These agree that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals Hence says the Archbishop The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental Doctor White had reason to say this c. Again The whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church Again quoting Kickerman he saith That she cannot erre neither in the Faith nor in any weighty point of Faith And from Doctor Field he asserts That she cannot fall into Heresie c. That she may erre indeed in superstructions and deductions and other unnecessary Truths from her curiosity or other weakness But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally or by heretical error in it she can no longer be holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy And so that Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church is gone Now this holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges that a General Council de post facto is unerrable that is when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks 4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop attended by Doctor Field Doctor White c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman c. he treating of that point extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals for then forgeting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities unnecessary subtilties unnecessary Doctrines to which her curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule he saith The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally yet she erred grosly dangerously nay damnably in the exposition of some of them That she had Errors though not Fundamental yet grating upon the Foundation c. Now what he speaks of the Roman is manifest must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church themselves see to have been and still to be taught by the Eastern c. with an accession on of other Errors from which the Roman is free 5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in generals The Church say they cannot Erre in Fundamentals She may Erre in non-Fundamentals But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose That no particular man or Church may so much as profess publickly that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council except with these three limitations 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth place and esteem 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect states the Point That General Councils lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and awful representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith upon condition 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule and not attempt to make a new one of their own 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian where Scripture or evident demonstration come not against them 6. These are their limitations and sure it was a very great necessity that forced such wise and learned men to grant so licentious a liberty for annulling what ever hath been or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church A liberty never heard or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning I am certain A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles Canons and Acts of Parliament For sure they will not say that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority then those of the whole Church Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations or do none of worth place and esteem gainsay them when all the Christian world Reform'd and non-Reform'd except a little portion of England absolutely reject them Lastly does nothing appear that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation or K. Edwards or Q. Elizabeths But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty apparently ruinous to themselves because they have usurped it against the whole Church could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own 7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds laid by the Arch-Bishop c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals but subject to error in non-Fundamentals 2. The Decisions of General Councils are to be observed where Scripture or evident Demonstration come not against them 8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholicks That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church there are some which are in themselves fundamental others not so but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental being once determin'd by the Church are necessary to be assented to by all Catholicks to whom they are so represented for in those circumstances Obedience is a fundemental duty But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general they withal profess it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determin among all the Churches Decisions and say this or this Point is necessary and fundamental the others not And the reason is because the terms Necessary Fundamental c. are relative terms when applied for that is necessary to be believed and known by one which is not so by another Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering which are not so to any single persons Parishes c. c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them no permission to question any of them is allow'd and by this means the Church is continued in unity and by assenting to all Decisions they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary Whereas Protestants taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and non-fundamentals and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least wherein they think the Church Catholick may be fallible though they have no Rule by which to judg so are besides a certainty of dis-union exposed to errours even in fundamentals 9. The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental besides the manifest interest of their own Church is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth was lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental is not to be presumed on 10. But though this Position in
visible Church saith he we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of same observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate And sect 56. What do you conclude saith he from â—ence but that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted where note that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners but also in Doctrines and Lawes for from several of these he will not deny Luther to have made a discession Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church Well let this be granted what will come of it That Luther must be a Scismatick By no means I say it is evident as these confess that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves from the whole world that is from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age Since not one Church upon earth antecedent to their separation can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion not one which has Laws or Governors in common with them not one that will joyn with them or with which they will joyn in publick Offices Lyturgies Sacrifices and Synods The English Church doth not pretend a Communion with Churches manifestly Heretical as the Armenian Coptite Abissine Nestorian Iacobite Georgian Churches c. And for the Grecian the Reformers at their first separation were actually divided from her and sure they will not say that by separation from the Roman they became ipso facto in communion with the Grecian or if they would say so the Grecian would protest against them as we see their Patriark Hieremias did c. 17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve which a late learned Protestant Writer in his discourse of Schism insists upon when seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus which was a Church independent of all other and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch For though this pretention could be made good which is impossible yet this would not serve their turn considering the English Church ever since her Conversion acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate But though she had indeed such a priviledge and never renounced it who will say the Cyprian Church because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction as Ordinations Visitations c. could therefore independently of all the world frame or change Articles of Faith or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Councils though onely Patriarckical CHAP. XXII The limitations of the Churches Authority made by Arch-Bishop Lawd c. examined Objections against the Proceedings in the Council of Trent answered Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation Secular and Carnal ends in it 1. HAving shew'd the indispensible obligation of even an internal assent that Roman Catholicks acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils as being infallible and which Protestants ought also to perform though they acknowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental since the Church her self hath not declar'd which of her Decisions are Fundamental and which not for she hath affixed Anathemas to many which in themselves are not Fundamental and hath said only si quis dixerit not si quis non crediderit concerning Doctrines which are unquestionably Fundamental and necessary We will now examine the foremention'd Limitations or cases in which it is said particular persons or Churches may and ought to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental or even for not contradicting them which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd Doctor Field c. 2. In the first place An assent even internal say they is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines only as are Fundamental or Points of necessary Faith because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends But who shall