DIALOGVE I.

AMong the diuersities of opinions that are in the world, how may I know which is the truth whereto I must cleaue, and who are the true Church and true Catholikes?

Minist a Beleeue not euery spirit (that is, euery doctrine, which men bragging of the Spi­rit do teach) but trie them whether they be of [Page 92]God, or no; b Examine all things, hold fast that which is good. a 1. Iohn 4.1: b 1. Thessal. 5.21.

VVhereby shall I trie them?

By the Scriptures, Iohn 5.39. Acts 17.11.

I am vnlearned, and the Scriptures are hard to be vnderstood.

There are indeed many things in them, hard to be vnderstood: (2. Pet. 3.16.) but such things as are necessary to bee knowne of all to saluation, are plainly set downe. Prouer. 8.9. The meaning of which place is this:

The Word of God, in points necessary to sal­uation; is easie vnto all that haue a desire vnto it. Turne to the places of Scripture, added to eue­ry answer of the Catechisme, and you shall finde this to be most true.

Is there no other way and meanes, whereby to try and know the truth and the true professours thereof?

Yes, it may be done euen by the aforesaid grounds of Religion. Whatsoeuer doctrine is agréeable thereunto, is true, and to be receiued: but whatsoeuer is contrary to the same, is false, and to be reiected. As many as doe sincerely and soundly embrace, professe, and practise the same, they are the Catholike Church, (that is, parts [Page 93]and members of the Catholike Church) and true Catholikes indeed. But such as teach, professe, and practise things contrary thereunto, are not the true Church, nor true Catholikes.

The Papists say that they onely are the true Church, and true Catholikes, and that we are not.

So the Iewes cried: a The Temple of the Lord: b We are the séede of Abraham: the children of GOD. a Ieremy 7.4. b Iohn 8.33, 41.

But Christ told them, they were the children of the diuell. Ioh. 8.44.

Are not the Papists then good Ca­tholikes?

No: but rather grosse Heretikes.

What is an Heretike?

One that doth erre in any fundamentall point of Christian Religion, and dooth obsti­nately teach, maintaine and defend the same.

Do the Papists erre in the fundamentall points of Religion?

They doe teach and maintaine many false opinions, against the verie grounds of Re­ligion; as by and by shall be shewed in many par­ticulars.

Are all Papists then hereticks?

No: for there are (no doubt) many of [Page 94]them that doe erre of simplicity and ignorance, & which would be brought from their errours, if they had the meanes, namely, the Scriptures in their owne language, preaching, catechizing, and the like. Wée doe not therefore account them all Hereticks, but onely those before mentioned.

How doe you prooue that they are not good Catholi [...]ks?

I prooue it thus: They are good Catho­likes, which are of sound faith and good life. (Au­gustin lib. quæst. in Mat Chap. 11.) but Papists are neither of sound faith nor good life: therefore they are no good Catholikes.

How doe you proue that they are not of sound faith?

Euen by the Apostles Créed (which may serue instead of a rule, whereunto the faith of all men ought to agrée) contrary whereunto they teach many things.

Shew mee wherein.

The Créed is a confession of faith▪ con­taining the summe of the Gospell, and of such things as are necessary to be beléeued of all that wil be saued. They haue deuised many other new Articles of faith besides, and contrary to the Ar­ticles of the Apostles Créed: which they hold ne­cessarily to be beléeued of all that will bée saued: As namely, indulgences and a treasury of saints [Page 95]merits, the reall presence, the Popes suprema­cie, Purgatorie, and such like. In the Councell of Trent, the curse Anathema is pronounced vp­on all such as denie these or any of them. Master Perkins first Vol. page 621. The Créed tea­cheth what euerie one in particular is to knowe and beleeue: and a true faith cannot stand with­out certain knowledge. The Papists maintaine an implicite, or an ignorant faith; namely, that it is enough to beleeue as the Church beleeueth: though they know not what the Church is, nor what the Church beleeueth. And they commend this faith by the example of an old deuout father, a Colliar, who being tempted of the Diuell, and asked how he beléeued; answered, That he belée­ued as the Church beléeued: being asked againe how the Church beléeued, he answered, As I be­léeue: whereupon, the Diuell (as they say) was faine to depart.

It should seeme it was but a simple diuell: for if he had bin wise, he would haue asked him this question; What if the Church beleeue that thou art a foole; what would the Colliar think you haue answered then?

I thinke hee would haue sayd nothing: for if he should haue said, I beléeue so too, the di­uell might then haue begged him for a foole in­déede. And yet such fooles are the simple & igno­rant [Page 96]Papists, which content themselues with this kind of faith: for thus one may reason with them; You are to beléeue as the Church beléeueth: but the Church beléeues that you are fooles: therefore you are to beléeue so to. This their implicite faith euery one of himself may haue. The diuels in some sence may be said to haue a better faith then this: for they know what is contained in the Scriptures, and beléeue it to be true, Mat. 4.6. Iam. 2.19. This fond & ridiculous kinde of faith, is a notable meanes to muzzle people in blind­nes, superstition and perpetuall ignorance. A­gaine faith is a certaine and true perswasion of the heart, whereby wée are perswaded, and in some measure assured of the forgiuenes of our sinnes, and eternall saluation. The Papists say, It is presumption to be assured of saluation, and will haue men to doubt thereof: the which is con­trary to the nature of true faith. They call the certaintie of remission of sinnes, a faithles per­swasion: and the faith of diuels, not of Apostles. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6 cap. 9.12, 13. Rhemists Annot. 1. Cor. 9. Sect. 9.

DIALOGVE 2.

Shew me, I pray you, what things in par­ticular they teach contrary to any Article of the Creed.

I could shew you many, but I feare that then I should be tedious to you: I will therefore set downe onely the chiefest. In the second and third Article is described and set foorth vnto vs both the person & office of our Mediator, namely, that he is both God and man, a Prophet, Priest, and King.

Concerning his person, although in words they confesse him to be God and man, yet indéed they deny it: for they ascribe to him a body in­uisible and infinite: they teach that hee is cor­porally present in infinite places at once, which is proper onely to God, and contrary to the nature of a true body. And so in effect they do euen deny his Man-hood. The Sonne of God is called Iesus, because he is a Sauiour, yea the onely and perfect Sauiour which saueth vs from our sinnes: that is, hath deliuered vs not onely from the blame, or guiltines, but fully also from the punishment due to our sinnes, Mat. 1.21. Acts 4.12. Heb. 7.25.

The Papists teach, that there must also some satisfaction of our owne come to make vp our perfect Redemption, Concil. Trid. Sess. 14.6.8. Can. 11.15. They will not be saued only by IESVS CHRIST but by the merits also of Saints, their owne merits, Popes pardons, &c. yea they ascribe that to others, [Page 98]which is proper to Christ alone, and so conse­quently make them their Sauiours: As for ex­ample.

They ascribe to S. Francis the same titles, pro­perties, power, and the very same office due to Iesus Christ, & in all respects they make him like to Christ: whatsoeuer Christ did, that (as they say) did S. Francis. And what is this in effect, but to make him their Sauiour? That they do ascribe the former things to S. Francis, is to be séene in a booke written on purpose, to shew the conformity betwéen him and Christ, called (The Conformity of Francis) the which hath bin con­firmed by the authority of the Church of Rome. Pope Gregory the Ninth, inioyned the faithfull to hold and firmely to beléeue the things taught in the said booke, concerning S. Francis, and that he should be punished as an Heretike that would thinke the contrary. Confor. F. 2. lib. 1 Fol. 3.

To whom else doe they ascribe that which is proper to Iesus Christ?

To the Virgin Mary. They describe her nature by her name (Maria,) consisting of fiue letters, and these (as they say) doe import the fiue offices to be exercised by her toward vs. The first is, Maternitatis, of Mother-hood: signified by the letter M: for shée (as they say) is the mother of mercy, through whom wée obtaine [Page 99]mercy. Her second office is Conseruationis, of conseruing the treasure of God: signified by the letter A: which representeth Arcam thesauri, the chest of treasure: for in her (as they say) we shall finde an infinite treasure of the wisdome and grace of God. Her third office is, Directionis et gubernationis, of direction and gouerning by ex­ample of her life. This is imported by the letter R. and therefore shée is named Regina, the Quéene. Her fourth office is, Iaculationis et repulsionis inimicorum, of flinging and repelling back of enemies: signified by the letter I: and therefore they pray thus to her: Tu nos ab hoste protege, et hora mortis suscipe. Protect thou vs from the enemie, and receiue vs at the houre of death.

Her last Office is Aduocati [...]nis, of Aduoca­tion, imported by the letter A. from whence they pray thus: O our aduocate, turne thy mer­cifull eyes vnto vs. And what doe they héerein, but euen place her in the roome of Iesus, and make her their Sauiour? These are the very words of Fryer Iohn Viguerius, (a Doctour, yea and a publike professour of diuinity among them) in his Institutions to his Catholike Theo­logie, Cap. 20. Sect. 9. Fol. 214. And heerein he is like to such as can make Bells to sound, euen what pleaseth their phantasticall braine, and as [Page 100]best may féed their superstitions humours.

Further they say, that shée is the originall or our saluation, the recouerer of grace and forgi­uenes, our hope, our saluation, resurrection, &c. yea that to her it is giuen to bruise the Serpents head, that shée hath done it, and procured that peace betwéene God and man, which no man could procure, Viguerius Ibid. 214.215. Confor. Fran. in conclus. lib. 1. Is not this to make her a Sauiour?

Surely yes: and I thinke it most horrible blasphemie.

Account you this blasphemy? what say you then to that which Carolus Scribanius, a Ie­suit hath written of her? As namely, First, that the milke of Mary may come into comparison with the bloud of Christ. Secondly, that the Christian mans faith may lawfully take hold of both as well as one. Thirdly, that the best com­pound for a sick soule, is to mix together her milk, and Christs bloud. Fourthly, that the sinnes and spirituall diseases of the soule, are cured aswel by her milk as by his bloud. Fiftly, that her milk and the merit and vertue of it, is more preci­ous and excellent then Christs bloud. These most horrible blasphemies, with many such like, are to be found in the aforesaid Iesuits book: which [Page 101] M. C. hath put into English, and sufficiently answered, calling it, The Iesuits Gospell. Be­sides all these things, in a book called, The Ladies Psalter, they haue put out the word Lord, and put in the word Lady. As for example Psalm. 110.1

The Lord said vnto our Lady, Sit thou mother at my right hand, &c. The like they doe in the rest of the Psalmes. And is not this good stuffe, thinke you?

These books were written long agone, and it may be that they are now reiected by the Papists.

The latter of them was indéede written long agone, but is not reiected, but stands vncon­trouled, or rather defended by the Iesuits, and those of the principall. The former was writ­ten but lately. And whereas both the Author and his book (as M. C. saith) deserued the fire and halter, it was so farre from béeing misliked in the Romish Synagogue, or any way censured, that the booke hath béene reprinted, and the Authour and his book stand enrolled, approoued and com­mended (in their great volumes set out for that purpose) for good and Catholike. As they place S. Francis, and the Virgin Mary in Christs roome, so doe they the Pope also: ascribing that to him, which is proper vnto Iesus Christ, and may [Page 102]not (without blasphemie) be ascribed to any creature. They say that the Pope is the Sunne: the Church the Moone. The Pope is the Bride­groom: the Church the Bride. The Pope is the head: the Church the body. And what is this, but to place the Pope in the roome of Iesus Christ; and euen to say that the Pope is Christ? Confor. F. 2. li. 2. fol. 10. That they do thus place S. Fran­cis, the Virgin Mary, and the Pope in Christs roome, and so make them Sauiours, is more at large and sufficiently prooued (out of their owne Writers) in a little Treatise (set forth by M. Thomas Rogers in the yéere 1589) intituled, An historicall Dialogue of Antichrist and Poperie.

DIALOGVE 3.

Hitherto you haue shewed, how the Sonne of God is called IESVS, because he is a Sauiour, and how the Papists do place others in his roome: Now shew me also why hee is called CHRIST, and what that title signifieth.

Christ signifieth, Anointed: which title setteth forth his Office: namely, that he is our only true Prophet, Priest and King.

Do they teach any thing contrary here­unto?

They doe euen denie this Office of his, [Page 103]and so consequently, deny the fruites of his comming in the flesh, 1. Ioh. 4.3.

Shew me wherein they deny his Office.

Christ is a Prophet to teach his Church, and to reueale the will of God vnto vs, to whom all are to hearken, Mat 17.5. Ioh. 10.27. Act. 3.22, 23. And this he hath perfectly done in the Scriptures.

They preferre their owne blinde traditi­ons before the Scriptures: they lay aside the Scriptures, accounting and calling them, Dumb Iudges, A Nose of waxe, The black Gospell, Inken diuinity, &c. Piggius Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch. lib. 3. cap. 3. A certaine popish Doc­tor reasoning with M. Tindal, was not ashamed to say, that wee were better to be without Gods Law then the Popes. They likewise set vp I­mages to be Lay-mens books, and so in all this they deny by consequence his Prophetical office. Christ is also a Priest, and that for euer, after the order of Melchisedech, Heb. 7.24. And in this his office he hath none to succéede him. They acknowledge not this, but maintain still an out­ward and corporall Priest-hood, to offer vp an outward sacrifice, euen Christ himselfe, Rhem on Heb. chap. 7.7. Sect. 7.8.

If this were true, why then, the Priest were become a Mediatour betweene God and [Page 104]Christ: the which is most absurd, to think that any creature should be such a one.

It is indéede most absurd: and yet in the very Canon of the Masse they intimate thus much, when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings (namely, Christ himselfe offe­red) as he did the sacrifices of Abel & Noah. And which is more absurd than this, (yea blasphemy for any to affirme) they (by their former doctrine) do make the Priest to be more worthy, in some respect, then Christ: for the person that doth of­fer a sacrifice, is of more worth and honour then the thing which he offereth; but the Priest (as they say) offereth vs Christ to God his Father: therefore the Priest that offereth him, is of more worth and honor then Christ, whom he offereth.

As Christ is a Priest, so he alone, (and that but once for all) effred himselfe: and by his one offering once offered, hath made a full and per­fect satisfaction for all our sins, so that now there remaineth no more offering for sinnes, Heb. 9.12, 14, 26▪ 10, 14, 18. They teach that in the Masse, there is dayly a sacrifice offered for the sinnes both of the quick and the dead: and so they make Christs sacrifice not to bee the perfect and onely sacrifice of the new Testa­ment, but set vp another instead thereof.

They say that their sacrifice is not a [Page 105]new sacrifice, or another from Christs, but that it is the same.

The Author to the Hebrewes teacheth, that Christs sacrifice neither may, nor ought to be reiterated and repeated: for as it is but one, so it was but once offered. And this word (Once) he vseth fiue seuerall times, Heb. 7.27.9.12.26, 28.10.

They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a bloudy manner: but he is often offered after an vnbloudy manner.

This distinction of theirs hath no warrant out of Gods Word: nay rather it is directly a­gainst the Word: for, Heb. 9.22. it is said, Al­most all things are by the law purged with bloud: and without shedding of bloud is no remission. From whence we may thus reason, Without shedding of bloud is no remission: but in the Masse is no shedding of bloud: therefore no remission. And therefore it is no sacrifice for sinne.

Though this their distinction bee not to be found in the Scriptures, yet it is in the writings of the Fathers.

The Fathers indéede make mention of vnbloody Sacrifices: but they hereby vnderstand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sinne, but the Spirituall Sacrifices of Christians; and [Page 106]they so call them, in comparing them with the bloudy sacrifices of the Law, and with Christs bloudy Sacrifice.

The Papists doe not say that the sacri­fice of the Masse is an expiatorie, but an appli­catory sacrifice: that is, it serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ alrea­die made.

Their doctrine is, that it is a sacrifice propitiatory: that is, auaileable to obtaine (ex opere operato, by the very worke wrought) remis­sion and pardon of all their sinnes: yea, that it is auaileable to obtain all other benefits; as peace, health, and such like, Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss. cap. 25. lib. 2. cap. 9. But let it be (as you say) that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice, yet this maketh nothing for them. The Sacrifices of the Law did serue to apply the vertue of Christs Crosse: and yet the Apostle excludeth them by this reason; that where there is remission of sins, there is no more Sacrifice, Heb. 10.18. Wher­fore if the Apostles reason be good, it concludeth also against their Sacrifice applicatory. Again, the Apostle teacheth, that therefore the Sacri­fices of the Lawe are abolished by the death of Christ; because they were but shadowes of good [Page 107]things to come, and could not make the offerers perfect, &c. Heb. 10.1, 2, 3. And therefore, this kind of applying Sacrifice (which they faine themselues) hath ceased. Wée néede not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christs death: for Christ to that end hath appointed the preach­ing of the Word, and hath instituted Sacra­ments, whereby his death, with all the benefits thereof, are most fruitfully applied vnto vs, Gal. 3.1. 1. Cor. 11.26. Againe, this their apply­ing sacrifice, is against the nature of a Sacra­ment, in which God giues Christ vnto vs: wher­as in a Sacrifice God receiues from man, and man giues something to God.

The ancient Fathers vsed to call the Supper of the Lord, a Sacrifice: it should seem therefore, that there is some Sacrifice offered therein to God.

It is true that they called it so: not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God, but in other respects. First, because that therein there was an offering and giuing of alms, bread, wine, &c. which are a Spirituall Sacrifice. Se­condly, they called the Sacrament, a Sacrifice, not properly, but figuratiuely: because there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered vpon the Crosse, and because it is a commemoration of Christs body, which he [Page 108]offered for vs, and of his bloud which he shed for vs. Thirdly, It is called a sacrifice, because it is an application of the Sacrifice offred vpon the Crosse, vnto our selues. Fourthly, It is so cal­led, because of the sacrifice of prayers and thanks­giuings: and because in the Lords Sup­per wee offered our selues vnto God to bee consecrated vnto him, and serue him in body and soule.

What is then your opinion of the Po­pish Masse?

It is an abbridgement of all superstition and idolatry: there is in it adoration directed to bread: there is (as they say) the body of Christ offered really in a sacrifice of propitiation: which was neuer offred but once with shedding of bloud. There is adoration of stocks and stones, inuocation of dead men, saying of Masses to the honour of Saints and Angels, worshipping of dead mens bones, and such like abominati­ons.

If the Masse bee such an idoll, and so contrary to Christs sacrifice, whence had it then its first beginning?

The Masse had this originall: First, the Lords Supper was celebrated in most sim­ple and plaine manner. Secondly, it beganne to admit some increase of ceremonies, especially [Page 109]the offerings for the dead, which was but a thanksgiuing for them, vntill more then two hundred yéeres after CHRIST. Thirdly, prayers for the dead, got entrance into the Lords Supper about the yéere foure hundred: and then came in Purgatory, and the redemption of soules from thence by Masses. Master Perkins. 2. Vol. 554.1. D. Againe, you are to know that the Masse is like a beggers cloake, patcht vp with many pieces, whereof some were puts in at one time, some at another. One Pope puts in one patch, another Pope puts in another: and it was not fully patcht vp, as now it is till twelue hundred yéeres after CHRIST, Acts and Monuments, Page. 1274, &c. And in the Canon of the Masse, there are to bée found a full halfe hundred of errors and blasphe­mies, Synopsis, Papismi. the 13. generall Con­trouersie. quæst. 8.

But how can the Masse bee so late and new, seeing that the Fathers in their writings make mention of it?

The word (Missa) (which is now called the Masse) in the Fathers, signifieth a publike méeting to the communion, and to prayers, or the solemne dismission of that méeting, or euen the forme of their religious worship. And the Phrase Missam facere, (vsed in some of the Fa­thers) [Page 110]doth not signifie to say the Popish Masse, but to dismisse some out of the assembly. After the Sermon the Catechumenists, (that is, such as learned the Catechisme, and were not yet ad­mitted to the Lords Supper) are dismissed. And héereupon the Communion was called Missa figuratiuely, because when it began, there was a dismission of some, Perkins. 2. Volume 552.2. D. 553. Synopsis Papismi. the 13 generall Con­trouersie. Quest. 2.

I am satisfied touching the Sacrifice of the Masse, by which (as I doe now plainely perceiue) they doe euen deny the Priest-hood, and the onely sacrifice of Christ: I pray you now to shew me wherein else they deny his Priest-hood?

Christs Priest-hood consisteth of two parts, Satisfaction, and Intercession. As by his owne Sacrifice once offered, he hath made a per­fect satisfaction for our sinnes: so he now conti­nually maketh intercession to God for vs, Rom. 8.34. Heb. 7.25. The Papists teach, that the Saints in heauen doe make intercession to God for particular men, according to their seuerall wants: and that hauing receiued particular mens prayers; they present them vnto God. And so héerein they doe also deny the office of Christs Priest-hood, Rhem. on Luke. 16. Sect. 4. on 2. [Page 111]Cor. 1. Sect. 3. on 2. Pet. 1. Sect. 3. and in many other places.

They say that Christ indeed is the onely Mediatour of Redemption, but the Saints are also Mediatours of Intercession.

This is but an idle distinction: for Christ onely is the Mediatour aswell of the one as the other. For in a true and sufficient Mediatour, ther must be these properties: first of all, the word of God must reueale and propound him vnto the Church. Secondly, he must be perfectly iust, and such a one as in whom was no sinne euer found. Thirdly, he must be a Propitiatour, that is, bring some thing to God, that may appease and satis­fie his wrath and iustice for our sinnes. Now, these thrée properties are not to be found in any creature, but in Christ alone: and therefore he is the onely Mediatour of Intercession, aswell as of Redemption, Perkins. 1. Vol. 603.604.

Doe they teach any thing contrary to the Kingly office of Christ?

Yes, they teach that the Pope is Christs Vicar, and head of the Church; that he can-make Laws to bind the Conscience; that he can make new Articles, and abolish the old; that he can dis­pense with all the precepts both of the old & new Testament: And so héerein (and in many other such like things) they deny the kingly Office of Christ.

It seemeth then to mee (by this which you haue said) that though in words they con­fesse Christ, yet in deed and in truth they deny him.

They doe so indéede: for whosoeuer de­nyeth the office of Christ, (for the performance whereof hée came in the flesh) denieth in effect, Christ to be come in the flesh: but the Papists de­nie his office, therefore they deny him to bée come in the flesh: and so they are no good Catho­likes, but rather Heretikes.

What should mooue the Church of Rome in words to acknowledge Christ, and yet to deny his office?

It makes much for her profit, and by this meanes they doe the more easily deceiue people. That their profit and aduantage is the onely end they aime at, appeareth by a most blasphemous spéech of a Pope of Rome, (Leo the 10.) who béeing somewhat mooue dagainst one of his Car­dinals, for alleadging a place against him out of the Gospell concerning Christ, answered him thus, Quan [...]um nobis profuit ist a fahula de Chri­sto? O what aduantage hath this fable of Christ brought vs? Sle [...]dan de sta [...] Relig. &c. Reip. lib. 1 They are héerein much like to a Fowler, who spreading his net to catch Larkes, hath tied to his net an artificiall Larks, a Larke in shew, but [Page 113]not indéede. This he causeth to moue and stirre: the which the Larkes perceiuing, and thinking it to be a Larke indéede, they fall downe by him, and so are caught in the net. So they haue a Christ in their mouthes, to draw people to them, but it is a counterfeit Christ. Or if it bee the true Christ, yet they do but as the Larke-catcher doth, who many times hath in his net a true and liuing Larke indéede, but it is onely to deceiue the Larkes, and the more easily to catch them in his net. So they professe Christ, haue his Word and Sacraments among them, but it is onely to deceiue simple people, and to make a prey of them.

DIALOGVE 4.

Doe they teach any other thing con­ [...]arie to any other Article of the Creed?

Yes, diuers things. In the Article we pro­fesse to beléeue, that Christ was conceiued by the holy Ghost: and so he, and he onely was concei­ued without originall sinne. They teach, that the Virgin Mary was also conceiued without origi­nall sinne: and that by this meanes it came to passe, that Christ was frée from all spot, Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. cap. 1. de peccato originali. And so héerein they doe altogether ouerthrowe this Ar­ticle of Christs conception by the holy Ghost, [Page 114]to whose onely power the Scripture doth impute Christs holines, & not to the Virgin Mary, which was no lesse then all others conceiued and borne in sinne, and did néede Christ to be her Mediatour aswell as the rest of mankinde. There was a long time a foule stirre in the Church of Rome, be­twéene the Dominicans and the Franciscans a­bout this point, Acts and Monuments, page. 732. It was the common opinion of Fathers and Writers vntill Lumbards time, (which was a­bout the yéere 1150) that shée was conceiued in Originall sinne, Perkins. 2. Vol. 596. In the 4. Article we professe, that Christ suffered, &c. by which he hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for the sinnes of his elect, and for the whole pu­nishment thereof, both eternall and temporall.

The Popists teach, that Christ hath satisfied for sinnes going before Baptisme: but concer­ning sinnes following Baptisme, the fault is re­mitted by the passion of Christ, and the punish­ment (which of infinite is made finite) is to bee satisfied for, by men themselues eyther heere or in Purgatorie: that is, men themselues must sa­tisfie the iustice of God, for the temporall punish­ment of their offences, eyther on earth or in Pur­gatorie.

There is (say they) a certaine infernall place in the earth, called Purgatorie, in the which as [Page 115]in a prison-house, the soules which were not fully purged in this life, are there clensed and purged by fire, before they can be receiued into heauen. Bellar. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 1. and cap. 3. lib. 2. cap. 6. Rhem. on 1 Cor 3. Sect. 4. They say al­so, that it is an Article of faith, to beléeue that there is a Purgatorie; and that he which beliues it not, is sure to go to Hell, Bellarm. ibid. lib. 1. cap. 15. But this is so farre from béeing an Arti­cle of faith, as that it is a méere fable, and con­trary to an Article of faith. The bloud of Christ is the Purgatorie of our sinnes, 1. Iohn 1.7. Afflictions are called the fiery triall, (1 Pet. 1.7. 4.12.) whereby we are clensed from our corrup­tion, as gold is from the drosse by fire. No other Purgatorie is to bee found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures mention but two sorts of men, beléeuers and vnbeléeuers; and but two places after this for them, heauen for the one, and hell for the other, Luke 16.25, 26. Iohn. 3.36. Reuel. 20.14, 15.21.7, 8. They that die in the Lord, rest from their labours: which cannot bee true, if any of them goe to Purgatorie. Their workes follow them, that is, the reward of their workes, Reuel. 14.13. If any man should haue gone to Purgatorie, then the thiefe vpon the Crosse had gone thither: who repenting at his end, wanted time to make satisfaction for the temporall pu­nishment [Page 116]of his sinnes: but Christ said to him, To day shalt thou be with mée in Paradise. The doctrine of Purgatorie came into the Church, out of the heathen writers, for the Philosophers and Poets were the first that euer wrote of it: & Popish Purgatorie was vnknowne to the Fa­thers, many hundred yéeres after Christ, Per­kins. 2. Vol. 568.569.

If Purgatorie be but a fable, contrary to an Article of faith, then what is the cause that the Church of Rome so stifly maintaines it?

There is great cause why they should so do, for it kéepes in the fire in the Popes Kitchin: for, if the fire of Purgatorie were not great, the fire in the Popes Kitchin would bee but small; for, by this meanes they haue store of money for Pardons, Masses, Diriges, and other such like trumperies.

DIALOGVE 5.

Doe they teach any thing else contrary to the Creed?

Yes: The sirth Article saith, that Christ ascended into heauen, &c. and the Scriptures say, that the heauens must containe him, &c. Acts. 1.11.3.21. They teach contrary héereunto, name­ly, that Christ is corporally present in the Sa­crament, and that in many places at once: The [Page 117]which is contrary to the nature of a true body, and contrary to the nature of the Sacrament, which is a remembrance of Christ. Vigilius against Eutyches. lib. 4. saith thus: When it (that is, the flesh of Christ) was on earth, it was not in hea­uen: and because it is now in heauen, it is not on earth. This is the Catholike faith and con­fession. It is an Article of faith to beléeue the Catholike Church: and faith is the euidence of things not séene, Heb. 11 1. Therfore the Catho­like Church is alwaies vnto the world inuisible, and not to be espied but by the eyes of faith: be­cause things seene are not beléeued. The Papists teach, that the Catholike Church is, and hath but alwaies visible, Rhem. on Mat. 5. Sect. 3. The Church is said to be Catholike, that is, vniuer­sall, because it is not tyed to any one speciall place, but is spred abroad ouer the face of the earth. They tie it to Rome alone, which can be but a particular Church, and not vniuersall. In the Church there is a Communion of Saints: and these are they that are sanctified by the blond and Spirit of Christ, hauing the perfect holines of Christ put vpon them, by imputation of faith, and the quality of imperfect holines powred into their heart by the Spirit of sanctification. And such are the faithfull heere on earth. 1. Cor. 1.2. Psal. 16.2.

The Papists acknowledge none to be Saints, but such as are in heauen. They teach that the Pope can canonize Saints: whereas to make one a Saint, is onely the work of God, 1. Cor. 11. The Pope hath canonized many that in­déede were neuer true Saints of God, but wic­ked men, and rank Traitors to their Princes, as Becket, with many others.

This canonizing of Saints, was neuer heard of with the Fathers, vntill the yéere 880. and then Adrian took vp this authority. And Alexâder the Third, after him, confirmed it in his decrées.

