calculation. The multitude of voices thus taken for them, may prove their faction to be stronger and greater than our Church; it cannot prove their Faith to be so universal as our Faith is. The fallacy by which the Romanists deceive poor simple people, is in making them believe, that our Religion and their Religion, our Faith and their Faith, are duo prima diversa, or so totally distinct, that part of the one could not be included in the other. But for the universality of our Faith we have every member of the Roman Church a suffragant or witness for us. First, nothing is held as a point of Faith in our Church, but the present Romish Church doth hold the same, and confess the same to have been held by all orthodoxal antiquity. So that for the form of Faith established in our Church, we have the consent of the Primitive Church, of the four first General Councils, of all succeeding ages unto this present day, the consent likewise of the present Romish Church, and of ourselves. Now, as France is a great deal bigger than Normandy, if we compare them as distinct and opposite, and yet France and Normandy is bigger than France without Normandy; so likewise, though the present visible Romish Church be much greater than the Church of England, yet seeing the Romish Church, how great soever, doth hold all the points of Faith which our Church doth, for Catholic and orthodoxal: our consent, and their consent, our confession, and their confession, is more universal than their consent without But if their consent unto the points of Faith believed by us, prove our Faith to be universal, and our Church by consequence to be Catholic; why should not our consent unto the points of Faith believed by them, prove their Faith to be universal, or their Church to be Catholic? Because it is not enough to hold all points of Catholic Faith, unless the same points be kept holy and undefiled. The Romish Church, we grant, doth hold all points of Catholic Faith, and so far as she holds these points, we dissent not from her: yet dissent from her we do in that she hath defiled and polluted the Catholic Faith, with new and poisonous doctrines; for which she neither hath the consent of antiquity, nor of the Reformed Churches. And in respect of these doctrines, she stands convicted of schism and heresy, by Vincentius his rules. For it is with him a fundamental rule, that no present visible Church hath any authority to commend anything as a point of Faith to posterity, which hath not been commended to the said Church by antiquity derived from the Apostles' times. A proficiency or growth in Faith, he allows and granteth, modò sit in eodem genere, so it be in the same kind, or proceed from the same root; but for additions or new inventions, he takes them for the marks of schism and heresy.

ours.

So then we hold the Catholic Faith, and they hold the Catholic Faith. And seeing they hold the Catholic Faith in the same

measure that we do, is it not reason they should be termed Catholics as well as we, though not so good Catholics as we? No reason they should be termed Catholics at all. Where is the difference? In this. We hold it pure and undefiled, they have defiled and polluted it for many generations, and do still defile it with many loathsome additions and inventions. Now, in this case the denomination followeth the worser part, that is, they are not so much to be reputed Catholics for that they hold the Catholic Faith, as to be adjudged heretics and schismatics, because they have defiled and polluted it with many new inventions, and being admonished hereof and reproved, will not purify their Faith, will not reform their religion according to the rule of Faith and the practice of antiquity. Their Faith not purified from the additions of the second Nicene and Trent Council, can be no Catholic Faith. Their religion not reformed, can be no true religion, save only in reference to Paganism, Judaism, or Mahometism. For as Dionysius saith, Bonum nor est nisi ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu. Nothing is good which is not entire and sound, evil ariseth from every defect. Every new addition or invention in matters of Faith or Doctrine, is enough to make that Church schismatical, which before was Catholic and orthodoxal. Catholic and orthodoxal no Church can be, unless it hold all points of Faith without admixture of human inventions or of new articles. The admixture of a great deal of man's meat with a little swine's meat, makes the whole dish to be no man's meat, but swine's meat. Our Church according to Vincentius his rule, admits a growth or proficiency in Faith, in that it holds not only those propositions which are expressly contained in Scripture, but such as may by necessary consequence be deduced out of them, for points of Faith and this growth is still in eodem genere, from the same root. Other points of Faith besides these, our Church admitteth none, but ties even her Prelates and Governors, to obtrude no other doctrines as points of Faith upon their auditors, than such as are either expressly contained in Scriptures, or may infallibly be deduced from them. And this is the fundamental and radical difference between our Church and the Romish Church, which admitteth such an illimited increase or growth of Faith as is in heaps or congests of Heterogeneals.

The pain-worthiest inquiry in this argument, were first to make search what additions, or adinventions unto the ancient or primitive Canon of Catholic Faith have been made, received or authorized by the Romish Church, since the Council of Ephesus, which was some three years before Vincentius Lirinensis wrote his admonitions concerning this point; and in what age and upon what occasions, such additions have been made or received. Secondly, to make proof or demonstration, how far and in what manner

such additions do corrupt or contaminate the holy Catholic Faith; and how far each or all of them, jointly or severally, do undermine or overthrow the holy Catholic Faith.

The first addition or adinvention of moment, which comes into my memory, is the invocation of Saints and veneration of images. Both which points were added as Articles of Faith or parts of the Creed, which all were bound to believe and profess, by Tharasius, Patriarch of Constantinople and President of that illiterate, parasitical and factious assembly, which hath been commonly styled the seventh general or second Nicene Council. In these and the like abominable decrees, the then Bishop of Rome was Tharasius's accomplice, his instigator and abettor, as may appear from the speeches of his Legates in that Council, and by his own Epistles, although part of the Epistle may be justly suspected to have been framed since. But by what spirit this Council was managed, or in whose name they met together, I refer the reader unto that learned Treatise in the Book of Homilies (whereunto we have all subscribed) concerning the peril of idolatry, especially the third part. What ingenuous minds of this kingdom thought of that council, before either the author of these Homilies or Luther was born, may in part be gathered from an ancient English Historiographer, who saith the Church of God did hold this decree in execration.

