The speech of Nicholas Heath Lord Chancellor of England, Lord President of Wales, Bishop of Worcester, and afterward Archbishop of York and ambassadour into Germany / delivered in the Upper House of Parliament in the year 1555 ; proofs from Scripture that Christ left a true church and that there is no salvation but in the Catholick and Apostolick Church ; proofs from the Fathers that there is no salvation to be expected out of the true Catholick and Apostolick Church ; certain principles of the first authors of the Reformation not so well known to many of their followers ; the principle of the Catholick Apostolick Church ; testimony of the Fathers concerning the real presence.

The Preface to the Children of the Refor∣mation.

BE not concern'd to know whose Hand it is which holds the Link, but follow the Light it gives; directing you to a view of the Principles upon which the Reforma∣tion supports it self, asserting a Holy Liber∣ty to each Person; and to act as he pleases, with a safe Conscience, accor∣ding to the Principles of our Reforma∣tion;

to grant any humane Power can oblige our Consciences against our Judgements in matters of Religion, is but an imaginary Remedy for a real Evil. Our common Re∣formation is cemented, and was first rais'd up∣on this Holy Liberty, that every one should read Scripture, Interpret it for himself; and believe what he though was the true Sense of it, without any compulsion or con∣straint, and not to believe either Church, State, Ʋniversity, or Doctors, if he did not judge by Scripture his Doctrine was true. Considering the Infancy of the Reformati∣on; our blessed Reformers taking to them∣selves, and giving to others this Holy Liberty for to Teach and Believe whatever they judg'd to be the Doctrine and true Sense of Scripture; though it should be against the received Opinion of the Councils, Church, Ʋniversities and Doctors? Look into the Reign of Edward the VI. then did our Re∣formation flourish in England; and was mi∣raculously propogated by the Liberty of Martin, Bucer, Cranmer, Ochinus, Peter Martyr, and others in teaching Calvinism, Lutheranism, Zuinglianism by Scripture, as every one understood it: Descend to the Reign of Queen Mary, then the light of the Gospel was ecclipsed, (in the sense of the Re∣formers) because the flock was again Popishly compell'd to believe, not what every one judg'd by Scripture to be true; but what the Church judg'd was such: Come down a step

lower to Queen Elizabeth's time, then the flock recovering their holy Liberty to believe what each one though was the Doctrine of Scripture, the Reformation gain'd ground, and our Protestancy was establish'd the Religion of the Land, which others were not totally suppress'd Step down a degree lower to King James his time; the Reformation held its course, because their Consciences were not oppress'd. Look down a step lower to King Charles the I's Reign; His Majesty carried with a Godly Zeal of restraining the diver∣sity of Opinions, would by new Laws and Ordinances force the flock to an Uniformity of Doctrine, then those of the Reformation pleaded for the Evangelical Liberty, to believe nothing, nor use any Rites or Cere∣monies, but as each one judg'd by Scrip∣ture to be convenient; they Covenanted a∣gainst Bishops. Lastly, look upon our Realm as it is at present, the symptoms of dissatis∣factions, which you may read and hear in Coffee-Houses, in publick and private Con∣versations; the sparkles of Jealousies, which appear in the Kingdom; the Cabals against our Government; the animosity of divided Parties, the murmur and complaints of all; what's all this but the smoke of that hidden fire of Zeal, wherewith Protestants would force Presbyterians by Penal Laws, to pro∣fess their Tenets; which each Opinion endea∣vour to oppress the other; do but duly con∣sider each Sect, and they will all appear

Tyrants over our Conscience: For no one Sect among us, but would root out all the rest, none fearing that danger whereof St. Paul Gal. 5.15. warns us, If we bite and devour one another, let's take heed, we be not consumed one of another; Giving us likewise a wholsom advice in the same place, how to prevent this Evil, &c.

When this Kingdom profess'd the Popish Religion, to prevent this Evil of variety of Opinions, their Rule of Faith, was Inter∣preted by the Church; and was kept from the hands of the flock. No man permitted to give any other Interpretation or Sense of it, but what the Church did approve. Then the Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zuinghus, Beza, and others, who freed from this slavery laid it down for their Rule of Faith; That any man of sound Judgement may believe whatever he takes to be the sense of Scrip∣ture; these are the Principles from which the Reformation proceeded: No man is to be constrain'd to believe any Doctrine against his Judgement and Conscience, and there∣fore it is quite contrary to the Spirit of the Reformation to force us by Acts of Parliament, Decrees of Synods, Invectives, and Persecu∣tions of Indiscreet Brethren, to drive us to this or that Religion: No, every one ought to be Permitted to believe what he pleases; as for instance, If he thinks Bigamy, or Self-Murder to be the Doctrine of Scripture, to have freely liberty to profess and practice the same.

In the first place, let my Reader consider, that the Pure and Orthodox Dostrine of the Reformation, I purpose in this Treatise to describe in its native Colours.

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation that we may with a safe Conscience be to day Pro∣testants, to morrow Lutherans, in France Hugonots, in Hungary Trinitarians, in Po∣land Socinarians; and in London of any Re∣ligion but Popery; they allow to be Law∣ful to change Religion as Time and Occa∣sion require; this is the practice of the first Reformers. This Truth requires not much to justify it; be pleas'd only to consider, how you came to Change the Antient Religion profess'd in the Kingdom for 1500 years to∣gether

It's uncontestedly true that the Rule of Faith in common to the whole Reformation is Scripture, as the humble of Heart, as∣sisted with the Spirit of the Lord, under∣stand it; for Lutherans will never admit their Rule of Faith to be Scripture, as Interpreted by the Church of England, but as Interpreted by themselves; nor will England admit Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, as it is Interpreted by the Presbyterians, but as Interpreted by the Church of England: So that the Doctrine of each Congregation is but Scripture, as in∣terpreted by them, and whereas all these Congregation joyntly compose the whole Body of the Reformation, and each Congre∣gation

is truly a Member of the Re∣formation, the Doctrine of the Reformation comes to be Scripture, as each Congregation, and Person of sound Judgement among them, Interprets it. This being an uncontrouled truth, what Man of ever so sound Judge∣ment, but may read to day. Scripture, as Interpreted by the Lutheran Church, and judging in his Conscience that Interpretation and Doctrine to be true; consequently he may with a safe Conscience profess that Reli∣gion: Soon after he may meet Calvin's Books, and charm'd with the admirable strength of his reasons and glosses upon Scripture, he may judge in his Conscience, he is to be pre∣ferr'd before Luther, and so may lawfully forsake Lutheranism for Calvinism; then a∣gain he hits upon Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England, whose Doctrine ra∣vishes him with that decency of Ceremonies, that Majesty of her Liturgy, that Harmony of her Hierarchy, he is convinc'd it's better than Calvinism, and embraces it: Then a∣gain he reads the Works of Arrius, and con∣vinc'd by the energy of his Arguments and Texts of Scripture, may alter his judgement, and become an Arian.

Wherein can you say does this Man trans∣gress the Doctrine or Principles of the Reformation? Does he forsake the Re∣formation, because he forsakes Lutheranism for Calvinism? No sure; for Calvinism is as much the Reformation as the other: Is

not Protestancy as much the Doctrine of the Reformation as Presbytery? though he changes therefore one for the other, he still holds the Doctrine of the Reformation: Is not the Doctrine of the Reformation Scripture, and that not as Protestants only or Presbyterians in∣terpret it, but as any Congregation, or Man of sound judgement holds it? It is therefore evident, that according to the Doctrine and Principles of the Reformation, he may with a safe Conscience change Religions, and be to day of one, to morrow of another, until he run over All. Point me out any Congre∣gation (the obstinate Papists excepted,) that will dare say I cannot live with a safe Consci∣ence in any other Congregation but in it self, all other Congregations will laugh at it: Why then may not I lawfully forsake any Congregation, and pass to another; and be in England a Protestant, in Germany a Lu∣theran, in Hungary a Trinitarian or Socinian.

It is against the grain of Mans reason, that we can with a safe Conscience change Reli∣gion; If you be a Protestant, and you judge it to be the true Religion, you are bound to stick to it, and never to change it.

If I discourse with a Papist, I would not wonder he should say it's against the grain of Mans reason to believe it lawful; but I ad∣mire that a Child of the Reformation, be he of what Congregation he will, should be so ignorant of his principles, as to say a Man cannot change Religions when he pleases:

Nor do I undertake to prove against the Papist, that this is lawful, but I undertake to prove it lawful against any Reformed Child, or force him to deny the Principles of the Reformation.

Is it against reason, that a Man may read to day Scripture, and the Lutherans Inter∣pretation upon it, and like it very well; and that he should in this case embrace that Religion? Is it against the grain of Mans reason that this same Man should next Year afterwards hit upon Calvin's works upon Scripture, and after better consideration, think his Doctrine to surpass that of Luther; and could not he then (being obliged to chuse the best,) forsake Lutheranism and stick to Calvinism? And is it against Mans reason that he after this may meet other Books of Arians, Socinians, &c. and do the like? Have not we many examples of this in our best and most renowned Reformers? Did not Ochinus that great Light (says B. Bale) in whose presence England was happy, reading Scripture, judge the Reformation to be bet∣ter than Popery, and of a Capuchin Fryar became one of the Reformed, after some Years reading Scripture, he, judged Ju∣daism to be better than the Reformation, and became a Jew: Did not Martin Bucer, one of our first Reformers of England, reading Scripture judge Lutheranism to be better than Popery, and of a Dominican Fryar, became a Lutherian? Soon after

reading Scripture, he judged Zuinglianism to be better than Lutheranism, and become a Zuinglian; not long after he became a Lu∣theran again as he Confesses, and forsook Lutheranism the second time, and returned a∣gain to Zuinglanism, as Sklu∣ser says. Did not Cranmer one of our sirst Reformers here in England, and Composers of the 39 Articles, a Wise and religious Man profess Popery in Henry the Vill's. time, and Compose a Book in defence of Real Presence; then in Edward the VI's. time, upon better Consideration he professed Zuinglianism, and writ a Book against the Real Presence; then again in Queen Mary's Reign, being Sentenc'd to Death, he declared for Popery, but seeing his Recantation would not preserve his Life, he renounced Popery and died a Zuinglian. I could tire your Pa∣tience in reading, and Mind in relating the number of our Prime and most renowned, as well first Reformers, as Learned Doctors, who without any scruple, chang'd several times their Religions; nor in the Principles of our Reformation ought they to be blam'd: For whereas our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as with the assistance of Gods Spirit we un∣derstand it, who doubts but we may to day judge sincerely Luther's sense of it to be true, to morrow we may read with more attention and judge Arius his sense to be true; next day that of Calvin, and so of the

rest: I do not think but that we have in Eng∣land many Abbettors of this Doctrine: Alas! how many Bishops, Deans, and rich Parsons do we know, and have we known who are zealous Presbyterians, and declared Enemies of Protestancy in our Gracious Soveraign's Exile; and no sooner was he restored, and had Bishopricks and Ecclesiastical Dignities to be given, but they become stiff Protestants.