or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with respect to all particular states of men or Churches when the Church her self hath not made any distinction between them and perhaps cannot Surely Prudence and a most necessary care of our own Salvation by continuing in the Unity of the Church would dictate to us that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible and therefore cannot mislead us to our danger there can be no safety but in assenting to all her Decisions as if they were of necessary Faith for only by doing so we can be sure not to err in necessary Points and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism 3. Secondly As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary if we could find them out the same internal assent say they is due except in two cases i. Vnless Scripture or evident demonstration come against them whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined in which case it is unlawful to assent yea it is permitted rather to contradict and separate But let any Christian mans conscience judge whether this be to be admitted as a fitting respectful or even possible supposition that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine against which express Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced This licence being admitted who shall be judge whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration be really one or no Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided None can judge of the thoughts of another So that upon these grounds whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred must be believed or however cannot be found fault withall for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church What Presbyterian writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church will doubt to say that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors And if he say so who can demostrate that he does not think so And if he think so he may question contradict and make parties to reverse all the Laws Decisions c. both of the English and God's Church too by the Archbishop's warrant for he taking notice page 245. that such an Objection will be made resolves it thus That a General Council he means another General Council must decide whether it be a demonstration or not Hence it will follow 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called 2. But if another General Council must decide it why hath not the last General Council which he disobeys decided it Or if this may not oblige him why should the next But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough For
Supremacy began with St. Peter his words are Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief that had chief authority over the rest to the end Schisms might be compounded And this he quotes from Calvin who said The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest 26. I will now produce two who will give this whole Cause to the Pope The first is the so fam'd Melancthoâ— who writes thus As certain Bishops preside â—ver particular Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops And this Canonical policy no wise man as I think does or ought to disallow c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end that consent of Doctrine may be retain'd Wherfore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy if other Articles could be agreed upon The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel the Defender of Mr. Hooker he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention c. thus applies it against the Puritans If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the Pâ—imitive Church when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are Nâ—y if twelve Apostles were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them For saith Hierom Among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of Schism might be prevenâ—ed how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience He adds further The Church without such an Authority should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth nay almost then a Den of Theives if it were left dâ—stitute of means either to convince Heresies or to suppresse them yea though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these his own Primitive Reformers either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy or however they oppose him in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third CHAP. IX Of the Churches Infallibility The necessity thereof that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation And the grounds whereupon She claims it 1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholick Doctrine is the Infallibility of the Church called by the Preacher The Paâ—â—adium of the Conclave and derived from the Schollars of Marcus in Irenaeus or from the Gnosticks in Epiphanius Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are 1. Infallibility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes 2. The Church not being omniscient must therefore be ignorant in part and consequently may fall into Error 3. It is confess'd by the great Champions of the Papacy that the Heresie of the Novatians was hatch'd in Rome and continued there almost two hundred years 4. Besides Arianism that over-spread the Church she was infected with the Heresie of the Chyliasts being deceived by Papias which Heresie found no contradiâ—â—â—â— for some Ages 5. Yea the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent during the space of six hundred years according to Maldonaâ— thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind 2. In order to the answering of this Discoâ—rse he will sure acknowledge that all Sect of Christianity agree in this that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith and a 〈◊〉 also But in both these there is difference among them To the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers Socinians c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture But both Catholicks and English Protestants though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule yet they admit certain universally received Traditions besides expresse Scripture 3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule the difference among the said Sects is far greater and more irreconcilable The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason a Guide evidently fallible and therefore not to be imposed on others The Independents Anabaptists Quakers and Presbyterians too pretend to an Infallible Guide Gods Holy Spirit but with this difference that the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it and perceive they have it but cannot oblige other men that have it not nor can be sure they have it Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny at least in France do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonicâ—l Books of Scripture from Apocriphal and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others And moreover by a most senslesse inhumanity will impose a necessity on all others to belie their own Consciences and acknowledge the same Guide though they have never wrought any Miracles which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend 4. As for Dr. Pierce and the generality of English Protestants I speak of them now as hitherto they have bin for what they must be hereafter neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs beyond Reason and Spirit for the finding out the sense of Scripture and judging of Traditions received by them is the Primitive Church or foure first General Councils But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves a speaking Judge of the sense of all these I suppose is their Ecclesiastical Synods or Bishops when Synods are dissolved but principally those that are to make and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament And upon these grounds they finde themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries For against Sects that went out from them they use the help of Catholick weapons the Authority of the Chuâ—ch Councils c. But against Catholics they renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils of convening which the times are capable and in the interval of Councils in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Governâ—rs going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church and their chief Pastor but this as to assent only where it likes them and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils Fathers Scriptures and all And great difficultie they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists when they speak to Sectaries and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks And truly the Doctors whole Sermon is in effect meerly Fanatick
truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church and no other 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes as such cease to be sons of the Church they must be saved as well as their Subjects and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord Qui vos audit me audit They are not Pastors but Sheep Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge that their Civil power extends it self to all manner of causes though purely Ecclesiastical so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law according to the Churches exposition thereof or the Laws of the Church require Such a power yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors Sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent me so send I you Receive the holy Ghost c. Teach all Nations c. No promise hath been made to Princes that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth any other way then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors to whom only that Promise was made 3. Nay that very Argument by which he would assert his cause is a Demonstration against him He sayes and that very truly Our Kings are as much as any in the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God without any dependence on any other authority on earth The like must be said of other absolute Princes too Now this independency of Princes demonstrates that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all which is in the Church For otherwise being independent and absolute they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means Other Princes are independent as well as they and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation as well as they So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all and submitted to by all what will become of Vnity Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another Shall there be Patriarchicall or General Councils of Kings meet together Who shall summon them In such Royal Synods there must be order which of them shall challenge a Primacy even of Order Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions 4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian and the practice of Charlemain for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times The Churches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church more averse from innovations in Doctrine and irregularity in manners And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio◠legum Ecclesiasticarum or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare Let the Emperor Iustinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere c We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves and their Rules we observe as Lawes Add again to shew that the Laws enacted by him touching Ecclesiastical matters were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy but as consequences of the Churches Authority he saies Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules of the Church These were indeed Lawes of Reformation fit for glorious Princes devout Sons of the Church to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose 5. What the late Emperours Fardinand the first and Maximilian the second did neither his Sermon nor Margin tell us but onely that something was done which he it seems thought for his advantage I 'le tell him what it was Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful yet not so but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition Those worthy Emperors for peace sake made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholicks some indeed too moderate as Cassander c. how the Church Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified Hereupon divers expedients were proposed Treatises written c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended But how By betraying the present Churches Faith By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction or consent to a composition Far otherwise For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church they surceased all motions of reconciliation rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion 6. Touching the many Kings of England as he sayes in Popish times whose actions in his opinion shewed that the work of Reformation belonged especially to them in their Kingdom His Margin indeed quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest as if he would have the world believe the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old But what Reformations were made by any of them either in Religion or Church-Discipline neither I nor himself can shew except by the last King Henry the Eighth who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion 'T is true the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome touching Investitures procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the Kings Courts usurping a disposal of Bishopricks and other Benefices c. But what is all this to Religion Such debates as these he may see at this day between the Roman Court and the Kings of France Spain c. in all which commonly the Pope is but little a gainer yet notwithstanding all these he will not sure deny but that the Kings of France and Spain and 't is as certain that all those former Kings of England except one were perfect Roman Catholicks not any of them ever did believe that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the
Novelties we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them And it being supposed by the Archbishop c. that without such a certainty it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church The Doctor is bound and â—here adjure him to declare expresly as in the presence of Him who is Supreme Head of the Church and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it that he is demonstratively certain that in all these Points charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils she is manifestly guilty and that nothing appears in this or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance which deserves to be esteem'd so much as a probable proof to the contrary For my part I here protest on the other side that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon nor believe there can any be produced which can warrant him to make such a Declaration 10. The second Condition is That in like manner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity the main grounds upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism to wit these 1. That the universal Church â—epresented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors that a particular Church c. discovering such errors may be obliged to separate externally 2. That a particular Chrâ—stian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationaâ— Synod and assented to by it and that a Nationaâ— Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical or any of them in regard of an Oecumenical formerly accepted and admitted If these Assâ—riâ—ous he Innovations as in our perswasion they are it is clear they destroy all possible unity If they be not let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church 3. That a particular Church c. in opposition to the Vniversal can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons 〈◊〉 Communities c. and what not And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary 11. Thirdly if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church but only from the Roman then to make this good he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted and to whose Synods they ever have or can repair And since at the time of their first Separation they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church and the Members of it be must shew how when and where they entered into any other new Communion Lastly Since the English Church by renouncing not only several Doctrines but several Councils acknowledged for General and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches hath thereby separated from both these he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these that is some that are not manifestly heretical with whom the English Church communicates 12. A fourth Condition is that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments to consecrate confirm preach God's Word c. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations Or if they be he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their Synods and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledg them true reformed and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations 13. The last shall be that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils especially that of Trent If he will combate against her there he has a fair and open field and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense Otherwise he will declare himself as one who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed Now in exchange I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions But truly I know not where to find them except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children For the 39. Articles being almost all Negatives may as well be reputed the Doctrines of Iewish or Turkish Congregations since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Infallibility of Councils c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief as the Huguenots in France c. the Lutherans in Germany c only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith upon what motive I am unwilling to guess 14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable and even according to Protestants grounds also so necessary if the Replyer shall refuse to perform he will in the judgment of all discerning Readers be himself the Answerer and Conâ—uter of his own Reply and withall will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at but the satisfying his own or others interests passions and revenge against those who least deserve it All subterfuges all involved intricacies in answering all discourses which are not open candid and sincere will be confessions of guilt He may perhaps hide the weaknesse of his cause from credulous Women Trades-men or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry but to all considering Readers his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery Aristotle saies the Sepiâ— is the wisest of all Fishes because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour which hinders the sight of her But on the contrary Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent Quia cum se putat latere prodit seipso latibâ—lo for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour 15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans and from them other Reformerd took the name Protestants for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms Spires c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest What Edicts were made against them We Catholics might rather assume such a title if it were of any special honor having