The selfsame points, with a great many more of like or worse nature, all whatsoever any council which the Romish Church accounteth general or œcumenical, or any Canons which the same Church accounteth Catholic, even all decrees whereto the Trent Council hath affixed their Anathemas, have been annexed by Pius Quartus to the Nicene Creed, and are inserted as principal points of that oath which every Roman Bishop at his consecration is to take; one part of which oath or solemn vow it likewise is, that every Bishop shall exact the like confession of his inferiors to be ratified by oath or solemn vow. Cætera omnia à sacris, &c.

The particular decree concerning invocation of Saints and adoration of images, is much enlarged by the Trent Council, and by Pius Quartus. But of the equivalency of idolatry in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, elsewhere at large. In this one point, to omit others, the present Romish Church far exceeds the Eastern Church, in the time of the second Nicene Council, in that it ratifies the worshipping of all such Saints as are canonized by the Pope.

The second addition made by the Roman Church unto the ancient Canon of Faith, is a transcendent one, and illimited; and that is, the making of Ecclesiastical tradition to be an integral part of the Canon of Faith. This doth not only pollute, but undermine the whole fabric of the holy, primitive and Catholic Faith.

That there is a certain rule or authentic Canon of Faith, is a principle, wherein the ancient primitive Church, the modern Roman, and all reformed Churches agree. The first point of difference betwixt us, is about the extent of the written Canon, especially of the old Testament. The main points of difference are these. First, we affirm with antiquity, and in particular with Vincentius Lirinensis, that the Canon of Scripture is a rule of Faith, perfect for quantity, and sufficient for quality; that is, it contains all things in it, that are necessary to salvation, or requisite to be contained in any rule; and so contains them as they may be believed and understood, without relying on any other rule or authority equivalent to them in certainty, or more authentic in respect of us, than the Scriptures are. The modern Romish Church denies the Canon of Scripture to be perfect and complete in respect of its quantity, or sufficient for its quality or efficacy. To supply the defect of its quantity, they add tradition, as another part of the same rule, homogeneal and equivalent to it for quality. To supply the insufficiency as well of Canonical Scriptures as of tradition in respect of their quality or efficacy towards us, they add the infallible authority of the present visible Church. The former addition of unwritten tradition as part of the infallible rule doth undermine: this latter addition of the Church's infallible and absolute authority as well in determining the extent, as in declaring the true sense and meaning of the whole rule, utterly pulls down the structure of Faith: yet when we reject Ecclesiastical tradition from being any part of the rule of Faith, we do not altogether deny the authority or use of it. Howbeit that Ecclesiastical tradition, whereof there was such excellent use in the primitive Church, was not unwritten tradition, or customs commended or ratified by the supposed infallibility of any visible Church. That Ecclesiastical tradition, which Vincentius Lirinensis so much commends, did especially consist in the confessions or registers of particular Churches. Now, the unanimous consent of so many several Churches, as exhibited their confessions to the Nicene Council, being not dependent one of another, not overswayed by authority, nor misled by faction to frame the confessions of their Faith by imitation, or according to some pattern set them, but voluntarily and freely exhibiting such confessions as had been framed and taught before these controversies arose, was a pregnant argument to any impartial, understanding man, that this Faith wherein they all agreed, had been delivered unto them by the Apostles and their followers by the first planters of the Churches thus agreeing; a pregnant argument, likewise, that these first planters had been inspired and taught by one and the same Spirit. Each particular Church was a competent or authentic witness of every other Church's integrity and fidelity in servando depositum, in carefully preserving the truth com

mitted to their special trust. On the contrary, in that Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and other Heretics, did obtrude such constructions of Scriptures upon their auditors as had nowhere been heard of before, but sprung up with themselves, or from the places where they lived, this was an argument more than probable, that if the Apostles had delivered the whole form of wholesome doctrine unto posterity, (a point questioned by no Church in those times,) these men, or the particular Churches which abetted them, had not kept the doctrine delivered unto them by our SAVIOUR and His Apostles, but had corrupted or defiled it with the idle fancies of their own brains, or with the muddy conceit of their discontented passions.

To speak more briefly, though perhaps more fully; the unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches, as exhibited their several confessions, catechisms, or testimonies of their own and their forefathers' Faith, unto the four first Ecumenical Councils, was an argument of the same force and efficacy, against Arius and other Heretics, for whose conviction these Councils were called, as the general consent and practice of all nations in worshipping some Divine power or other, hath been, in all ages, against the Atheists. Nothing, besides the ingrafted notion of a Deity or Divine power, could have inclined so many several nations, so much different in natural disposition, in civil discipline and education, to affect or practise the duty of adoration. Nothing besides the evidence of truth delivered unto the Christian world by CHRIST and His Apostles, could have kept so many several Churches, as communicated their confessions unto the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, &c. in the unity of the same Faith.

Howbeit this unanimous tradition Ecclesiastic, was not in these times held for any proper part of the rule of Faith, but alleged only as an inducement to incline the hearts of such as before acknowledged the written word for the only rule of Faith, to believe that the interpretations or decisions of those Councils did contain the true sense and meaning of the rule acknowledged by all. So that the written tradition which Vincentius so much commends, was not by the Nicene Council used to any such purpose as the Romanists now use unwritten traditions. The only use of it was, to direct the present Church in her examination of the Catholic truth, or points of Faith. The chief authority which the visible Church then challenged, did consist in the unanimous consent of the Ecclesiastic tradition, and that (as was said before) but an inducement to embrace the interpretations of the present Church, and reject the interpretations of upstart Heretics.

But was it a received truth in these primitive times, or a truth acknowledged by Vincentius, (the pretended patron of Roman