In the Créed we professe, to beléeue the for­giuenes of sinnes: that is, I beléeue that God, for Christs sake doth fréely forgiue the sinnes of his elect, and my sinnes also. And héerein con­sisteth our iustification, namely, in the frée for­giuenes of our sinnes, and the imputation of Christs righte ousnesse to vs. The Papists teach many things contrary to this Article. First, that men are to make satisfaction for their sinnes. Now: satisfaction for sinnes, and forgiue­nes of sinnes, are contraries. If wee satisfie in our owne person, we are not iustified fréely: if we be iustified fréely (as most certainly we are, Rom 3.23.) then we make no satisfaction at all. If a man can satisfie and pay a debt, then he néedes no forgiuenes: but if the debt be forgiuen [Page 119]him, then it is plaine, that there is no satisfaction made. The satisfaction for our sinnes, was made by Christ, and not by vs.

Did not the ancient Fathers teach men to make satisfaction for their sinnes?

The satisfaction which they maintained, was an ecclesiasticall and publike mulct, or pe­nalty imposed vpon notorious offenders, there­by to testifie their repentance, and to satisfie the Church whom they had offended, Perkins. 1. V. 577, &c. 2. vol. 165.2. D. 166.

The efficient cause of our iustification, is God alone. It is God only that forgiueth our sins. Esa 43.25. Mar. 2.7. Ro. 8.33. They teach that the Pope can forgiue sins, and we know that he giues pardons, not only for the time past, but also for the time to come: yea they teach that priests haue full right to remit sins, & they alleadge these places to prooue it: Mat. 16.19. Ioh. 20.23. Now we are to note this, that as none can forgiue a debt, but the party to whom y^e debt is due: so none can forgiue sins, but God only, against whom the sin is com­mitted, Ps. 51.4. The power of binding and loosing committed to y^e Apostles & Ministers of y^e Word, is, by declaring the wil and pleasure of God out of his Word, both to pronounce forgiuenes of sins to al y^t are truly penitent: and the retaining of them to the impenitent. The Pope and his Clergie are [Page 120]neuer able to proue themselues to bee she true Ministers of Christ: and therefore they cannot so much as challenge this latter authoritie and power to themselues▪ much lesse she former, which is proper to God only. The motiue or impulsiue cause, which moued God to iustifie vs, was not any thing in vs, but only the grace of God, that is, the free good wil & pleasure of God, Ro. 3.24. Eph. 2 8. Tit. 3.5, 7. They teach, that we are not iustified by grace only, but by works also, that is, by the merit of our workes. And to this end they haue (of late yéeres) deuised a first and secand iustification. The first is, when a sinner (of an euill man) is made a good man: and this (they say) commeth only of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ. The second is, when one (of a good of iust man) is made better and more iust, and this procéedeth from workes.

But wee are to know, that there are not two kinos of iustification, a first and second; but one and the same iustification, considered in different respects. In respect of Gods actuall acceptation of a maus person, iustification is ab­solute: but in respect of the actuall application, and manifestation of Gods acceptation vnto a mans conscience, iustification is by parts and degrées. (M. Scudder on the Lords Prayer, page 303. to 309.

And further we are to note, that the Papists second iustification, is no other then sanctificati­on, which is an effect and fruit of iustificati­on: the which is imperfect, and not able to iustifie vs before God. Themateriall cause of our iustification, is the actiue and passiue righteousnesse and obedience of Iesus Christ, his inherent holines, his fulfilling of the Law, his death, sacrifice and full satisfaction.

The formal cause, or the forme of iustification, is the righteousnes of Christ, imputed of God vnto vs, Rom. 5.19. Rom. 4.5, 6, 7, 8. 1. Cor. 1.30. 2. Cor. 5.19, 21. Phil. 3.9. The Papists de­tide this doctrine, that Men are iustified by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ: which righteousnes is not in vs, but in Christ. The Rhemists call it a new no-iustice, a phantasticall apprehension of that which is not, Rhem. on Ro. 3. Sect. 7. They hold them accursed that so affirm and teach: And they teach, that the onely formall cause of our iustification, is the iustice of God, whereby we are not reputed and accounted iust, but are made iust indéede: and this iustice is that which euery man hath within himselfe, and is in­herent in him, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 10.11. Rhem. on Phil. chap. 3. Sect. 3. The instru­mentall cause of iustification on our part, is a true and liuely faith, whereby wee receiue [Page 122]and apply vnto our selues the merrie of God, Christ Iesus and all his benefits, resting vpon him alone for our saluation.

They teach, that faith doth not iustifie, as an instrument in apprehending the righteousnes of Christ, but as a proper and true cause, it actually iustifieth by the dignity, worthines and meritori­ous work thereof, Bellarm. lib. 1. de iustificat. cap. 17. They teach also, that faith is not the only cause of our iustification, but that there are other also, as hope, charity, almes-déedes and other vertues: yea they say, that workes are more prin­cipall then faith, in the matter of iustification: and pronounce him accursed that shall say, a man is iustified onely by faith, Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 6. and on Iames 2. Sect. 7. Bellarm. lib. 1. de iustificat. cap. 13. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 9. These and other such like things they teach, con­trary to the doctrine of iustification, which is a maine ground of Religion. And if there were no more points of difference betweene vs; these were sufficient to kéepe vs from vniting of our religions: for héereby the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation.

You said before, that we are iustified freely: I would know how this can be, if we be iustified by the righteousnes, and for the merit of Christ.

Because the decrée of God the Father [Page 123]for our redemption, is frée, and we pay nothing againe to God of our owne. And therefore by the word (fréely) our merits are excluded, but not Christs. By which it appeareth, that in re­spect of our selues, we are iustified fréely of Gods méere mercie and grace, without any respect of our owne righteousnes or worthines, but yet through Christ, and for his righteousnes and obe­dience imputed to vs: both which are signified by the Apostle, Rom. 3.23, 24.

Shew mee (I pray you) what is meant by (Merit) what the doctrine of the Papists is concerning merit, and whether that our works be meritorious or no.

By (Merit) we vnderstand any thing, or any worke, whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured; and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the work or thing done. Now the true merit whereby we looke to attaine the fa­uour of God and life euerlasting, is to be found in the person of Christ alone, in whom God is well pleased. The Papists make two kindes of me­rit: the merit of the person, and the merit of the worke. The merit of the person is (as they say) a dignitie in the person, whereby it is wor­thy of life euerlasting. The merit of the worke, is a dignity or excellencie in the work, whereby it is made fit, & inabled to deserue life euerlasting [Page 124]for the doer of the worke: See Rhem. on. Rom. 8. Sect. 5. We now do renounce our owne personall merits, and all merit of our owne workes, and rely onely vpon the merits of Christ, and wee hold that no workes of ours can merit. That no man by any workes of his can merit, may bee proued by the properties and con­ditions that must be in a worke meritorious, and they are fiue.

First, the worke must be absolutely perfect: but all our workes are vnperfect, aswell in parts, as in degrées of accomplishment. In parts, because we omit many things which the Law prescribeth, and doe many euill things which the Law prohibiteth. In degrees, because the workes of the Saints are vncleane, Esay. 64.6. Phil. 3.8.

Secondly, a man must doe the worke of himselfe, and by himselfe: for if it bee done by the hélpe of another, the merit doth not properly belong to the dooer. But the good workes which we doe, are not ours, but are wrought by God in vs.

Thirdly, a man must doe the worke, of his owne free will and pleasure, not of due debt: for when we doe that which we are bound to doe, we doe no more but our duty. But whatsoeuer we doe, we doe it as poore debters, nay, we are [Page 125]worse then poore debters; wee are miserable bankrupts, wee haue nothing, wee haue lesse then nothing to pay, Luke 17.10.

Fourthly, the worke must bée done to the benefit and profit of him from whom we looke to be repayed. But no man by any worke of his can bring any profit vnto God, Iob 22.2.35.7. Psal. 16.2.50.12. Wée may benefit men but wée cannot benefit our Maker, from whome wee haue receiued life and limbe, soule and body, and all that we haue: wee can giue him nothing, and therefore can deserue nothing from him, Ro. 11.35, 36.

Lastly, the worke and the reward must be in proportion equall: for if the reward be more then the worke, it is not then a reward of desert, but a gift of good will. But there is no proportion be­tweene our workes, which are altogether vnper­fect, and the excellencie of those great blessings, and benefits which the Father giueth vs freely in his Sonne, Rom. 8.18. And therefore in this and the former respects, there can bee no merit in any meere man: wherefore it is no lesse absurd to say, that wee merit saluation at Gods hands by good workes, then if one should say, Thou hast giuen mee an hundred pounds, therefore thou oughtest to giue mee a thou­sand.

Was not this doctrine of merit taught in the times of ancient Fathers?

Merit being taken in his proper sense, for due and iust desert, was neuer allowed of the sound Professours for a thousand yeeres after Christ, Perkins first Vol. 574, 575. second Vol. 535, 536 Such therefore as will be iu­stified and saued by their owne workes, and chal­lenge eternall life by their merits, do shew them­selues to be most proud and vnthankfull persons, and deserue most iustly to bee condemned eter­nally

The Papists, at their end, doe renounce their owne merits, and professe that they look to be saued only by the merits of Christ.

If there were nothing else but this, it were enough to proue their doctrine of merit, to be a false doctrine: for if it were a truth, then a man is not only in his life time to professe it and maintaine it, but also in his death; yea rather to dye for it, then to deny it. But séeing they in their life professe it and maintaine it, but at their death renounce it; it is a manifest argument, that euen they themselues do know, that it is not a true, but a false doctrine.

If they know that it is not a truth, what makes them then in their life time so stifly to maintaine it?

It serues greatly to maintaine and vp­hold the Popes kingdome: for they teach, that the ouer-plus of Christs merits, and of the merits of Saints and Martyrs, is the treasure of the Church, which being gathered together, and put into a store-chest, is in the Popes custodie, and he alone hath the plenary opening and shutting of this Chest, and the ordering and disposing of these merits: by vertue whereof, he giues out Indulgences and Pardons when and to whom he will: So that such as haue not merits enow of their owne, may haue them from thence. And so héereby he maintaines and vpholds his king­dome: for heerby comes in infinite wealth and reuenewes, Perkins. 3. vol. 1. part. page, 165.2. D. 2. vol. 590. 2. a. In these and many other par­ticular points, the Papists teach contrary to the Articles of the Créed, and therefore are no true Catholikes, neither doe they belong to the Ca­tholike Church, as is thus proued: Whosoeuer haue not the Catholike faith, doe not belong to the Catholike Church: but the Papists haue not the Catholike faith; therefore they do not belong to the Catholike Church. That they haue not the Catholike faith, is plaine by that aforego­ing.

DIALOGVE 6.

Doe they teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments?

Yes, many things. Christ ordained but onely two Sacraments. The Church of Rome hath added to them fiue more, namely, Confir­mation, Penance, Matrimonie, Orders, and er­treme Vnction.

Are not these Sacraments indeede?

No surely: for there are foure things ne­cessarily required to make a Sacrament. First, the authority of Christ commanding it. Second­ly, the element or outward signe, as the matter of it. Thirdly, the word of institution, as the forme. Fourthly, the end and vse, to bee a scale of our faith, for remission of sinnes. These foure things are not to be found, in their fiue latter Sa­craments, and therefore they are no Sacraments indéede. Master Attersoll on the Sacraments, page. 119. to 150. Synopsis Papis. Controu. 14, 15, 16.

May not the Church then institute and ordaine Sacraments?

None may ordain a Sacrament, but on­ly the Lord. As none may put a signe and seale to a mans last will and Testament, but onely the maker of the Testament: so none may ordaine [Page 129]Sacraments (which are signes and seales of the new Testament and couenant of grace) but onely the Lord which made the couenant. And therefore the Church of Rome, in doing the con­trary, proues her selfe not to be the true Church of Christ, but rather the Church of Antichrist. They doe also in many other things teach con­trary to the doctrine of the Sacraments. As,

First, that the Sacraments doe giue grace, and namely, remission of sinnes, ex opere operato; by the worke wrought, Rhem. Acts. 22. Sect. 1.

Secondly, that not onely faith doth iustifie, but the Sacraments also, Rhem. Rom. 6. Sect. 5. Whereas Sacraments me signes and seales of iustification. Rom. 4.11.

Thirdly, that Infants dying without Bap­tisme, cannot bee saued, Rhem. Iohn 3. Sect. 2. They haue also added many idle ceremonies to Baptisme, as Creame, Tapers, Salt, &c. with an opinion of saluation and worship annexed vnto them: yea in times past they baptized bells, but now they beginne to bee ashamed of it, and say that they were but onely hallowed, and consecra­ted to holy vses, Bellarm. lib. 4. de. Pont. Rom. cap. 12. Synopsis Papismi, Controuersie 12. Question 5. Concerning the Lords Supper, they haue likewise most grosty abused it in many things.

First, they take away the Cup from the Las­ty: whereas the Church of Rome for aboue a thousand yéeres after Christ, vsed both signes in the Communion. The Communion vnder one kinde, was decréed, defined, and determined as a publike Law in the Councell of Constance, about the yéere 1114. Perk. 2. vol. 554 2. b.

Secondly, they reserue the bread in boxes, pixes and other vessels of the Church, for daies, wéekes, and moneths. They shew it to the people, the Priest lifting it ouer his head, and go­ing with it in procession. All this is contrary to the Sacrament: for it is no Sacrament, vnlesse there bee a giuing, receiuing, eating, and drin­king, Master Attersoll on the Sacraments, 386.387.

The reseruation of the Sacrament was not allowed of, but rather found fault withall by the Fathers, Perk. 2. vol. 557.

Thirdly, they adore, fall downe and honour the Sacrament with diuine worship, calling it their Lord and God. A thing neuer heard of among the heathen Idolaters, namely, to worship a piece of bread, or rather, a thinne wafer.

The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth vnto Christ sitting in heauen: and is an inward worship of the heart, or lifting vp of the minde, being stirred vp with the outward signes. Pope [Page 131] Honorius the Third (in the yéere 1220) was the first that euer instituted the adoration of the Sacrament. And after him Vrban the fourth or­dained a feast in honour of the body of Christ. Perk. 2 Vol. 564. Attersoll on the Sacraments. 388.389.

Fourthly, they turne the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, abolishing the fruit and remembrance of the death of Christ, disannulling his Priest-hood, giuing him to his Father, wheras the Father hath giuen him to vs, &c. ibid. page 390.

Fiftly, they maintaine Transubstantiation. These are their very words: If any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, or shall denie that the whole sub­stance of Bread & Wine is changed & conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ (the formes & shews only of Bread & Wine remaining: which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth, Transubstantiation): let him be accur­sed. Con. Trid. Sess. 13. can. 2. This their doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a very fable to mock fooles withall, and it ouerturneth both the nature and vse of the Sacrament, Attersoll on the Sa­craments, page 45. 46. and page 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conuersion (as they [Page 132]say there is) of the Bread and Wine, it would appeare to the outward senses. For all true mi­racles are wrought openly, clearely, and euident­ly to mens senses, Iohn 6.26. But the Bread and Wine, by the iudgement of all the senses, remai­neth and appeareth to bée the same in substance which it was before, of the same quality quanti­ty, colour, taste, handling, smelling, vertue and nourishment: there is not any one sense, or all the senses together, that can iudge otherwise of it, then it did before. If a man should bee called in, when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table, and bidden to consider well what hee there séeth, smelleth and tasteth, and then is willed to goe forth, and to come in againe, after the Consecra­tion is ended by the Priest, and to doe the like: and then▪ is asked what he thinketh of it: he, no doubt, will answere (vnlesse feare of persecution make him to conceale the truth) I see, feele, smell, and taste the same water-cake, and wine that I did before. I can perceiue no naturall and substantiall change therein. And therefore it fol­loweth, that there is no miracle wrought, and con­sequently; no Transubstantiation at all. The difference that is, is in the end and vse onely. Be­fore consecration, it was common bread & wine, ordained for the nourishing of our bodies. After consecration, it becommeth holy Bread & Wine, [Page 133]sanctified by the Lord, not so much to féede the body, as the soule.

Did not the ancient Fathers hold this doctrine of Transubstantiation?

They knew nothing héereof, for at least 800. yéeres after Christ. Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation, but not approued as an Article of faith. The Church for a whole thousand yéeres taught no other then spi­rituall receiuing of Christ. In the yéere 1215. Transubstantiation was decreed and determi­ned in the Councell of Lateran, vnder Pope Innocent the Third, and made a maine matter of faith, Perk. 2. vol. 558.559.

What say you then of their Transub­stantiated, or consecrated host (as i [...] is called) or the bread in the boxe carried in procession and worshipped?

Surely it is nothing else, but a wheaten, or breaden god, or rather an Idoll, nothing infe­riour to Aarons Calfe, or Ieroboams Calues, or the Nehustan, and piece of brasse that Ezechias brake in pieces: nay, as vile and detestable, as any Idoll among the Heathen. And for a conclu­sion of their doctrine of Transubstantiation, I will héere set downe a wittie conceit which one shewed me not long since: I haue kept the mat­ter, but changed the méeter, to make it sound [Page 134]somewhat the swéeter.)

DIALOGVE 7.

I am satisfied touching the first poynt, namely, that the Papists are not of sound faith: but how doe you proue that they are not of good life, seeing they doe so many good workes?

I proue it thus: Where the doctrine is cor­rupt, the life cannot be good: but their doctrine (as you haue heard) is most corrupt, therefore their life cannot bee good. A true faith is the ground of a good life, and without which it is im­possible to please God, Heb. 11.6. Yea, what­soeuer is not of faith, is sinne, Rom. 14.23. A true faith they haue not, and therefore their workes cannot bee good, and such as may please God. That they haue not a true and sound faith, hath bin shewed in many particulars, and it fur­ther appeareth also in this, that they doe euen wilfully reied she meanes wherby it is wrought, namely, the preaching, hearing and reading the [Page 135]Word of God. They haue not, neither will they haue the Scriptures to be soundly preached, read, and heard in their owne tongue. That they cannot abide to haue them in their owne language, appeareth by this one example: One Pauier a Towne-clarke of London, (in the time of King Henry the Eightth) hearing that the Scriptures should bee put into English, hee spake to this effect, and confirmed it with an oath: viz. that if hee knew that the Scriptures should bee put into English, and that the King would haue them to bee read in the Church, ra­ther then hee would liue so long to see it, he would cut his owne throat: But (as Hall saith, who heard him speake it) hee was not so good as his word: for, in stead of cutting his throat, he han­ged himselfe.

What is the cause that they cannot a­bide to haue the Scriptures in their owne Lan­guage?

S. Iohn giues the reason. For, euery one that doth euill, hateth the light, neither com­meth to the light, lest his déeds should be reproued and discouered, Iohn 3.20. If the Owle fly a­broad by day, the birds by and by discerne him, follow him and fall vpon him; and therefore hee flyes abroad vsually in the night, and then he is quiet. If the Scriptures should be suffered to be [Page 136]expounded, and read of all Nations in their owne language, then that Owle of Rome (the Pope I meane) with all his fooleries and abominati­ons, would be discerned and discouered; and then the world would hate him▪ follow after him, and persecute him, (euen as the small birds doe the Owle:) and therfore they cānot abide the Scrip­tures in the vulgar tongue, but loue darknes ra­ther then light, because these déeds are euil, Ioh. 3.19.

What say you then to their good works, as building of Churches, giuing of Almes? &c.

These and such like works, required in the Law of God, in themselues are good, and to be practised of all: but to them they are (as the Fathers called the vertues of the Heathen) but splendidæ peccata, glittering drosse, and beauti­full deformities.

Do they teach any thing contrary to the Morall Lawe, and to the doctrine of good workes?

Yes, they do both teach & practise many things directly contrary to Gods Commande­ments. They teach for good workes, such things as are not commanded, but rather forbidden in the Law of God, as namely, to goe on Pilgri­mage, to vow single life, to fast forty dayes and forty nights, &c.

First, concerning set Pilgrimages vnto cer­taine Images: there was none of the Fathers that did so much as dreame of them for 600. yéers after Christ at the least, Perkins 2. Vol. page 541, 542.

Secondly, the necessitie of the vowe of conti­nency was established first, and annered vnto Orders, about 380. yéeres after Christ, and that by Pope Siricius. But it had no vniuersall ad­mission, vntill the time of Pope Hildebrand, in the yéere 1070. Perkins 1. Vol. 583. to 587. 2. Volume 575, 576. Acts and Monuments, 1151.

Thirdly, their doctrine of single life was ne­ner commanded of God, nor knowne in the Pri­mitiue Church, but hath sprung vp since, and is indeed the very doctrine of diuels, 1. Tim. 4.13. So is also their forbidding of meates for re­ligions sake. They teach also, that a man may fulfill the Lawe; yea, do workes of Superero­gation, that is, more then the Lawe doth require: and that men of their abundance, may allot vn­to others such works of Supererogation, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 9. sect. 6. 2. Cor. 8. sect. 3. This doctrine of theirs makes the Law of God to bée vnperfect, and is directly contrary to the words of Christ, Luke 17.10. And it was not knowne of the ancient Fathers. They spake indeede [Page 138]sometimes of supererogation, but in a far other sense then the Papists doe. There are no such works to be found in the person of any meer man or Angell, but onely in the person of Christ, God and man, Perk. 1. vol. 598.599.2. vol. 540.541.

DIALOGVE 8.

Shew me, I pray you, in particular, what things they teach contrary to the Comman­dements.

I could plainly proue vnto you, that they doe both teach and practise many things contra­ry to euery one of the Commandements: but I wil onely set downe the chiefest, and such as most men know to be true.

The first, Commandement concernes the in­ward worship of God: the ground of which wor­ship is the true knowledge of God; and without which none can truly worship and serue him: for such as our knowledge is, such is our worship. 1. Chron. 28.9. Psal. 9.10. Ier. 9.24. The Papists teach, that ignorance is the mother of deuotion: but the truth is, it is the mother of superstition and idolatry, Gal. 4.8. The Papists therefore being ignorant and without the true knowledge of God, cannot truely worship him, but must néeds bee Idolaters, worshipping they know [Page 139]not what. The first Commandement requireth, that we haue the true Iehoua for our onely God. They make Christs body to bee God, because they hold that it may be in many places at once, which thing is proper onely to God. They make the Pope to bee God, and that in plaine words. Christopher Marcellus said to the Pope, Thou art another God vpon earth, and the Pope tooke it to himselfe, Concil Later. Sess. 4.

They giue the power to the Pope, which is proper to God, and so make him to be God. As that hee can make holy, that which is vnholy, pardon sinnes, &c. Perk. 1. vol. 400.1. and they giue diuine worship to creatures, and so make them their Gods. The second Commandement concerneth the outward worship of God, or the forme and manner of his worship. This Com­mandement they haue cleane put out of the De­calogue, and to fill vp the number, they diuide the last into two. The scope of this Comman­dement is, that no image is to be made of God, nor any worship performed to him in an image, Deut. 4.15, 16. But they teach it lawfull to make images of the true God, and to worship him in them, and that there is a religious worship due to them, Bellar. de imag. sanct. lib. 2. cap. 21. And in the second Nicen Councell it was de­creed, that the Image of God should be worship­ped [Page 140]with the same worship that is due vnto God. Their practice is answerable to their doctrine: for they worship the Images of God, of Christ, the Saints, the woodden Crosse, yea a piece of bread.

They say, that they doe not worship the images, but God, Christ, and the Saints in the image.

Suppose that this were true, yet in so doing, they commit grosse idolatry, and the same that the people of Israel did, for which God pla­gued them greatly, Exod. 32.5, 28. I think there is none so very a Calfe, as to thinke that they did worship the Calfe it selfe. The Calfe was but a representation of God; and yet they sinned greatly in making it, and worshipping God in it. The Heathen in times past could say as much for themselues, concerning their worshipping of Images, as the Papists now do: and yet as they were Idolaters, so are the Papists: for as tou­ching their superstition and idolatry, bloud can­not be more like to bloud, or an egge to an egge, then one of them is to another. The Heathen had for euery nation and prouince, some peculiar god. Among them, the Elements had their se­uerall gods to rule ouer them. The Heathen had a certaine god assigned to their cattell. The Heathen had peculiar gods for learning and [Page 141]learned men, and for handi-crafts men. And all these haue the Papists likewise. The Heathen erected Altars, ordained Priests to offer sacrifices, fell downe before their idols, &c. So the Papists deck and adorne their images, go on Pilgrimage to them, fall downe vpon their knées before them, and make their prayers vnto them. And what is all this, but to worship the ve­ry images themselues, the which is most grosse idolatry? Musculus on Psal. 16. v. 4. page. 139.140. Virels grounds, page 87. to 92. Attersoll on Philemon, page 63.64.

They say, that there be degrees of religi­ous worship, the highest is latria, and this is due vnto God, the lowest is Dulia, proper to Saints, &c. Bellarm. de imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 25. The Scripture acknowledgeth one onely kinde of religious worship, and that due onely to God, Math. 4.10. Reuel. 22.9. And this distinction of theirs was not knowne and receiued into the Church, till 400. yeeres after Christ, Perk. 1. vol. page 696.2. vol. 530.

Was not the making and worshipping of Images approued of by the ancient Fathers?

There was no vse of Images among Christians, specially in their Churches, for 379. yéeres after Christ. Adoration of Images was neuer publikely authorized till 788. yeeres after [Page 142]Christ in the second Councell of Nice, Perk. 1. vol. page 696.2. vol. 421.

If you bee disposed to see more at large when images first came vp, how they were forbidden and condemned by Fathers, Emperors and Councels, and how all that the Papists can say for them, is answered: then read the booke of Ho­milies against perill of idolatry: for I know none that hath written more soundly, fully, and plaine­ly thereof.

Doe they teach and practise any thing else against the second Commandement?

Yes, To the right worshipping of God, there is required a reuerend vse of the meanes of Gods worship and seruice, the which are sincere prayer, preaching, hearing of Gods Word, and the vse of she Sacraments. Concerning praier, if must be made wish vnderstanding, 1. Cor. 14. v. 15. Contrary heereunto is their praying in an vnknowne tongue. In the purest Churches for the space of 800 yéers at the least, diuine prayer was neuer performed in a tongue vnknowne to the people, Perk. 2. vol. 557. Concerning the Sacraments, they do not rightly administer and receiue them, but haue added and taken from them at their pleasure.

The helps and furtherances of Gods worship are specially two; howes & fasting. The Papists [Page 143]make these to bee parts of Gods worship: yea they make fasting to be a worke of satisfaction to Gods iustice, for the temporall punishment of sinne, and a meritorious worke, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 15. Sect. 7. Perk. 1. vol. 596. Synopsis Papis­mi. The sixt generall Controuersie, quæst. 3.4. The 19. generall Controuersie, quæst. 8. In a word, all their carnall ceremonies, deuised by men, and wherein they place the worship of God, are contrary to the second Commandement. The most of which ceremonies they haue borrowed, partly from the Iews, partly, from the Gentils. Willet on Iude, page 215.216.

DIALOGVE 9.

Doe they teach and practise any thing contrary to the Commandements following?

Yes, The third Commandement con­cerneth the glorifying of GODs name in the whole course of our life. They teach men to giue the glory which is proper to God, to creatures, as to the Virgin Mary, the Pope, &c. They teach it lawfull to sweare by Saints, and not by God onely. They maintaine periurie, because they teach with one consent, that one beeing exami­ned, may answer doubtfully against the direct in­tention of the Examiner, framing another mea­ning [Page 144]to himselfe in the doubtfulnes of his words. As for example, A man is asked whether he were not such a day at the Masse, in such a place? They affirme that he may say no, and sweare vnto it (although he were at it) reseruing this to him­selfe; not with purpose to reueale it to the Exa­miner: whereas (in the very Law of nature) hée that takes an oath, should sweare according to the intention of him that hath power to administer an oath: and that in truth, iudgement and righte­ousnes, Ieremy 4.2. Thy are also egregious blasphemers of Gods name. They haue vttered most horrible blasphemies concerning the Scriptures. See Doctor Willets foure pillers of Papistry, page 49. to 61. The fift Comman­dement requireth subiection and obedience to su­periours, and namely, to Kings and Princes, who are supreme and next vnder Christ, Rom. 13.1, 2. 1. Pet. 2.13. They teach that the Pope is supreme head, ouer all persons, &c. that hee oweth no subiection to Kings and Princes, but hath power to make them, and to put them downe at his pleasure. The Pope and his Cler­gie will not be in subiection to them, but rather exercise Lord-ship ouer them. The Popes su­premacie was vnheard of and vnknowne, till the yeere of Christ 600. It was first brochedby the murthering Emperour Phocas, at the ambitious [Page 145]desire of the proud Pope Boniface the Third, about the yeere 607. And since that time, the Popes haue shewed their intolerable pride, in their behauiour towards Princes. The Pope in his writings calles himselfe, Seruus sernorum Dei, The seruant of Gods seruants: but in his actions he will be Dominus dominorum, the Lord of Lords: wherein he plainely sheweth himselfe to be that man of sinne and Antichrist, which ex­alteth himselfe aboue all that is called God, 2. Thes. 2.4. This may bee shewed by many ex­amples.

Alexander the Third did tread vpon the neck of the Emperour Frederick the First, blasphemously abusing the words of the Psalme, Thou shalt tread vpon the Lion and Adder, &c. Acts & Monuments, page 185. Pope Celestine frowned Henry the Fift with his foote, and with his foote spurned it off againe, ibid. 221. The Papists also teach and maintaine disobedience to parents: for, they teach that it is lawfull for the childe, beeing a Roman Catholike, to deny his duty to his parents beeing Heretikes. And as the Scribes and Pharises taught, that if the children did bring to their Corban▪ (that is, their Treasurie) though they neglected their parents, yet they were frée: so they teach children to giue that they haue to Monasteries, &c. wherewith [Page 146]they should releeue their parents, Bucanùs Common places, page 901.