Observe the difference betwixt the Papists and us, if of a Papist you become of any other Congregation, the Popish Church Ex∣communicate you, thou art lookt upon as an Heretick, and Apostate, a stray'd Sheep; they will not admit you to their Communion or Liturgy; nay, could they well avoid you, they would never admit you to their Com∣pany; and why? because they are fondly persuaded their own is only true Rellgion, and all others to be Synagogues of Satan; and if any of us will become a Papist, he must sirst abjure his former profession: But if of a Protestant, you should become a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, Quaker, or of any other of our Societies, you are never looked upon to be a jot the worse for it; we are not a whit scandalized at such changes, which we daily see; and it is an unspeakable blessing, with what Accord, Unity, and Charity, you may see at our Liturgy and Communion, the Protestant, Presbyterian Ana∣baptist, Socinian and Hugonot, all praising the Lord in One Congregation in our Church

none bid out of the Church, none Excom∣municated, no previous abjuration required of their former Tenets; and there's nothing more frequent among us than to go to the Protestant Liturgy in the Morning, in the Evening to the Presbyterian, especially if our Interest or Convenience requires it. Can there be a more convincing Proof that we esteem it all alike what Religion and Tenets we profess? Let a Lutheran go to France; Alas! he will never stick to go to the Hugo∣nots meeting and Service; let a Protestant go to Germany, he will go as cheerfully to the Lutheran Church, as in England to the Pro∣testant: Let a Hugonot or Presbyterian go to Hungary, or Poland, he is welcome to the Trinitarians, and Socinians; and when any of them returns home he will be as before.

Is this Doctrine by the Testimony of any of our Synods? Did any teach that we may with a safe Conscience change our Religion.

Yes, I can produce one: The Synod of Charent on in France; held about the Year 1634. expresly says, That for our Salvation it's all alike whether you be a Calvinist, Lutheran, or of any other Congregation of the Reformed; because, says this venerable Synod, they all agree in Fundamental Points, and the Luthe∣rans have nothing of Superstition or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship. Change then as often as you list; be a Lutheran, be a Presbyterian, be an Anabaptist; by the mouth

of this Synod you are assur'd you'l never miss to hitright. And I pray can any Synod of our times have more Authority in point of Doctrine then Luther our first Reformer, a man extraordinarily raised by God, (says the Synod of Charrenton,) and replenisht with his spirit to repair the ruins of his Church, He Teaches the Eleva∣tion of the Sacrament is Idolatry, that he did practice it, and com∣manded it should be practised in the Church of Wittemberg to spite the Devil Carolostadius: Giving you to understand, that for just reasons, you may teach now our Religion, then another. Zuinglius also, whose vertue and learning is known to the World, says, That God inspired him to Preach what Doctrine was suitable to the times; which as it often changes, you may often change your Doctrine: And consi∣der you if it be not therefore that Christ our Lord says his Yoke is easie, and his burden light, (that is Religion) because we can with∣draw our Necks from it, as time and just reason requires.

What greater Authority has a Synod of England, to prove a Doctrine to be of the Reformation, than a Synod of France which I have produced? or than Luther and Zuin∣lius our first Reformers, inspired by God, to teach us the purity of the Gospel? Was it not from Luther and Zuinglius, that England received the Reformation? and if England can

be so bold as to say they reed in this, what assurance can we have, that they erred not in the rest? But since nothing will please you but a Synod of England, you shall have not one, but many. Can there be any Synod of Eng∣land of so great Authority as our wise and prudent Parliament? Read our Chronicles and you'l sind that in a few years time, they changed and established different Religions by publick Acts of Parliament: In Henry the VIIIs. Reign they Voted for Popery, and made Acts and Statutes against the Reforma∣tion; in Edward the VI's. time they banisht Popery and voted for Zuinglianism; in Queen Mary's they pull'd down this, and set up Popery again; in Queen Elizabeth's, they de∣cried this, and set up not Zuinglianism, but Protestancy; in the midst of her Reign, they polisht this, and added some new perfecti∣ons to it; In King James, and suceeding Kings times, Protestancy was of a different stamp from that of Queen Elizabeth's: Hear Dove in his Exhort. to the English Recusants, An. 1603. Page. 31, Edward the VI. had his Liturgy, which was very good, but condemned it, and brought in another Composed by Peter Martyr: In Elizabeth's time, that was con∣demned, and another approved; and in the middle of her Reign, her Liturgy was also misliked, and a new one introduced; we are so wanton that nothing will content us but Novelties.

Dove does not commend this Doctrine, for he calls that frequent exchange of Religion, Wantonness, and Love of Novelties.

It's no great matter what he says of it; my drift is but to convince you that this is the Doctrine, and practice of the best Mem∣ber of our Reformation, even of England; and if you be convinc'd it's the Doctrine of Reformation, you cannot deny but that it is good Doctrine, through Dove calls it Wan∣tonness.

Some of the Reformed says, We are bound to have Faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World. This is the substance of Christian Religion, be an Arian, be a Presbyterian, a Socinian, or what you please, be also plung'd up to the ears in wickedness of Life and Manners, so you have Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Redeemer of the World, and live in Charity, you will be a Member of the true Church, and be saved. Do not imagine this is any new Doctrine invented by me; search the vulgar sort of our Reformed Brethren, you shall get thousands of this Opinion in our Realm; search the Books of our Learned Doctors, you shall find it in them also. Doctor Morton in his much applauded Book, Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, for which he deserved a Bishoprick, says, The Arian Church is to be esteemed a true Church, because they hold the true substance of Chiristian

Religion, which is Faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Redeemer of the World: And again in the same place. Sect. 4. whose Title is, Hereticks are Members of the Church. There∣fore John Fox, Dr. Field, and Illiricus, say the Greek Church, notwithstanding their error in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Son, are holy Members of the true Church, because they have Faith in Jesus Christ.

For what is the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, but as we have said in our Princi∣ples, Scripture as Interpreted by any Man of sound judgement in the Church? and were not Doctor Morton, Fox, Field, and Illiricus, Men of sound judgement, eminent for Learning and Godliness? If therefore this be Scripture, as Interpreted by them, how can you deny it to be the Doctrine of the Reformation,

And what Jesus Christ are we obliged to believe in? For Jesus Christ, as believed by the Arrians, Socinians, Luther and Calvin, is far different from Jesus Christ, as commonly believed by the Protestants, and Popish Church; we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, of one and the same substance and nature with the Father; they believe in a Jesus Christ Son of God, but of a distinct and different nature.

Pish! That's but a Nicety; believe what you please, and what you understand by Scripture to be true, and have Charity.

Let us ask the Reformers what Rule of Faith we must observe.

Protestants will say, that Scripture and Apostolical Tradition; but Protestants say of Papists, and Presbyterians, and Anabap∣tists say of Protestants, that many humane Inventions are obtruded upon us as Aposto∣lical Traditions; that we have no way to discern the one from the other, and conse∣quently Tradition, as being an unknown thing unto us, cannot be our Rule; others will say, that Scripture, and the indubita∣ble consequence of it, is our Rule, all will grant this; but then enters the controversy, if the consequences of Lutherans be such, and if the consequences of Presbyterans be in∣dubitable consequences out of Scripture, and each Congregation will say, that their pecu∣liar Tenets are indubitable consequences out of Scripture, and the rest must allow it to be of the Reformation; Others will say that Scripture, and the four first Councils with the Apostles, and Athanasius's Creed are our Rule of Faith; but most of the Assembly will no more admit the four first, than the subsequent Councils, nor Athanasius's Creed, more than that of Trent, nor will the Quakers, Socinians, and others value the Apostles Creed.

But there is none of all the Assembly, who will not admit Scripture, to be a sacred and full Rule of Faith, because it's replenished with divine Light, and all Heavenly instru∣ction necessary for our salvation: And such as add, as a part of our Rule of Faith, the Apostles or Athanasius Creed, or the four first general Councils, will confess that all they contain, is expressed in Gods written Word, and are but a plainer, or more distinct ex∣pression or declaration of the Contents of Scripture.

I have been often present at several dis∣courses of Protestants with Papists, and never could I hear a Protestant make, Coun∣cils, Tradition, or any thing else, the Test of their discourse, but only Scripture; not but that I could hear them say and pretend in their discourses, that Apostolical Tradi∣tion, and the four first Councils were for them against Popery; but still their main strength and ultimate refuge was Scripture; for whenever they harp upon that string of Tradition and Councils; the Papists are vi∣sibly to hard for them, and then they run to Scripture, than which there is no plus ultra. I have been also often at several discourses betwixt Protestants, Presbyterians, and our Brethren of other Congregations, I have ob∣served that the Protestant, for to defend his Liturgy, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and her Episcopacy a∣gainst the others could never defend himself

by Scripture alone, but plac'd his main strength in Tradition, Primitive Councils, and ancient Fathers, all which the other re∣jected and reproached the Protestants with Popery.

For it's certain, Lutherans will not admit Scripture as Interpreted by Protestants, but as Interpreted by themselves; and so of each other Congregation.

Nor was it only Luther and Calvin spoke thus, but all our blessed Reformers; and why? because our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as interpreted by the Church of England, (France will not admit it,) nor as Interpre∣ted by the Quaker, (the Anabaptists, and Independents, will not hear it) nor as inter∣preted by Luther, (Calvin rejects it) nor as interpreted by Calvin, (Thorndike and Bram∣hall will not yield to it,) nor will Stillingfleet stand to their Interpretation; nor others to that of Stillingfleet. Finally our Rule of Faith is Scripture, not as interpreted by any, but as each Congregation, Synod, particular Doctor, or Man of sound judgement inter∣prets it, and consequently what ever Doc∣trine any man of sound judgement Inter∣prets it, judges to be of Scripture, is to be esteem'd the Doctrine of the Reformation; and you may safely believe it, if you like it, and remain still as truly a Reformed Child, as the proudest Protestant of England.

The Rule of Faith is Scripture, as any particular Doctor of person of sound Judge∣ment understands it?

Behold how convincingly; first we have heard Luther quoted, but now say, We re∣ceive nothing but Scripture, but so as that we must have some Authority to Interpret it: Hear him again;d

The Governours and Pastors have Power to teach, but the sheep must give their judgement,f whether they propose the Voice of Christ, or of strangers. And again,e Christ has taken from the Bishops, Councils, and Pastors, the right of Doctrine; and given it to all Christians in general; and the Rule is Scripture as each one will think fit to in∣terpret it. And in consequent to this, we have heard him say above, I will be free and will not submit to Doctors, Councils, or Pastors, but will teach whatever I think to be true. Barlow, The Apostles have given to each particular Man, the right and power of Interpreting, and judging by his inward spirit what is true; it is need∣less that any Man, or Angel, Pope, or Council, should instruct you, the spirit working in the Heart and Scripture are to each particular Person most assured Inter∣preters. Bilson Bishop of Winchester, says the same,g The people must be discerners and judges of what is taught. Our Reli∣gion has no other rule of Faith (says our French Reformation by the mouth of Du

Moulin,h Drelincourt, and the holy Synod of Charenton) but the written Word of God, as Interpreted by us.

It matters not so much for you to know what I approve or condemn; but to know what the Doctrine of the Reformation is; It is this; That none can Teach, Preach, Administer Sacraments, or Exercise Eccle∣siastical Functions, if he be not in Holy Orders, Bishop, Priest, or Deacon; for the Church of England teaches it, and you may believe it if you please. You may also deny it and say, any Woman or Tradesmen has as much power to Preach and admi∣nister the Sacraments, as the ablest Bishop in England: This also is the Doctrine of the Reformation as well as the former, because Quakers, Presbyterians, Brownists, Anabap∣tists, &c. Believe and Teach this, and they are men of as sound judgements, and as good Reformers as the Protestants; nay, the most learned of our Reformaers allow Women a right to exercise Spiritual Functions, and Ad∣minister the Sacraments, Sa∣maise, Peter Martyr, and Zuin∣lius, expresly defend the Priest∣hood as well of Women as Men: And Luther proves it strongly

The first Office of a Priest, says he, is to Preach; this is common to all, even Women; the second to Baptize, which is

also common to Women; the third is to Consecrate Bread and Wine, and this also is common to all, as well as to Men: and in the absence of a Priest, a Woman may Ab∣solve from Sins as well as the Pope, because the words of Christ, Whatever ye shall untye on Earth shall be untyed in Heaven, were sad to all Christians.

And when so eminent Men had not said it, Reason and Scripture convinces it; Reason, because that our Rule of Faith being Scrip∣ture, as each Person of sound judgement un∣derstands it; many Women undoubtedly are of sound judgement, and why should not their Interpretation of Scripture pass for the Doctrine of the Reformation, as well as that of our Bishops and Ministers? Scripture, because we read, the Samariatan Woman was the first who preached the Messias to the City of Samaria, and Christ commanded Mary Mag∣dalen to go to Preach his Resurrection to his Disciples; and we know by our Chronicles, that our glorious Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory, did not only govern the state, but was a great Apostoless in Church affairs.

To what purpose then, have we Bishops and Ministers, who enjoy so vast Revenues, if any Man or Women can Preach and Admi∣nister the Sacraments as well as they?

You may believe Bishops and Ministers are very needful for the service of the Church; for they being commonly learned witty Men, and having Wives, they come to instruct

Wives so well, that the good Women come in a short time to be as learned as their Hus∣bands, and as nimble and quick in the Eccle∣siastical Ministery, as if they were permit∣ted to exercise it; as some Authors of Credit relate unto us, that a Gentleman of Constance, writ to his friend in a Village, (about three Leagues distant from that City,) whose Inhabitants were for the most part of our Lutheran Reformation; the good Pastor exhorted his Flock to prepare for Easter Communion, that none should pre∣sume to come to the Holy Table, but should first Confess and receive Absolution of his Sins; Easter Holy days being come, such a multitude flock'd to Confession, that the Pastor could not satisfie the Devotion of so great a Croud; he called his Wife to help him to hear Confessions, and to give them Absolution, in which Ministery the good Lady did Labour with great satisfaction of the Penitents; but neither the Pastor nor his vertuous Consort being able to dispatch so great a multitude, he called his Maid Ser∣vant, who did work in the Holy Ministery with as much expedition as her Master. For after all, the Church of Scotland, France, and all England, (Protestants excepted,) will tell you that Bishops and Ministers are not needful, nay, that they are very prejudicial to the Reformation and State; To the Refor∣mation, because this Hierarchy was the Bishops Court, Surplices, Corner Caps, and

other Trumperies, puts the flock in mind of Popery, whereof it's a perfect Resemblance;

I remember a discourse started in the House of Lords, not many years ago, by his Grace the Duke of Buckingham he de∣sired to know, what it was to be a Protest∣ant; and wherein did Protestancy properly consist? The Bishops, who were present, looked one upon another, and whether they feared the difficulty of the Question or that for modesty's sake, each expected to hear ano∣ther speak first, they stood silent for a while; at last the Ice was broken by one, others followed but hardly any two agreed; and all that the Duke could gather out of their •…•…al Answers, was, That our Rule of ••aith was Scripture, as Interpreted by the Parliament and Church of England: Where∣upon he concluded, We have been these hundred years very busie to settle Religion, and for ought I perceive, we are as unset∣tled now as at the Beginning: And truly he had great reason, if Religion and Faith be nothing else, but that sense of Scriptuure which each person of sound judgement un∣derstands; for as it is impossible we should jump and agree in one sense and meaning of the Text, so it is impossible we shall ever be settled and agree in Religion.

Episcopacy is against the Presbyterians, some Canonical Books against the Lutherans,

Supermacy against the Quakers, and Infant-Baptism against the Anabaptists; and yet you own them as your Brethren and Godly Congregations of the Reformation; or if you will deny them, they will also scorn you, and say they are more of the Reforma∣tion than you are? and will you not own the Arians, &c. for your Brethren, though you believe the Trinity against them? You say they are old condemned Hereticks, and does this Language become a Child of the Reformed Church? By whom where they Condemned? Was it not by the Popish Church? That also condemns us, and says we are as much Hereticks as they; and as we ought not to be so called, and judge the Pope and Councils Sentence against us, to be bold, uncharitable, and unjust; so we must say of the Arians, Pelagians, and others condemn'd by them. You say Protestants will never own them to be their Brethren; God forbid the Protestant Church should be so uncharitable to her fellow Christians, and so unjust to themselves. B. Morton as lear∣ned a Man as the Church of England bred, says the Arian Church is a true Church, and will say no less of the others: But what need we the Testimony of any, for what Reason so convicingly proves? They who talk by one and the same Rule of Faith, are of one and the same Religion; therefore Lutherans, Protestants, Presbyterians and Independants, do esteem themselves to be of

the same Faith and Religion, because they all have the same Rule, which is Scripture, as each Congregation understands it: Also, notwithstanding the difference and variety of Congregations in Popery, they hold all but one Faith, as they say; because they have but one Rule of their Belief, which is their Infallible Pope and Church: But it is evident, that those which you call Antient condemn'd Hereticks, have one and the same Rule of Faith with our Reformation; for ours is Scripture, as each person of sound judge∣ment understands it, without any obliga∣tion of holding the sense of it delivered by Pope, Church, Councils, or any other; therefore our first blessed Reformers did not care what sense of it the Church or Pope did hold, when they began to Preach the pu∣rity of the Gospel, but each of them Inter∣preted it as he thought fit in the Lord, and so purged the Church of many Errours: This is the very self-same Rule of Faith, which Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, and others, premptorily condemned by Rome as Hereticks, did follow and walk by: Each of them Read and Interpreted Scripture, Prea∣ched and Believed what sense of it they thought to be true, though they knew it was against the Doctrine of the Church, look∣ing on Scripture alone as their Rule of Faith, without any regard of the Pope, Church, Councils, or Fathers.

Again he says, Epist. 2 ad Polon. in Tract. Theol. pag. 796: That Prayer, Holy Trinity, one God have mercy of us, is Barbarous, and does not please me. And addsf The Son has his own Substance distinct from the Father. His Discipleg Danaeus, says, it is foolish insipid Prayer: And our great Apostle Luther, (who as Fox witnesseth, was the Cha∣riot and Conductor of Israel, and a Man extraordinarily raised and replenish'd with Gods spirit, to teach the purity of the Gos∣pel,) caused that Prayer to be blotted out of the Litanies,h That word Trinity says he, sounds coldly; my Soul hates that word Ho∣moousios, and the Arrian did well in not ad∣mitting at. Lastly, Ochinus that great O∣racle of England, impugns this Mystery with a strong discourse:i We are not obliged to be∣lieve, says he, more than the Saints of the Ancient Testament, otherwise our condition would be worse than theirs, but they were not obliged to believe this Mystery, therefore we are not obliged. Examine, I pray, the works of these eminent Doctors, where I quote them; consider if they be, not only Men of sound judgement, but Men extraordinarly raised by God, (says the Synod of Charen∣ton;) the Chariots and Conductors of Israel, says Fox: Men to be reverenc'd after Christ, says our Doctor Powel, and Apostolical Ora∣cles

sent to teach us the purity of the Gos∣pel, and conclude, it is an undeniable Verity, that this is the Doctrine of the Reformation, whereas it's Scripture, as Interpreted by such Men: Oh! But England, France, and Scot∣land, believe this Mystery. Well! and what then? That proves that the Mystery is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, because whatever any man of sound judgement thinks to be Scripture, it is the Doctrine. But is England or France alone the whole Refor∣mation? Are not Luther Calvin, Danaeus, Ochinus, as well of the Reformation, and men of as sound judgement as they? Since therefore they understand by Scripture there is no Trinity, it is the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation also that there's none: Believer it or deny it, which you like best, and you'll be still of the Reformed Church.

Scripture, as each person of sound judge∣ment interprets it, is our Rule of Faith: judge you, if that be not a good Principle in our Reformed Church, whereas this is the Rule of Faith given us by all our Doctors, as I proved before, this being our Rule of Faith and Reformed Doctrin, it is evident, that what∣ever Doctrine is judged by any person of sound Judgement to be contained in Scrip∣ture, is the Doctrine of our Reformation; others say only Figurative Presence is taught in Scripture, this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation; some understand by Scripture;

there is Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, this therefore is the Doctrine of the Reformation: others understand there is no such Mystery, this also is the Doctrine of the Reformation. so that whether you believe or deny this or any other Tenet controverted, you'll still hold the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Calvink says, Christ pray'd unadvisedly the Eve of his Passion; that he uttered Words whereof he was afterward sorry: that in his passion he was so troubled of all sides, that overwhelmed with desparation, he defisted from invoking God, which was to renounce all hopes of Salvation; And says he,l if you object it is absurd and scandalous to affirm Christ despaired, I answer,p This De∣sparation proceeded from him as he was man,q not as he was God.r And this is not only the Doctrine of Calvin, but of Brentius,m Marlot,n Jacobus, Minister (quoted by Bilson) and of Beza. Will you say this is the Doctrine of the Reformation, or that we cannot without scruple believe it? Also Calvin says,o That Christ's corpo∣ral Death was not sufficient for to redeem us, but that after having despared on the Cross, he suffered the death of his Soul; that's to say,

that his Soul after his corporal death, suffe∣red the pains of the damned in Hell.m And says he in the same place,n they are but ig∣norant,o doltish, brutish men, who will deny it. Luther also teaches the same Do∣ctrine:rp As he suffered af∣terward the death of the Soul in Hell: Epinusq a lear∣ned Lutheran, says, Christ Descended into Hell for thee,t and suffered not only corporal Death, but the death and fire of Hell. Mr. Fulk and Perkins avow this is also is the express Doctrine of Illirious, Latimer and Lossius. Also Luther most impiously affirms, that not the humane Nature of Christ died for us, but also his Di∣vine Nature: see Luther's words quoted at large by Zuinglius,s and Hospitian. It is evident that all those Tenets are undeniably the Doctrine of the Reformation.

He who denies them, cannot in charity check them who believes them, nor can they who believe them, check those who deny them, whereas each follow the Rule of Faith, and believe what they judge by Scripture to be true. And if you or your Church of England cry out Blasphemy, Blas∣phemy, against all that you judge to be false, why do not you cry Blasphemy against Pres∣byterians,

Lutherans, and other Congrega∣tions, from whom you dissent? And what difference betwixt you and the Church of Rome? The folly of this is to call Heresie and Blasphemy, all that is not her own Doctrine! And all that your Church of Eng∣land mislikes, must be Fanaticism, Blasphemy, and Impiety? Must our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as the Church of England un∣derstands it, and not otherwise? Presby∣terians, and Lutherans, will never allow it: If therefore our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each Person understands it; any Person of sound judgement in the Reformation, may without scruple believe what he understands to be the Doctrine of Scripture.

Can you deny but this was the Rule of Faith, and principle of our first blessed Re∣formers?

If therefore they judged, and if any other judges by that Rule and Principle, that those Tenets which you call Impious and Blasphemous, be true Doctrine, they cannot be blamed for believing them.

Of the Reformed was as Holy, Innocent, Blameless and Pure as yours is now. And that you may be convinc'd of this Truth, know Calvin expresly teachesa

We believe the sins of the Faithful, (he means of the Reformation) are but venial Sins; not but that they desire Death, but because there

is no damnation for the Children of Grace, in asmuch as their sins are not imputed to them: And again he says, We canb assure our selves, we can no more be damn'd for any Sins, then Jesus Christ himself.c Luther is of the Opinion, As nothing but Faith does justifie us, so nothing but Incredulity is a Sin. Again,d No sin is so great that it can damn a man, such as are damn'd, are damn'd only for their Incredulity Whi∣taker,e No Sin can hurt a man who has Faith.

The same is taught by Wotton, Fulk, Tindal, and Beza. It is therefore the Doctrine of Scripture, as Interpreted by these persons of great and sound judgement, that Incests, Murders, Intemperance or whatever else you call a sin, (incredulity excepted,) either is no Sin at all, or Venial Sins, which do no harm, nor cannot damn the Children of the Reformation; if therefore our Bre∣thren who lived in the beginning of the Re∣formation, lived according to Scripture, as Interpreted by men of sound judgement, which is the Rule of Faith and Manners, they did not ill, but very well, in follow∣ing it.

And it is not pardonable in any Reformed Child to say, such Oracles Extraordinarily raised by God to teach the purity of the

Gospel, should have taught their errors in Doctrine, or dissolution of manners. They teach what in their Consciences they under∣stood by Scripture to be true; if you will not be so irreverent as to say, that they were Knaves, who spoke and taught against their Consciences and knowledge. There∣fore they taught the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, purely and truly: The consequence is evident: For what is the Doctrine of the Reformation, but what wise, learned men of sound judgement think and understand by Scripture to be true? Why is figurative Presence the Doctrine of the Reformation? though denied by Lutherans, (who are Re∣formed also,) but because Wise, Learned men judge by Scripture as they understand it, it is the true Doctrine? or can you give me any other Rule of Faith by which we may know what Doctrine is of the Reforma∣tion, and what not, but Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it? Or what Rule can you give for to know what is good or evil to be done, but Scrip∣ture, as understood by such persons? If therefore Luther Calvin, and the other Do∣ctors I quoted, judge by Scripture that Do∣ctrine and manner of Life to be true and good, why may not we say it's the Doctrine of England or Scotland, judge that Doctrine to be false, and that manner of Life to be a dissolution and corruption of manners:

Why? you are men of sound judgement, you understand Sripture so; that will be the Doctrine also of the Reformation, you may believe it: But you must not deny that Luther and Calvin's Doctrine is also of the Reformation, because they were men of as sound judgement as you.

Our Rule of Faith is Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, and this is the same Rule which Luther and the Reformation in its first beginning had: This Holy Liberty is the best Jewel, the greatest Perfection, and most glorious Pre∣rogative the Reformation has: If therefore now at present any man judges by Scripture, that he can Marry ten Wives at a time; that he can kill his own Son, as Abraham in∣tended; that he may commit Incest with his own Daughter, as Lot did; that there is no Sin but Incredulity, as Luther believed; nor any Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in One Nature, as Calvin believed, with what justice can the Church of England say such a man does not believe, and live as becometh a Reformed Child, or that his Doctrine and Life is scandalous; whereas he lives and believes as he understands by Scripture, which is the Rule of Faith in common to the Reformation: The Church of Eng∣land says, the Lutheran Doctrine of the Real Presence is not the Doctrine of Scripture; that the Presbyterian Doctrine against Infant-Baptism,

is not of Scripture. Because they follow Scripture as they understand it and this is our Rule of Faith? And why will not you say, the Belief and Life of that other man is also of the Reformation, though it may seem absurd to you; since he believes and lives as he judges by Scripture he may? It follows therefore plainly, that this is the Doctrine of the Reformation.

The Rule of Faith is Scriputre, as each person of sound judgement understands it.

f Beza teaches, (and says it's also the Do∣ctrine of Calvin, Somaize, and Geneva,) that the Lords Supper may be lawfully ad∣ministered in any kind of victuals as well as in Bread and Wine, in Eggs, Flesh, Fish, &c.

Where there is no Bread and Wine, says he, we may duly celebrate, if instead of them we use what we may usu∣ally eat and drink. And again in the same place, If there be no water at hand, and that Baptism cannot be with Edification de∣ferred,: I would baptize in any other liquor.

g Luther,h Melanothon,i Musoulus,,k Ochinus,l Beza, and others, teach the law∣fulness of Bigamy or Mul∣tiplicity of Wives, and prove it from the example of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and Ochinius expounding the Text of Saint

Paul,

It behoveth a Bishop to be a Man of one Wife: The prohibition, says he, is not to be understood so, that a Bishop should have but one Wife at a time, for certainly he may have many; but St. Pauls mean∣ing is, that he ought not to have too many Wives at a time, that's to say, ten or twenty.

The Synod of Geneva,m and then Ecclesi∣astical Discipline of France, Printed at Saumure, has de∣creed, that a Wife, whose Husband is a long time ab∣sent may have him called by the publick Cryer,o and if within a competent time he does not ap∣pear, without any further Enquiry, the Ministers may License her to marry any other; or marry her himself.

I say all Women may practice this Do∣ctrine without scruple or shame, whereas it is Scripture as interpreted by that thrice holy Synod.

Luther p teaches, it is lawful to a Wife, if her Husband does not please her, to call her Man-servant, or her Neighbour; and he gives the like Liberty to the Husbands, if their Wives be pettish or humoursom.

If the Husband, says he, cannot correct the humoursomness of his Wife, he may ima∣gine she is dead, and may marry another, because it's not in the power of a man to live without a Woman, nor in hers to live without a man.

This is Scripture as Interpreted by Luther, and consequently must not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Reformation; nor can any of our Reformation be justly punish'd or bla∣m'd for practising it, if he judges by Scrip∣ture, (as Luther did) for this is our Rule of Faith. But Luther never gave this Liberty, but upon condition, that the Husband or Wife should first make their complaint before a Magistrate, to have a redress of their In∣jury and discontent.

Not only Luther, butq Bucer,r Melan∣othons Ochinus,t Musculus andu Calvin, do teach, that a Man who finds his Wife in Adultery may cast her off by Divorce, and Marry ano∣ther; and our French Synods have ordered this Doctrine to be put in their Ecclesiasti∣cal Discipline, so that it is the Doctrine of Scripture, as in∣terpreted by these persons of sound judgement, and con∣sequently of the Reformation; you may therefore believe and practice it; our Sisters, particularly and our Ministers Wives, were much alarm'd at this Doctrine, and say it is a damnable Heresie.

Luther says it is impossible a u young man of 20 Years can live without a Woman; or a young maid of 18 years without a man.

It is the Reformed Doctrine: Scripture as interpreted by a sounnd judgement,

If a Popish Priest, or a Fryar, did become of our Reformed Church, can he lawfully marry, whereas he made a Vow of Chastity?

It's the Doctrine of the Reformation, de∣clared by many French Synods, and recorded in their Ecclesiastical Discipline, that he must be Christen'd again, because the first Baptism is sufficient and valid: believe which you please. It is also the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, that Infant-Baptism is not at all need∣ful (nay nor Lawful say the Anabaptists) so says Calvinx Zuinglius, Beza, and many o∣thers; it is likewise the Doctrine of our 39 Articles,y and our holy Synod of Lon∣donz that Infant-Baptism is Lawful and needful. Be∣lieve which you like best; both are of the Reformation.

We know our great Zuinglius himself would not at all preach the Gospel unto the Switzers, until that he Presented a Petition for himself and his COmpanions (all Priests and Fryars) extant yet in his 1 Tom. pag. 110. and obtained the COntents of it, which was to have Wives. Nor can we doubt this to be the best Doctrine, whereas Luther, Beza, and almost all our Reformers were Priests and Fryars, and the first step they gave to the Reformation was to marry. At Luther's mar∣riage, Erasmus his Rallery upon it is much

solemnized; Luther yesterday a Monk, to day a Husband, and next day a Father, because that honest Kate Bore, his virtuous Bride, was happily delivered of a lovely Boy eight days after he Married her: But the Servant of God did not regret the action, which proves that he judged by Scripture it was very lawful.

It is the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it was Jesus Christ the Son of God who esta∣blisht the Church, you may believe it there∣fore: It's also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it was not Jesus Christ the Son of God who establisht the Church; that this is the Doctrine of our Reformation is apparent, for it is Scripture as Interpreted by Ochinius a Man of sound judgement, whom all Italy could not match, says Calvin; In whose presence England was happy, and unhappy in his absence, says B. Bale: Ochinus speaks thus,a Considering how the Church was establisht by Christ, and washt with his Blood; and considering again how it was utterly overthrown by the Papacy; I concluded that he who establisht it, could not be Christ the Son of God, because he wanted pro∣vidence; and upon this reflection he renoun∣ced Christ and became a Jew. And no man can say but that he acted and behaved him∣self like a true Child of the Reformation in so doing, for he followed Scripture as he un∣derstood it; and as he was a true Reformed Child in forsaking Popery, because he under∣stood

by Scripture that the Reformation was better; so since he understood by reading Scripture more, that Judaism was better than the Reformation, he acted like a good Refor∣mer, in chusing that which he understood by Scripture to be best; this is the Reformers Rule of Faith.

And if one chuse to believe that there is a Church establisht of Earth by Christ, you must beware never to persuade your self we are bound to believe her Do∣ctrine, or live in her, if you do not judge by Scripture that she teaches the Doctrine of Christ: This is the most essential point of Popery, an obligation of submitting our judgements to the Church, and believing her Doctrine without any more examining, and in this the Church of England is much like the Popish Church, which by Acts of Par∣liaments and other severities would oblige all men to believe her Doctrine, Rites, and Ce∣remonies: No, God has given us Scripture for our Rule of Faith, as we forsook the Popish Church, because we discovered by Scripture her many errours in Doctrine; so we are not bound to believe the Doctrine of any other Church, but as we find by Scripture her Do∣ctrine is true. Do, and speak as Luther to 1. Edit. Jen. in result. I will be free, and will not submit to the Authority of Councils, Popes, Church or University; to the contrary, I will confidently teach whatever I judge to be true; whether it be the Catholick Doctrin or Hereti∣cal; condemned or approved.

Must I own and believe, that the Doctrin of Jesus Christ, delivered to his Apostles and the Church is true Doctrine?

The Reformation teaches, it is, and you may safely believe it: You may as safely be∣lieve it is not after the principles of the Re∣formation; because it teaches the Christ err'd in Doctrin and Manners: Verè Pharisaei erant viri valdè boni, says Luther;b & Christus minimè debuit eos taxare: and Calvin says,c it's a folly to think he was not ignorant in many things; lastly, David George,d (a man of God and of a holy life, says Osiander) writes, If the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted had continued, but now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subver∣ted it, as it is evident in the Papacy: therefore it was false and imperfect. See these words quoted in the History of David George, Prin∣ted by the Divines of Basil, at Antwerp, Anno 1668. both Doctrines are Scripture, as Interpreted by Men of sound judgement; and so a Child of the Reformation, may believe which he will,

Zninglius,e one of the greatest Oracles of our Church says, It's a great ignorance to believe any Infallin∣ble Authority in the Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles; Beza, not inferiour to Zuinglius, blotted out of St. John the

History of the Woman Adultress, judging it a Fable; Clebitius affirms, that Luke's relation of Christ's passion is not true, be∣cause it does not agree with that of Matthew and Mark, and more credit is to be given to two, than to one.g Calvin says, Peter consented to, and added to the Schism of the Church, to the overthrow of Christian liberty, and Christ's Grace.h Whitaker says,f It's

evident that after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, the whole Church, even the Apostles erred; and Peter erred in Doctrin and Manners.i Luther, says Peter liued and taught ex∣tra Verbum Dei; and Bren∣tiusk his Disciples say, that Peter and Barnabas together with the Church of Jerusalem erred after receiving the Holy Ghost.

If our Rule of Faith be Scripture, as each person of sound judgement understands it, undoubtedly this must be the Doctrin of the Reformation, and may be be∣lieved by and any Reformed, since it is Scripture, interpreted by such renowned men.

As to the true Canonical Books of Scripture.

The Reformation teaches, and you may believe with the Church of England, that St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, those of James and Jude: the 2 of St. Peter; the 2. and 3 of St. John, are true Canonical Scrip∣ture;

the Reformation also teaches they are not Canonical, because Lutherans deny them; believe which you like best.

But if you'll live in peace, and out of strife with Protestants, Lutherans, and others, who dispute, whether that of this or that Church be Canonical Scripture; your readiest way will be, to say there's no true Canonical Scripture; Scripture is no more to be regarded than other pious Books: if you say this is not the Doctrine of the Reformation, read de expresso Verbo Dei, & lib. de Har. where he relates this to be the Doctrine of the Swinck∣feldians, as good Reformers as the best of us: they say, that we are not to regard any In∣struction from Man or Book, but Gods im∣mediate inspiration, which speaks secretly to our hearts; for which they alledge those comfortable words of the Prophet, I will hear what my Lord my God will speak in me: for say they, the Book which we call Scripture, is a Creature, and we must not seek for light and instruction from any Creature, but from God the Father of Lights. This is Scripture as in∣terpreted by men of sound judgement; any Child of the Reformation may believe it.

It is the doctrine of the Reformation that you cannot, because God has forbid it, add to, and take away from his Word. It is also the doctrine of the Reformation, and the practice of our best Reformers, when the Text does not speak clear enough, that to refute Popery and establish our doctrine,

we may add or diminish a word or two, which is not to change the Word of God, but to make it speak more expresly: as when Luther had a mind to preach justification by Faith a∣lone, finding the Text said but, Man is justi∣fied by Faith, he added the word Alone and made the Text very clear against Popery, which formerly was somewhat obscure: Zuinglius being to teach the figurative pre∣sence of Christ in the Sacrament, found the Text, This is my Body, to be too pat against his doctrine, and instead of Is, put in This sig∣nifieth. The Church of England being to preach up the Kings Spiritual Supremacy, could not convince the obstinate Papists by the Ori∣ginal Text, which said, 1 Pet. 2. submit your selves anto every humane creature for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as excelling, or to, &c. But in King Edwards time they altered one word, and made the Text thus, submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, whether it be to the King, as being the chief head, and the following impressions of the Bible, in the year 1557. and 79. say, To the King as Su∣pream. And so the true Doctrine is clearly made out from Scripture, as also the law∣fulness of Priests Marriages; for the Text before the Reformation said 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a woman or a sister; and now our Bibles say, Have we not power to lead about a Wife being our Sister: Hence it's evi∣dent according to the Doctrine and practice of our Reformation, that when you have a

mind to establish a Doctrin which you judge to be true, you may change the Text and make it speak your sense and meaning, pro∣vided you judge your sense to be true.

Does Faith alone justify us?

It is the Doctrin of the Reformation, that without Charity it cannot, because St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 13. If I have Faith so as to move Mountains, and no Charity, I am nothing. It is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, that it is impious and wicked to say, Faith alone without Charity does not justify; this is Scripture as interpreted by Luther a Man of a sound judgement:l

Who say, quoth Lu∣ther that Faith alone, though perfect it be, cannot justify without Charity, say impi∣ously and wicked, because Faith alone without any good works doth justifie.

Believe which Doctrine you please, both are of the Re∣formation.

As to St. Pauls Doctrine, Luther answers,

m Be it, says he, that the Church, Augustine, or other Doctors, also Peter and Paul, nay, and an Angel from Heaven should teach otherwise than I teach, yet my doctrine is such, that it sets forth Gods Glory; I know I teach no hu∣mane, but divine doctrine.

It is the doctrine of the Reformation, that Faith alone, without any good Works, (not∣withstanding all sins you are guilty of,) doth

justifie you: This is Scripture as Interpreted by Luther, who says, nothing can damn you but Incredulity, as nothing but Faith can save you; so Whitaker, Wotton, Fulk, and Beza, whose Words I related, which I be∣lieve you remember, and I need not repeat.

It is also the doctrine of the Reformation, that Good Works are meritorious of Grace and Glory;n Hooker and Harmonia confess. osay it's the doctrine of Scripture; and what any person of sound judgement judges to be the doctrine of Scripture, he may believe it, for this is our Rule of Faith. It's likewise the doctrine generally of all our Church, that good Works are not at all meritorious: Tindal (called by Foxp, a man of God, and a constant Mar∣tyr) judges this to be so true, that in his Treatise de Mammona iniquitatis, he says, Christ himself did not by all his good works merit Glory: And though the Scripture says expresly he did, Calvinq affirms that it is a foolish curiosity to examine, and a rash proposi∣tion to say Christ did Merit.

It is the doctrine of the Reformation, that though good Works be not meritorious, nor have not the least influence in our Justifica∣tion or Salvation, yet they are absolutely needful for both, in as much as true Faith cannot be without good Works, because they are the marks and signs of a living Faith,

by which alone we are Saved; this is the judgement of the Church of England ex∣pressed in the 11 and 12 Articles of the 39, and of Melancthon in locis Commun. de Bonis operibus, and you may believe it: You may also believe, and it is the doctrine of the Re∣formation, that good works are so far from being needful, that they are prejudicial and hurtful to our Salvation, and the best way to be Saved, is to do no good Works at all; this is Scripture as Interpreted by Illyricus, Amarsdortius, quoted in Act. Colloq, Aldeburg. pag. 205. and 299. and Lutherr was deeply perswaded of this truth, though Christ said,

If thou will enter into the Kingdom of Hea∣ven, keep the Command∣ments: Luther says, It is an obstacle to our Salvation to keep them; Where it is said, quoth he, that Faith in Christ doth indeed justify us, but that it is necessary also to keep the Com∣mandments, there Christ is denied, and Faith abolish'd, because that which is pro∣per to Faith alone is attributed to the Commandments. And again,f says he, If Faith be accompanied with good Works, it is no true Faith; that it may justifie it must be alone, without any good Works.

This is Scripture as interpreted by such sound Men; and consequently the Doctrine of the Reformation; and who doubts but that any Doctrine of the Reformation may

be believed. For our Rule of Faith is Scrip∣ture, as each person of sound judgement understands it; and in believing those Te∣nets, because they judge them to be the Do∣ctrine of Scripture they stick fast to, and follow our Rule of Faith: Why is the Figura∣tive Presence, and the Kings Supremancy, the Doctrine of the Reformation, though denied by Papists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians; but because the Protestants judge it's the Doctrine of Scripture: If therefore those great Au∣thors I quoted, and any other with them, judge those Tenets to be the Doctrine of Scrip∣ture, they may be justly called the Doctrine of the Reformation: Must Protestants be forced against their judgements to deny real Presence and Supremacy, because Lutherans say it's wicked Doctrine. And why must Luther, Flaccius, Illiricus, and others be for∣ced to deny those Tenets, though Protestants or Papists judge them to be damnable? Let each one believe what he thinks to be the Doctrine of Scripture, and he will still be a true Reformed Child.

Does our Reformation teach that 'tis possi∣ble to all Men, assisted with Gods Grace to keep the Commandments?

This is the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land, and consequently of the Reformation: It is also the Doctrine of the Reformation de∣livered out of Scripture, as Interpreted by Luther, Calvin, Willet, and several others, that it's impossible to any man assisted with

what Grace soever to keep the Command∣ments.

None has ever yet, says our great Calvin, and God has decreed none shall ever keep the Commandments. Again,u the Law and Commandments were given us to no other end, but that we should be damn'd by them;t inasmuch, that it is impossible for Us to do what they Command.

The same Doctrine is taught by Luther, in several places of his Works, by Willetx and by our Brethren the Gomarists of Holland, and many of our French Synods Believe which you please, both Doctrines are of the Reformation. It is also the Doctrine of Luther and Calvin, that God does not cast Men into Hell because their sins deserve it, nor save Men because they merit it, but meerly because he will have it so: "He crowns those who have not deserved it; says Luther,y

and he punishes those who have not deserved it; 'tis Gods Wrath and Severity to damn the one, 'tis Gods Grace and Mercy to save the other. Calvin also, z Men are damn'd for no other cause, but because God will have it so; he is the cause and Author of their Damnation; their Damnation is decreed by God when they are in their Mothers Womb, because he will have it so;

this is also the belief of

our Gomarists in Holland, of many French Churches, and of several learned Calvinists; though the Church of England denies this Doctrine, none will dare say it is not the Doctrine of the Reformation, because it is Scripture as Interpreted by such eminent men of our Church.

The Church of England understands by Scripture, that God is not the Author nor cause of sin, that does not force us to sin; who doubts but that this is therefore the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation? But Calvin, Bren∣tius, Beza, and several others understand by Scripture, that God is the cause and Au∣thor which forces our Will to Sin; That Man, and the Devil, are but Gods Instru∣ments to commit it: That Murthers, Incests, Blasphemies, &c. are the Works of God, that he makes us commit them: And who doubts but this also is the Doctrine of the Reforma∣tion, being Scripture, as Interpreted by such eminent and sound judgement?

God says Calvin,a directs, moves, inclines and forces the Will of man to sin; insomuch that the power and efficacy of Working, is wholly in him; Man, nay, and Satan when he impells us, being only. Gods Instruments which he uses to make us sin.

Zuinglius, Willet, Beza, teach the same.

The Church of England has Scripture for her Rule of Faith, and gives us the liberty to Interpret, Understand, and Believe some Text of it, as each one thinks best; and so permits Presbyterians to deny Episcopacy, Lutherans to deny Figurative Presence, &c. and confesses they are all her Brethren of the Reformation, but she will give no liberty at all to Interpret other Texts, but all must understand them as she does, or all must be Hereticks and damn'd Men? No, that Text My Father and I are one, must be Interpreted to signifie the Unity and Nature of the Fa∣ther and Son, as the Church of England be∣lieves, none must interpret it otherwise: So that the difference betwixt the Popish Church and that of England, is, the first gives us no Liberty at all, the second gives us some Liberty, the first robs us of all; the second but of one half. The Rule of Faith in Popery is Scripture as Interpreted by the Pope and Councils; the Rule of Faith in the Church of England; as to some Articles is Scripture as Interpreted by the Church of England; and as to other Articles, Scripture as each person of sound judgement under∣stands it, and thus Protestants are but half Papists, and half Reformed.

Let any unbyass'd and impartial man judge if the Church of England proceeds justly in this: For if our Rule of Faith be Scrip∣ture, as each person of sound judgement un∣derstands it, and if as the whole Reformation

believes, we are not to be constrained, to believe any Church, Council, or mans sense of Scripture, if we do not judge by the Word of God it's true, by what Authority, Rule, or Reason, can the Church of England give me Liberty to understand and believe some Texts as I please, and deny me Liberty to understand and believe others, as I judge by Scripture they ought to be understood? I pray observe well this Discourse; here are Luther, Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius, and our other first Reformers; they Interpret some Texts against the Doctrine of the Church of England. They are praised for the first, and esteemed Apostolical Reformers, because without any regard of what the Church of Rome said, they freely taught and believed what they judged by Scripture to be true; why must not they be praised and esteemed true Reformers also, for not regarding what the Church of England or any other says, but teach the impossibility of Gods Command∣ments, the sufficiency of Faith alone, and all those other Tenets which you much mislike, since they judge by Scripture such to be true Doctrine? Are they bound to submit their judgements to the Church of England, more than to that of Rome?

The Veneration and use of the Sign of the Cross is flat Popery in the judgement of all our Congregations; yet any Reformed Child may laudably and piously use it; inasmuch as our Common Prayer in the Administration of

Baptism, Commands the Minister to use it, saying,

We sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Chrst Crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner against Sin, the World and the Devil.

And in our Kalender, printed since his Majesties Restauration, it is called the Holy Cross.

Our Congregations generally believe, it is Popery to keep Holy-days (except the Sab∣bath-day) and Saints-day; to Fast Lent, Vigils commanded, Ember-days and Fridays; and yet all this is recommended to us in our Common-Prayer-Book, and the Minister is commanded in the Administration of the Lords Supper, to publish the Holy-days of the Week, and exhort us to Fast; and surely, he is not commanded to teach, or exhort us to any thing, but the Doctrine of the Re∣formation: It is true, the Students of our Colledges of Oxford and Cambridge, are much troubled with scruples in this point: these Pauperes de Lugduno, are compelled to fast all Fridays throughout the year; and it is not hunger that makes them complain, but tenderness of Conscience, because they fear it is Popery.

It is a Popish Errour, we say to believe that Pennance, or other penal Works of Fast∣ing, Almsdeeds or corporal Austerities, can avail and help for the Remission of our Sins, and satisfying Gods Justice: No, we say,

Penal Works serve for nothing, all is done by Repentance; that's to say, by sorrow of Heart for having offended God. This is the Doctrine of Daneus, Willet, Junius and Calvin, who say Francis, Dominick, Bernard, Anthony, and the rest of the Popish Monks and Fryars are in Hell for their Austerities and Penal Works for all that, you may very well believe; and it's the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, that Pennance and Penal Works do avail for the Remission of our sin, and are very profitable to the Soul; for, our Common-Prayer-Book in the Commination against sinners, says thus, In the Primitive Church, there was a Godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such as were notorious sinners, were put to open Pennance, and punish'd in this World, that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord. And our Common-Prayer Books wishes that this Discipline were restored again; and surely it does not wish that Popery were re∣stored; therefore it is no Popery to say that Pennance, or Penal Works, do satisfie for our sins in this World, and avail to save us in the other.

I know many much mislike our Common-Prayer Book, for these Popish-Tenets; but what do you say of the grand Errours of Popery? can a man be a true Child of the Reformation, and yet believe the Popes Su∣premacy? deny the Kings Supremacy; believe Transubstantiation and Communion is one kind;

are these Tenets the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, or consistent with its principles?

The Kings Supremacy is undoubtedly the Doctrine of the Reformation, because it is judged by the Church of England to be of Scripture, yet only the Quakers, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other Congregations judge it is not of Scripture, but as Erroneous a Tenet as that of the Popes Supremacy; Cal∣vin 6. Amos, says, They were unadvised peo∣ple, and Blasphemers, who raised King Henry the VIII. so far as to call him the head of the Church; but also that no Civil Magistrate can be the head of any particular Church, the Doctrine of the Centurists, cent. sept. pag. 11. of Cartwright, Viret, Kemnitus, and many others; who doubts then but that in the principles and Doctrine of the Reformation, you may deny the Kings Supremacy, though the Church of England believes it. The Popes Supremacy is the Doctrine of Popery, who doubts it? but it is also the Doctrine of the Reformation, for many of our emi∣nent Doctors have judged it to be the Doctrine of Scrip∣ture, as Whitgifta who cites Calvin and Musculus for this opinion; but it is needful we relate some of their express, words,

I do not deny, says Luther,b but the Bishop of Rome, is, has been, and ought to be first of all; I believe he is above all other Bishops, it is not lawful to deny his Su∣premacy,

premacy: Melancthonc says no less, that the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church, that it is his Office to go∣vern, to judge in contro∣versies, to watch over the Priests, to keep all Nations in conformity and unity of Doctrine: Somaize,d The Pope of Rome has been without controversie the first Metropolitan in Italy, and not only in Italy, nor only in the West, but in all the World, the other Metropolitans have been chief in their re∣spective districts, but the Pope of Rome has been Metropolitan and Primate, not only of some particular Diocess, but of all,Grotius has expresly the same Doctrin, and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope Jure Divino.

I pray consider if these Doctors be not Men of sound judge∣ment, and eminent learning and credit in our Reformation, and if our Doctrine be Scripture as such men understand it.

As for Transubstantiation, it contrins two difficulties; first, if the Bo∣dy of Christ be really in the Sacrament;e and this Real Presence, the Lutherans defend to be the Doctrine of Scrip∣ture, as well as the Papists, why then should it be called Popish more than Reformed Doctrine? The second is, if the substance of Bread be

in the Sacrament together with Christ's Body? Lutherans say it is, Papists say it is not, but that there is a Transsubstantiation, or change of the whole substance of Bread, into the Body of Christ; but hear what Lutherf says of this that we call Popish Doctrine

I give all Persons liberty to believe in this point, what they please, without hazard of their Salvation, either that the Bread is in the Sacrament of the Altar, or that it is not?

would Luther have given this Liberty if Tran∣substantiation had not been the Doctrine of Reformation as well as any other.

Communion in one kind, is the Doctrine of the Reformation, no less than Communion in both; for besides that Luther says,g

They sin not against Christ who use one kind only, seeing Christ has not comman∣ded to use both; and again,h though it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Sacrament; and Christ has com∣manded nothing in this as necessary, yet it were better to follow peace and unity, than to contest about the kinds, but also Melancthoni who in the opinion of Lu∣ther surpasses all the Fathers of the Church, expresly tea∣ches the same Doctrine; and the Church of England Sta∣tute 1. Edward VI. commands, That the Sacrament be com∣monly administred in both kinds,

if necessity does not require otherwise; mark, he says, but commonly, and that for some necessity it may be received in one; lastly, the sufficiency of one kind in the Sacrament, is plainly set down by our Reformed Church of France, in her Ecclesiastical Discipline, Printed at Saumur, Chap. 12. Art. 7.

