Hyllus Eusytheum occidit. {illeg} is regnat

924 Hyllus Peloponnesum invadendo occiditur ab Echenus.

943 Euristheus regnat. v

Sthenelus Persei filius regnat in Mycene 948


Others have held that all soules shall bee purged {illeg} conflagration & {illeg} attaine to Happiness (at Origen, Lactantius, St Augustin, Hilary, Ambrose, &c.)

Others have thought that the prayers of the church will advance the happiness of the blessed & {illeg} the {illeg} the {Anointed} (if not prevaile for their salvation) but not before the day of Iudgment.

But none of them (before Greg 1       ) held that in {illeg} dye in Gods {illeg} & with their {illeg} {illeg} onely portent of the remitted eternall punishment suffer temporall punishment {illeg} in Purgatory but they did not suffer for it in {their lives}) for the satisfying for & purging them from the guilt of their sin befor they are come to heaven. And that those thus punished may bee releived by the prayers of the faithfull or Sacrifice of the Altar.

And what the Fathers may seeme to say for this, respects either Commemoration of & Oblations for the dead for the {instruction} of the living or the day of Resurrection; or Conflagration; or purging of the wicked or Purgation in this life by punitions & afflictions. But none respects the purging of the Body by fire before the day of Iudgment.

© 2024 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC