doctrines were of the multa which Christ had to say and Tert. de praescript c. 5. tels us Hereticks alledged the Apostles delivered some things openly to all some things secretly to a few the very thing the Papists say and they proved it suth he by St. Pauls saying to Timothy Custodi depositum St. Iraen l 3. c. 2. shews Hereticks alledged the scriptures were obscure not to be understood by those that know not Tradition alledging for it that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. we speak wisdome c. Terp in his Book de resur tels us Hereticks cannot stand if you binde them de solis Scripturis quaestiones suas sistere to be judged by the Scriptures alone and in the same book calls all Hereticks Lucifugas scripturarum such as fly the light of the scripture And now we must say in the last place their usual objection of Hereticks alwaies alledging Scriptures and shunning Tradition is most vain as appeares by the former Testimonies As for their alledging scripture it made for the dignity and sufficiency of scripture Hereticks well knowing the Authority Scripture had in the Church and therefore that it was in vain to use other proofs without it and so the Romanists are necessitated as was said above Chap. 21. to pretend it for the proving of those points which they know and sometimes confesse are not grounded on scripture As for Hereticks shunning Tradition it is most true they carefully shunned that Tradition which delivered down the sense of scripture in the points of Faith through all Ages of the Church for to shun that was to shun the evidence and light of scripture But as for unwritten Traditions such as we and the Romanists contend about they shelter themselves under the darknesse of them made great advantage as we saw by pretence of them alledging the very same reasons and places of scripture for them as the Romanists do and so we leave them both well agreed in this point CHAP. XXV The evidence of Antiquitie in the point NOw for the evidence of Antiquity Though we are to speake more generally to that trial by the Fathers afterward yet here in brief to this particular point There is scarce one Father but we bring him expresly witnessing as we affirm the fulnesse and sufficiency of scripture in all things necessary Bell. in l. 4. c. 11. sets down very many of them and admits them for the sayings of those Fathers how then does hee decline them 1. One of his General answers and it is what others answer to that the Fathers speake of omnia omnibus necessaria to be contained in scripture This the expresse testimonies of those Fathers have extorted from him which is no little prejudice to their cause who equal tradition to the written Word and plead the necessity of what is conveyed to us thereby for if all things necessary for all be contained in Scripture then surely the doctrines and faith delivered in unwritten Traditions are not necessary for all They indeed that have given up their belief to all the dictates of that Church are consequently necessitated to believe them but we may be good Christians and yet not believe them because not written and not necessary it seemeth to all That which they can pretend to say here is that such unwritten Traditions become necessary to be believed upon the proposall of the Church and to be by all believed to whom they are sufficiently propounded or made known Indeed of Scripture we grant All things there revealed become upon sufficient proposal of them necessary to be believed as true yet not all to be believed as necessary in themselves to salvation But of unwritten Traditions we cannot say Men are bound to believe them as true upon the proposall of their Church unlesse they can demonstrate the testimony of their Church to be Infallible or that she propounds them upon full Catholike or Universal Tradition and consent of all Ages which they cannot doe Much lesse can we say Men are bound upon the proposal of their Church to believe them as containing things necessary in themselves to salvation unlesse they can prove the contents of those Traditions to be so which is impossible or that their Church can make new Articles of Faith or those things necessary to be believed to salvation which were not so in themselves before This the sober and moderate Romanist must and will deny 2. He shifteth off their Testimonies by restraining them to the particular thing there spoken of as if they onely meant the scripture was full to that point onely When as indeed upon occasion of some particular point which they were proving they speak in general of the sufficiency of Scripture saying it contains all things necessary Therefore to take away these and all such shifts which they bring to restraine what the Fathers spoke generally We shew they spoke so generally of the sufficiency of Scripture that they left no room for unwritten Traditions to come into the rule of Faith This we shew unanswerably by the Fathers alledged above chap. 23. arguing negatively as Tertul. sometimes Non est scriâ—tum therefore not to be received and speaking exclusively to all things not written as that we must not say or teach any thing of faith praeterquam quod scriptum est saith Saint Augustine lib. 3. contra Lit Petil. Sine his Testibus saith St. Chrysost and citra Scipturam in Psal 95. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae saith St. Hier. in 1. cap. Hag. and Quicquid extra Scripturam est cùm non sit ex fide peccatum est Basil in Regulis Eth. Such exclusive words praeterquà m sinè citrà absque extrà they use against admitting of unwritten Tradition for a Rule of Faith which words and speeches are not any way to be eluded That they bring many sayings out of the Fathers for Tradition it is true and Bellarmine boasts in the number but to what purpose when they do but beat the aire strike us not For they either meane the Scripture it self or Evangelical Doctrine contained in and delivered to the Church by the written Word to which the name of Tradition is often given by the more ancient Fathers Iraen Tertul. Cyprian or else they mean the forme of Doctrine and Belief delivered downe in the Church which though they often call Tradition yet is it written and contained in Scripture and is but the explication of it or the Traditive sense nothing to the unwritten Traditions we speak of or else by unwritten Tradition as they often mention that too they imply things of Practise and Rites and Festivals or Fasts and the like not matters of Faith necessary to Salvation And among these some Fathers avouch such for Apostolical Traditions which the Romanists will not allow as standing at Prayer between Easter and Whitsontide and every Lords day and the Trine immersion in Baptism In a word where the Fathers say the Apostles left some things to us unwritten let the
given us a promise but not cleare a promise of guiding into all truth infallibly so to them that received it then but not clear for infallibility to after Councels or Guides of the Church a promise indeed of assistance to them for all necessary Truth but yet conditionall upon their doing their duty in using the meanes which that all or the major part in every Council will do is not certaine His other clear promise is our Saviours praying for Peter Luk. 22. ver 32. Rogavi pro te nè deficiat fides tua This may seem to concerne the Pope or Church of Rome yet is there nothing in it of a cleare promise to them whether we consider the thing prayed for or the person The thing prayed for is the persevering or not failing of the saving faith by which Peter was rooted and built upon CHRIST which cannot agree to all the Bishops of Rome for they may want that Faith or faile in it as they acknowledge Bellarmine grants this perseverance was personall as to Peter but saith hee there is another thing promised which belongs to his Successors viz. That none in his Chair should teach against the Faith So lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. or that the Bishop of Rome docens è cathedra cannot erre So lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. But how is this a clear promise now or how can this be wrested out of that our Saviour prayed for to Peter by any force of reason For thus the one must follow on the other Peter had assurance to persevere in Faith therefore all his Successours Bishops of Rome have assurance infallibly to teach nothing against the Catholike Faith which is most incohaerent For if that which was directly prayed for Peters perseverance does not descend to his Successors how shall the consequent of it Nay how shall that which is altogether inconsequent to it therefore descend unto them For were it granted that they should persevere in saving-faith the thing assured to Peter yet would it by no meanes follow they could not erre No more than it is true of every regenerate man perservering that he is infallible but now it is granted they have no assurance of such perseverance in the faith yet must it follow they have assurance of teaching nothing against it Thus far then it is so clear a promise that nothing seems more unreasonable Againe if they would make it any way agree to the Bishops of Rome it must be thus Our Saviour prayed for Peter that his Faith should not faile though he denyed him thrice therefore Peters successors though they deny the Faith in mouth yet it shall not faile in heart as they say it was with Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arrians But then this is clean contrary to what they would have out of it which is an outward Professing or declaring of the Faith by definitive sentence whatever the perswasion of the heart be this they contend not for yet this is that which was promised to Peter this he had the other viz. outward profession he failed in So clear yet is this promise But now looke at the person were there any thing here prayed for which might fit the Infallibility which the Bishops of Rome would have yet what cleare consequence can make that belong to them which St. Peter had can they give us one place of Scripture to assure us infallibly that Peter was at Rome and governed that Church as the Bishop of it and dyed in that Sea Is it not admirable that this ground-work of all their faith should no where appeare in all Scripture The Ecclesiastical Writers indeed took him to be as Bishop in that Sea and so the Fathers generally speake of him But this amounts onely to a humane Testimony and besides they ascribe the foundation and Government of that Church to Saint Paul together with Peter and Saint Paul we finde in Scripture to have written to the Church of Rome to preach to them and dwell among them yet must the pretensions made from S. Peter be cleare notwithstanding Well were this cleare by Divine Testimony that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters peculiar successors yet still there is no ground for their beliefe of Infallibility unlesse they can shew it clearly that what belonged to Saint Peter as to this point is derived to all his successors and that the successors of other Apostles in the Churches they founded and govern'd must not enjoy what belonged to those Apostles So much of these two cleare promises of Bell. had he had clearer we should doubtlesse have heard of them One place there is which is often in their mouths and serves for all purposes for the Headship and universall Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Infallibility of Pope Councils and Church of Rome and that is Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock here the Church must be built upon Saint Peter that 's it they contend for Cardinal Perron is much upon it lib. 4. cap. 3. and though that which he would there work out of it is not expresly Infallibility but universall Jurisdiction or Headship yet because they both have the like foundation upon this place it will be worthy to observe how he raises his worke upon it by a witty indeed but mistaken phansie Thus it is The Fathers at first did for the most part speake of the Church here as built upon Saint Peter afterward they did generally interpret it of the Confession of Peter that the Church was built on that Now the Cardinall will have these interpretations not to exclude but inferre one the other thus The Church was built causally on the Confession of Peter formally on Peter himselfe or the Ministery of his person i. e. Peters Confession was the cause why our Saviour chose him to lay the Foundation of the Ministry of his Church upon him Now judge of the mistake in running upon Peters confessing instead of Peters confession i.e. the Faith which Peter confessed and uttered For Peters confession as the Card. takes it in the notion of a meritorious cause was a single and transient act of that Faith which was in Peter a Grace or Virtue it was a confessing but Peters Confession as the Fathers take it when they say the Church was built on it is understood materially for the thing or truth confessed by Peter viz. Christ the Son of God the Confession or Faith required of the Eunuch at his Baptisme Act. 9. That he thus mistakes it appears also by his illustrating of it by the saying of St. Hierome that Peter walked not upon the waters but Faith which saith the Cardinal is not to deny that Peter did formally in person walk but to shew the cause of his walking viz. Faith which he gave to the word of Christ where plainly Faith is taken for a Grace Virtue or Act of Peters Now if we say the Church is built upon Peters Faith will he say that Faith there is
an Act or Virtue in Peter or not rather taken for that Catholike truth believed and confessed by Peter Peters confession of that Faith was no question the cause that our Saviour bestowed something on him at that time but that on which Christ sayes there He will build his Church was Peters Confession i. e. the Faith or Truth confessed by him and so its plaine the Fathers tooke it for they opposed this Faith or Confession as the Cardinal acknowledges against the Arrians That Christ was the Sonne of the living God Bell. applyes the promise following I will give thee the Keys c. to this busines of the One visible Interpreter or Judge and will have whatsoever thou loosest to signifie not onely the relaxation of sins and their censures but nodos omnes legum dogmatum the dispensing with the tyes of Laws and the explicating all the doubts and difficulties of Doctrine and Controversie lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 5. And this is barely said by him without further proof Now when this promise of the Keyes is applyed to judgement about sinnes and offences we know what binding is as well as loosing but when it is thus stretched to universall judgement in the interpretation of Scripture defining points of faith dispensing with Lawes we cannot tell unlesse we thus inferre that as loosing her with Bell. is to explicate Scripture so binding must be the obscuring or involving the sense of it if loosing be againe the power of dispensing with Lawes which binde men as in point of marriage or the like then of binding must be the forbidding of what God has made lawfull as for Clergy to marry or what he has commanded as people to receive the Sacrament in both kindes And the Pope it seems by vertue of this promise or power of Keyes may thus loose and binde and not erre yet these are their chiefe places of Scripture Now let us come to their Reasons First is from Gods providence who was not ignorant how many difficulties and controversies would arise about the faith and therefore would no doubt appoint such a Judge Answ This is to measure the wisdome of God by the modell of our Reason but the same reason may also tell us it would have been more convenient for the Church to have had such an Infallible Judge or Interpreter in every Nation than one for the whole Church which was to be spread over all the Earth yea reason may further tell us it had been suitable to his providence expresly to have told us who that Infallible Judge was and where we should finde him And it cannot be imagined in reason but he would have done it had he appointed any such for he was not ignorant that many the greatest controversies would be about this Judge He tells us plainly There must be Heresies and the end wherefore that they which are approved may be manifest 1 Cor. 11. but not appointing withall this remedy of an Infallible Judge we must think it is that approved faith may be of more price and worth gained with more earnest enquirie and diligence in searching the Scripture using the like means so also kept and held with greater care and watchfulnesse all which would have faln and grown remisse in the hearts of men if to trust all their belief upon an Infallible Guide without any further enquitie CHAP. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it THe Second reason is from certainty of belief which they say the Protestants cannot have for want of such Infallibility but we are certain saith Bell in his Proposition of Faith above-mentioned § 27. that this or that is revealed in Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church Councel or Pope which cannot erre Now would I ask first whether they believe that Christ is the Son of God Saviour of the world that He suffered and now sits at the right hand of God or the like because the Church testifies it to be revealed in Scripture or because they see it evidently there themselves If they say because the Church testifies it then it seems they cannot which is false or may not which is worse believe God immediately when he speaks as plain as the Church can If they say because they see it evidently there then have they two formall reasons of their belief One the immediate evidence of Scripture The other the Testimony of the Church And if they can believe upon that immediate evidence or light of Scripture then so may we also And so we doe not excluding the light which the Church gives to the Scripture where it needs which light is not to us the reason of believing what we believe but a means and help to see that which is contained in Scripture and make it more evident to us Again I would ask how they believe it to be revealed in Scripture that the Church is Infallible because of the Testimony of the Church No that they cannot say here but must alledge for it plain Scripture apert as promissiones clear promises as Bellar called them and must allow men the use of their reason judgment upon the evidence of them Well if they may believe that great point of the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture why may not we believe other points so too or why doe they condemn the Protestants for believing every point of Religion upon the same ground on which they themselves lay all their faith at once for they believe the Churches Infallibility revealed in Scripture because they see it as they say plainly promised there Now if they believing the Infallibility of their Church upon immediate evidence of Scripture can have certainty of belief why cannot we have like certainty upon the like evidence if they cannot have certainty in that particular then can they not have any certainty in any thing else which they believe upon that belief of an Infallibility in their Church Onely this they get by it and must answer for it one day that believing all things else upon the supposed Infallibility of their Church they are made to believe many things to be revealed in Scripture and to be the will of God which are not yea to believe contrary to that which is revealed as the half communion for the people Again they that understood and believed what the Apostles preached and wrote to them did it without the externall means of an Infallible Interpreter upon the evidence of what was spoken or written and therefore so may we Now to say They that spoke and wrote were Infallible and the other knew it to be so is no more than what we say Scripture is Infallible that speaks to us the same which they spoke and wrote and therefore we way as well understand and believe it upon the same evidence We doe not here as I insinuated before exclude the exterior helps means which God has appointed for interpreting and
with them alwaies and simply necessary and that our Case and the Donatists is different as St. Cyprian's and their case was Now to clear these more fully We say first It was neither our intent when we reformed to divide from the Catholike Church or any part of it neither did we We onely sought to reforme our selves leaving them to themselves We had indeed to doe only with the Roman Church which being a particular Church as it may utterly faile without failing of the Catholike Church so may it surely be in such a measure corrupted that it deserves to be divided from Yet our aime and intent was only to leave the Errours and Superstitions we practised with her and so to leave her no farther than her Communion was mixed with those Superstitious practises i. e to leave her no farther than she had left her self as we can prove or receded from what she was for belief and practise in the more antient and purer Times Now here 's the usual mistake and upon the Romanists part the common prejudice against us that they still take the Roman Church and her Communion for the Catholike and what they meet with in the Fathers touching the Catholike Church to this or like purpose that Communion with it is necessary that there is no salvation out of it they apply to the Roman or touching Communion with the Roman Church or Bishop to the proving any man Catholike thereby They appropriate it to that Church as a special prerogative when as the Fathers did also prove the like by communion with other Churches and Bishops confessedly Catholike although not so frequently because Roman Church and Bishop of it was then of all other most eminent Upon this double misapplication those many Testimonies which Cardinal Perron in his Epistle and Answer has heaped up out of St. Augustine and others come to no purpose For to be Extra Ecelesiam Romanam is not presently to be Extra Catholicam For though it was a good argument of old when that Church was eminently and confessedly sound to conclude affirmatively as the Fathers often did such were good Catholiques because in Communinion with that Church yet now since Rome is notoriously corrupt and unsound the argument will not hold to conclude Affirmatively Much lesse will it hold Negatively to argue such are no Catholiques because not in Communion with Rome Nay when Rome of old was sound in Belief and Doctrine it did not alwaies conclude the Negative as will appear by the Instances below of the Asian and Afriean Churches out of Communion with the Roman much lesse can it conclude Negatively now CHAP. XVI The Greek Church a Church and part of the Catholick FUrthermore besides the Roman we acknowledge other Christian Churches parts of the Catholique and we say wee are not out of Communion with them as the Church of Rome is by an actuall declaring of Non-communion to each other For though wee agree not with those Churches in all doctrines and practises which is not De facto necessary to the holding of Communion 'twixt parts of the Catholick yet we holding them still parts of the Catholick Church and they us and not pronouncing Non-communion to each other we both remain in the Unity or Matrice as Cyprian phrases it of the Catholike Church Now as to our opinion of the Greek Church we conceive their denying the procession of the Holy Ghost to be from the Son but yeelding it to be by the Son to be onely a difference in form of speech not of any Heretical meaning as they are acquitted by some learned Romanists And for their opinion and judgement of us we say that Censure of Jeremias one of their Patriarchs which the Romanists object against us as condemning the Protestant Doctrine in many points is not found to be warranted by any Authority of the Greek Church and to it we may oppose the judgement of Cyril their late Patriarch who approves our Church and doctrine But they ask seeing we left the Roman why did we not joyne to the Greek or some other Church or part of the Catholick Resp We were joyned with them in the Catholick Church as said before but if by joyning our selves to some other Church they meane holding and practising as that Church doth we say againe as above such agreement between the parts of the Catholick is not necessary to Catholick Communion 2. We say it was not necessary for us First because we were a National Church and therefore not bound to joyn so as to put our selves under any particular Church of one denomination Private persons indeed are bound so to be joyned to one Church or other which are parts of the Catholick Secondly because our worke was Reformation and casting off the Romish Errours and wee saw no particular Church but needed Reformation very much and therefore we could not joyne to any so as to agree with them in all doctrines and practises These considerations shew the many Testimonies brought out of the Fathers by the Romanists for necessity of Communion come not home to our case For as they are abused when applyed to the Communion of the Roman Church as above noted so are they not altogether applicable to the Catholick Church now as it stands in a condition far different from what it was in St. Augustines time At the time of the Reformation it was found divided in two parts accusing each other of Errour and Schism It was our part then to consider what Errours we had received by communion with the Romish Church and finding them to be many and great it was not for us to make any other part of the Catholike Church a rule or pattern of Reformation but to look to Gods Word and the Primitive practise when the Catholike Church was in such an intire estate that the above mentioned Testimonies were truly appliable to her Which Church is by both sides confessed and acknowledged to have been so right and sound that none could have cause to leave the Communion of any part of her Which Church also must be acknowledged to be of more Authority than the present Romish or Greeke Church From that Word of God was our Rule from that Primitive Church was our pattern and by holding to that rule and pattern as neare as we could if we cease to believe and practise many things as the Church of Rome doth or not agree in all doctrines and practises with other parts of the Catholique Church we cannot be said for that to have no Communion with the Catholike Church CHAP. XVII Of agreement and external Communion twixt the parts of the Catholike Church BUt further to cleare this point of actual communion and agreement betweene the parts of the Catholique Church by some Instances In the points of keeping Easter and Rebaptization it is evident First that the Asian and Roman in the one and the African and Roman in the other did not agree for doctrine and practise Secondly that they could not
conditions yet let us see how they or we stand bound to them For the first Things believed necessary to salvation The Romanists cannot challenge us Protestants for not believing what they of the antient Church did so believe with a due and full consent And for the points controverted which they challenge us for not believing let them if they can give us so general a consent of Fathers for them as we finde in those former Ages agreeing in the Millenary belief in the place of faithful Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment in the Communion given to Infants as necessary for their salvation and some other and yet neither the Cardinal nor any Romanist holds himselfe bound to believe in these things put them in what rank they will as necessary or profitable as they more generally did of old for some Ages If they say the Millenary bâ—lief was rejected within the compasse of the four first Ages For that is the compasse of Time the Cardinal is pleased to allow in this tryal True But then it tells us the succeeding Ages did not hold themselves bound to believe all things as they before them did nor doe the Romanists hold themselves bound to believe either that errour or the two other of the place of Souls or Infant Communion which continued after even to the end of the Ages fixed by the Cardinal And will they have us Protestants bound to believe either what the Fathers did believe erroneously or what the Romanists please to say the Fathers did believe when we know they did not or generally did not And as for the other two points of believing things profitable to salvation and things not repugnant How will the Cardinal possibly give us a consent of Fathers in those points or if he had the confidence to have undertook it seeing so many things of opinion of Rites and of Ceremonies fall under those conditions of profitable or not repugnant to salvation shall any Church be therefore not Catholick because it does not hold or practice in