The Minister must give the Bread in the Supper to them, who cannot drink the Cup, provided it be not for contempt. And the reason is because there are many who cannot endure to tast the Wine; wherefore it often happens among them, that some persons do take the Bread alone.

Now you may admire the injustice of the Papists in condemning our Reformed Doctrine and Doctors as Hereticks, whereas those Te∣nets are believed by many of us, as well as them; and the groundless severity of our Congregations in exclaming against that Doctrin; it being the Doctrin of the Refor∣mation, whereas so many eminent men of our own, judge it to be of Scripture.

For to know certainly if a Doctrine be of the Reformation, you must try it by our Test or Rule of Faith, which is the written Word of God, and whatever any man of sound judgement, of a sincere and humble Heart judges to be contained in Scripture, or an indubitable consequence out of it; that Man may believe that Doctrine, let all others judge of it as they list, and by so believing, will be a true Child of the Reformation;

wherefore, since that the Church of France, that of England in Edward the VI's. time, Luther, Melancthon, Grotius, and other Au∣thors do judge Transubstantiation, Popes Su∣premacy, and Communion in one kind to be the Doctrine of Scripture; we must call it the Doctrine of the Reformation; and if you judge as they did, you may believe the Doctrin and be still of the Reformation, as well as they.

Can you shew me any other Tenet of Popery, which you can call the Doctrine of the Re∣formation?

You can hardly shew me any Tenet of Popery, but what is it's Doctrine; what Do∣ctrine more Popish than that of Confession and Absolution from Sins? yet it is as truly the Doctrine of the Reformation, as Figurative Presence: for not onlyk Lobechius,l Alta∣merus,m Saecerius, andn Me∣lancthen says, it's a Sacrament; but the Church of England in our Common Prayer Book, declares that Priests have not only the power of declaring their Sins to be forgiven to their Penitents, but also the power of forgiving them; and sets down the form of Absolution which the Minister is to use,

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who left power to the Church to Absolve all Sinners which truly. Repent, of his Mercy forgive thee

and thine offences; and I by his Authority committed unto me, do Abosolve thee from all thy Sins:

The Ministers of the Diocess of Lincoln in their Survey of the Book of Com∣mon Prayers, checkt this Doctrine as Popery, and petitioned to have it blotted out, but could not prevail; whereby we are given to understand, it's the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation.

It is Popery, we say to call extream Unction, Confirmation, and Holy Order of Priest∣hood, Sacraments; and who can justly deny all this to be the Doctrine of the Reforma∣tion? foro Calvin says,

I confess, the Dis∣ciples of Christ did use Extream Unction as a Sacrament; I am not, says he, of the opinion of those, who judge it was only a Medicine for corporal diseases:

Calvinp also, and with him our Common Prayer Book and all our Divines say, a Sacrament is nothing else, but a Visible Sign of the in∣visible Grace we receive by it; and they say withq Couel,r Hooker, and others, that this definition fits exactly Confir∣mation, wherefore the Mi∣nisters of the Diocess of Lincoln checkt the Common-Prayer Book for giving the Definition of a Sacrament to Confirmation.s Melancthon,t Bilson,u Hooker, andx Cal∣vin expresly teach, that the Order of Priesthood is a

Sacrament. And when Men of so eminent Judgement of our Reformation teach this to be the Doctrine of Scrip∣ture, who doubts but that it is of the Reformation.

By, this, you destroy the Doctrine of the Reformation of two Sacraments only.

Destroy it? God forbid: Because the Church of England says, there are but two Sacraments, I say it is the Doctrine of the Reformation, there are but two, and because so many eminent Men judge by Scripture there are more, I say it is the Doctrine of the Reformation there are more, that's to say six, Baptism, Confirmation, Euchrist, Pen∣nance, Extream Ʋnction and Holy Order: and very likely our Bishops and Ministers, for their Wives sake, will not stick to grant that Matrimony also is a Sacrament.

But can you say, that Prayers to Saints and Images, Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory are not meer Popery, and in no wise the Doctrine of Reformation.

Without doubt, these Tenets are Popery, but all the World knows the Lutherans use Images in their Churches, and pray before them; and the holy Synod of Charenton has declared, that the Lutherans have nothing of

Superstition or Idolatry in their manner of Divine Worship; this is also the Doctriney of Jaco∣bus Andreas,z Brachmanus, a Kemnitiut, Luther and Bren∣tius quoted by Beza,a and why should not a Doctrine, judged by such eminent Men to be of Scripture, be called the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation? Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory is Popery confessedly; but alas! it is taught expresly by Ʋrbanius Regius,d Bucer,c Zuinglius,f Melancthon,g Luther,h the common-Prayer Book in King Edward's time Printed 154.9. and many others of our Learned Doctors, and what can you call more properly the Doctrine of the Refor∣mation, than what such Men teach to be the Doctrine of Scripture? And though our Brethren, Qua∣kers, Anabaptist:, Presbyte∣rians, and Protestants, judge Prayers to Angels and Saints to be nothing else but Popery; yet our Common Prayer Book has the same Collect or Prayer to Angels in St. Michael's day, that the Popish Mass-Book has, and desires that the Angels may succour and defend us on Earth; and Prayers to, and Intercession of Saints is

taught by Luther,i Bilney, and Latimer quo∣ted by Fox,k and consequently it is the Do∣ctrine of the Reformation.

Listen to our Apostolical and Divine Lu∣ther:l

If a General Council, says he, did permit Priests to Marry, it would be a a singular mark of Piety, and sign of God∣liness, in that case to take Concubines, rather than to Marry in conformity to the Decree of the Council, I would in that case command Priests not to Marry under pain of Damnation.

And again he says,m

If the Council decree Communion in both kinds; in contempt of the Council, I would take one only or none.

See these words of Luther quoted by our learned Hos∣pinian, n and Jewel o and see it is not only my Doctrine but of great Luther,k that in case the Pope and Councils deny all the Tenets they now believe;l we may, and it will be a pious Godly action to belive them, and make as many Acts of Parliament for them, as now we have against them.

This is an evident sequel out of that Prin∣ciple, and whereas there is not one Tenet of all those which I rehearsed, whether they concern Doctrin or Manners; but was judged by the Doctors, which I cited for it, to be the Doctrine of Scripture; it follows unavoid∣ably, that there is not one Tenet of them but is the Doctrine of the Reformation:

Therefore you must be forced to either of these two; either to say that our Rule of Faith, by which such Doctrines are warran∣ted, is naught, wicked and scandalous of all those I rehearsed; you cannot deny, but that it was taught by the Author I quoted for it, and judged by him to be the Doctrin of Scripture. And if no Doctor hitherto had believed, you, or I, or some other person of sound judgement, may judge it to be the Doctrine of Scripture; either of both, then you must be constrained to grant. Or that the Doctrine of the Reformation, is not what each person of sound judgement understands to be the doctrine and sense of Scripture, which is as much as to say, that our Rule of Faith must not be Scripture as we understand it, but that we must believe against our Judgement and Conscience, what others say is the doctrine and sense of Scripture: Or you must grant that all and each of those Tenets I rehearsed, is the doctrine of the Reforma∣tion, though you, or this or that Man may judge them to be blasphemies and scandals.

I confess our Rule of Faith in the Refor∣mation is Scripture as each person under∣stands it; for all our Reformed Churches do gives us this Rule of Faith.

And in case the Church of England, France, or Germany, judge a doctrine to bo blasphe∣mous and against Scripture, and Luther, or Calvin, or I, or another, judge it is good doctrine and conformable to Scripture, to

which judgement must I stand? Must I be∣lieve what I judge in my Conscience to be Scripture, and not what others judge, if they judge the contrary? When Luther began the Reformation, did not almost all Christians and the whole Church believe Purgatory and Prayers to Saints to be the doctrine of Scrip∣ture? And did not he very commendably deny it against them all, because he judged by Scripture it was not? Will a Presbyterian believe Episcopacy, because the Church of England says it is the doctrine of Scripture? No, but deny it because himself judges It is not.

For let a Man be ever so leared and Godly; if he gives an Interptetation of Scripture which is denied by all the Church, he must not be followed.

Since when is it commendable to constrain Mons Judgements to believe, not what each one thinks best, but what the Church thinks may be safely believed? Was this Commen∣ble in the beginning of our Reformation, when our blessed Reformers began to teach their private Judgements against the Church then establish'd? If it was, then the Church of Rome is to be commended, for persecuting and Excommunicating our first Reformers; and if this was not, nor is not commendable in the Church of Rome, why is it commenda∣ble in the Church of England? This is a piece of Popery, whereof the Church of England is guilty, and for which all our Congrega∣tions are jealous of her.

I confess other Congregations will admit no such Curb, or Bridle on their Judgements, but follow Scripture as they understood it; but the Church of England has a reverent regard for the sense and Interpretation of it given by Primitive Ages, Fathers and Coun∣cils, and that we prefer before the private Interpretations of particular Persons.

The Sense and Interpretation of pri∣mitive Ages, Church and Fathers must be pre∣ferred before the Interpretation of any pri∣vate person, or Congregation, and what think you of our whole Reformation, which allowes no other Rule of Faith, but Scripture as each person of sound Judgement understands it? What say you of Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of our Reformers, who preferred their own private sense and Interpretation of Scripture, before that of the whole Church? What say you to the Presbyterians, who prefer their own sense and Interpretation of the Bible before that of the Church of England? I grant, there ought to be a respect for the judgement and Inter∣pretation of the Text, given by the Primi∣tive Church and Fathers; but if a Doctor or a Man of sound Judgement, replenisht with Gods Spirit, read Scripture with an humble Heart, and pure Intention, and judges by it that Bigamy is lawful; that there is no Myst∣ery of three persons is one divine Nature; or that Christ despaired on the Cross, &c. Tho

these doctrines be quite against the Judgments of Fathers, Church, and Councils, he may be∣lieve them, and be still a true Reformed Child, because he follows our Rule of Faith; if he must deny these Articles, because others decry them; then he must go against his own Judgement and Conscience, for to conform himself to them, and his Rule of Faith must not be Scripture as each Man of sound judge∣ment understands it; but as the Primitive Ages, Church, and Councils understand it; and this is Popery.