DIALOGVE 10.

Doe they teach and practise any thing contrary to the sixt Commandement?.

Yes, The sixt Commandement forbid­deth vs to kill, or hurt any man. They teach it lawfull for subiects not onely to rise vp against, but euen to kill their Princes the Lords Anoin­ted (if they bee excommunicated by the Pope) and that it is a meritorious worke so to do. This with other such like diuellish doctrines, and the Authors thereof, are to be seene more at large in Bucanus Common places, concerning Magi­strates: and in Master Taylour on Psalme 32. page 208. 209.

Can you name any that haue put it in practice?

Yes, Pope Gregory the Seuenth, cal­led Hildebrand, hired one to kill the Emperour. A Monk poysoned King Iohn. Henry the Third, King of France, was slaine by a Fryer. Yea Pope Sixtus Quintus highly commended the Fryer for dooing of it. Henry the fourth of France was also slaine by a Papist. Many of them, (yea of their Priests and Iesuites) haue attempted to kill our late Queene Elizabeth, and [Page 147]our King Iames, with all his royall issue, and that after a most barbarous manner. These Popish Traitours may very fitly be compared to that base and vnnaturall bird the Cuckow: who though he be hatched, fed and brought vp by a lit­tle bird, yet he deuoureth both the naturall young ones, and also the damme her selfe.

Are there none that teach and practise the killing of Princes but Papists?

This doctrine was neuer maintained by any Heretikes (besides the Papists) as our most Christian and learned King hath shewed in a speech of his, vttered in the Parliament house, in the yeere 1605. by occasion of the Gun-pow­der Treason: And heerein you may see how con­trary they are both to the doctrine and practice of the Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles, who both taught and practised subiection, euen to wicked and idolatrous Princes, and did neuer so much as attempt to hurt them. As for example: Saul was a wicked King, for saken of God, and one that did most cruelly persecute Dauid, who was anointed to be King after him. At two seuerall times the Lord deliuered Saul into his hands, so that hee might (without any resistance) haue killed him: yea, Abishai desired that hee might strike him but once with his speare. But what said Dauid? Touch him not, for who can lay his [Page 148]hand on the Lords anointed, & be guiltles? Nay, his heart smote him for cutting off the skirt of Sauls Robe, 1. Sam. 24.4, 5, 6. &c. chap. 26.8.9, &c. And afterwards, when one brought tidings to Dauid that hee had slaine Saul, what did Da­uid? Did hee commend him for it, as the Pope did the Fryer? No, he caused him to be slaine for his labour, 2. Sam. 1.14, 15, 16. Now what think you of Dauid?

He was a man after Gods owne heart, indued with the Spirit of God.

It is most true: and therefore the Papists (which both teach and practise the contrary) are indued with the spirit of Satan. S. Paul saith, that to forbid marriage & meats, is a doctrine of diuels, 1. Tim. 4.1.3. If that bee a doctrine of diuels, then much more is this. In the sixt Com­mandement is also condemned all crueltie: yet héerein they excéede and excell all others. And this is a speciall note of a false religion; and yet this is one speciall meanes whereby Popery is vp­held. See Taylor on Psalme 32. page. 204. to 208. Salomon describes an harlot by thrée pro­perties; cruelty, treachery, and flattery, Pro. 2.16, 17, 18. As a dishonest and vnchaste woman is thus discerned, so is a corrupt religion. And these are the very badges and ensignes of the whore of Babylon: Where they get the sword, they shew [Page 149]all cruelty: where their power faileth, they work by treachery: where this speedeth not, they will deceiue by flattery and hypocrifie. Sée the Pre­face to Doctor Willets Treatise on the Epistle of S. Iude, page 2, 3, &c.

DIALOGVE 11.

What doe they teach and practise con­trary to the seuenth Commandement?

They hold and teach, that marriage is vnlawfull in the Clergie: and that the marriage of Ministers is the worst sort of incontinencie and fornication, Rhem. on 1. Cor. 7.9. Sect. 8. whereas marriage is the remedie against forni­cation, 1. Cor. 7.2. They allow their Priests to kéepe harlots, (rather then to marrie) so they doe it closely: for this caueat is giuen them: Si non castè tamencautè. If thou canst not liue chast­ly, thou mayst kéepe a whore warily. And what vncleannes and filthines hath bin committed by many Popes, and Popish Priests, all the world knoweth. A taste héereof I will giue you in a few examples.

Pope Iohn the 13. was an adulterer, and an incestuous person. Béeing found without the city with another mans wife, he was so wounded of of her husband, that within eight dayes after [Page 150]he died, Acts and Monuments, page 143. Pope Sixtus the Fourtherected at Rome a Stewes of double abomination, not only of women, but also of men, ibid. 6. page 667. Alexander the Sixt committed incest with his owne daughter Lu­cretia, Guicciardine lib. 3. Innocentius the Eightth had diuers bastards, and boasted of them. See Willet on Iude, page 188. They had one Pope that did beget no child, but was begot­ten with childe, and brought it forth in going on procession: and that was Pope Iohn the Eightth, who proued to bee Ioane, and not Iohn. This they deny, but there was of late yéeres written a booke by Master Alexander Cooke: and another written in Latine by a stranger, wherein they prooue (and that out of Popish writers) that there was such a one. For they sufficiently proue them­selues to be men indeede, in begetting bastards. It is an old saying, It must néedes bee a holy Procession, where the diuell beares the Crosse: so it must néeds bean holy, chaste & pure Church, that hath such vnholy, impure, vnchaste, & filthy, heads, as many Popes haue bin. And as were the heads, such was the rest of the bodie. Their mo­nasteries and monkish cells were detected of most infamous incests, fornications, &c. as doth appeare in the inquisition made in the time of King Henry the Eightth, Præfat. Balæi. de actis [Page 151]Roman. Pontif. Sée a little booke (lately set forth) called the Friers Chronicle. Contrary to the Eightth Commandement are the Popes Buls, Indulgences and pardons for sinne: and all for money. They sell such things as are not to bée sold, namely, remission of sinnes, and the merits by which men may come to the kingdom of hea­uen. But no penie, no Pater noster, Synopsis Papismi. Controuersie 14. part 3. Popes Bulls and Indulgences (wherein is giuen absolution from the guilt of temporall punishment) were not knowne to the Catholike Church, for 1000 yéeres and more after Christ, Perk. 2. vol. 589. And héerein they maintain licenciousnes: for what néede one care what sinne hee committeth, when for a little money hee may haue, a pardon for it?

One Roger Holland (sometime a Papist) saith thus, I was of this your blinde reli­gion; hauing liberty vnder your auricular confes­sion, I made no conscience of sinne, but frusted to the Priests absolution; he also for money, do­ing some penance for me: which after I had gi­uen, I cared no further what offences I did: no more then he cared, after he had my money, whe­ther he fasted with bread or water for mee or no, Acts and Monuments, page 2040.

DIALOGVE 12.

Shew mee also, I pray you, what they reach and practise contrary to the two last Commandements.

The ninth Commandement condemns all lying, and dissimulation, railing, mocking, &c. They maintaine equiuocation, which (as the Secular Priests haue said) (Quodlibet 2. Art. 4. page 6.) you may terme in plaine English, lying, and cogging. They are not orious lyers, & slanderers, railers and workers, Willet on Iude page 195 and 205. 212. They haue falsified mens writings, putting in, and putting out what they, please, as is to bee séene in their Index expurgatorius. See Perk. 2. vol. page 489, &c.

There haue bin in times past games appointed for lying. If there were any such now, the Pa­pists would carry the whet stone from all the he­retikes in Christendome. The tenth Comman­dement condemneth originall corruption, and the very euill thoughts and lusts of the heart with­out consent.

They teach▪ that concupiscence in it selfe is not sinne. These are the very words of the Concell of Trent: This concupiscence (which [Page 153]the Apostle sometime calleth sinne) the holy Sy­nod declareth, that the Catholike Church did neuer vnderstand to be called sinne, because it is truly and properly sinne in the regenerate, but because it commeth of sinne, and inclineth vnto sinne. If any man thinke the contrary, let him be accursed, Sess 5. cap. 1. de pecc. orig. Where­in they both decrée against the Apostle himselfe, Rom. 7.23. and also they gain-say themselues: for if this concupiscence boyle out of originall sin, as out of a fountaine, and that is damnable: it followeth, that conrupisence or lust is also sinne before God, and doth deserue condemnation. They say that in the regenerate it is veniall. But this is an vndoubted principle, that all sinnes in themselues and their owne nature are mortall. And concerning this veniall sinne, it was not knowne among the Fathers for 700 yéeres after Christ. And thus you see, what grosse things they both teach & practise contrary to the Com­mandements of God: whereby it plainely ap­peareth, that Popery cannot be of God: for thus I reason: Whatsoeuer religion doth teach things contrary to the Commandements of God, is not of God: but Poperie doth so, and therefore it is not of God: and so by good consequence Papists cannot be good Catholikes.

DIALOGVE 13.

Hitherto you haue shewed, that the Pa­pists teach many things contrary to the Creed, the Sacraments, & the ten Commandements: now tell me, I pray you, whether they teach any thing contrarie to the Lords prayer.

They doe likewise teach and practise ma­ny things contrary thereunto, I will but onely name some of them. The Lords prayer teacheth vs to call vpon God onely. They teach and practise prayer to Saints. In the first petition we pray for the hallowing of Gods name. They giue vnto Saints departed, that which is proper to God, and so dishonour Gods name. In the second position we pray for the erecting of Gods Kingdom of grace in our hearts, and also for the meanes thereof, namely, the preaching and hea­ring of Gods Word They hinder the comming of Gods kingdom, in reiecting the Word of God, and in persecuting such as will preach heere and reade it. Contrary to the third petition is their doctrine of frée-will. Contrary to the fift petition, is their doctrine of satisfaction for sin. In the sixt petition, we pray for strength to withstand Satan and his temptations. They teach people to driue away the diuell with holy water, and such like [Page 155]childish toyes. These and other such like things they teach & practise contrary to the Lords prayer.

DIALOGVE 14.

If Popery be so contrary to the grounds of Religion, then we may not ioyne with the Papists in their profession.

It is true indéede: we must therfore do as the Lord bade Ieremy (chap. 15.19.) Let them returne to thée, but returne not thou to them We may ioyne with them in respect of ciuill societie, but not in respect of Religion: and yet euen then we are to take héede, lest wee bee corrupted by them: for hee that teacheth pitch, shall bee defiled therewith. Some think that our Religion, and the religion of the present Church of Rome, are all one for substance, and that they may be vni­ted: but they are grossly deceiued: for a vnion of these two religions can neuer bee made, more then the vnion of light and darknes, and that be­cause the Church of Rome (as hath at large bin shewed) hath strooke at the very foundation.

If Popery bee so contrary to the very grounds of Religion, then what is the cause that so many (yea, euen of the more wise and learned sort) do embrace and cleaue to it?

One speciall cause of it is, that because men will not receiue the loue of the truth, there­fore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should beléeue a lie, 2. Thes. 2.10, 11.

A second cause is ignorance of the Scriptures, and of the grounds of Religion, for if men would well acquaint themselues héerewith, they should easily fee the grossenes of Po­pery.

A third cause is, that Popery is very agreea­ble and pleasing to mans corrupt nature: As for example: to be iustified by our good workes: to haue Images to worship God in: to liue in igno­rance: to haue pardons for our sinnes: to serue God in outward ceremonies, as in choice of meat, difference of daies, &c. these are things very agreeable and pleasing to our corrupt nature, and therefore one speciall cause why so many embrace Popery.

A fourth cause is, the tyrannie. of the Church of Rome, whose chiefe meanes to vphold her religion, is fire and sword: for were it not for this, many thousands in a few yeeres would vtterly renounce Poperie.

A fift cause why so many (specially of the Learned) doe embrace it is pomp and profit: that is, ambition and couetous­nesse.

This was that which made the Scribes and Pharises (euen against their owne knowledge) to withstand Christ and his Gospell.

And this makes many learned Papists to doe y^e like. They know (no doubt) that in some things they erre: as it doth appeare by the words of Ste­phen Gardiner on his death bead.

The Bishop of Chichester séeing him to be in a desperate case, comforteth him with the hope of remission of sinnes by the merits of Christ. Gar­diner héereunto answereth thus: What, will you open that gape now? you may speake it to mee, & to such as are in my case: but if you teach it to the people, then farewell all; meaning, our autho­rity, pompe, and profit by absolutions, Masses, &c. These are the speciall causes why so many embrace Poperie.

There is one thing more that I would gladly know concerning the Papists, and that is, whether a Papist may be saued, seeing that Poperie is so contrary to the grounds of Religion.

You are then to marke what a Papist is. A Papist (as the Rhemists on Acts 11. Sect 4. doe describe him) is one that clea­ueth to the Pope in Religion, and is obedi­ent to him in all things.

Euery one now that is vnder the iurisdic­tion [Page 158]of the Pope, is not to be counted a Papist: for their are some euen in Italy, Spaine, &c. that hold the Grounds of Religion, doe sigh and grone vnder the Romish yoke, and desire to bee fréed from it, yea would reioice to see it.

Againe, there may be some, that (for want of knowledge, and the meanes thereof) are in­tangled with some points of Popery, but yet they hold the foundation, which is CHRIST IESVS, and looke to be saued by his merits, and not by their owne or any others. Such we account not Papists, our the true Church and children of God. But by Papists, we meane such as cleaue fast to the Pope in religion, are in all things obedient to him, will not be reclaimed from their errours, refuse to heare the Word of God, to read the Scriptures, or any other good books. 'Of such wée may boldly say, that if they thus continue to the end, they cannot bee saued.

DIALOGVE 15.

I do now plainely see, that Papists are no good Catholikes, because they are neither of sound faith, nor good life: but tell me (I pray you) who indeed are the true Church and true Catholikes?

All that doe truly and sincerely em­brace, professe, and practise the aforesaid grounds of Religion, in what Countrey soeuer they liue.

Is the Church of England the true Church?

Yes, for it hath the speciall markes of the true Church: namely, the Word of God sincerely and soundly preached, and the Sacraments rightly administred.

The Papists say, that there are diuersities of opinions amongst vs, that we cannot agree among our selues, and that therefore wee are not the true Church.

In all substantiall points of Religion wée agree both amongst our selues, and also with all other sound Protestants in Christendome. In other things there haue bin, are, and will bee di­uersities of opinions & differences to the worlds end. They should first pluck out the beame of their owne eyes: for we can truly charge them with greater differences: As namely, with that sharpe and bloudy contention betweene the Franciscans and Dominicans; and with the late bitter contention between the Iesuites, & the se­cular Priests: wherein the Priests did write as bitterly against the Iesuites (and namely, against Parsons) as euer did any Protestant: nay there [Page 160]was neuer any Protestant Writer that did lay such foule and odious crimes to their charge, as the Priests did. And heerein they verified the old prouerb, When théeues fall by the eares, true men come to haue their goods. For one dissen­tion that is among vs, they haue (at least) ten among themselues. Doctor Willet (in his fourth Piller of Papistry) hath set downe at large,

First, the contradictions and diuerse opinions of old Papists and new.

Secondly, the contradictions of the Iesuites among themselues.

Thirdly, that their stoutest Champion, Bel­larmine, is at variance with himselfe, shamefully forgetting himselfe, saying and vnsaying: now of one opinion, by and by of another. And no maruaile, Oportet enim mendacem esse memorem, A liar had néed to haue a good memory.

Fourthly, hee sheweth the repugnances, in­conueniences, and inconsequent opinions which Popish Religion hath in it selse. And thus you see, how they charge vs with that, wherein them­selues are most faulty.

DIALOGVE 16.

Are there none among vs, that main­taine any strange and new opinions, contrary to the grounds of Religion?

If there be any such, our Church doth not approue of them, but rather censure and pu­nish them.

There be some that professe the former grounds of Religion as wee doe, and yet say that there is no true Church among vs: and therefore will not ioyne with vs in prayer, hearing the Word, and in the vse of the Sacra­ments, but separate themselues from vs: what say you of such?

I say, that they are possessed with the spi­rit of pride and singularity; and that in so doing, they doe euen deny these Articles of faith the Catholike Church, and the Communion of Saints, and are such as the Apostle speakes of, Rom. 16.17. Heb. 10.25, 39. Master Perkins (in his first volume, page 409.) calles them a schismaticall and vndiscreet company, and saith, that they are full of pride, thinking themselues to be full, when they are empty, to haue all know­ledge, when they are ignorant, and haue need to be catechized. Another saith thus of them: The [Page 162]errour of those men is full of euill, yea of blas­phemie, who doe in such manner make a depar­ture from this Church, as if Christ were quit­banished from hence, and that there could bee no hope of saluation to those that abide heere. And further he saith, that if they cannot finde Christ heere, they shall find him no where. The errors of these men you may see in a little Treatise set forth by Master Bernard, called, The Separa­tists Schisme.

I pray shew me by some example, that they ought not to separate themselues from vs, and that they doe sinne in so doing.

In the Church of Corinth, the incestuous man was not punished: fornication was lightly regarded, yea there were some that euen denied the Resurrection, yet S. Paul doth account and call them the Church and Saints: hee doth not perswade any to make a separation, but doth plainely rebuke them, and sheweth how they should punish the euill doer. I speake not this to excuse any grosse sin that raigneth amongst vs: (for I wish that the same might be seuerely pu­nished) but to shew, that where the Word is tru­ly preached, and the Sacraments rightly admi­nistred (as in our Church they are) none ought for any cause to separate themselues: And, that such as doe it, do sinne grieuously, I will shew [Page 163]you by a familiar example. A mother conceiuesh and bringeth forth a sonne, and that with great trauaile & paine: Shee traineth him vp to mans estate, and that not without great care and la­bour: This sonne at length espying some spot and blemish, or some infirmity in his mother, forsaketh her, and will not acknowledge her to be his mother, what would you now thinke of him?

Surely I should thinke such a one to bee a very wicked and vnnaturall sonne.

Euen such are they, who (for some see­ming faults in our Church) deny it to bee a true Church, and doe separate themselues from it: whereas this Church hath conceiued them, brought them forth, and nourished them. For if euer they were truly begotten vnto Christ, and borne anew, it hath hin by our Church and our Ministerie, by which likewise they haue bin trai­ned vp, and brought to that knowledge which they haue.

There are many amongst vs that make great profession of Religion, but I can see no good workes come from them: nay, they are not onely barren in good workes, but also liue in some one grosse sinne or other. Are these the true Church, and true Catho­likes?

Though they liue in the Church, yet they are not of the Church: they are but Hypocrites, and shall (if they repent not) haue the reward of Hypocrites: yea it shall be easier in the day of iudgement for many Papists, then for them; be­cause by their barren and fruitlesse, yea wicked life, they haue caused the name of God, his Gos­pell, and the true professours thereof, to bee euill spoken of. Let all therefore that will bee ac­counted the true Church, and true Christians, bee carefull to adorne the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things, and that by a godly conuersation, and by dooing of good workes.

The name of God bee blessed for this our conference, whereby I finde my selfe much edified. There remaineth yet one thing more, which I will demand of you: and that is, how I may come to know and be assured, that I am indeed a member of the true Church, and that I shall certainely be saued.

Bee diligent to heare the Word of God preached. Reade the Scriptures. Receiue often the Sacrament. Acquaint your selfe throughly with the aforesaid grounds of Religion. Ioyne heereunto earnest▪ and hearty prayer. Set apart some time for these things, specially bee carefull to spend the Sabbath heerein. And to [Page 165]all these things ioyne an holy conuersation, indeuouring aboue all things to haue alway a cleare conscience toward God, and toward men. In doing this, you shall at length come to that full assurance, whereof S. Paul speaketh, namely, that you are the childe of God, and that nothing shall bee able to separate you from the loue of God, which is in Christ, Rom. 8.38.