every such thing as the Church in those Ages did as for example Trine immersion in Baptism standing in publick prayer betwixt Easter and Pentecost and some other not onely held and used by the Church of those Ages but affirmed by some Fathers of those Ages to be of Apostolical Tradition yet are they not held or practised by the Romish Church The Cardinal his other Rule is in his fourth Observation in the same Letter Let that be held saith he as truly antient and to have the mark of the primitive Church which is found to be believed and practised Vniversally by the Fathers of the Times of the four first Councels and when it appears that the things testified by them were not held for doctrines and observances sprung up in their time but as perpetually practised in the Church from the Age of the Apostles and that there is not found in the former Authors testimony against them but in all places where there is occasion to mention them agreeable and favourable So he This indeed is reasonable fair as to the tryal between them and us yet not this of it self to give a sufficient ground for belief for how will it hold in the forementioned instances of Infant-Communion and the places of mens Souls till the resurrection in which both they and we reject what was generally believed and practised in those Ages where still by Generally is meant more generally believed or practised and so the Cardinals word Universally in his Rule is to be understood But as to the points controverted How can the Church of Rome hold to this or stand by it when she is never able to shew her doctrines so attested believed practised nay when as we are able to shew the beginning of many of them but springing up in or after those Ages as Purgatory Invocation of Saints Image-worship Transubstantiation half-Communion Nay when their own Authors give us reasons why the Apostles and those of the first Age did not teach as Chap. 21. was noted above Invocation of Saints and Image-worship to the first Christians yet must these passe for Catholick doctrines universally believed and practised from the Age of the Apostles A cause this that needed the great wit of that Cardinal to make Antiquity appear for it in so fair a shew and then to perswade men so far out of their wits as to believe it did so indeed Whereas these general Hints that have been given from the beginning of the 30 Chap may suffice to let any man that hath reason know it can be no good appearance which is made of Antiquity but a cunning disguise and that the Trent Articles can be no Catholick or perpetual doctrine of the Church but Novel-points of Romish perswasion creeping at first some in one Age some in another into Opinion or practice and so by degrees gathering strength till they were asserted by the most and chiefest in that Communion and defended for the doctrine of that Church and at length coined into Articles of Faith as the Catholick doctrine of all Ages and of the whole Church The End The Contents OF the Division of the English and Romish Church upon the Reformation 1 Chap. I. We set not up a new Church but were the same Christian Church before and after the Reformation 4 Chap. II. The demand of Professors in all Ages We can shew it better than they 9 Chap. III. How they and we are said to differ in Essentials 12 Chap. IV. Particular Churckes may reform Especially when a General Councel cannot be expected 15 Chap. V. We not guilty of Schism The guilt of the breach lies on the Romanists 20 Chap. VI. How necessity of dividing Communion arises 24 Chap. VII Sectaries cannot make the Plea that we doe 28 Chap. VIII Of the use of Reason and Judgment in privaâ—e men 31 Chap. IX Of dissenting from the publick Judgment 35 Chap. X. Possibility of just dissenting 39 Chap XI How farre the Romanists leave men the use of their Reason and Judgment 47 Chap. XII Of knowing the Church by the marks of Eminencie Perpetuity c. 51 Chap. XIII Our way opens not a gap to Sectaries 57 Chap. XIV The Romanists vain pretence of Infallibility 63 Chap. XV. Dividing from the Roman Church is not a dividing from the Catholick 66 Chap. XVI The Greek Church a Church and part of the Catholick 69 Chap. XVII Of agreement and external Communion betwixt the parts of the Catholick Church 73 Chap. XVIII The want of that does not alwaies make guilty of Schism 75 Chap. XIX Our case and that of the Donatists not alike 78 Chap. XX. Of Hell-Gates not prevailing against the Church 82 Chap. XXI Of the Trial of Doctrines by Scripture 91 Chap. XXII Sufficient perfection of the Scripture as a Rule 95 Chap. XXIII Of Tradition which we allow 96 Chap. XXIV Their arguments against Scriptures sufficiency and for Traditions 103 Chap. XXV The evidence of Antiquity in the point 114 Chap. XXVI Of the Perspicuity and Interpretation of Scripture 119 Chap. XXVII Of a visible Infallible Judge or Interpreter 125 Chap. XXVIII Of certainty of belief and whether they or we have better means for it 146 Chap. XXIX Of the other Rule of Trial by Consent of Antiquity and the Romanists vain boasting of the Fathers 157 Chap. XXX Application of the Rule to their Doctrine in several pâ—ints 161 CHAP. XXXI Card Perrons two Rules for knowing who and what is Catholick according to Antiquity 179 The end of the Table ¶ A Catalogue of some Books printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane By H. Ferne D. D. Episcopacy and Presbytery considered in 4o. A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before his Majestie in 4o. Now in the Presse A Compendious Discourse upon the Case as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one side and again between the same Church of England and those Congregations which of what perswasion soever have divided from it on the other side Part I. in 12o.