Is it not generally believed in our Refor∣mation, and most strongly proved of late, by that incomparable Wit and Pen-man Doctor Stillingfleet, that Popery has as much Idolatry as Paganism: Our Land therefore had in Paganism as good a Religion as it re∣ceived by Austin in Popery; does not this our noble Champion, and most of the Scribes of the Church of England teach, That Popery is a saving Religion, that we may be saved in the Church of Rome? if Popery, (notwith∣standing it be Idolatry as they say) by a saving Religion, how can they deny but that Paganism is also a saving Religion, what need therefore had our Fore-fathers to abandon Paganism? why was it not left in the Land?

If England had been as well informed of the merit of Paganism, when first Christia∣nity was Preached, it had never exchanged the one Idolatry for the other.

Dr. Stillingfleet in his Charge against the Church of Rome, pag. 40. and 41. says plainly, That the Pagans are charged with more than they are guilty of; pag, 7. says that Jupiter ado∣red by the Pagans; was so far from being an Arch-devil, in the opinion of St. Paul, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore: that the Pagans adored but one Supream and Om∣nipotent God, which they called Jupiter, and which they did believe to be neither a Devil nor a Man, but a true, and the first and chiefest of the Gods; and that the rest of the Gods which they adored, they looked upon them as Inferiour deities, and gave them no other Adoration.

Dr. Stillingfleet, and Dr. Burnet, and other Reformed Writers prove convincingly; as to their Sentiment, that Paganism is no more Idolatry than Popery, and that Paganism having been banish'd out of our Land upon the false Information of our first Teachers, that it was an Adoration of Devils, or evil Spirits, and wicked debaucht Men, who by counterfeit Wonders, and Cheats, gained the peoples Adoration; since that Dr. Stil∣lingfleet Dr. Burnet, and other Reformed Writers will make it out, thar the Pagans Adored no Devils, but One true, Omnipotent, Supream God, blessed for ever more, which they called Jupiter, and the rest of the Gods as In∣feriour Deities, as Papists do their Saints, and will prove that the Pagans were charged by the first D. Doctors of Christanity, and

by all our Ancestors, with more than they are guilty of; why should not Paganism be re∣stored again to the Land, and heard to speak for it self, and Dr. Stillingfleet and his zea∣lous companions be Licenc'd to plead for them, and for holy Jupiter, so foully mis-re∣presented by Antiquity, as to be believed an Arch-Devil, whom Dr. Stillingfleet will prove to have been a true blessed God for ever∣more?

That Paganism was so unjustly banish'd from our Nation, if what Dr. Stillingfleet says, be true, he is a learned, Religious, and diligent searcher into Scripture; the Ancient D. Drs. and Fathers of the Church reading Scrip∣ture, judged and taught, that Jupiter was a Devil, as well as the rest of the Gods which the Gentiles Adored; Dr. Stillingfleet and other Reformed D. Doctors reading Scrip∣ture, judge he was no Devil, but the true God blessed for evermore; any Child of the Refor∣mation may believe either of both, and put Jupiter into our Litanies, as well as JESUS Christ, and offer Sacrifice to him as formerly our Ancestors did; for whatever any Man of sound judgement judges to be the Doctrine of Scripture, may be safely believed, and is the Doctrine of the Reformation.

Notes

• Epist. ad Noremb. & in Comment. in 70.6. & 16. Mat. Theol. Calvin. l. 2. fol. 70.
• In parva Con∣fes. Germ. fol 55. & in Col. log fol 100
• To. 2. fol. 202.
• The Kindom of Esra. pag. 9.
• Acts & mon. pag. 36. lib. 3. c. 5. g. Catal. testium. p. 976. & 978.
• d

  In Colloq. mensal. fol. 118.
• f

  In De∣fens. Art. Reliq. Pro∣test. pag. 199.
• e

  To. Wit∣tem. fol. 374.
• g

  In his true difier. par. 2. pag. 353.
• h

  Boucler de lay Foy.
• In lib ad Corin c. 11. in Explan. Art. 17. To. 2. de minist. Eccles. in∣stit. fol. 369 lib. de Cap. Babil. c. de Ordin & lib. de abroganda Missa.
• f

  In Act. Sieueti pag. 87. 1.
• g

  con. Cenebrard.
• h

  In Postil Major. in enarat. Evang. Domin. Trinit.
• i

  Lib. 2. Dial. 2.
• k

  Harm. in Evang. Mat. c. 26. vers. 39. and c. 27. vers. 46, & lib. 2. Infrit. c. 16. sect. 10. & 11.
• l

  In Luk. par 2 hom. 65. and in John hom. 54.
• p

  To. 3. Wet∣temp. in sp. 16.
• q

  In Ps. 16
• r

  In Confes. majori de Coena Dni.
• m

  In March. c. 16.
• n

  Recogn pag. 376.
• o

  Lib 2. Infr. c. 16. fact. 10. and seq.
• m

  in March. c. 16.
• n

  Recogn pag. 376.
• o

  Lib 2. Instit. c. 16. fact. 10. and seq.
• r

  In Confes. majori de Coena Dni.
• p

  To. 3. Wet∣temp. in sp. 16.
• q

  In Ps. 16
• t

  In Hastor. Sacram. par. 2. fol. 75.
• s

  To. 2. in respons. ad Confes. Luth. fol. 458.
• a

  Lib 3. Inst. c. 4. Sect. 28.
• b

  Lib. 4. c. 7. Sect. 2.
• c

  In locis commun. classe. 5. 27.
• d

  To. 2. Wittem. de capr. Babyl. fol. 74.
• e

  De Eccl. contr Bellarm. conf. 2. quaest. 5.
• f

  Epist. 2. 2. & 25.
• g

  To. 5. Wittem. serm. de Matrim. & in 1. ad Corin. 7.
• h

  Consil. Theol. par. 1. pag. 648. & 134. In
• i

  Epist. Paul ad Phil. & in 2. ad Tim. 3
• k

  lib. 2. Dial. 21
• l

  Lib. de Repud. & Divort. p. 223.
• m

  Canon. Genera∣les Geneven. 1560.
• n

  Chap. 13. art 31.
• o

  To. 5 Wit∣tem, serm. de Ma∣trim.
• q

  To. 5. Wittemb. serm. de Matrim.
• r

  In Scriptis An∣glic. de Reg. Chr. l. 2. c. 26. & in Matth. c. 19.
• s

  In Consil. Theol. par. 1 pag. 648. s. & 134.
• t

  Dial. 200. & 204. in Epist. S. Paul. ad Tim. 3.
• u

  l. 4. Inst c. 19. sect. 37. Discip. Eccl. c. 13. u Serm. de Matrim.
• x

  Lib. 4•• Inst. c. 15. sect. 20. & 21.
• y

  Act. 27.
• z

  can. 21.
• a

  In Prefat Di∣alog.
• b

  Serm de 50 Artic. in summa summarum.
• c

  In Harm super Luc c. 8.
• d

  Epitom. Cent. 16. par. 2.
• e

  Tom. 2. cont. catabapt. fol. 10.
• g

  In cap. 2. ad Gal.
• h

  de Eccles. cont. Bel∣larm. cont. 2. q. 4.
• f

  Victoria verit. arg. 5.
• i

  To. 5. Wet∣tem. an. 1554. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1.
• k

  In Apol Cof. c. de Concil.
• l

  In cap. 2 ad Gal. & serm Aug. pag. 204.
• m

  In Epist. ad Gal. c. 1 . & 2. & Tom. 5. Wit∣temb. an. 1554. fol. 29.
• n

  Lib. 5. de Eccl. Polit. sect. 72.
• o

  pag. 495. & 273
• p

  Acts and Mon. pag. 514.
• q

  Lib. 2. Inst. c. 17.
• r

  In comment in cap. 2. ad Gal.
• f

  To 1 Proposit. 3.
• u

  Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10. verse 26.
• t

  Lib. 2. Instit. c. 7.5.
• x

  In Synop. Papismi pag. 564.
• y

  Lib. de Servo, Arbit. cont. Erasm. 2. Lib. 3. Inst. c. 21. sect. 5. & 7. &c. 22. sect. 11. & cap. 13.1.
• a

  Lib. 2. Inst. c. 4. sect. 3. & lib. 1. c. 18. sect. 2. & lib. c. 23. sect. 4. Lo. 1. de de∣provid. c. 6. in Synops. pag. 563. In manifest. stra∣tag. Papist.
• a

  In Defens. &c. pag. 373. 70. & 395.
• b

  In Res∣pons. tredecem.
• c

  In Epist. ad Card. Bellay Episc. Parsiens.
• Propos
• d

  In Tract. Eu∣char. ad. p. Sar∣munm.
• e

  In Annot. super Novum Testam. cap. 10. Matth. & saepe alibi
• f

  To Edit. Jonah. l. de cap. Babyl.
• g

  Lib. de cap. Ba∣byl. c. de Euchar.
• h

  Epist. ad Bahe∣mos in declarat. Euch. & in serm. de Euch.
• i

  in Con∣cil. Theol. ad March. Elect. de usu utriusque spe∣ciei pag. 141.
• k

  In Disput. Theol. pag. 301.
• l

  In Cocilliat. loc. Scrip. loce. 191.
• m

  In locis Com∣mun. To. 1 de potest. Eccl.
• n

  In Apol. Confes. Aug. art. 13. & lib. pag. 234.
• o

  In. p. 5. Epist. Jac. v. 4.
• p

  Lib. 4. Inst. c. 14. Inst. c. 14. sect. 5.
• q

  In modest. Examin.
• r

  In Eccl. Polit. c. 5. sect. 66.
• s

  In locis Commun. tit. de Numero. Sa∣cram.
• t

  In perpet. Regem. pag. 109.
• u

  In Eccl polit. lib. 5. sect. 77.
• x

  lib. 4. Inst. c. 20.
• y

  Epit, Colloq. Montisbel.
• z

  In Centaur. Exercit. Theol, pag. 270.
• a

  Examp•…•…. 4. b In respon•• ad acta Colloq. Montis∣bel. par. 2. in Pre∣fas. c In locis Commun. c. 18. & 19.
• d

  Inscrip. Angl. pag. 450.
• c

  To. 1. in Eupian. Art. 90. & Art. 60.
• f

  In Apolog. Con∣fess Aug.
• g

  To. 1. Wittem. in resol. de
• h

  Indul. concl. 15.
• i

  Epist. ad Spa∣l••t.
• k

  Acts & Mon. pag. 462 & 312.
• l

  To. Germ. fol. 214.
• m

  De for∣mula Missa & To. 3. Germ.
• k

  In Histor. Sa. part. 2. fol. 13.
• l

  In replic ad Hardingum.